Here’s something I’ve always wondered. I can’t remember what made me think of it recently, but what the heck. King Lear. Kent. He’s the only one with the guts to stand up to Lear in his fury, and he gets banished for it. But his loyalty still won’t let him leave Lear’s side, even after all that goes down. So here’s my question – how old is Kent? Not looking for a specific age, but rather, are we talking about a Kent who is young enough to not know better when he stands up to Lear? Or someone who has been around for a lifetime and thinks (incorrectly) that he can get away with it? I totally see either of these working. An old Kent comes off as Lear’s peer, an old man standing by his friend’s side as his friend descends into madness (Gloucester/Lear?). A young Kent, though, would be the son Lear didn’t have, a sort of Edgar/Gloucester parallel. Who knows. Just rambling a bit. Is there evidence in the play to suggest one of these theories over the other?