If King Lear had soms- Would there have been all this agony?

Question:If by agony, you mean Lear's and the realm's, then yes, providing the sons had the same characters as did Goneril and Regan, and Lear was as blind to true loyalty and love. As I'm sure Shakespeare would have known, it was actually fairly common for an ancient king to divide his realm among his sons. That's how we got France and Germany, after all.

I suspect daughters are used to make the older siblings' actions more heinous, since what these characters do might, to Machiavellian types, seem wisdom rather than treachery were they sons. To gain the entire kingdom (for the sake of 'security,' perhaps?), each would have to first betray Lear to get him out of the way, and then, once the threat of someone trying to return Lear to power was ended, the two would be free to turn on one another. In the end one would mount the throne proclaiming everything to be right with the world once more.

But for women, who weren't supposed to be so callous (doesn't Shakespeare love playing with that conception, as in Lady Macbeth, amongst others?) to do the same thing was more infamous, simply because they were women. These days, of course, we'd think, I hope, that, whether the older children were named Goneril and Regan or Gomeril (?) and Regar, that their actions were, to put it in 80's parlance, 'major uncool.'

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: If by agony, you mean Lear's and the realm's, then yes, providing the sons had the same characters as did Goneril and Regan, and Lear was as blind to true loyalty and love. As I'm sure Shakespeare would have known, it was actually fairly common for an ancient king to divide his realm among his sons. That's how we got France and Germany, after all.

I suspect daughters are used to make the older siblings' actions more heinous, since what these characters do might, to Machiavellian types, seem wisdom rather than treachery were they sons. To gain the entire kingdom (for the sake of 'security,' perhaps?), each would have to first betray Lear to get him out of the way, and then, once the threat of someone trying to return Lear to power was ended, the two would be free to turn on one another. In the end one would mount the throne proclaiming everything to be right with the world once more.

But for women, who weren't supposed to be so callous (doesn't Shakespeare love playing with that conception, as in Lady Macbeth, amongst others?) to do the same thing was more infamous, simply because they were women. These days, of course, we'd think, I hope, that, whether the older children were named Goneril and Regan or Gomeril (?) and Regar, that their actions were, to put it in 80's parlance, 'major uncool.'

If you are looking at this play from a misogynist context in which chaos rules when a man bequeaths his power and authority to women and chaos reigns until rightly reestablished by the male (!) Duke of Albany..then no!
2/3 of the sons would have conspired to despatch Lear in the first act, assassinated 'Cordo' then quarrelled and fought among themselves for the kingdom, resulting in their mutual demise. It would have been a shorter play.so less agony..for the audience!
Didn't Gloucester play a blinder though!

No. If Lear had sons, the eldest would become King after him and receive all the land. (It would be up to him to decide how the younger brothers were handled) Most issues came from the fact he couldn't properly name the eldest daughter as future ruler (blasted primogenture) and had to figure how to split his kingdom into three.