In the play Romeo and Juliet, were they responsible for their own deaths?

Question

If you dont think this to be the case were any of the other characters responsible or were events responsible. Just interested in other peoples points of view on the subject as have been helping my son with his essay on the topic and discovered it to be of interest.

Answer 1

I could argue they weren't responsible for their deaths. First, they're children. Their minds are not developed to an adult stage and they're both ruled by emotion, while reason is almost totally absent. Even if nobody else is responsible, Romeo and Juliet are also not responsible for the tragedy, and I think that's what makes it most tragic.

However, I think that that's not the case. The social-political system that set the two families against each other could be to blame, since it sent the tensions in place that culminated in death, the only way it could. If the family heads had more forethought, they could have anticipated the possibility of their children falling in love with their rivals. Given the feud, and allowing for love between the children, and knowing the emotional states children experience, the risk should have been acknowledged and, for the sake of their children, the feud should have been called off; no material claims can outweigh the value of the life of one's child. If they did in fact realize the risks they were taking when they decided to feud, then the leaders of the families could be guilty of manslaughter for their own children; otherwise it's simply their ignorance that led to the death of the two lovers.

Although it's more an analysis of the politics behind the issue, I think it's still a worthwhile paradigm to look at, and although I tried to quantify it, it's been mentioned before.

Answer 2

Syllogism: 1.) In a dramatic tragedy, the protagonist of the play must possess some fatal flaw (eg, be too trusting; have an uncontrollable temper; allow pride to get the better half of you) which will bring about their demise in the play. 2.) Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy. 3.) Romeo and Juliet possessed some fatal flaw which brought about their demise. Now, what that(those) fatal flaw(s) was(were) has been the subject of scholarly debate for the last few centuries.

Answer 3

i might want to assert it replaced into both the fault of the Montague and Capulet households because their hatred were given contained in the way of issues and many of the characters wouldnt have killed others or fought. A highway brawl starts between the servants of the montagues and capulets. Why? because they're sworn enemies. Tybalt annoying circumstances Romeo to a duel because he's a capulet and tybalt is a montague, mercutio dies because hes a pal of the montagues and dislikes tybalt. Tybalt is killed with the help of Romeo. Later Romeo kills Paris. "A glooming peace this morning with it brings; The solar, for sorrow, received't practice his head: bypass therefore, to have more desirable communicate of those unhappy issues; some will be pardon'd, and some punished" many of the perfect traces contained in the play reason both households to reconcile, because their hatred brought with regard to the comprehensive mess and the cost the lives of their little ones.

Answer 4

Two main factors: fate and Shakespeare. The author of course is the maker so he is responsible but in the story if the letter had been recieved then they would have lived happily ever after. It was a good climax for a tragedy though. What makes it good is the sad ending.

Answer 5

Oh dear Zeus, yes! This is how I see it.

Juliet was a rebellious 13 year old who wanted to get back at her parents for an oppressive life.

Romeo was a man on the rebound.

If they had really loved each other, they would have stood up for it or run away together. They sealed their own fates when they decided to secretly marry and act like nothing had happened.

I could go on for hours--and sound a lot smarter that I probably did there--but I don't want to waste your time. :-)

Answer 6

I don't think that anyone is to blame for their deaths. People in Shakespeare's time believed in fate and fate could not be changed by men. Romeo changed from a melancholic lover in the beginning to a "true" lover in the end. His love for Rosalie is unhappy, full of Petrarchan love ideals. His humours are out of balance at that time. People in those times believed in four bodily humours which had to be in balance if you wanted to be happy.
When they first meet their dialogue is a sonett.
Juliet is very mature for her age. She is only 13 but already knows what she wants. Her father wants her to marry a prince she does not love.
But there is also friar Lawrence who is a voice of reason for the lovers. He teaches them modesty, because a thing that is good in balance can turn very bad in extreme, even love. But he falls prey to the acceleration that take splace in Act 2 an marries them in spite of reason. In Act 2, Sc. IV the dialogue between R+J is full of hyperbolic language, loving to excess and immoderate feelings.
The Wheel of Fortune is already turning. The Potion of "shrunk death" that the friar gives to Juliet leads to Romeo's hamartia (fatal error). But even the friar is not to blame. He tried to meddle with fate, but he is but a man and has no power over it. In the end the grave is Julia's wedding bed. She is reunified with her lover in death.
I think that events were responsible. The rush of time after Capulet predates the wedding, things going from well ordered to chaotic (loss of modesty and harmony again). Boy, it's a complicated topic but I hope I could help a little. If you know more about Shakespeare's time, you will understand better. People believed in fate, magic (black and white) and in many symbols.

Answer 7

Yes and no. I feel Romeo was the cause of his own demise, due to falling in love with Juliet so quickly(Rosaline?) Juliet's death was caused by her parent's(and Romeo's as well) ignorant feud.

Answer 8

I think they were the only ones responsible for their deaths, because they caved into their parents demands. They tried to please both each other and their families, and ended up dying because of it. If they had only ran away together in the first place. Or maybe if they were open about it instead of sneaking around with rebellious monks and nurses.

Answer 9

Measuring the facts with our own judgement they must have done a lot for their death to be fulfilled. But fate is also a powerful tool and hate was there to help, too.

Answer 10

Yes they made the choice to take their own lives. I believe they couldn't see themselves without each other. Even though it was their families who would never allow them to be together, it was their decision to take their own lives.