The Prince vs. Henry V Essay

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 more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

    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.

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.

To establish the sinister intentions of Richard the actor, Shakespeare makes reference to his moral and physical impediments that leave him cursing “I that am not shaped for sportive tricks…I that am curtailed…”. Through the subtle use of anaphora and repetition of ‘I that am’, which is fleshed out by a definitive tone, the audience is made aware of how Richard is led ostensibly “to prove a villain” and thus, adopt a disguise. Moreover, Richard’s theatricality is stressed as he embarks as a ‘master’ of his own fate, for he perceives himself as “subtle, false, and treacherous”. His sinister intentions are exemplified by the use of tricolon, evocative word choice and short sentence patterning that create a sharp staccato effect. These intentions allow Shakespeare to subtly resonate Richard with the Vice from the medieval morality plays as well as the Renaissance Machiavelli who actively sought power, caused mischief, practised deceit and cynically gloats over his success. Moreover, Richard’s acting allows him to confide in his audience as he is paradoxically honest about his dishonesty, whilst also encouraging his audience not to detest him, but rather, take delight in his cleverness as the ‘director’ of the play. Thus, the opening soliloquy of Richard III offers an insight into how Richard manipulates the

How can power overpower the nature of a man? In William Shakespeare’s Henry V, Henry’s life is centered around his kingship which turns him into a selfish and stern king. Throughout his life, Henry has worked hard to prepare himself for becoming the king of England. Moreover, Henry’s childhood consisted of constant preparation for his future career as king. However, when he becomes king he disregards his foolish childhood, and focuses on his own wealth and prosperity. Unfortunately, his selfishness compels him to do wicked things that harm his country. A king’s job is to protect and provide for his kingdom; Henry, however, makes many decisions that harm his kingdom, which makes him a bad king. Moreover, Henry’s childhood preparation for his kingship has led to much harm to the citizens of England. Henry’s position as king transforms him from a foolish young man into a hard, stern king. As king Henry displays attributes of wickedness, selfishness, and ruthlessness.

     Both men had a common ability to see the goodness in other men as royal

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

The question that Shakespeare raises throughout the series of Henry IV, Part I, Henry IV, Part II, and Henry V is that of whether Prince Hal (eventually King Henry V), is a true manifestation of an ideal ruler, and whether he is a rightful heir to his father’s ill-begotten throne. England is without a true king, being run by a ruler without the right of divine providence on his side– altogether, a very difficult situation for a young, inexperienced, and slightly delinquent Prince to take on. The task of proving himself a reliable Prince and a concerned ruler is of utmost importance to Hal, as he does not enjoy the mantle of divine right– perhaps by being an excellent ruler, Hal can make up for the

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

     The parallels between Machiavelli's Prince and Shakespeare's Measure for Measure are significant.  The great majority of characters in Measure for Measure - the Duke, Angelo, Claudio, Pompey and even Isabella - display Machiavellian qualities. A comparison of key passages, both of The Prince and Measure for Measure, will establish this clearly.

King Henry V, is one of the only successful monarchs in Shakespeare’s plays. He displays great strength and intelligence. King Henry V is capable of uniting all of his people in his St. Crispin’s Day speech as they prepare to go to battle. The troops were greatly outnumbered and believed they had no chance at winning. But King Henry makes them feel like they are part of something important, and by doing this he motivates them to fight their hardest.

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.

Henry V renewed his family’s claim to the French throne after hundred years of war. Shakespeare is telling the audience in England that they are people of bravery.

Shakespeare adapts these tenants to construct a power thirsty character. Consequently, while the London elite was introduced to these ideals, Shakespeare shaped the overall plot of the play to exemplify the discussed the power quest introduced by Machiavelli. This results in Richard’s actions that lead him to kill his brother and manipulate his family into getting the throne.