The Reign of Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, and Henry by Shakespeare

Power can affect individuals very differently. This includes those who are in power, and those who are being led. Several of Shakespeare’s plays tell the story of various kings and how they have ruled England. Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, and Henry V have all had different experiences when it came to ruling. Even though they were all leaders, not all of them demonstrated effected leadership, especially towards lower class individuals such as servants, thieves, and women.

When it came to Richard II, it was very clear that he was not prepared to be king and because of that, he demonstrated very ineffective leadership. He treated his people, especially the peasants, with utter disrespect. There were times when Richard should have been more when people came to attack and start war, and instead, he relied on his people to do everything because he believed it was their job to do everything for him as king. “I had forgot myself; am I not king? Awake, thou coward majesty! thou sleepest. Is not the king’s name twenty thousand names? Arm, arm, my name! a puny subject strikes. At thy great glory” (Act 3, Scene 5). Another example of Richard’s disrespect towards the peasants was when he proposed the Poll Tax. Richard enforced everyone, no matter what class you were in, to pay the same tax, which was too high for the peasants. This resulted in the Peasants’ Revolt. This involved the peasants roaming the streets of London, burning and destroying everything.

When it came to Richard handling thieves, they would commit crimes mainly in the dark, and Richard believed, even though he was are aware that they were guilty, they should not be punished unless they were seen in the light of the sun. “Thieves are not judged, but they are by to hear” (Act 4, Scene 1). Lastly, when it came to Richard and women, they’re social status did not change how they were treated. During this time period, all women had very little opportunities to say or do anything around men. With Richard II specifically, the one woman who had the most impact as well as some freedom was his wife, Queen Isabell. Throughout the play, she was definitely someone who supported and helped him grow and mature as a king. One example was when Richard began to feel defeated and worthless as a King. “What, is my Richard both in shape and in mind transformed and weakened? Hath Bolingbroke deposed thine intellect? Hath he been in thy heart?” (Act 5, Scene 1)

Moving onto Richard III, this was a king who used his power for several various things that perceived him as evil, but his intelligence was his greatest strength. As people became more aware of Richard’s power, they feared having him as a King. This was a scary time for the people after King Edward IV died. “Better it was they all came by the father, Or by the father there were none at all; For emulation now, who shall be nearest, Will touch us all too near, if God prevent not. O, full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester! And the queen’s sons and brothers haughty and proud: And were they to be ruled, and not to rule. This sickly land might solace as before” (Act 2, Scene 3).

Moving onto thievery in Richard III, by secretly plotting and sweet-talking other citizens, Richard pretty much stole the throne. Then, as a thief would, he tries to hide the fact that he has never said or done anything wrong to make anyone think he’s trying to steal his way to the throne. This mainly takes place during Act 1, Scene 3 between several people, but mainly Richard and Queen Elizabeth.

When it comes to the women in the play, it is very clear that Richard and Queen Elizabeth are not the best of friends. As I stated earlier, this was a time period where women were treated very poorly and given little to no respect. Throughout this play, the women mainly use their emotions and very little actions to get their voices heard and points across. Between asking for vengeance, revenge, and foul language directly towards Richard, the women in this play are voices for justice. Overall, Richard III might not have had the best personality, but he was very intelligent and people will do whatever it takes to get power, even if that means killing your own nephews. Despite his evil and disturbing actions, I believe he was still an effective leader.

Moving onto Henry IV, he had two difficult positions. One was being the king, and the other was being the father to a troublesome son. It also doesn’t help that Hal enjoyed being around thieves, fooling around and didn’t consider the consequences. Being king is already challenging, and power is important to Henry, which is why he was so hard on Hal because he was afraid of him losing that power when he became king. Throughout the play, we see how Henry’s tough love has paid off though and helped to change and mature Hal. “Stay, and breathe awhile. Thou hast redeemed thy lost opinion; And showed thou mak’st some tender of my life; In this fair rescue thou hast brought to me” (King Henry). “O God, they did me too much injury; That ever said I hearkened for your death. If it were so, I might have let alone” (Hal) (Act 5, Scene 4). The women in the play don’t have much interaction with King Henry, just like in Richard III, they use their words to fight back against the men and stand up for their rights. Overall, for someone who was able to remove their own blood from the throne, protecting his land and people from several rebellions, and preparing his son for the throne after years of immaturity, I believe Henry IV was an effective leader.

Lastly focusing on Henry V, as I stated before, Henry’s behaviors and actions resembled Richard II’s. Only Henry was able to realize and change his childish ways before it was too late. Just like his father, Henry did many things for his people. Two examples of this are when he ended the Hundred Years War with France, and defeated France during the Battle of Agincourt. After this battle, King Henry was able to make peace with France, known as the Treaty of Troyes. Henry’s accomplishments as King did not go un noticed, as his people made it very clear how they felt about having him as their king. “The king is full of grace and fair regard” (Bishop of Canterbury). “And a true lover of the holy Church” (Bishop of Ely). “The courses of his youth promised it not. The breath no sooner left his father’s body, but that his wildness, mortified in him, Seemed to die too. Yea, at that very moment Consideration like an angel came, and whipped th’ offending Adam out of him, Leaving his body as a paradise” (Bishop of Canterbury).

Henry also did not play when it came to thieves. Even though they were his friends, both Bardolph and Nim were hung because of stealing. “We would have all such offenders so cut off: and we give express charge, that in our marches through the country there be nothing compelled from the villages, nothing taken but paid for, none of the French upbraided or abused in disdainful language” (Act 3, Scene 6). When it comes to women, Henry marries Catherine, but this is for political reasons, so it could make the audience wonder, if this was real love or not. Overall, Henry V definitely stepped up and changed and became the effective ruler England needed during that time.

