King Henry IV Part 1
Although most people find it hard to climb out of a whole they have dug themselves into, Prince Hal in Henry IV Part I is able to redeem himself even after the English King and nobility view him as a derelict with no future. He proves himself true to the Royal Throne when he defeats his young rival, Henry Percy. Through the exorcism of his immature ways, he earns himself the succession to the throne.
In the opening scene of the play, King Henry hears news from the Earl of Northumberland that Henry Percy, "the gallant Hotspur" (1.1.52), is leading a successful campaign against Mortimer in Wales. The King reflects on how he wishes his own son were more like Hotspur:
Yea, there thou mak'st me sad and mak'st me sin
In envy that my Lord Northumberland
Should be the father to so blest a son (Hotspur)
A son who is the theme of honor's tongue.
Whilst I, by looking to praise him,
See riot and dishonor stain the brow
Of my young Harry. (1.1.77)
The King is envious of Northumberland’s son, who does not waste his days like Prince Hal. The King is not proud to be the father of such a person. His son is wasting his days away with the fat-faced drunk, Falstaff. The two, along with others, spend their days robbing devout people on their pilgrimages and drinking old sack. Prince Henry does, however, make clear that he intends to surprise the world by standing forth in his true character:
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...
... middle of paper ...
...r, John, and asks for his reward for slaying the great leader. The brothers ignore him and retreat to find their comrades. The Prince was able to transform himself into the great leader that he knew he was capable of being regardless of what everyone else thought of him. On the other hand, Falstaff had no intention of changing who he was and probably would not be able to accomplish that task, either.
Prince Hal dug himself a huge hole in life by enjoying the company of criminals and disgracing his family. Fortunately, he knew exactly how to solve his problem. By defeating Hotspur, he was able to earn the respect of the throne and the country. He fully exorcises his past through chivalry and his emergence as a war hero. Not only did he fight for his family, he fought for his beloved country. Thus went the valiant transformation from Hal to Prince Henry IV.
transformation of Prince Hal from a tavern crony into the next King of England. This is a
Prince Hal is initially portrayed as being incapable of princely responsibilities in light of his drinking, robbery and trickery. Yet, Shakespeare reveals that Hal is in fact only constructing this false impression for the purpose of deceit. Prince Hal’s manipulative nature is evident in his first soliloquy, when he professes his intention to “imitate the sun” and “break through the foul and ugly mists”. The ‘sun’ Prince Hal seeks to ‘imitate’ can in this case be understood as his true capacity, as opposed to the false impression of his incapacity, which is symbolised by the ‘foul and ugly mists’. The differentiation of Hal’s capacity into two categories of that which is false and that which is true reveals the duplicity of his character. Moreover, Hal is further shown to be manipulative in the same soliloquy by explaining his tactic of using the “foil” of a lowly reputation against his true capacity to “attract more eyes” and “show more goodly”. The diction of “eyes” symbolically represents public deception, concluding political actions are based on strategy. It is through representation and textual form that we obtain insight into this
Hal is a cold, calculating Machiavellian ruler. According to Machiavelli’s popular theory, being a successful leader has nothing to do with being a nice person or doing the right thing. Instead, it’s about being inventive, manipulative, crafty, and willful. Hal is an intelligent character who put all those attributes to work when he articulated a grand plan to fool everyone around him in order to gain power. One critic claims that traditionally there are two common ways to interpret Prince Hal's development. The first is to see it as a celebration of a great king in training who grows in his responsibility and develops into a mature political leader. The second view sees Prince Hal as a cold Machiavel who uses his friends as means to a political end, without much regard for their feelings. (Johnston 1).
Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.
