Father/Son Relationships in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One

Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.

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,

In Henry IV Part 1, although Falstaff and King Henry act as father figures in Hal’s life and are both intelligent in their own right, the differences in their tone and diction showcase the major differences in their personalities and relationship with pride.

A relationship that has shaped Henry's life is between him and his father. Both of them are stubborn in their beliefs; beliefs that always differ from the other. Although they're Chinese, Henry's father wants Henry to be like an American. For instance, Henry can only speak English to parents that won't ever understand him. Once the war starts, his dad forbids Henry to associate with any Japanese. It just adds the the list of things that they disagree with. Eventually their relationship cracks, "His father was stubborn, and traditional. He hadn't just threatened to disown him-- he'd gone through with it. All because Henry couldn't stop thinking about Keiko" (191). Henry gets fed up with his father and stands for what he believes. Loosing his

Within the first act we immediately get to know Hotspur as Honorable and courageous, he is recognized as Henrys alternative son, this directly juxtaposes Henrys son Hal who lacks responsibility and willfully disregards his father. Hal has split loyalty between his father and his fake father figure Falstaff who is a fat jolly man. In Hals soliloquy he tells the readers that he will change his ignoble ways to be more like a true Prince. Hal becomes a symbol of modern commonwealth. “I will redeem all this on Percy’s head ….. When I will wear a garment all of blood, and stain my favors in a bloody mask”. This metaphor tells us honor is won with blood, this statement by the prince is ironic that you win honor with the blood of others. Hotspur deliberately attacks assuming to gain political leadership by killing the prince. “More active-valiant or more valiant-young, more daring or more bold, is now alive”, the repetition of More emphasizes how Hal believes Hotspur to be the soldier he is not by saying this Hal is showing traces of his father’s political acuity. “To save the blood on either side, try fortune with him in a single fight”. Hal volunteers to meet Hotspur in single hand to hand combat thus concluding the play with Hals succession in killing Hotspur and maintaining his political position. Yet powerful rebel forces still remain in

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 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:

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).

Falstaff’s soliloquy questioning the value of honour is an ironic contrast with how Hotspur and Hal regard honour. By now the contrast between their highly ordered morality and Falstaff’s own moral disorder is obvious. Falstaff’s inclusion at this point, when Hal has left his side and moved on, is necessary to point out the differing morality between the two, which was once so similar. Falstaff is of paramount importance to the sub-plot dealing with Hal’s decision between continuing his carefree lifestyle or maturing into the role he is destined to play as a respected prince and later king. This soliloquy continues the theme of another of Falstaff’s in Act 4 Scene 2, in which he is equally undisturbed by his amorality, and shows that his highest concern is for his own well being.

For Hotspur, who glorifies the honor to be gained in battle against worthy foes, the more hazardous the enterprise, the greater the chance of gaining honor (Prior 14). This concept of honor contrasts greatly with that of Falstaff, a battered old soldier long turned against the nonsense of military glory, who wanders about the Shrewsbury battlefield with a bottle of sack, not a sword,

King Henry V is one of the greatest kings that ever ruled England and was a favorite among his people. One of the reasons behind this is the presence of two men in his life; his father, King Henry IV, and Sir John Falstaff, his lowlife friend and bar companion. Both men represent two opposite father - figures to the young prince. It is the Prince’s ability to take and acquire the best traits in each that makes him surpass both of them and become great. Prince Hal’s relationship with both men is one of conflict. On one hand, his relationship with his father is tumultuous, while on the other his relationship with Falstaff is confusing.

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.

Falstaff and Hotspur differ significantly in their idea of honor. Hotspur believes honor is all about glory and being the center of attention. While Falstaff is only certain that the dead have honor but is unsure about what it is as described by this excerpt of his soliloquy, "No. What is honour?". Hotspur believes that honor is derived from epic or heroic deeds, these deeds tends to be very physical in nature such as the honor gained from battle. Bravery and the acts associated with it is an additional font from which honor can flow freely. This is described by the line, "O the blood more stirs To rouse a lion than to start a hare." It 's clearly much more

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: