When selecting a topic for the final comprehensive paper, I decided to select the topic on The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V regarding royal propaganda and the image of royalty due to the very distinct differences of characters when reviewing both plays. This topic was interesting to me because it portrays a comparison between father and son in such similar circumstances. The two kings begin their character development through an apprenticeship to their predecessors, learning the ropes of kingship and identifying the approach they deem most effective in sovereignty. Both Henry IV and Henry V have similar upbringings but differ in their approach towards kingship; Henry IV takes the more stoic and reserved approach, embodying the traditional and ideal image of royalty whereas Henry V appeals directly to the public yet still maintains his authoritative presence through established credibility and his ties to the commoners. After identifying the topic that I wanted to write on, I then investigated more in depth by finding sources elaborating on the royal culture of the early modern era. This provided background and a more clear understanding for the two different portrayals of kingship in Shakespeare’s plays. What I found most significant in my research is the “actorliness” embedded in royalty during this era and how royalty often presented themselves in a light that wasn’t entirely reflective of reality. I wasn’t aware that this was such a significant aspect of the state considering it is still an issue in politics today with mass media.

Throughout the early modern era, it was common practice for royalty and even clergy to create an ideal image of themselves for the state in order to further the crown’s agenda and encourage public adherence. Kings would often present themselves in an appropriately stoic manner and the clergy would promote the perception of perfection and infallibility. These images presented to the public can be coined as royal propaganda due to the false sense of reality they created in order to promote loyalty and obedience to the state. In his work, author Lawrence Danson focuses primarily on the complexity of the Chorus in Henry V, expanding upon their interpretation of King Henry V throughout the play. Danson defines the Chorus as guidance for the audience on how to respond to the play and the actions of the king by linking the theatrical and historical circumstances within the text. Danson draws many parallels between the Chorus and King Henry, calling them the “mirror of all Christian Kings”. He states, “…the King too is only a man trying with limited resources to turn intractable reality into something resembling imaginative success”, thus defining his actorliness similar to the Chorus (Danson 28-29). He also quotes James Calderwood, a critic of the play, stating that “to play the king is to play the actor, for the king must have many roles in his repertoire” (29). By interpreting this very nature of the king as an “actor” and comparing him to the Chorus in the play, Danson pinpoints the significance of royal propaganda throughout Henry V and exercised by Henry V through his acknowledgement and relatability to the people. This idealistic perception of royalty sometimes created complications and weaknesses within governance through the king’s failure to uphold that image presented. For example, belief in hierarchy was almost equivalent to the belief in God, which proved to be true through the fact that inequality of rank was “divinely ordained” (Morrill 174). In comparison to the unattainable credibility one would strive for through actorliness, some kings would utilize this persuasion of the state to present two images of themselves: one being an authoritative figure and the other being a relatable and understanding leader. Through this false image presented to the public, whether successful or inhibiting in the long term, royalty during the early modern era distanced their true nature from the commoners and promoted royal propaganda throughout the state to ensure credibility.

Author Martin Gosman defines the roles of royalty during the early modern period in England in his work Princes and Princely Culture: 1450-1650. To depict the atmosphere of royalty during this era, Gosman defines the “princely culture” by laying out the debate between “king of the people” versus “king of the law”. To expand upon this comparison in leadership tact, “king of law” was the traditional and ideal view on how a king should carry himself, with stoicism and resignation along with impartiality adhering strictly to the law. “King of the people” refers to the compassion and association to the commoners, identifying oneself as the people within the state and maintaining those ties through fellowship with subordinates. In Gosman’s essay “Princely Culture: Friendship or Patronage?,” he states that, “royal propaganda likes to present people as mere ‘subjects’ of the realm, a thesis which, of course, does not always correspond to reality, since princely authority is not always and not automatically, acknowledged” (Gosman 7). This portrays the issue during the early modern period of credibility of authority and the image of royalty; people of the time varied on opinions of the friendly rule and the authoritative rule of kings, thus making it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of both. Author David Kastan further analyzes the difference between “subject” and “king” and the roles of both within society during the early modern period in England. Kastan discusses the shift between subjection and authority when identifying if a king can also be a subject during the 17th century. He goes on to analyze the progression of royalty, being separated from the rights and also the repercussions of the commoners, to a king of the people (Kastan 459-461). This is further exemplified in Shakespeare’s depictions of Henry IV and Henry V in both of his plays The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V. This shift, Kastan identifies, is the shift from the rule of royalty to the rule of the people; Shakespeare fully depicts this change in ideal governance through the depiction of King Henry IV and the development of Hal in the first play to King Henry V in the second. Kastan’s categorization of “king” and subject” along with his analysis of shift in ideal defines the roles of both Henry IV and Henry V in power, specifically identifying how they view themselves in comparison to the people. This contrast between the two characters formulated by Shakespeare will be analyzed and compared in order to identify the shift in royal ideals throughout the early modern era, ultimately concluding that King Henry V’s approach to the throne was most effective in persuasion due to the combination of both styles by then end of the second play.

Shakespeare, identifying this clear distinction between types of rulership and their effectiveness, utilizes the kings in his two plays The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V to embody these two distinctions. He utilizes King Henry IV to represent the traditional, “divinely ordained” king through his emphasis on credibility and maintaining that separation between royalty and subjects, thus becoming a “king of the law.” He then utilizes King Henry V, or Hal, to represent the new “individualistic” king through his lack of visible ambition to be that ideal figure to the public, but to be among the commoners and associated with them, thus categorizing him as a “king of the people.” Hal, however, utilizes this approach to not combat the hierarchical structure of the time, but to relate to the people and make them feel validated while still maintaining authority. In The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, Shakespeare presents the original and traditional type of rulership through the character King Henry IV; this character embodies the stoic and resigned ideal for a king which was prevalent in the more traditional authorities in England during this period. Shakespeare then presents the transition of Hal in The First Part of King Henry the Fourth to King Henry V in Henry V to contrast his father’s traditional rulership and use of royal propaganda with his “for the people” mentality by associating with and being among the commoners. Even in Henry V when Hal takes the throne, there are still elements of his commoner “for the people” rule in comparison to his father, though he does assume a more reserved and image-based role as king. Though the two styles are ultimately contradictory, they both present a type of front or falsehood to the public and promote royal propaganda for their own interests but just by different means.