Looking at an overview of Falstaff, he has traits that of a villain, yet in King Henry IV, he is arguably one of the most beloved character, responsible for comedic relief. However I believe this is Shakespeare making a statement, and masking it behind humour. You see, it can be said that Falstaff is a politically driven character, in which everything he does is with purpose, whether that be financial gain or obtaining power. His relationship with Hal was for him to gain favor, once Hal became king. He acts as a great contrast to Hal, as throughout the play, Hal grows and changes stepping up to expectation and embodying a just and righteous ‘man’, so to speak. Falstaff’s character, however remains stagnant, barely changing throughout the play. Even his final actions in the play claiming to have killed Hotspur was with the intent of gaining rewards and power. So why is Falstaff, a character with many negative traits, made to be so likeable?, and Hal a man who is supposedly our beloved hero seen as a rebellious child for half the play? It could be Shakespeare making a comment as to how in politics, you never truly understand a person and their true intentions. Take the quote from Act 4 Scene 2 Line 56 :
Considering their fearsome adversary, in private Falstaff asks Prince Hal “art not thou horribly afraid” (II.4.337-338)? His question means to provoke an honest reflection on their dangerous undertaking. Falstaff does not mean to interrogate or belittle Prince Hal’s honor. Instead, Falstaff asks about his friend’s true emotional state and moves beyond the conventional appearance of knightly toughness. Prince Hal responds to the question feigning, “Not a whit, i’faith. I lack some of thy instinct” (II.4.339). The more regal Prince Hal becomes in his ambitions, the more he aligns himself with the values of the monarchy. Falstaff reveals how these values of stoicism and bravery can be delusional. If Prince Hal were honest, he would admit some degree of doubt about war. With his new regal stance; however, he distances himself from true sentiment. Falstaff is unabashed in asking matters of the heart. Although Falstaff does not get an honest reply, he exposes Price Hal’s pretension and with it the tradition of
Falstaff who seems to be Hal’s role model while in the Tavern, is putting forth a great deal of effort to have Hal conform into the lowlife that he himself has made himself out to be. Falstaff teaches Hal how to lie, cheat, and steal, but Hal seems to have a mind of his own. He tells his father that at any given moment he can change his character and be what his father wants him to be. Henry declines to believe these statements.
In 1 Henry IV, Prince Henry’s gradual development was evident throughout the play. A comparison of Harry’s character during the first act against Harry in the fifth act almost seems like two different people. Prince Henry has carried out his plan to prove to people that he will be a worthy King by following his father into battle and killing the leader of the rebel army. Prince Henry’s act of bravery marks the transition between the young Henry and the mature Henry but more importantly, has earned Henry the respect and acceptance from his father.
Henry VIII was born on June 28, 1491 at Greenwich Palace. His Parents, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, were very loving and proud parents, even though they didn’t see much of their children. Henry was their second son. He was styled as the “Duke of York”. He had his own servants, Court Jesters, and to top it off he had is own whipping boy that would receive whippings whenever Henry did something bad.
Falstaff is a central element in the two parts of Henry IV, he is supports the structure of the play. Yet he does seem to be a mainly fun maker, a character whom we laugh with and laugh at. The perfect example for this was the fat knight's account of the double robbery at Gadshill. The part of plump Jack is joyously expanded and diversified, for the delight of men and the glory of, Shakespeare. It is plain that the role of Sir John is not restricted to what is indispensable to Shakespeare's main purpose. Falstaff lies at the very foundation of these plays, that it is a structural necessity.
In the play Henry V written by Shakespeare. Henry was presented as the ideal Christian king. His mercy, wisdom, and other characteristics demonstrated the behavior of a Christian king. Yet at the same time he is shown to be man like any other. The way he behaves in his past is just like an ordinary man. But in Henry’s own mind he describes himself as “the mirror of all Christian kings” and also a “true lover of the holly church.
When one thinks of Henry the eighth the first thing that comes up is fat, wife-killer, meat eater, old, mean and overall horrendous. But almost no one refers to him as misunderstood, manipulated or young man who was not meant to be King of England. This is how Suzannah Lipscomb portrays Henry VIII in her book, 1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII, King Henry faces many tribulations in 1536 that shaped the rest of his reign; from his marriages, injuries, heirs, to his influence in the European spectrum.
Hal’s remark to his father indicates a now strong, independent mind, predicting that Douglas and Hotspur will not accept Henry’s offer because of their love for fighting. Henry’s reply in turn indicates a change in attitude towards his son, a newfound respect. Acknowledging Hal’s prediction, the king orders preparations to begin, and we see he has his own set of solid moral values: knowing that their ‘cause is just’ helps him to reconcile with his highly honourable conscience that there is indeed cause for war. Still maintained is the conflict between the very format of the text, with Hal and Henry’s conversation held in formal verse typical of the court world, in which Hal is now firmly embedded. Falstaff, however, sustains his equally typical prose speech, which indicates to the audience the enduring division between the court and tavern worlds.
Throughout the play of Henry IV: Part 1, King Henry of London has begun preparing the kingdom for his son, Prince Hal, who will soon inherit the throne. Unfortunately, King Henry is apprehensive of his wild child, frightened that he won’t be able to transition from rowdy boy to respectable king. In this passage, Prince Hal is dramatically explaining his scheme, professing that he is capable of successfully inheriting the throne. Through this explanation, it is clear that he has avoided much of his inescapable responsibilities throughout his childhood. By looking at Shakespeare's use of contrasting point of views, we can see that Prince Hal wanted to deliberately victimize and justify his current facade, as well as create the image of the person
The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling, is clearly a poor influence for a future ruler such as Prince Hal, and Worcester, who shares Hotspur's temper, encourages Hotspur to make rash decisions. The entire plot of the play is based on which father-figure these characters choose to follow: had they chosen the other, the outcome would have been wholly different.