Lord Chief Justice in Henry IV

Hal is dynamic. We see definite changes in his character from our first encounter with him (in Henry IV part I) to when he is king (in Henry V). He starts out as a rebellious and seemingly care-free youth. He chooses to spend most of his time with his lower class friends at the tavern where they laugh and need not worry about much. Being heir to the throne, Hal is constantly rebuked for his childish attitude by the Lord Chief Justice and his father, the king. However, Hal reveals to us (in Henry IV Part I Act 1, Scene 2) that this foolish behavior is simply an act, and that he will change his lifestyle when the time is right. “I’ll so offend, to make offence a skill; Redeeming time when men think least I will.”

This leaves us guessing whether Hal is the immature prince everyone thinks he is, or if he is actually more cunning and less care-free than people give him credit for. Hal realizes something that many kings failed to notice. You could look great, promise great things, and convince everyone that you are the best person to be king. You might even keep all those great promises, but that is not enough. Not only will people continue to expect miraculous deeds from you, but they will be disappointed or worse when the deeds don’t continue. Thus Hal takes the opposite approach. He sets the bar very low by purposefully disappointing those expecting anything of him. Hanging out with commoners helps Hal in more ways than one. It creates the reputation he wants before he is king; it teaches him to use wit and common sense; and it gives him an understanding for the people he is to be ruling. We don’t see much of Hal in the second play.

In his first appearance (Act 2, Scene 2), he and Poins discuss Hal’s grief for his dying father. Hal feels that people would think of him as a hypocrite if he started mourning his father the way he wanted to. Though there seems to be something else on his mind. He asks his friend, “Doth it not show vilely in me to desire small beer?” – (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 5) Hal craves the cheap beer he drinks with his friends. He knows that he is above drinking it, but he still likes the taste.

Similarly, he knows that he cannot continue to fool around with his friends. He seems concerned that he might become the person he pretends to be. He behaves like a hooligan now so that when he is a decent king everyone will be amazed. However he did not expect to fall for his own act. Now that the king is dying, Hal must bring these fun days to an end. He spies on and questions Falstaff (Act 2, Scene 4), but wisely decides that Falstaff should not be anywhere near him when he is king. Thus Henry V (king Hal) banishes Falstaff from his presence. Not only does Hal reject his best friend in mischief, but he also requests the counsel of the Lord Chief Justice. This comes as bit of a shock, remembering how firm the Lord Chief Justice was with Hal. Hal tells the Lord Chief Justice that he will keep his position so long as he continues to be as ‘bold, just and impartial’ as he was with Hal.

At this point Hal wants to make the kind of decisions that a ‘reformed’ king would make, and he trusts the Lord Chief Justice to help him. After all, he had been spending a lot of time with Falstaff (who was not the best role model). On the one hand, Hal might have started as an obnoxious prince who simply rationalized his bad behaviour (in his soliloquy). However, this does not seem to be the case. On the stronger hand, he could have been a cunning prince who chose a better future for England over ‘small beer’. Either way, he becomes a wise and humble ruler. Thus whether Hal’s transformation is self-inflicted is irrelevant. He still changes and is therefore, dynamic.

Entanglement In Honor In The Play Henry IV

In Henry IV Part 1, the play juxtaposes different views, ideologies and characters to analyze the concept of honor in a series of parallels and contrasts. Similarity lies between Hotspur and Prince Hal due to their responsibility to their country, England; a parallel is set up between King Henry and Falstaff, while both acquire a father image to Prince Hal, the parenting and belief in honor drastically differs from one another; opposition is establish between Hotspur and Falstaff, when Hotspur ends up being obsessive with pursuit of honor and Falstaff sees honor as emptiness. However, the definition of honor becomes ambiguous when the value of honor changes with the appearance and progress of each character. Therefore, the characters Hotspur, Falstaff, King Henry IV, and Prince Hal each present their own understandings of honor which present their personalities and consciousness, and in comparing and contrasting each of their interpretation of honor, the character’s morality can be better understood. Instead of advocating an absolute representation of honor, I believe that the play seeks to demonstrate the process of developing the theme and language of honor in each character, whether an improvement, a fallback or a mix of complexity is left for the audience to decide.

As a young nobleman and a successful leader in battles, Hotspur values and pursue honor as the highest virtue. The play first uses King Henry to bring out the image of Hotspur, when he praises him as “[A] son who is the theme of Honor’s tongue” (1.1 80) and wishes Hotspur his son in exchange for Hal, Prince of Wales (1.1 89). The concept of honor would be associate with honest, loyalty and an obedient follower, however, despite the impression of Hotspur as a courageous war hero, the play then slowly reveals his shortcomings and dishonorable behavior. From Hotspur defending Mortimer against King Henry accusing him of a traitor and “[A]n if the devil come and roar for them, I will not send them” (1.3 27-28), refusing to turn in the prisoners, the play molds Hotspur as a man with principle and dignity, but then his character immediately shifts to debasing King Henry, “[B]ut I will lift the downtrod Mortimer as high as in the air as this unthankful king, as this ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke” (1.3 137-140), and even proposes the thought of rebellion against King Henry, “yet time serves wherein you may redeem your banished honors and restore yourselves into the good thoughts of the world again, revenge the jeering and disdained contempt of this proud king” (1.3 184-188). The fickle loyalty in his King now becomes apparent when Hotspur could no longer fulfilled his desire from the King. “[S]end danger from the east unto the west, so honor cross it from the north to south, and let them grapple. O, the blood more stirs to rouse a lion than to start a hare” (1.3 201-203) and “[D]ooms day is near. Die all, die merrily” both shows the valiant action from Hotspur and his faith in dying on a battle field a glorious honor, nevertheless, his seemingly belief in honor acts merely for his self-centered motivation. Due to his addiction to honor, no matter who is the sovereign, Hotspur only cares about his personal accomplishments and appears to be irresponsible for reciprocate loyalty when battle emerges.

