Lear is certainly
pompous and presumptuous from the beginning. If that presumption extends to the division of his kingdom, why does his advisor, noble Kent, focus just on Lear's harsh treatment of Cordelia? Why do Gloucester, his good son Edward and just Albany have no criticism of the division per se?
If King Lear, ruling England centuries before Christ, has
a God-given duty and right to rule his people, which Iron Age, Celtic deities conferred this duty and right?
Besides, the witty opening lines of the play express bemusement at the equal treatment of Albany and Cornwall (the dreadful), but say nothing of Lear's decision to divide his kingdom.
Kent.___I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall.
Glou.___It did always seem so to us; but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the Dukes he values most, for equalities are so weighed that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety.