Comparing Prince Hal and Henry’s Models of Statesc Essay

essay B

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

raftComparing Prince Hal and Henry’s Models of Statescraft
To compare the difference between King Henry and Prince Hal’s style of
statecraft, first we have to understand the basic philosophy of each. The King
belives that to effectively lead the country one needs to lead by example.

According to the King’s philosophy the best man is the one who lives a pure life
and garners respect and honor from all men. To the King’s way of thinking
Hotspur is more fit to be a King than Prince Hal, a comparison the King makes
several times. In Act I, scene i King Henry makes his first comparison of
Hotspur to his son saying that Lord Northumberland’s son, Hotspur, was “A son
who is the theme of honour’s tounge…” while Prince Hal was stained by “…riot
and dishonor….” In fact the King goes so far as to wish that Hotspur was his
his son and not Prince Henry. Later in Act III, scene ii King Henry tells the
Prince that Hal reminds him of the way King Richard acted before Henry took the
throne and that Hotspur reminds the King of himself. This is the King’s not so
subtle way oftelling Hal that the King doesn’t think he is fit to suceed him to
the throne.


Prince Hal on the other hand has a different idea of statecraft. He expresses
his ideas in his speech in Act I, scene ii when he says “If all the year were
playing holidays, To sport would be as tedious as to work; But when they seldom
come, they wish’d-for come,…My reformation glitt’ring o’er my fault, Shall
show more goodly and attract more eyes than that which hath no foil to set it
off.” He is saying that he may be acting like a common ruffian now but when he
does take up his duties as heir to the throne and begin to act like a prince he
will shine more in the eyes of men because his actions now will provide a
contrast by which they can judge him. It is important to note that Hal does not
plan to spend the rest of his life acting in this manner. He does plan to leave
this life behind and take on the role of heir apparent to the throne of England.


In Act III, scene ii when the King confronts Hal about his delinquencies Hal is
quick to agree with the King. He admits that he has not acted the part of a
prince and humbled by the condemnation of the King swears a vow to redeem
himself or die trying. He so impresses the King that he is given command of an
army and then goes on to preform heroically on the field of battle, saving the
King’s life and ultimately defeating Hotspur in single combat.


At first it would seem that the King’s idea of proper statecraft and the proper
way for a prince to act won out since Hal put aside his old ways and became the
ideal the King had wished for. I think that Hal’s position and the King’s
position were not that different at all. As shown in the previous quote from Act
I, scene ii it was always Hal’s plan to leave the life he was leaving and return
to the ‘ideal’ that the King wanted. The Kings speech in Act III, scene ii might
have been the catylst but if Hal had never valued the ideals of the King the
speech alone would never have pushed him to the actions which he later preformed.

I think the King’s speech simply served to show Hal that now was the time to put
the old ways behind him.


There are at least two good reasons for Hal to have behaved the way he did. The
first is that by consorting with men like Falstaff he was able to learn how
things really were in the kingdom. It is very hard for a King living in luxury,
removed from the everyday life of the people to know how the populous feels and
to do a good job of governing them. King Henry, ruling from afar was an
impressive figure to the common man in England but it must have been hard for
him to relate to that common man. Prince Hal is going to become an impressive
figure to the common man but because of the way he lived previously he will also
be able to relate to the common man and thus better govern.


The second reason why it was good for Hal to behave the way he did is one of
self-preservation. King Henry complained that Hal was not like Hotspur, always
seeking glory in battle and commanding respect from men twice his age but if Hal
had been like Hotspur I think King Henry would have felt threatened. I think
that most Kings must fear thier successors to some degree. If Hal had been like
Hotspur I believe King Henry would have always been looking over his shoulder
worried that Hal might try to speed Henry’s demise so that he could assume the
throne. To protect himself Henry might have made Hal’s life miserable perhaps
had him placed effectively under house arrest or even killed if the paranoia
went far enough. Because Hal played the errant prince he posed no threat to the
King, indeed he showed no care for courtly duties at all. It was wise for Hal to
put himself in a non-threatening position until such a time as the King needed
him to take a stronger role. Because Hal took up his role as heir apparentat the
King’s request the King had no reason to feel threatened by it.


The differences between Hal’s model of statecraft and that of the King are not
great. Hal’s model is merely a refined version of the King’s and in its slight
differences it is a better version because they allow him to make himself into a
person better fit to govern and at the same time allow his father to continue in
his duties without spending time and effort to make sure his position is secure
from his own son.
English

Get access to
knowledge base

MOney Back
Guarantee
No Hidden
Charges
Unlimited
Knowledge base
Become a Member
unlock