As a mirror image to Hotspur, Falstaff embodies an audacious character who lives life willfully, with disobedience and rebellion. Falstaff celebrates everything in opposite to Hotspur: he provokes theft and disorder, and moreover, his dismissal of honor. “What is honor? A word. What is in that word honor? What is that “honor”? Air. A trim reckoning…Therefore I’ll none of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism” (5.2 135-142), as Falstaff mocks the concept of honor and instead believes in being alive as the most fundamental element of life, “I like not such grinning honor as Sir Walter hath. Give me life, which, if I can save, so: if not, honor comes unlooked for, and there’s an end” (5.4 62-65). At first glance, Falstaff represents a leisurely lifestyle where he could be honest to himself and only pursues what he enjoys, not following orders from anyone; in a way, being careless and chastise the glory from battle, the power and virtue of a nobleman that relate to honor, demonstrates Falstaff’s own interpretation of “honor”. Yet whether honor solely means a meaningless word to Falstaff and whether he has always been true to himself throughout the play remain unclear and dubious, while he seems to seek honor under different circumstances. “There’s neither honesty, manhood, nor good fellowship in thee, nor thou cam’st not of the blood royal, if thou darest not stand for ten shillings” (1.2 145-148) illustrates a perplexed encouragement to Hal, since the perfunctory Falstaff starts to mention the virtue in honor; from the exaggeration of “I am a rogue if I were not a half-sword with a dozen of them two hours together. I have ‘scaped by miracle” (2.4 170-172), the mind of Falstaff implies that he hopes his role could show importance and be respected as a contributor. In addition, Falstaff also tries to pretend he killed Hotspur as a hero, expressing: “I grant you, I was down and out of breath, and so was he, but we rose both at an instant and fought a long hour by Shrewsbury clock” (5.4 149-151). Both Hotspur and Falstaff win the honor of being themselves, while Hotspur shows idealism but a traitor with no loyalty, on the other hand, Falstaff’s self-indulgence and his manipulation of pretending careless for honor and reputation, make him unreliable.

On the contrary to the straightforwardness and impetuosity from Hotspur and Falstaff, Hal seems to be more implicit and often holds back his true thoughts. In the lines from Hal, “[Y]et herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world, that, when he please again to be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapors that did seem to strangle him” (1.2 204-210), he exploits his friends as “the base contagious clouds” to manifest the his well-behaved self when he decides to show his better side and act as a king. At first his words may seem as another joke when Hal participates in the discussion of robbery, yet he still shows some consciousness by denying Falstaff, “I’ll be no longer guilty of this sin” (2.4 251). The sin could simply mean Falstaff talking nonsense or it could be indicating the misbehavior of Hal, and that now he realizes the need to take action upon his behavior. In the mock acting of him as the King and Falstaff as the Prince, Hal then further asserts his determination by “I do. I will.” (2.4 499), implying he would take the responsibility of a ruler. Furthermore, a turning point that leads to the awakening of Hal occurs in his conversation with King Henry. “I shall hereafter, my thrice gracious lord, be more myself” (3.2 94-95) shows his arising sense of honor and duty which could have been belied by his past appearance; and “I will die a hundred thousand deaths ere break the smallest parcel of this vow” (3.2 163-164) reassures his promise of governing England. I believe multiple forces through the play shape the personality of Hal: his connection to Falstaff, the expectation from his father King Henry, and the comparison and battle between him and Hotspur. These forces then act as an influence on realization of royal blood in Hal, allowing him to gain the knowledge of honor and become a sophisticated heir.

The play Henry IV Part 1 exposes the definition of honor from each character through their reaction and ability to handle different situations. Whether the characters are defeated, motivated, or created from honor, each one have them has their own interpretation that explains their consciousness and reasoning behind their actions. Hotspur, overly obsessive and missing loyalty, and Falstaff, conflicting to his own statements, reflect an inconsistent concept of honor while Prince Hal appears to be capable of grasping the of honor as a whole while he learns from the mistakes of others and his character establish a progression through the play. The path to honor is entangled with perplexity of various phases of personal morality, however, I believe the play does not incline to either preference of the honor representation by the characters, but merely serves as a method for the readers to consider what may be the vital element in the concept and formation of honor.

Parallelism Between King Claudius and King Henry IV

When reading Shakespeare, it is clear that certain character types can be found throughout his plays. Two such plays that share the same character type are King Henry IV: Part I and Hamlet. Throughout these plays, the character type of a deceptive ruler is seen through King Henry in King Henry IV: Part I and Claudius in Hamlet. In both instances, these kings appear to hold aligned views on how a king should operate and maintain their kingdom. For both of these men, they hold a shared view that in order to be successful on the throne they must be deceitful, win the hearts of the public, and get rid of those who threaten them. Moreover, Shakespeare utilizes these characters to exemplify how authority can become corrupt which conveys an overall theme of deception between the two plays.

King Henry and Claudius are alike in the fact that they both obtained the throne through deception. Henry received the title of “King” after he had killed and overthrown Richard II. Due to his actions, his legitimacy as king is questioned throughout the play. For instance in a conversation between Hotspur and Northumberland, Hotspur says,

But soft, I pray you; did King Richard then

Proclaim my brother Edmund Mortimer

Heir to the crown?

To which Northumberland replies,”He did; myself did hear it”. In this conversation between Hotspur and Northumberland, they agree that Mortimer is the true heir to the throne and that Henry stole the crown when he is not the actual successor by blood. Hotspur continues talking about his hatred for Henry and his murderous actions by saying,”To put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose/An plant this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke?”. In this example, Hotspur declares his admiration for Richard II by comparing him to a rose, while expressing his disdain for Henry by calling him a thorn and infection. Likewise in Hamlet, Claudius killed King Hamlet to receive the throne. This dark secret is revealed to Hamlet in the first act of the play by his father’s ghost. The old king’s ghost illustrates the details of his murder by stating,

‘Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,

A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark

Is by a forged process of my death

Rankly abused.

King Hamlet’s ghost not only describes his murder and explains that a false statement was given to the public, but he also exposes the identity of the perpetrator. He tells Hamlet,

But know, thou noble youth

The serpent that did sting thy father’s life

Now wears his crown.

Although the ghost tells Hamlet that Claudius murdered him, this is also confirmed later by Claudius himself as he is praying. During his prayer he confesses,“That cannot be, since I am still possessed / Of those effects for which I did the murder: / My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen’. From these passages, it is evident that both kings gained their throne through deception. Due to their duplicity, they both attempt to calm a rebellion against them for their actions while trying to preserve their ill-gained crown. It is clear that both of these kings believe it is acceptable to operate and maintain a kingdom by using deceptiveness.

These kings are also alike in the fact that they both attempt to persuade the public in their favor to uphold the kingdom. Henry tells Prince Hal “I stole all courtesy from heaven, / and dressed myself in such humility / that I did pluck allegiance from men’s hearts”. In these lines, King Henry says that in order to win the loyalty of the public he had to manipulate his image. Similarly to King Henry, Claudius also manipulates the public by putting on a show to win their approval. Claudius attempts to gain the approval of the public by delivering a dignified speech mourning the death of his brother. He begins the speech,

Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother’s death

The memory be green, and that it us befitted

To bear our hearts in grief, and our whole kingdom

To be contracted in one brow of woe.

Although Claudius tries to appeal to the public by giving this speech, he is also seen praising himself for his premature and undeserved throne. It is evident that both of these men feel that winning and deceiving the hearts of the public is essential for ruling a kingdom.

Finally, King Henry IV and Claudius have an aligned view on how to rule a kingdom as they are both seen ridding themselves of anyone that threatens them or their crowns. For instance in Act 1 scene 3, Henry is displeased with Hotspur refusing to deliver the hostages to him. However, Worcester was already acting hostile towards Henry and then said something rude to him. Because of his contentious and defiant actions, Henry orders,“Worcester, get thee gone; for I do see/ Danger and disobedience in thine eye”(1.3 15-16). Worcester was already behaving in an unfavorable way towards Henry, but Henry then decides to get rid of him for his disobedient actions. Later in the play, the battle is partly caused by Worcester intentionally failing to declare his offer of peace to Hotspur. Once Henry finds out about his traitorous actions he orders to,”Bear Worcester to the death” (5.5 14). This behavior is also seen in Hamlet. For example, after Polonius’s death Claudius orders that Hamlet be sent to England. Claudius claims that it is for everyone’s safety that he,”must send thee hence/With fiery quickness” (4.3 46-47). He then tells Hamlet,

Therefore prepare thyself.

The bark is ready and the wind at help,

Th’ associates tend, and everything is bent

For England.

Because Claudius views Hamlet as a threat to his throne and his life, he decides to send him away and gives England orders to have him put to death. In both instances with King Henry IV and Claudius, their views on ruling a kingdom appear to align once again as they are both seen sending away and/or executing those who display signs of disobedience.

In conclusion, the kings in King Henry IV: Part I and Hamlet seem to have aligned views on how a king should operate and maintain their kingdom. King Henry and Claudius both seem to share the same ideas that in order to be successful on the throne they must be deceitful, win the hearts of the public, and get rid of those who threaten them.

Henry IV: Fatherhood, Masculinity and International Sovereign Status

In the last decade of their reigns, a series of legal disputes arose between Francis and Henry which seem oddly trivial and unnecessarily prolonged to the modern observer. Yet, there was an earnest tenacity about them. The apparent issue in each was the respect for the legalities of treaties between them, and particularly honouring the financial obligations each had to the other. At heart, however, they were really about their respective claims to personal honour as kings and brothers. Having competed, although never at close quarters, as warriors and as material patrons, and now constrained by the power of Charles V from breaking with each other strategically, Henry and Francis began rivalling each other as governors in the administration of royal justice in the international sphere. As we have noted, trustworthiness and reliability were seen as crucial aspects of public manhood in the early modern period. In line with this view, each king asserted that he had always honoured his obligations to his brother monarch, and his subjects, under the terms of agreements between them. The corollary was that the other had failed to do so, that he was not therefore the king he claimed to be. In other words, that he was not demonstrating a virtus or manliness that deserved honour and respect in the international community of kingship and nobility – a highly personal and damaging allegation.

The first of these disputes arose in April 1537 when Cardinal Reginald Pole, the king’s cousin, arrived in France from Rome, ostensibly to sponsor some kind of Franco-Imperial and Scottish action against Henry, the exact nature of which remains undetermined, and for which there was no real appetite. He made a formal entry to Paris and was welcomed at the French court. The English king demanded that he be apprehended as a traitor, under the terms of the Eternal Peace agreement of 1527. Sir Francis Bryan was despatched to secure his arrest and, with Stephen Gardiner, the resident English ambassador, to press for a resumption of the French pension debts to Henry. Francis received Pole politely but then sent him away from his court and maintained that the two English envoys had not formally requested his arrest and certainly not had him ‘by some means trussed up and conveyed to Calais’ as Henry had wanted. This assertion was deeply resented by Henry who bided his time. Returning from this mission, Bryan brought with him evidence of an apparently libellous poem about Anne Boleyn written by a servant of the Bishop of Tarbes. Henry demanded that Francis explain why he had not suppressed it.

This was followed by one of those sudden re-flowerings of friendship when, in October 1537, Jane Seymour gave birth to Henry’s longed-for male heir. The proud father received the congratulations of Francis, telling him in response that his joy was mingled with sadness at the death of Jane. Henry now saw his dynasty as secured. Henceforward, the one-time chivalric warrior increasingly regarded himself, and was portrayed, not just as the father of his own heir, but of the whole English people. To some extent the king as father was a familiar trope in royal propaganda across the period, but it had a very particular force in Henry’s England, and beyond. Perhaps the most famous image of Henry, the mural portrait made by Hans Holbein for the king’s Privy Chamber at Whitehall sets out this vision of royal fatherhood and masculine power in heroic terms. The king is pictured with his parents Henry VII and Elizabeth of York and with Jane, the mother of his son. A plinth in the centre of the painting proudly declares in Latin:

If it pleases you to see the illustrious image of heroes, look on these: no picture ever bore greater. The great debate, competition and great question is whether father or son is the victor./For both indeed were supreme./The former often overcame his enemies and the conflagration of his country, and finally brought peace to its people./The son, born indeed for greater things removed the unworthy from their altars and replaced them by upright men.

