What intrigues me is that each perception appears the closest to the TRUTH. Hamlet had lost a MAN whom he adored as irreplaceable, and that Man had lost the woman of his own affections to a Household Relative (brother) creating a suspicion that the Death did not HAPPEN, but was made to happen.
And to boot, in which conspiracy this woman was involved. A Clytemnestra in deed and playing a Jocasta nonchalantly, both rolled into one.
A mind that had seen the woman as a mother, to see her as the soft Imperial flesh on an anvil in which Claudius’ hammer would pommel. Where does he stand now? Anymore in awe of any woman? – Nay. He has found that functionally her femininity had to be hammered to obedience on the anvil of raw sex.
Hamlet’s perceptions have altered. Gertrude wants him to see his father’s “death” as a common thing. He thinks it is UNCOMMON.
Claudius could have not outlived his brother much and the fruits given, when savored without teeth, would the juiciness appreciate, without the pleasure of the crackle of the crispness of the fruit. And it was no small thing for Claudius, that a woman who was out of bounds to the mind, would crawl up to Claudius with seductive sluttishness to not only be hammered, but eagerly made to savor, swallow and/or drain the scum of her brother-in-law’s lust and prize it as a possession to be relished and slimed between her fingers and smelt deeply. To watch her prize him above his killed brother was delirious. She even might have spoken freely to Claudius about the foibles in private moments with her dead brother-in-law (husband had become brother-in-law, only thing is that the husband was dead!)
Gertrude had no option. She had to reconcile her UNFAITHFULNESS with PERMANENCE. Sooner or later she would get caught, if the affair continued, she had to LEGITIMIZE her fallen status. A NEGATIVE REDEMPTION, two errors get multiplied to become a right. The only way is to conspire to eliminate the FIRST MAN, after all, only the first was betrayed and could accuse anyone of BETRAYAL. Claudius was the beneficiary betrayer of the successful implementation of the conspiracy. He gained the kingdom and the former Queen. A double slam. That UNFAITHFULNESS can be given a permanent status only if the object which continues to be the source of the GUILT has to be made to disappear. URIAH had to GO, otherwise the CHILD would show up and beg for a father, who could have never had access to reach his mother. David, oops! Claudius had to kill or be hanged later if his brother and the kingdom found out.

The TRAGEDY of Hamlet’s father is that even Hamlet doesn’t trust him!
Where is the Truth?
Easy to resolve it through Ethics, but why make that a yardstick? Is it a must? and why not see from each person’s compulsion because of an INDELIBLE PAST? Things get ARTISTIC thereafter. Read HAMLET……..