Prince Hal in Shakespeare's Henriad Essay

The popular view of Hal as a dishonorable scoundrel is what brings King Henry IV, his father, to compare him to the high-strung and vibrant young rebel, Hotspur. King Henry's constant tirades stating that he wished Hotspur was his son

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

Raising a child is always a challenging and time-consuming task, and raising a prince is even more difficult. Henry puts his leadership aside to focus his efforts upon preventing Prince Hal from absolute corruption or even betrayal. Hal enjoys the company of an unruly thief, the drunkard John Falstaff, as well as several other less respectable persons. Henry is more realistic and rational than Richard, and he is able to see that his position is not a good one. He may fear that he is a bad example for his son, for he too was a robber when he stole the throne. He fears that his son will ruin his image as king or even assist in overthrowing him;

    According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel.  This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne.  The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants.  By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.

n Shakespeare's King Henry V, King Henry prepares his troops for battle with a passionate speech about fighting, honor, and kinship. Henry uses strong ethos and pathos to persuade his men to fight the French, though they are outnumbered in the battle. Henry notes that his troops feel unprepared and overwhelmed for battle. This speech marks the moment where the boy Hal transforms into King Henry. For the first time, Henry takes on the role of a valiant king and takes control of the situation. He seizes the moment to prepare them and inspire them. Henry hopes by making an effective speech his men will understand why they need to fight.

Act one, scene one, stresses the motif of honor in war, in characters, and, most importantly, in offspring. However, while Henry sees “riot and dishonor” in his son, Hal sees a father who has stolen his title by disgracing a king (1.1.84). Shakespeare wouldn’t dream of imposing his personal beliefs of who is honorable or who is dishonorable for the simple fact that it is obvious honor is perceived differently by each individual, as in each character’s perception and the imagery that surrounds that character. As Hal tries to discover the true meaning of honor, readers take the journey along with him. Hal realizes that honor is ambiguous when utilized to plead for emotional retort, yet leaves no margin for error when used as personal description,

Although King Henry and Falstaff are extremely different characters, both do act as father figures in Hal’s life with Falstaff as a surrogate father and King Henry as Hal’s birth father. With King Henry, this fatherly relationship emerges as one of blindly scolding and ordering around his son, an example being when the King criticizes Hal’s friends, “rude society” (3.2.14). The relationship with Hal and his surrogate father, Falstaff, though is much more relaxed with Falstaff teasing Hal, by touching on Hal’s slight insecurity of taking care of his princely duties, calling Hal “true prince” (2.4.106). Although both these relationships are very different in how relaxed they are, there is a similarity of King Henry and Falstaff acting as fatherly figures in Hal’s life.

In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part 1 Prince Hal’s world influences him to transform into a strong leader that will influence . With all the detail of politics and the diverse of social status of the Tavern, the King, and the Rebels; each sector of this story has compiled together to create Hal from a rebellious boy into a persona with ideals and experience.

The scene is filled with bawdy references and second meanings, meanings which the audience would undoubtedly find uproarously funny. Hal, too, often speaks this language of the lower classes, especially when chiding Falstaff: "These lies are like the father that begets them--gross as a mountain, open, palpable. Why, thou clay-brained guts, thou knotty-pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow-catch--" (I Henry IV, II. iv. 224-227). The language Shakespeare uses in the tavern scenes is certainly different from the more solemn and courtly language found in the plays' more dramatic moments, as in Hal's gallantry towards Hotspur upon the latter's death:

Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play. Through characterization Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play Hal has

This gives Hal a constant sense of inaptness. Knowing that his father thinks low of him drives him more towards Falstaff who praises him at all times, giving him the support he needs at such age. Hal’s disobedience is partly a stubborn reaction to his father’s criticism and partly a rebellion that is natural in his age. On the other hand, King Henry IV is haunted by a sense of guilt that is translated to a feeling of suspicion towards his own son. The source of this guilt is his usurping of the throne and, in a way or another, being a participant in the killing of Richard II, if not by giving the orders at least by turning a blind eye to it. King Henry IV unconsciously harbors a belief that God will punish him for doing this through his son. He expects that it will either be the fall of Hal when he succeeds him or Hal overthrowing him and taking over the throne. However, both options lead the king to treat his son with caution. An example of this is his fury when he wakes up to find that his crown is missing and thinking that his son wishes his death to become the king.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

Lastly, the tense relationship between Hal and his father, King Henry IV is also a Shakespearean example of intergenerational conflict. Hal’s upbringing shows similarities with the tale of the prodigal son, which was popular in the medieval time period. Hal is a disappointment to his father, which we learn when King Henry tells Westmorland that he envies the Percy family for having such a noble and honorable son:

A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.

of Act 5.4, using his realization and motivation as a basis for his actions, Hal