The iconography of the painting emphasises Henry’s fertility and legitimacy as ruler and makes explicit claims for him as a greater man and monarch than his father, the founder of the dynasty. The mural would have been seen by comparatively few people but some French envoys who were close courtiers of Francis were certainly among them.

The physical reality behind Holbein’s splendid image of the king was rather different. During these years, Henry suffered several hunting and jousting accidents with deleterious effects on his health. The most serious injury had come in 1536 when he lay unconscious for some two hours. His ulcerated legs restricted his mobility and without any changes in his diet, precipitated the obesity and further medical problems that thereafter beset him. In 1541 the French ambassador Marillac, reported that Henry was ‘very stout and marvellously excessive in eating and drinking so that people with credit say he is often of a different opinion in the morning than after dinner’.

Soon after Jane Seymour’s death, Cromwell told the English ambassador in France that Henry, following the good advice of his council, was determined to marry. A farcical search for a bride among French noblewomen, including Marie de Guise duchesse de Longueville, ensued with Henry at one point suggesting that a group of them should be assembled at Calais so he could make his choice. The French king regarded this suggestion as ludicrously ungallant. Louis Perreau, seigneur de Castillon, Francis’s ambassador in England was told that:

Francis laughed greatly at the language used to his ambassadors, saying that it would seem they [the English] meant to do with women there as with their geldings, collect a number and trot them out to take which goes best.

Henry dithered over Marie, but nevertheless expected that Francis would give her to him when he finally determined upon her for his bride.

He was, however, rebuffed not just by Francis but it seems by Marie herself, and was outflanked by his fleet-footed nephew James of Scotland. In the autumn of 1536 James had joined the French court, then in mourning for the dauphin François who had died in August. On 1 January 1537, he had married Francis’s daughter Madeleine at Nôtre Dame in Paris, thereby greatly strengthening the auld alliance with France. Tragically, Madeleine died on 7 July, barely two months after her arrival in Scotland. By the start of the following year James was seeking the hand of Marie de Guise for himself. He had congratulated his uncle on the birth of Prince Edward in October 1537, but thereafter showed total indifference to his English uncle’s new matrimonial ambitions. While Henry looked elsewhere, James secured a marriage contract that brought him a dowry for 100,000 livres tournois. He and Marie were married by proxy on 9 May 1538 and she arrived in Scotland the following month, received with great celebrations, including a tournament and banquets, held at St Andrews.

Even as this all played out, a disappointed Henry attempted to interpose himself as mediator of a new settlement between Charles and Francis who had been at war since 1536. Far from being in any way marginalised by the break with Rome, Henry now saw himself as able to lead his fellow kings, to warn and alert them to the dangers to their authority posed by the papacy. He urged both to reject Pope Paul III’s offers of mediation in favour of his own. He instructed Sir Thomas Wyatt, his ambassador with the emperor, to remind Charles just how obligated he should feel towards Henry: he could not choose a mediator of more honour than Henry, ‘nor one to whom he has more cause to show gratitude’. While Henry understood that Charles’s familial affection for Queen Katherine had led to a regrettable rupture between himself and the emperor, now she was dead, and ‘the cause of affection being removed, he trusted to have the former amity revived’. Charles, Henry went on, ‘should ponder whether he or the bishop of Rome could best serve him’. These efforts turned on a new, possibly Imperial, or French, wife for Henry and a husband for Princess Mary. They came to nothing as Henry dithered further about which potential bride to choose from the several still remaining on offer in France.

The two continental rulers eventually met at Aigues-Mortes in July 1538 and reached a form of entente-cordiale, guided by Paul III and without Henry’s advice or assistance. There followed two years of difficult but earnest efforts by both sides to show trust and confidence in each other. Henry sought ways to break up their apparently cosy consensus, fearing that it presaged some form of action against England, particularly after the suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace and the despoliation of the tomb of St Thomas Beckett at Canterbury. A range of issues from the seizure of English bibles printed in France, various maritime disputes and demands for extradition occupied both regimes in seemingly endless bickering and point-scoring about royal honour. As in the Cardinal Pole case, these controversies still seen by the counsellors of both kings as a vital expression of their sovereign’s status because they touched upon his authority as judge or governor of his realm.

By January 1539, Henry was convinced that an attack on him was imminent. In February, the French ambassador Castillon suddenly quit his post saying that Henry had ‘neither reasoning nor understanding left’ and that he was fearful of being taken hostage amidst deteriorating relations with France. This only heightened Henry’s anxieties further. He began the fortification of the southern coasts of England and Wales, from Lincolnshire and Essex around to Milford Haven and increased naval preparedness. Playing on the theme of Henry as father of the nation, the royal propagandist Richard Morison also praised him as the good shepherd (a figure of Christ himself of course) who would ‘diligently watch that we may safely sleep’ protected from the, presumably malign, designs of foreign powers. Henry was certainly very actively governing his kingdom’s life that year. As well as the defensive works he undertook, the Great Bible in English (into which some elements of the French-printed Matthew’s Bible had found their way) was published. As Sharpe and many others have discussed, its frontispiece showed Henry as a David of the Old Testament, priest, prophet, and king, distributing the Word of God to his people at all social levels and being thanked profusely by a grateful kingdom.

As all of this went forward, Charles V, then in Spain, received news that part of his dominions appeared very ungrateful to him indeed. In August 1539 there was an uprising in his native city of Ghent. The emperor was determined to go there personally to restore his authority. Surprisingly perhaps, Francis accepted Charles’s secret request to invite him to travel from Spain through France to Flanders. Although the prospect greatly worried the emperor’s council, it was his initiative. It also worried Henry lest it betokened an increased prospect of joint action against him. The emperor entered France in late November and was fêted by his French hosts as he made his way up from Bayonne to the Loire Valley, thence to Fontainebleau where Charles spent Christmas. On 1 January 1540 he was formally received into Paris.

