Analysis Of Henry Iv 's ' The King Of The Throne '

Set in a 15th century England with rampant social and political significance, William Shakespeare’s play 1 Henry IV exhibits the existence of two juxtaposing worlds; the physical and the timeless. Qualities of the physical world are encompassed by the cunning Sir John Falstaff (Falstaff), whom upholds ideologies of humanism and Machiavellianism, demonstrating to the society that these intrapersonal concepts are useful in the preservation of one’s life. Falstaff also rejects the providential world of timeless honour and Kingship, believing that this perceptual world is not real, and instead, believes that that physical qualities of

In order for one to keep their political status and please their country, there are some qualities, traits and skills required. For some, political skills may be a natural or intuitive trait. For others, it feels uncomfortable and takes excessive effort. In either case, political skills must be practiced and honed in order to recap its benefits. For instance, one may naturally possess skills such as listening to others, communicating and commitment. On the other hand, one may not possess those skills and it may require excessive effort to possess those skills. Prince Hal realizes that he must learn to possess these characteristics if he wants to be a successful king. Henry IV, Part 1 by Shakespeare deals with the struggle of King Henry IV

Hal and Hotspur are the two most compared characters in Shakespeare’s King Henry IV: Part 1 because of the many similarities and differences that are portrayed by Shakespeare. The audience is presented with many aspects about each character very early on in the play, and it is then that they create expectations which can either be confirmed or contradicted as the play goes on. Shakespeare usually portrays a character through the use of literary and dramatic techniques throughout his work, either subtle or obvious. In this particular text, he has used a range of textual techniques to portray the characteristic of arrogance shared by both, portray Hotspur’s great honour, as well as Hal’s notable dishonour, and the ways that the two contrast.

It is immediately evident that the relationship between Hal and King Henry IV is undergoing an episode of emotional poverty, and so to supplement Hal’s emotional desires the prince chooses to spend a large proportion of his time with Falstaff, “the villainous abominable misleader of youth”. However, despite being branded the medieval morality play figure of “Reverend Vice” with other playful theatrical archetypes such as the Fool or the boasting soldier of Plautine comedy, it could be argued that Falstaff’s “villainy” and “darkness” is only a fraction of that embraced by the king. After all, Falstaff may be “abusing the king’s press”, but Henry is forcing people to dress up and be killed on his behalf in an effort to uphold his right to the throne, which was also won by rebellion and murder. Falstaff may well be the one that mutilates Hotspur’s body, but it is ultimately Worchester and Prince Hal that bring about Hotspurs death, and so Falstaff’s actions seem less reprehensible when discerningly compared to deeds of some of the other characters. And so it is Falstaff that ultimately prepares Hal for the political world, eradicating his traditional notions of morality and virtue and subsequently instilling in him a Machiavellian mindset.

One may ask, “What could have gone so wrong in their relationship to cause Falstaff’s close friend to abandon him?” There are many speculations to the cause, including, but not limited to, the idea stemming from Prince Hal’s soliloquy in 1 Henry IV, 1.2.173-195, that in order for others to see or believe his best, they must first see his worst. Prince Hal’s treatment of Falstaff leads one to question their relationship, introduced in 1 Henry IV. In this relationship one finds the notion that Prince Hal used Falstaff as a proxy father. The analysis of this concept will be based on textual scenes from The Norton Shakespeare and Orson Welles’ film, Falstaff Chimes at Midnight.

To an extent Henry VIII achieved his aims as King between 1509-1515. Whilst he achieved aims such as to have glory in battle such as with France to earn prestige and therefore establish greater power within the European countries, he did fail in some aspects with most set aim as king. An example of this is his inability to produce a male heir to the throne which arguably was one of his prime aims as king.

     Shakespeare deals with a parent-child relationship in the historical plays of Henry IV Parts One and Two in the characters of Henry Bullingsworth (Henry IV) and his son Hal (Prince of Wales, later Henry V). The fact stands clear in the development of the son, Hal: the son’s success in life is not dependent on his relationship to his father politically, but success is demonstrated when there is a realization of both parties on the level of parental love. Hal is not living up to his name, but also to blame in his father’s failure to love. Our discussion is based solely on the text itself, based primarily on three main dialogues between Hal and his father.