Shakespeare first presents the traditional, “divine” image of hierarchy in his play The First Part of King Henry the Fourth through the actions of King Henry IV. Henry’s character is exemplified in Act III Scene ii when he confronts his son for his actions with the commoners, specifically Falstaff. As Henry addresses Hal for his misbehavior, he states how Hal is ruining his image and the throne’s image, which was incredibly significant to maintain during the early modern era.
The hope and expectation of thy time
Is ruined, and the soul of every man
Prophetically do forethink thy fall.
Had I so lavish of my presence been,
So common-hackneyed in the eyes of men,
So stale and cheap to vulgar company,
Opinion, that did help me to the crown,
Had still kept loyal to possession
And left me in reputeless banishment,
A fellow of no mark nor likelihood. (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth III.ii. 36-
45).

King Henry goes on to describe his strategy for obtaining respect among the people, stating that he “…dressed myself in such humility…” and his rareness in public in order to present himself with such credibility (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. III. ii. 51-59). He further describes the strategy of his predecessor, Richard II, who obtained his credibility through popularity and rabblerousing, similar to Harry’s current strategy. Yet in Act I Scene iii, Hotspur and Worcester speak of the king’s illegal assent to the throne, with Richard II naming Mortimer heir. Hotspur describes this illegal act by stating, “To put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose, And plant this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke?” (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth I.iii. 175-176). King Henry IV’s fixation on credibility ultimately results in being his character flaw due to his ambition to promote royal propaganda and placing a positive image of his assent to the throne in the public’s mind. This demonstrates the ineffectiveness of this type of rulership utilized in the traditional practices in the early modern era, creating inconsistency and uncertainty due to the distance between the throne and public perception. Hal, recognizing how his father’s perspective on royalty and credibility grows to be his greatest character flaw, takes a different approach for his image on the throne: being the king of the people. These two diverging strategies while on the throne exemplify the influence of chivalric ideals placed on royalty and how it developed into a norm over time; Henry’s actions depict that which abide by a chivalric code of honor whereas Hal’s depict that which go against martial virtues (Hodgdon).

In both The First Part of King Henry The Fourth and Henry V, Shakespeare depicts the stark contrast between the rule of King Henry IV, the father, and King Henry V, the son. Henry V is much different in comparison to his father in the first play due to his lack of visible ambition for power, authority, and known credibility. This is seen as early as in the first play when Hal is befriending thieves such as Falstaff. In Act I Scene II, Hal reveals his tactic of becoming a “people’s king” by associating with these kind of people, thus setting the bar low so when he does take throne there will not be too high of an expectation. He states,
So when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off. (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth I.iii
161-168).
This quote already demonstrates the major contrast between Hal and his father; King Henry IV’s ambition was to establish a positive image of himself whereas Hal’s is to establish a negative one. Yet both are manipulating royal propaganda in their favors to further their interests and ambitions of the throne. In Chapter 4 of Barbara Hodgdon’s commentary in her edition of Henry IV, she discusses the significance of education in the development of a prince. She goes on to discuss the difference between the education of the public during the early modern period in comparison to Henry V’s “education” without any classroom or textbooks (Hodgdon 275-276). Instead, Henry’s education begins with his development through Henry IV and his interactions with his father, Hotspur, and Falstaff, along with the rest of the characters. These interactions allow Henry to independently develop himself into the king which he deems credible in the uncertain atmosphere of England during the time. Hodgdon’s focus on Henry’s unconventional education and development into royalty promotes an understanding of Henry’s approach to leadership in comparison to his father (Hodgdon 276-281). Henry actively decided to establish himself as a king of the people through his interactions and experiences in the first play, as Hodgdon highlights in Chapter 4. Henry’s approach is best highlighted throughout his St. Crispin’s Day speech, where he relates himself to the common man yet still maintains that authority of a king to persuade his people before battle. At first Henry V states, “Such outward things dwell not in my desires” and “For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother” yet asserts his authority by ordering them to fight stating, “All things are ready, if our minds be so” (Henry V. IV. iii. 28, 62-63, 72). In this speech, Henry V demonstrates his commitment to his people by fighting among them and stating that none of the superficiality of hierarchy is of his interest. Henry V uses this appeal to the public to build his credibility and then order them into battle, demonstrating his goal not to override hierarchy, but to validate and provide purpose for his men. This approach to royalty through a “commoner” image allows Henry to successfully lead and maintain his power, in comparison to his father who struggled to convince his men of his authority.

Shakespeare portrays these two types of royal propaganda throughout The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V in order to demonstrate the progression of the image of the throne throughout the early modern era; though it was a belief that the throne and hierarchical structure of England were “divinely ordained”, thus creating that divide between throne and the public, it was common in the later years of the era to see gentlemen and clergy establishing this commonality between the two and softening that divide. Shakespeare successfully depicts this through the comparison of King Henry IV’s and King Henry V’s image among the people, one being a “king of the law” and the other being a “king of the people”. Ultimately, King Henry V, utilizing the appeal to the public, successfully establishing his authority and credibility through this image.