Henry IV Part 1

Although the play is named after him, Henry actually plays a relatively secondary role in the text with his son stealing much of the spotlight. Furthermore, in the previous play, Henry seemed like the one best suited to be king, especially compared to Richard II’s fickle nature and clumsy political manoeuvres. But in this play, Henry and his kingdom are “wan with care,” exhausted by the threat of treason and plagued by paranoia. Hence, this play begins to show us why Hal, soon to be Henry V, is actually a more effective leader than his father.

That is not to discount Henry’s efforts, however – he is undoubtedly a talented politician, but his boasts about how he did “pluck allegiance from men’s hearts” is contradicted by later speeches by Worcester and Hotspur about how they felt betrayed by Henry. “We were the first and dearest of your friends,” Worcester laments to him, with emphasis on the past tense nature of this statement.

Henry may have had the talent to take the throne, but he lacks the cunning to keep it – his kingdom is unstable and rife with rebellion. In other words, Henry can merely “pluck” allegiance, where Hal demonstrates the ability to earn and retain it.

So do we sympathise with Henry in this play? Certainly the thought of an ageing father greatly concerned for his son’s wellbeing and crying when he realises he is the only one who cares for his son is incredibly evocative. And if we choose to take a less charitable view of Hal, we could even say that Hal exacerbates his father’s suffering and quickens his decline by putting him through the emotional turmoil of watching his wayward heir stray further away. Henry is also the victim of hindsight and regret in this play, as we see characters come to mourn the loss of the “sweet lovely rose” Richard while deriding “this thorn, this canker Bolingbroke” (even though these rebels are the same ones that initially supported Henry’s rise to power). But we cannot ignore how Henry got himself into this position – he had the king killed, he himself led a rebellion by assembling allies and waging war. Henry is far from a villain or a tyrant, but he is also far from innocent.

Another complex dimension of Henry’s character is his merit as a father. He certainly has fondness for his son – the two use the informal “thou” when they meet in Act 3 Scene 2 – and he spends the first half of the play highly vexed at his son’s actions. But is he worried because he just loves and wants what is best for his son... or is he worried because of how this reflects on his legitimacy as king? (Maybe a little bit of the former, but definitely mostly the latter!)
If Henry does not have a seemingly worthy heir, he rightly knows that rebel forces will be empowered to seek out an alternative. And since Henry has usurped and killed a king very recently, he also rightly knows that the possibility of this happening again will be at the forefront of people’s minds. So although Henry is not a cruel, power-hungry monster, it is also fair to say he likely was not an adequate father figure for Hal, and hence, Hal seeks out a surrogate father figure in the form of an “old, fat man.” Falstaff embodies a warmth, carelessness, and transparency that Henry lacks, so it is no wonder Hal would rather delay his redemption to enjoy “all the world” that Falstaff has to offer.
One thing is for certain though – Henry is a talented role-player. Regardless of his own fears or insecurities surrounding the way he claimed the throne, he acts deliberately kingly at every opportunity, speaking in formal verse and commanding his men with conviction. But he is also able to use appearances to his advantage (albeit not as well as Hal!) as he dresses Sir Walter Blunt and other fighters in his own uniform to create “counterfeit” kings. Though this leads to the death of the honourable Blunt, and presumably several others, it was nevertheless a crafty plot that contributed to their victory.
 
Through Henry, we are also given an insight into the influence of religion in the political sphere – the king appears wracked with guilt over his sin of usurpation, and though you could argue this is just a facade to seem remorseful, the fact that Henry makes repeated reference to wanting to visit the holy place of Jerusalem to atone (all the way up until his death in Part 2) suggests that there is some genuine contrition there. Ultimately, although the rebellion is not fully quashed and he is still coming to terms with his imminent mortality, King Henry ends the play with much more hope and optimism because of his renewed faith that his son Hal will be a good prince, and one day, a good king.