Proceed to the 1600s, when Shakespeare wrote his tragedy, Henry IV, which tells the story of after Henry IV took control of England; when he effectively interrupted the natural god given right to the kingship that was “mandated” by god. After he had done this the kingdom was then split in two. One half believed Richard should have remained on the throne and the other sided with Henry. However this did not affect Henry, to a certain extent, and he believed that there was a boundary between royalty and the middle class. Shakespeare wrote for Henry, “The skipping king… mingled his royalty with cap’ring fools; had his great name profaned with their scorns and gave his countenance, against his name… [60-65]” Showing the audience what is to be thought of a king through his own eyes. In this situation he throws out the opinions of his subjects, and outwardly expresses to Hal that

Shakespeare’s play Henry IV part one is one of his plays of history that takes the reader on a road of transformation as we watch the character of Prince Henry go from disgrace to nobility. Prince Henry also known as Prince Hal the son of King Henry isn’t a very well respected character in the beginning of the play, but we will see the reasons why and when he finally shows his true self, changing the perception not only of the King himself but others to respect him as he intended all along.

All of Shakespeare’s considerable effort in the association of Henry with feminine aspects eventually leads back to Elizabeth. During the time period Henry IV Part 1 was written during, Elizabeth’s legitimacy and authority was once again challenged. She was old and given to confrontations with her advisors, and her line of succession was still in question as she had not yet declared an heir. She experienced an attempted coup by the Earl of Essex and many waited for her death and the restoration of a proper king to the throne (Smith 207-211). In writing Henry IV Part 1, Shakespeare worked through not only the past anxieties of Elizabeth’s reign, but also the current ones. As Andrews puts it, “[i]ts depiction of an aging, infirm monarch, who worries a incessantly over the succession and who is pressured by a young and hot-tempered but popular and militaristic noble, provides an inescapable parallel to Elizabeth’s situation at the close of the century” (381).

"What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Creator calls a butterfly ..." Bach

William Shake sphere is a well-known poet. He is known as one of the greatest in the English language. Today his plays are still performed and studied. Henry the V is one of his brilliant plays that were reinterpreted by Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branaugh. The battle at Agin-court between the two producers was based on the same play but, staged so different. Kenneth Branaugh gets five stars for making the battle at Agin-court seem medieval, ferocious and forceful. As opposed to Laurence Olivier's battle that was not detailed.

Henry V (a.k.a. King Harry of England) has come a long way since his wild days as a rowdy and rebellious teenager don't you think? When this play opens, his days of carousing with his old scumbag Eastcheap friends are long gone and Henry is all grown up. Instead of spending all his time in seedy bars and taking part in highway robbery (like he did in Henry IV Part 1), Henry is a disciplined monarch and a brilliant military leader.

Centralizing a political theme of this whole saga is the consolidation of the country under the authority of the monarch, fighting with feudal lords, enemies and the deceitful behaviors displayed. Shakespeare tried to convey truthfully what is proclaimed to be war, and the personalities of others, but a significant part of the latter consisted polemical writings exposed the machinations of reactionary feudal lords and kings to chant. Consequently, this primarily explains the fact of what Shakespeare idealized in Henry IV. Shakespeare described deviations from historical truth, but they were not conscious of Shakespeare. An exception is the Shakespeare’s desire to reduce the duration, to satiate his events. Reading Henry IV it has endured the

One of the most appealing elements of Shakespeare's works is that, despite subject matter that is hardly realistic in today's general society, the heart of each play retains much in terms of human relationships, central conflicts, and humor. For the scholar the sheer poetry and beauty of Shakespeare's language remain appealing. Hence, in a play like Henry IV, Part 1, the subject matter of royalty and civil war from an interesting and dramatic backdrop to more common themes like the conflicts between personal affection and the duties a person such as Prince Harry is expected to fulfill. As such, Harry's person affection for Falstaff is ultimately overridden by his drive to regain the admiration and affection of his father in the name of his concept of "honor" not only to the palace, but also to England as a whole. As such, Harry claims that his affection for Falstaff and his roguish world was simply appearance in order to more prominently return to the world of duty that he knows is his right and destiny, which could, in today's terms, be viewed as ultimately dishonorable.