Henry IV Part 1 offers an elaborate meditation on kingship. As a monarch who has usurped the throne and alienated his most important allies, King Henry must figure out a way to maintain power while the rebels challenge the legitimacy of his reign. The play also considers the qualities and characteristics that make one a good leader by examining the younger generation. By contrasting the calculating and manipulative Prince Hal to his courageous and valiant foil, Hotspur, Shakespeare explores the relationship between principles and monarchy. The play's dramatization of the crisis of succession would have also resonated with an important Elizabethan political issue – at the time Henry IV Part 1 was written, Queen Elizabeth I had no children and no heir.
Questions About Power
Why does the Percy family challenge King Henry's power? Do they have multiple motives? If so, are they compatible? Are the Percys right to challenge the king? Why or why not?
What qualities does Hotspur have that would make him a good king? Does he seem better suited to lead a country than Prince Hal? Why or why not?
Why does Prince Hal say that he's going to stage a dramatic "reformation"? What does his plan suggest about his character? About his ability to lead a country?
Why does Douglas ask King Henry if he's a "counterfeit" when he confronts the monarch on the battlefield? What does this suggest about the play's notion of kingship?
Chew on This
While the play initially establishes Hotspur as a talented young leader who would be a desirable king, it ultimately suggests that Prince Hal's cunning and charisma make him a more suitable leader than young Percy.
In Henry IV Part 1, Shakespeare rebelliously portrays kingship as a kind of "role" that can be "played" by anyone with the right demeanor and costume.