SB replied: Like so much of Shakespeare's work, 'Richard II' is ambivalent over whether it's depicting the justified deposition of a fledgling tyrant, or the awful consequences of the usurpation of the rightful king, but, given that it had been performed since 1595, the censor obviously didn't regard it as being subversive - although it's worth noting that the deposition scene in Act IV scene 1 probably wasn't printed in full until the First Folio.

Mark Haslett wrote: The idea that a mere commoner could write incendiary plays about the fall of kings, have them staged before rebellions, and walk away untouched defies the historical pattern. 

SB replied: Augustine Phillips testified that the only reason The Lord Chamberlain's Men performed the play was because they were paid more than their usual fee to do so. None of the troupe seem to have understood that their performance was to be used to stir up support for Essex, and Elizabeth I herself obviously didn't regard them as having been complicit in his attempted rebellion.