Henry IV’s lecture to Hal in 3. 2 provides the audience with much more than an example of Henry’s relationship with his son. It also serves as an examination of the kingship and its changing role. Henry’s attempts to criticize Hal inadvertently draw many parallels between him; his son, and his predecessor, Richard II, and while he intends to reveal Hal’s shortcomings, he primarily reveals his own.
He begins by criticizing Hal’s choice of associates, namely the rogues who inhabit the tavern. He claims that if he had been close friends with such people, Richard would still be King of England. In fact, he blames Richard’s poor choices of advisors for his downfall. By flattering Richard for their own ends, instead of letting him know the true state of affairs in England, they kept him oblivious to the growing dissatisfaction of the populace. With shallow jesters and rash basin wits, Soon kindled and soon burnt; carded his state; Mingled his royalty with cap ” ring fools; Had his great name prof an d with their scorns And gave his countenance, against his name, To laugh at gibing boys and stand the push Of every beardless vain comparative (3.
2. 61-67); While Falstaff and his companions may be “vulgar company” (3. 2. 41), however, they are, in fact, exactly the type of company with which Henry was associated by Richard, who greatly feared Henry’s “courtship to the common people” (Richard II, 1. 4. 24).
The Essay on Similarities and Differences in Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and Richard Henry’s Speech to the Second Virginia Convention
There are many similarities and differences in Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and Richard Henry’s Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. Both of these famous speeches were made by colonists to persuade the people of the colonies to dissolve all connections with Great Britain and fight for their own freedom. Patrick Henry made his speech before the Declaration of Independence to persuade the ...
Rather than avoiding people like Falstaff, he sought them out and won their hearts. This disparity serves to undermine Henry’s argument that Hal should separate himself from the common people as much as possible. The contradiction between Henry’s elevation to the throne by public opinion and his suggestion tha Hal avoid becoming involved with the lower classes can be interpreted in a number of ways. One cynical view might claim that Henry subconsciously fears his son becoming popular enough with the people to be able to overthrow his own father, but this is unlikely when we consider that Hal has shown no desire to take on the responsibilities and power of the kingship thus far in the play. Another possibility is that Henry is seeking to legitimize his son’s future kingship by returning the role of the king to that of an isolated god.
While he was forced to revert to other means to ascend to the crown, he desires that his son and the rest of his line will be viewed as elevated nobles who are fit to rule England. The most likely possibility, however, given the rest of the speech, is that Henry, like Richard before him, is blind to his true situation. Richard refused to acknowledge, until it was too late, that it might be possible to rule without divine authority, and while Henry, by necessity, realizes that it is possible, he ignores the true implications of this and clings to the notion that the king must be somehow different from the rest of the populace. Once again, however, his own words deny what he is saying. Immediately after arguing that Hal must, in order to prove himself a king, set himself apart from people such as Falstaff, the king acknowledges that it was only the opinion of such people that prevented him from being left… in repute less banishment, A fellow of no mark nor likelihood (3.
2. 44-45).
Had he tried to keep himself isolated from the lower classes, he would have been forced to join them, because, at heart, he is no different from any other person, regardless of their social status. As Richard eventually realized at the end of Richard II, the king, just like a peasant, is no more, and no less, than a human being.
The Essay on Hotspur And Harry Hal King Henry
HOTSPUR Vs HARRY At the beginning of the play it seems that the chief rebel, Hotspur, is in dispute with the King but as the play progresses we find that the main contest is between Hotspur and Hal, the King's son. At first thought, Hotspur seems to be the easy winner, for all Hal does is spend his time with his friends gallivanting around, stealing and drinking. Hotspur, on the other hand, has ...
Henry then addresses his own personal history with a passage which closely mirrors Hal’s earlier speech in 1. 2. Yet a comparison between the two speeches reveals many differences which help to distinguish Henry from Hal. Both speeches place great importance on, “being seldom seen” (3. 2. 46), but they do this in different ways.
Henry cites this as another reason for Richard’s downfall, claiming that his overexposure to the public forced them to become, “glutted, gorged, and full” (3. 2. 84) of him. On the contrary, Henry, by remaining out of general sight, was able to remain, “fresh and new… ne ” er seen but word ” red at” (3. 2.
55, 57).