Henry’s image was being yet again re-packaged at this time as he took a major personal and strategic decision, to marry Anne of Cleves. Against the background of the apparent Franco-Imperial rapprochement, Henry sought allies. Influenced, if not entirely guided, by Cromwell’s advocacy of an alliance with Johann the duke of Cleves, Henry saw himself and his prospective queen as defending an England reformed in his own image, just as he had once hoped to have done with the first Queen Anne of his reign, and in a way that the Whitehall portrait and the front page of the Great Bible in English now proclaimed him to be doing. Although worried, Henry was determined to be on the front foot once more. By this dramatic volte-face in the conventional pattern of alliances, he hoped to disconcert his two great rivals as well as the pope, and everyone else into the bargain, and to force himself into the reckoning once more on the international stage, just as he had first done in 1514. Anne was received in Calais in early December but, famously, Henry’s first horrified glimpse of her at Rochester on New Year’s Day 1540, the same day the emperor entered Paris, presaged all that followed. A desperate search for loopholes ensued but with none found, the marriage went ahead. A forlorn and angry Henry had no choice but to have it annulled in July on the humiliating grounds of non-consummation, with the necessarily embarrassing details of his impotence in the marriage bed read into the transcript of the case put before Convocation – albeit in a way that imputed the fault to the confused bride’s unappealing physicality and immature sexuality rather than the king’s incapacity, and this is the way it was explained internationally.

By the summer of 1540 Henry was asserting that he had only ever sought to steer a ‘middle way’ in religion at home, presenting his realm as righteously reformed and still theologically orthodox and therefore undeserving of papal censure, or worse. And this he had been doing by the time of Cromwell’s fall from power and his execution for treason in July 1540. Indeed, it has been argued that this was what precipitated that fall, as Henry sought to rid himself of the minister responsible for the Cleves debacle and one who could now be characterised as a dangerous sacramentarian from whose malign influence Henry had freed himself, and who was justly brought to the block. Imperial and French ambassadors in turn eagerly welcomed Cromwell’s death, assuring Henry that the minister’s removal was the surest means to a return of good relations with their respective masters.The French were indeed by then much more interested in an alliance with Henry, as was Charles.

Henry’s reputation was not exactly enhanced by his next marriage, to Catherine Howard, in July 1540. He was rejuvenated in mind and soul at least, and perhaps in body, by Catherine and as the French ambassador Marillac reported Henry was ‘so amourous of her that he cannot treat her well enough and caresses her more than he did the others’. Unfortunately, Catherine’s admitted sexual, or at least romantic, interactions with several young men before her marriage and those with Thomas Culpepper as she accompanied Henry on his extended progress to York in 1541, left him cuckolded and once more humiliated. The queen’s transgressions brought her to the ultimate punishment. Its imposition saved Henry’s face and he portrayed himself domestically and internationally as the victim of ill-intentioned females, but that hardly improved his standing measured against contemporary patriarchal expectations of male control over women.

The courts of Europe doubtless sniggered behind their collective hands over Henry’s latest matrimonial antics but the fragility of the Franco-Imperial entente that had so demoralised him in 1538-9 had become apparent by surprisingly early in 1540. In April, Charles announced that he would invest his own son Philip with the duchy of Milan, in flat contradiction of his ‘understanding’ with Francis that he would give it to one of Francis’s two younger sons. This, despite the extravagant hospitality he had received, and assurances he had seemed to give, while in France the previous winter. The English ambassador in France, Sir John Wallop urged senior courtiers including Marguerite de Navarre and Anne de Heilly, Madame d’Etampes, the king’s mistress, to persuade Francis to be reconciled with Henry. David Potter has demonstrated that, like Marguerite, Madame d’Etampes had an ambiguous, perhaps even ambivalent, attitude towards relations with England, but was broadly anti-Habsburg and was carefully courted by English ambassadors in the early 1540s. Katherine Wellman has confirmed that her influence over Francis in these years worked generally in English interests insofar as she opposed Montmorency’s policies, promoted his rivals at Francis’s court and favoured maintaining cordial personal relations between the two kings.

War broke out between the emperor and Francis in 1542. Faced, delightedly, once more with conflict between his rivals, Henry chose to back the imperial side, as he had done twice before in his reign. He agreed an alliance with Charles in 1543 that committed him to a war that began with the invasion of France and the siege of Boulogne in July 1544. The king hauled his huge bulk into a carapace of armour and directed the operation, re-living to the extent that his disabling obesity allowed him, the excitement of personal warfare that he had first experienced in 1513. Henry entered the conquered city on 18 September. He knighted a number of his commanders and, in poor health, quickly withdrew to England. The successful siege was supposed to presage a joint attack on Paris, but meanwhile Charles, rapidly running out of money, had abandoned Henry in the field and signed a hastily agreed peace, of Crépy, with Francis. This freed Francis to turn against England the following year. Henry’s successful defence of Portsmouth and Southampton (despite the loss of the Mary Rose) against a French invasion fleet in July 1545 was the final military achievement of his reign.

Analyzing The Construction of The Character of Prince Hal

In the 16th century, Niccolo Machiavelli stated on “The Prince” that leadership came mostly from theatrics. That is to say, to be a good leader one must first be a good actor, or at the very least be convincing enough to get the loyalty of the people. In a time where the political situation of his kingdom was so precarious, when the people were so divided and opposed to one another, it is no surprise that King Henry IV was so concerned with the apparent lack of leadership within his son. He was, however completely unaware of the manipulative and sly nature of Prince Hal, who had a plan of his own in order to achieve the people’s love. While his character may appear to undergo severe character development, Prince Hal (And the future Henry V) was rather acting the different roles both his subjects and his father needed him to take, being then one of the most static characters in the entire tetralogy. Through Prince Hal, Shakespeare explores the idea of a Machiavellian prince, one more focused on the theatrics of politics in order to achieve what he desired.

