Role of the Ruler vs Role of an Individual, Henry V
We talked a lot in class about if Henry was a good king or a good guy but I specifically want to talk about why these are both greatly separated to us.
When one becomes king, or a leader at all, they take on the role of being that group. They will do what they think is best for the group (in most cases and regardless of if it actually is or not). I believe that is where the biggest difference is between Henry V the king and Henry V the person. When he became king he gave up his right to individuality and had to become England.
Henry V could no longer no longer go out to the bar and hang out with his friends and be boisterous. Instead, when he became king, he had to become strict and allow no relationship to get in the way of how he should treat subjects or criminals. For example, Bardolph looted one of the French towns the conquered and Henry V had made it so that looters were executed. Henry V hears of this execution and doesn't show any visible emotion on his face even though back when he was a prince, he and Bardolph were pretty good friends. You would think hearing about the death of a friend would cause you to feel grief and show it, but Henry V had to forfeit that grief in order to remain an indifferent ruler trying to control and do the best for England.
In one book I read, "Of Fire and Stars" by Audrey Coulhurst, there was a character that gave up the throne because she knew she wouldn't be able to rule over a kingdom filled with individuals, different people with different needs and wants. She didn't want to give up who she was and what she believed for the throne. Henry V didn't have this luxury and had to learn that when he took the throne he would have to make the hard decisions. Previously in his life he was granted the luxury of being an individual with friends and able to be himself. At the start of this play he would have to immediately start making the hard decisions.
I could see going to war as an action of both individualism and acting as role of a ruler. The king of France called him out specifically, calling him a child and all that. Of course Henry V found this insulting and would retaliate but also he had a position, a reputation to uphold. He could not be viewed as weak as both a person and a ruler. I see this play playing with these two roles in these simple decisions.
Even the wooing of Katherine can be an action of both. It was very much a political marriage, a move to solidify the throne of France would belong to Henry V and his descendants. However, he also felt the need to actually get them to like each other at least a little bit. A decision that on the surface is one of a king but deeper down reveals a little bit about Henry V as a person.
It's not really a discussion of if he is a good king or a good person or both. Instead I see a lot of how the individual makes the ruler. Any ruler will make a decision for their own reasons, they believe it to be the better course for their country but little details can be a gateway to seeing an individual in someone who is supposed to represent an entire kingdom. I think this play does a good job at illustrating some of those little details so that even people who aren't familiar with Henry V as a person, we can still see a bit of who he was or who he wants to be as he thinks about his country.
When one becomes king, or a leader at all, they take on the role of being that group. They will do what they think is best for the group (in most cases and regardless of if it actually is or not). I believe that is where the biggest difference is between Henry V the king and Henry V the person. When he became king he gave up his right to individuality and had to become England.
Henry V could no longer no longer go out to the bar and hang out with his friends and be boisterous. Instead, when he became king, he had to become strict and allow no relationship to get in the way of how he should treat subjects or criminals. For example, Bardolph looted one of the French towns the conquered and Henry V had made it so that looters were executed. Henry V hears of this execution and doesn't show any visible emotion on his face even though back when he was a prince, he and Bardolph were pretty good friends. You would think hearing about the death of a friend would cause you to feel grief and show it, but Henry V had to forfeit that grief in order to remain an indifferent ruler trying to control and do the best for England.
In one book I read, "Of Fire and Stars" by Audrey Coulhurst, there was a character that gave up the throne because she knew she wouldn't be able to rule over a kingdom filled with individuals, different people with different needs and wants. She didn't want to give up who she was and what she believed for the throne. Henry V didn't have this luxury and had to learn that when he took the throne he would have to make the hard decisions. Previously in his life he was granted the luxury of being an individual with friends and able to be himself. At the start of this play he would have to immediately start making the hard decisions.
I could see going to war as an action of both individualism and acting as role of a ruler. The king of France called him out specifically, calling him a child and all that. Of course Henry V found this insulting and would retaliate but also he had a position, a reputation to uphold. He could not be viewed as weak as both a person and a ruler. I see this play playing with these two roles in these simple decisions.
Even the wooing of Katherine can be an action of both. It was very much a political marriage, a move to solidify the throne of France would belong to Henry V and his descendants. However, he also felt the need to actually get them to like each other at least a little bit. A decision that on the surface is one of a king but deeper down reveals a little bit about Henry V as a person.
It's not really a discussion of if he is a good king or a good person or both. Instead I see a lot of how the individual makes the ruler. Any ruler will make a decision for their own reasons, they believe it to be the better course for their country but little details can be a gateway to seeing an individual in someone who is supposed to represent an entire kingdom. I think this play does a good job at illustrating some of those little details so that even people who aren't familiar with Henry V as a person, we can still see a bit of who he was or who he wants to be as he thinks about his country.
Comments
Post a Comment