Henry was limited, however, by his failure to realize the extent to which the kingship was changing. It was no longer determined by the will of God, but by the skill of an actor. Henry, however, clings to the one, accepted role of God’s chosen messenger and refuses to accept the possibility of a king with many faces. Hal, on the other hand, has realized the potential to use many roles to increase his power. His father was forced to leave the country in order to be seldom seen, but Hal is able to create different roles to hide himself behind.
Thus, his “Henry V” self is seldom seen behind the “Hal” role he portrays in the tavern. This is merely another example of the changing role of the monarchy, and it is made even more explicit when we examine the differences between how Henry and Hal view themselves. The best gauge for this is the standard royal metaphor of the king as the sun. This was used extensively by Richard, who claimed that the obstacles he faced were like clouds temporarily obscuring his royal glory. Both Henry and Hal steal this image, but in different ways.
Henry implies that he possesses, “sunlike majesty” (3. 2. 79), but he never specifically compares himself to the sun. The closest comparable metaphor is that of another celestial body, a comet. This is an interesting image for many reasons. A comet serves as a type of false sun.
It is greatly admired, but not nearly as bright as the true sun. It is also temporary, often not reappearing for years at a time. Hal, however, does compare himself extensively to the sun, despite the fact that he has not yet become king. His return to the use of Richard’s metaphor is not meant to imply that he has returned to Richard’s beliefs about the kingship, but rather that he has formed a definite system of beliefs regarding whom the king really is. Richard’s beliefs, as well as those of the kings before him, were based on the idea of the divine right of kings. Hal has based his beliefs on the idea that the kingship is a role to be played by an actor.
The Report on King Richard Ii & King Henry Iv
A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned ...
Henry, however, is caught in the middle, as he struggles to reconcile the traditions of the past with the reality of his current situation as a usurper king. Of the three, he is the odd man out. Richard and Hal both inherited their thrones legitimately, but Henry… stole all courtesy from heaven, And dressed myself in such humility That I did pluck allegiance from men’s hearts, Loud shouts and salutations from their mouths Even in the presence of the crown d King (3. 2.
50-54).
His actions lack the nobility typically associated with a king. His promises to participate in the Crusades go unfulfilled, and when he is faced with battle, he hides behind others. Of the three, he is the only king to truly hide. When Richard is faced with capture by Henry’s troops, he boldly goes to meet them, and while Hal hides his true self, he is merely hiding behind another version of himself. Henry concludes his lecture by attacking Richard’s reign.
For the most part he continues to warn Hal that mingling with common folk will prove detrimental to his kingship by claiming that Richard’s insistence on surrounding himself with unworthy people was responsible for his downfall. As before, his emphasis on Richard’s popularity with the peasantry rings false when the audience remembers that it was Henry who was the favorite of the lower classes, while Richard was considered a tyrant. Even as he faults Richard, however, Henry manages to preserve the sanctity of the monarchy. Regardless of his obvious dislike for Richard, he refuses to completely discredit him.
As a former King of England, he deserves some portion of the respect that goes with the title, and as a result, Richard remains a “great name” (3. 2. 64), and a surfeit of “honey” (3. 2. 71).
The Essay on Richard The Lionheart King Henry
Richard Plantagenet (Richard the Lionheart) was a king of England. He was born on September 8, 1157, at Oxford. Richard was the third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He had an older brother named Henry and two younger brothers named John and Geoffrey. When Richard was born, King Henry gave Richard the Duchy of Aquitaine which belonged to his mother Eleanor. So Richard's full name became ...
If Henry were to discredit the monarchy, he would risk discrediting himself and his son, and while he does wish to discredit Richard, he must be sure to walk the fine line between where Richard ends and the monarchy begins. One of the most important reasons we use language is to convey the truth, and often this purpose will be accomplished whether the speaker is aware of it or not. Henry’s concern for his son and for his kingdom are clearly evident in this passage, but what is most surprising about this passage is how little we learn about Hal and how much we learn about Henry himself. He has changed since the moment we first encountered him in Richard II as the idealistic young Bolingbroke, but in some ways, he is exactly the same.
In both plays, including the play named after him, he is a secondary character, or an instrument rather than the main focus of the play. He serves primarily as a counterpoint and measuring stick by which we examine Richard and Hal, and it is only through a close examination of some of the things he says that we are truly able to gain an insight into his own character.