Throughout Henry IV Part I and Part II, the reader “sees” Hal grow into the future King, the one meant to unite all of England. When he is first introduced, he is (according to his father) a rake, an ungrateful brat, who hung out with the worst kind of people a Prince could hung out with. His closest friend is, after all, the most corrupt and amoral character in the entire tetralogy. He is shown to be gambling, planning a robbery, hanging out with prostitutes and drinking with his foolish friends on a tavern. This makes for a dramatic contrast with the Harry the reader meets on “Henry V”, the King who inspires his soldiers with his rousing speech to go “once more unto the breach”. It would seem like character development will have its hands dipped into the very soul of the Prince, to make him honorable and worthy of following. It will seem that way to everyone, inspiring even to those who can see the wild Prince turn into a worthy King, if it wasn’t for the following speech:

I know you all, and will awhile uphold/ The unyoked humor of your idleness./ Yet herein will I imitate the sun,/ Who doth permit the base contagious clouds/ To smother up his beauty from the world,/ That, when he please again to be himself,/ Being wanted, he may be more wondered at/ By breaking through the foul and ugly mists/ Of vapors that did seem to strangle him./ If all the year were playing holidays,/ To sport would be as tedious as to work,/ But when they seldom come, they wishedfor come,/ And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents./ So when this loose behavior I throw off/ And pay the debt I never promisèd,/ By how much better than my word I am,/ By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;/ And like bright metal on a sullen ground,/ My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,/ Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes/ Than that which hath no foil to set it off. I’ll so offend, to make offence a skill,/ Redeeming time when men think least I will.

Here, Prince Hal starts demonstrating how not only is he not the dishonorable man the world thinks him to be, but rather that he is playing the role in order to look even better as a King. While this is incredibly manipulative, Prince Hal has various reasons that validate this manipulation: His father is an usurper, and there is civil unrest on the country. He needs the loyalty of his people, needs them to trust him and value him so they will not try to dethrone him once his time comes. By making himself look bad now, his “redemption” will then give hope and amaze all of his subjects. It is this speech that causes all of Hal’s character development to look nothing more than the unmasking of a very clever, very intelligent young man. It also brings up the most Machiavellian aspects of Henry’s personality, as this act that he is putting on is but a little part of his grand plan.

Everything about Hal from this point on becomes the subject of intense scrutiny as there is no way to tell what is the reality of the situation and what is the lie of it. Perhaps the most real moment, the most authentic act on Henry’s part, happens but on the very last part of Henry V, when he realizes that Catherine does not speak English and his only answer is a simple “Oh”. His actions, his relationships, the personality that he displays are all questionable, for they may or may not all be what Prince Hal wants the audience to see.

There is a comparison to be made, between both Hotspur and Henry IV with Prince Hal on that instance. It is claimed multiple times in narrative (in Richard II for Henry IV and in Henry IV Part I for Hotspur) that both Henry’s have the potential to be good monarchs. They are decisive, strong leaders, with a clear moral code and more importantly, honor. The people know they would be good Kings, and don’t hesitate to say so. By contrast, Hal is a rake, a childish young man, a shame to his father, and the people and the King have the ever-growing concern of what may happen once Hal becomes King. The plays then show us how Hal becomes a much more effective leader than his father, and a much better King. This then goes to show that Hal’s strategy was effective: While his father’s (and Hotspur’s, but his would cost him his life) authenticity was not enough to carry him through his reign, Hal’s machinations are enough to not only make him dear in his people’s memories, but also a great King. This emphasizes yet another Machiavellian characteristic in Prince Hal: The duplicitousness of his character, which allows him to triumph.

Prince Hal also dishonors his good name and creates a great riff between his father and himself in order to achieve the appearance of a depraved young man. He admits once during Henry IV Part II that this distance causes him great pain, as he wishes he could weep for his father and yet he knows he will be seen as a hypocrite if he does. In the same manner, he knows what the people think of him, knows of their distrust and of their fear. He does not cry, neither does he openly wield his grief. This demonstrates that Hal is willing to take all of the consequences that his actions have brought and that they will bring, as long as they bring him what he needs, which is the people’s loyalty and respect. He is Machiavellian in this too, deciding that the “ends justify the means”.

Prince Hal will forever be a subject of debate among scholars. He could be wicked and manipulative, as well as noble and intelligent. There is no way to come to an absolute conclusion, as to do so would be to diminish his complexity. He is clever and manipulative, and yet he still feels deeply for his people and wants to do good by them. He infuriates his father, and yet he loves him with all of his soul. He is a warrior made for battle, and yet he demonstrates great rhetoric. It is possible then, that while Prince Hal is but the very definition of a Machiavellian Prince, he is also a noble and worthy man.

The Symbolism of ‘The Concept of Blood’

In Part 1 of Henry IV, “blood” is the defining characteristic, separating the players into two distinct groups easily designated by their relationship to blood and providing the basis for the two lifestyles that Hal leads. The nobility’s obsession with blood in all of its meanings coagulates them into the first of the two groups. This blood obsession is manifested in the minds of the leading court figures, most especially those of the King, Henry IV, and Hotspur, Henry Percy. Hal is, by virtue of his seemingly inappropriate and common companions, separated from this world of blood and is fully encapsulated by a world of folly and ineptitude. This group of common thieves and truants, although accompanied by a wayward prince, compromises the second group—a group to which the term “blood” is to be used in farce but never to be taken seriously. From the end of Hal’s first scene the audience is aware of Hal’s desire to affect a dramatic transformation and enter the world of the nobility without the stain of his former lower class associations. Hal notes the existence of key differences between the two classes from the outset, but the epiphany that blood was the main dividing factor allowed Hal to finally realize the method of his transformation. Hal comes to the realization that he must undergo a trial in bloody battle against his main rival and the champion of the noble lifestyle, Hotspur, and emerge victorious to be absolved of his former lifestyle through a baptism in blood.

