CARLISLE       Marry, God forbid.

Worst in this royal presence may I speak,

Yet best beseeming me to speak the truth.

Would God that any in this noble presence

Were enough noble to be upright judge

Of noble Richard. Then true noblesse would

Learn him forbearance from so foul a wrong.

What subject can give sentence on his king,

And who sits here that is not Richard’s subject?    (4.1.115-123)

This is Carlisle’s big moment; he’s been laying the groundwork for some time as the play’s voice of moral and spiritual authority. Bolingbroke has just announced that he will ascend the regal throne in God’s name: Marry, God forbid, interjects the bishop, and then there is, probably a pause, while he gathers himself, and the (startled?) eyes of all the assembled company.Worst in this royal presence may I speak—I am the lowest ranking person here, among all these dukes—yet best beseeming me to speak the truth. It’s up to me to intervene; it’s my job, my calling, despite my (relatively!) lowly status (don’t over-egg it, Carlisle, you are a bishop).There is no one in this noble presence, this assembly of nobles, who is noble enough (that is, of sufficient moral superiority) to be the upright judge, unbiased, of appropriate authority, to sit in judgement on noble Richard. And if there were, such nobility, true noblesse (in rank and in moral integrity) would mean that they would not dare to become involved in doing so foul a wrong. That is, anyone qualified to judge Richard in the matter of his deposition (which is what this is, not an abdication; Carlisle’s implicitly calling it as such) would refuse to do so. The quibble here is on nobility of rank, the ancient nobility of England (which is more or less assembled here) and nobility of character, moral superiority, virtue. What subject can give sentence on his king? Carlisle asks, and who sits here that is not Richard’s subject?As king, Carlisle argues, Richard simply cannot be prosecuted; he is above the judgement of his subjects. The audience, especially its lawyers and law students, would recognise the fundamental principle, albeit in an extreme expression, the entitlement of every Englishman to be judged by a jury of his peers: a king, by definition, has no peers. But Carlisle is only just beginning his carefully reasoned, highly controlled, yet morally outraged, intervention.