Was Fortinbras right?

Fortinbras' description of hamlet as a "soldier" and likely "to have proved most royal", is quite accurate in a way. He was most royal in that he avenged his father and he didn't run from Laertes when he proposed a duel he stood and fought like a prince, like a king. Claudius certainly didn't prove as royal and he plotted and lied to get to where he did.
However, Hamlet did show that some of his qualities weren't royal. Such as, killing Polonius in a passionate act and continuing to feel no remorse towards his death. Also, not doing the brave and soldierly thing of storming in and killing Claudius as soon as he heard his fathers depiction of how he was murdered.
The definition of a King and therefore royal seems to be galiant and brave; storming in and killing everyone in sight. Although wouldn't a king be better if he planned and plotted his eventual outcome? As Hamlet does. So he may have been a great king although he led himself to his own downfall.
Fortinbras' description does seem to make the audience think of Hamlets character overall and how royal he was and may have proved to be.

Tragic Hamlet, Act 4

Polonius’ death in the previous Act seems to fuel the rest of the play. It causes Ophelia’s madness and eventual death, Laertes anger and thoughts of revenge and Claudius’ eventual decision to send Hamlet away to be killed.

We witness in Act 4, the beginning of the end. Hamlet’s state of mind is still questionable as he attempts to hide Polonius’ body, although his character does seem to develop in scene 4 where he witnesses Fortinbras’ army, here there seems to be some realisation that he has been a coward

“one part wisdom and ever three parts coward”

and must fulfill his duty to his father and kill Claudius.

“My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth”

During scene 5 the effect of Polonius’ death on Ophelia becomes apparent and her madness certainly eclipses Hamlets which is another supporting argument that Hamlet has been faking it.

The tragic elements of this act come into scene 5 and also scene 7. All because of the reappearance of Laertes, his anger and pain reflects in the language he uses

“To hell allegiance, vows to the blackest devil, conscience and grace to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation.”

And Claudius and Gertrude, although they are not our tragic heroes still have the urgency to assign blame. Gertrude has urgency and Claudius assigns the blame, he makes sure that Laertes knows who the real guilty party is and makes it seem like Hamlet was intent on killing Polonius rather than it just being a passionate act.

During scene 7 Claudius and Laertes begin to plot Hamlet’s downfall. This could be portrayed in more than one way; they could be plotting together or Claudius could be convincing Laertes, persuading him that it is his duty to his father. As they bring their plot to a finish. Gertrude brings news of Ophelia’s Death, provoking a tragic wail from Laertes and concluding the act.

Tragic Hamlet, Acts Two and Three

It is clear that from Act 1 to Act 2 some time has passed in order for Hamlet to develop his madness but the first evidence we see is in scene 1 when Ophelia informs us of Hamlet’s trouser incident. But as Hamlet appears more in the second scene we begin to understand what Ophelia and Polonius have been talking about. Further on in this act we are introduced to the players and Hamlets idea of trapping Claudius by performing scene of his father’s murder. Hamlet justifies his actions by saying he is proving Claudius’ guilt before he kills him. Although even when he proves is guilt he still backs out of killing him. Hamlet is accentuating his fatal flaw; he continues to get chances to kill Claudius and continues to talk himself out of doing it (3.3.73-96). Hamlet is essentially a coward but a well spoken coward so we tend not to think of him that way. Whereas in Macbeth his cowardice is pointed out by Lady Macbeth, therefore we dwell it more.

These Acts are effectively the beginning of the end, building up to the tragic finale and Hamlet’s moment.

Hamlet Act Two

Hamlet's Soliloquy at the end of act two he reflects on how he will use the play to prove the king's guilt. Allthough he has planned to fake his madness, from this soliloquy it shows that he is showing signs of real madness, as his constant rhetorical questions prove. The reality of his madness suggests that there was a longer gap between the first and second act as it first appears.
Previously in the second act Hamlets playfullness towards the players, seems to be only to irritate Polonius and his language; to entertain the audience.
Witin this act we begin to see the differences in how Hamlet acts with his superiors (Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude) to how he acts with his equals (Guildenstern and Rosencrantz) and his madness seems to decrease when with his friends which contributes towards the proof of his faking his madness.

Tragic Hamlet, Act One

During the first act of Hamlet, Tragic elements are already beginning to show. Such as the early appearance of the ghost, immediately raising questions about how he died? Whether he was a good king? Is he missed? These are quickly answered in hamlets soliloquy in scene two, which marks him as the classic tragic hero. All the things that have happened prior to the play have affected him the most and from the final scene in the act we discover his fatal flaw or “Hamartia”; his inability to charge into the banquet hall and kill Claudius immediately. Instead he keeps it to himself and makes Horatio and Marcellus swear to, also.

Another tragic element which presents itself in the first act is the conflict; internal and external. Hamlet is battling with his Mother and new Step-Father in scene two about mourning his father's funeral and resenting the hastily followed wedding. All the while internally conflicting himself, as he cannot seem to help but hurt his Mother even though he doesn’t want to.

Long Distance II

When reading the first part of the poem, my sympathies were with the son because although he bought his father a thoughtless present and doesn't really pay attention to what he is saying when he calls. At least the son does call once a week and tries to keep that contact. Also it's hard to sympathise with an angry character however hard their situation may be.
The second part of the poem does invoke more emotion towards the father. Rather than reclusive, the father just seems lonely and no matter how you look at it, it's simply a sad situation. The last paragraph implies that the father has now died too, and a glimpse of the son now turning into the character his father was by continuing to call him just to see if he might pick up. From the second half my sympathies increase for the son as now he has lost two parents and although he may not be young, it's still a hard thing to face.