For the nobility of this war torn period in English history, “blood” represented the most important values and troubles in society and as a monarch atop a usurped and far from stable throne, King Henry was the embodiment of these issues. The metaphor between monarch and state represented the foremost correlation in society and, thus, Henry IV and England could be seen to symbolize each other. Within this relationship of king and state the significance of blood in the troubles of the country and the monarchy was first seen. The play begins with the lamentation of Henry over the state of England and his weak promise that “no more the thirsty entrance of this soil shall daub her lips with her own children’s blood.” This statement illustrates both England’s desire for domestic peace and the king’s own desire to settle both national affairs and affairs within his own household. For, although Henry thinks to have achieved this overwhelming peace throughout the country at the beginning of the play he soon realizes that the countryside is still rife with fighters and domestic strife broils as the king becomes further unsatisfied with Hal’s lifestyle. For even as the “Severn’s flood, [was] then affrighted with their bloody looks…[and] the hollow bank [was] blood-stained with these valiant combatants” the king’s own son continued to ignore the state of affairs. This turbulent and bloody picture of England’s landscape speaks for the state of both the country and that of its figurehead, Henry IV, setting the scene for the series of events throughout the play.

As a king desperate to look to the legitimacy of his own bloodline in justification for his seizure of the throne, Henry IV realizes the importance of Hal to the continuation of his dynasty. As Hal steadfastly refuses to take an active role in the government and its troubles, Henry wonders “whether God will have it so for some displeasing service I have done, that in his secret doom, out of my blood he’ll breed revengement and a scourge for me.” In despair, Henry looks to Hotspur’s galvanizing role in the political scene, especially his key involvement in the battles throughout the country, and wonders if some switch of his blood had occurred and Hotspur may be his true son. Despite Hotspur’s later rebellion against Henry, the king still hopes for some change at birth—thus the qualities of valor and honor that Henry sees in Hotspur could be a continuation of his own blood. Henry taunts Hal that while Hal is “almost an alien to the hearts of all the court and princes of my blood…and the soul of every man prophetically do forethink thy fall” that Hotspur “being no more in debt to years then thou, leads ancient lords and reverend bishops on to bloody battles”. With this statement, Hal realizes Hotspur’s role as his main rival and the holder of that position in society which he should be seen to hold as the prince and heir to the throne.

Hotspur, in his role as one of the leading treasonous rebels, looks upon a world bloodied by necessity and driven by fiery and quickened blood—his blood washed world represent the views seen by the majority of the nobility. With every appearance of Hotspur, a dramatic picture filled with images of blood is brought to mind with his words, serving to align the two within the mind.

Many mentions of Hotspur revolve around his central role in the fighting going on throughout England, and in the many “bloody” hours he has spent upon the field. Even outside the blood bath of battle, Hotspur is quick to reference his willingness to “empty all these veins, and shed my dear blood drop by drop in the dust” in the name of loyalty to his fellow nobility. From Hotspur’s viewpoint, the world is something to be taken seriously—with everything staked at the price of life for in the mind of Hotspur, “this is no world to play with mammets and to tilt with lips. We must have bloody noses and crack’d crowns.”

From Act I of the play, the audience is aware of Hal’s intention to transform his seemingly inappropriate lifestyle and to reemerge in a role as the shining prince. In juxtaposition with the nobility and Hotspur, Hal’s time is spent in jovial conversation with friends and real or whimsical highway robberies. In this reality without responsibility, blood is only seen playing a role of false gravity—as when Hal’s friends falsified themselves as victims of a major robbery. Hal, when asked by Falstaff was to whether his blood thrilled at the thought of rebellious state of the country, replied “not a whit, I’ faith, I lack some of thy instinct.” When faced with the taunting threats of both his father and the state of the country, Hal realizes that his very nature must change in order for him to step up and later be able to accept the responsibility of the country with the benevolence of the nobility. Hal realizes that this change must be an acceptance of the bloody nature of the aristocracy and an assumption of the role currently held by Hotspur. Hal, thus, tells his father “I will redeem all this on Percy’s head, and in the closing of some glorious day be bold to tell you that I am your son, when I will wear a garment all of blood, and stain my favors in a bloody mask, which wash’d away shall scour my shame with it.”

The greatest challenge Hal faces throughout the play is to effect this transformation and reenter the blood obsessed world of the nobility. Hal sees the opportunity to affect this transformation only through the bloody initiation of battle with his main rival, Hotspur, and thus usurp his place in the world of the nobility. With this objective in mind, Hal challenges an acknowledged more experienced Hotspur to single battle, realizing that the all other bloodshed is superfluous in relation to this contest in deciding the future of the country. An over-confident Hotspur, upon hearing of Hal’s involvement in the battle, foretells Hal’s sacrifice at his hands “to the fire-ey’d maid of smoky war all hot and bleeding…the mailed Mars shall on his [altar] sit up to the ears in blood.” The two contestants accept their bloody roles in deciding the future of their country and in the control of the noble class.

With Hal’s personal victory over Hotspur and bloody reentry into acceptance among the noble class, one wonders whether any fundamental changes really took place within Hal’s personal character. Through the murder of Hotspur, Hal appears to have accepted the challenge of noble blood—that of making battle and that of accepting inherited responsibilities, quite a maturing process for his former self. Upon Hal’s sighting of his old friend Falstaff’s body alongside that of Percy, Hal remarks “embowell’d will I see thee by and by, till then in blood by noble Percy lie” which signaled a unifying factor in the blood. While the nobility may have felt that their blood designated them a breed apart from all others, this heralded Hal’s acknowledgment that in death, or “blood,” there remains no such distinction and all lie together indiscernible. This concluding unity made the noble warring and contested inheritances of Hal’s time all the more laughable and an important lesson for a future king to be cognizant of. This conclusion seems to the objective set forth by Shakespeare, a result of Hal’s insightful immersion into both groups and his realization that the end remains the same for all.