Shakespeare’s Histories
Summaries & Key Questions
N. Lund; 8/15/02

Richard II—an inept, corrupt king is deposed and then murdered

           Richard II (1367-1400) is self-centered and inept.  His fall from power seems to be well-deserved and appropriate.  He wastes great sums of money on himself, forces heavy taxes upon his people, seizes his cousin’s estate, and directs his favor and attention to worthless characters who flatter him.  Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) appears as a strong and noble character, a chivalric hero, popular with the people, and worthy of the throne.  However, the murder of Richard II by one of Henry’s supporters bothers Henry greatly, since it was believed that kings were God’s instruments.  In Act 3 Richard speaks eloquently about the Divine Right of Kings (hereditary monarchy as God’s will).   The teaching began in the Middle Ages and was first articulated by James I (reigned 1603-1625).  The play ends with Henry planning to lead a Crusade to the Holy Land to atone for his guilt.

           Big Questions: Are all kings God’s instruments?  Is it ever justified to depose a bad king?  Was the deposition of King Richard justified?  Will God allow a king to be deposed and killed without terrible consequences for that nation? 

Henry IV, Pt. 1—a guilty, usurping king faces rebellious barons

           Henry IV (1367-1413) upset the social order and the peaceful succession of kings in England when he deposed Richard II.  He established the Lancastrian dynasty which caused rivalry with the house of York, leading eventually to the dynastic Wars of the Roses (1455-1485).  His son Hal becomes a chivalric hero in this play, overcoming Falstaff’s bad influence and conquering the chivalric but rebellious Hotspur in honest combat on the battlefield.

           Big Questions: Can Prince Hal overcome the destructive influences of his association with Falstaff and become a worthy king?  Will his experiences make him stronger?  Will his “reformation” speech (1.2) prove true?     

Henry IV, Pt. 2—a repentant usurping king dies a natural death

           Prince Hal becomes Henry V (1387-1422) when his father dies.  He continues to distance himself from the debauchery of his youth.  He makes a final break with his old friend Falstaff and shows great integrity and promise as a new chivalric king, reinstating the Chief Justice as his counselor.  But the challenges and demands of his kingship are great.  In this play we see a society on the brink of collapse, with characters like the gullible Justice Shallow, the amoral Falstaff, and treacherous rebel Northumberland. 

           Big Questions: What makes a good king?  Is Henry V strong enough and good enough to prevent the political anarchy likely to be caused by his  immoral subjects? Is God’s judgment still upon England because of his father’s deposition of King Richard?       

Henry V—a noble & valiant king wins a great military victory
 
            Henry V (1387-1422) presents the king as an epic hero.  He valiantly leads his greatly outnumbered English troops against the French and wins an impressive, landmark victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415.  Henry is portrayed as a chivalric hero: brave,  humble, decisive, and devout.  He prays to heaven for help, and praises God for his victory.  He inspires his men with moving, noble speeches of bravery, piety, and  patriotism (3.1; 4.3).  His chivalric character stands out in contrast with the foolish pride of the French.

           Big Questions: Can Henry’s faith and chivalry exist alongside the ruthless demands of kingship?  Is Henry a true, chivalric hero, or does he
become a cold-blooded hypocrite?  Did Shakespeare intend to present Henry V as an ideal, Christian king? 

Henry VI, Pt. 1—an honest Lord Protector struggles to protect a naïve child-king

            Henry VI (1421-1471) is a young, naïve, weak Lancastrian king who had been crowned as an infant after the death of his father.  His Uncle Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, serves as his valorous and honorable Lord Protector.  Ambitious relatives take sides for and against Henry which will lead soon to the Wars of the Roses (1455-1485) between the houses of Lancaster (red) and York (white).  Lord Talbot, a model knight,  and his son John demonstrate chivalric courage in battle against the French.  Joan of Arc is condemned to death, and Talbot is knighted by Henry in Paris (3.4).  Talbot and his son both die fighting, doomed by the selfish ambition and dissension among the English captains who fail to send him reinforcements.

           Big Questions: What will it take to prevent the collapse of this fragile state and civil disorder?  Is collapse inevitable and deserved?  How much is the king’s weakness and incompetence responsible for the unchecked ambitions of the feuding nobles?   

Henry VI, Pt. 2—a young & indecisive king is deposed by an ambitious relative
          
           Henry VI (1421-1471) shows great folly in giving back hard-won lands in France as part of his marriage agreement with Margaret of Anjou.  Henry’s uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, is falsely charged with treason and killed by envious rebels (Suffolk, York & Cardinal Winchester).    Winchester’s conscience plague’s him, and he dies in torment.  Gloucester’s ambitious, scheming wife is charged with treason and also killed.  York’s  rebellious troops win a bloody victory over King Henry’s army at St. Albans in 1455, the first of several battles in the Wars of the Roses.(1455-1485).  In the battle Lord Clifford and his son fight valiantly against the traitors and demonstrate chivalric courage.
          
           Big Questions:  Can’t piety compete with politics?  Was this anarchy and civil strife inevitable—caused by the usurpation of the throne by Henry IV and the house of Lancaster?  Couldn’t the good and prudent Gloucester have prevented the ruthless York if he had acted sooner and more decisively?  Can’t a devout and well-meaning king like Henry VI be a stronger, wiser and more effective monarch?   

Henry VI, Pt. 3—a desperate king agrees to a compromise
          
           Henry VI (1421-1471), deposed by the Duke of York, pleads to continue on the throne in peace until his natural death.  York agrees, on the condition that Henry will disinherit his own son and authorize York’s heir to succeed him.  In spite of their oaths  both York and Henry’s wife Margaret repudiate the agreement, leading to much chaos and bloodshed.  Both York and his youngest son (Rutland) are murdered.  The horrors of civil war are demonstrated in the battle of Towton (1461) where a father who has unwittingly killed his son meets a son who has unwittingly killed his father.  Henry VI is captured and Edward IV is declared king.  But Edward soon displays rashness in reneging on a pledge to marry the French princess.  Henry VI and his son are both murdered, and Richard, Edward’s brother, emerges as an ambitious, ruthless character who seeks the throne for himself. 
 
           Big Questions: Are these events moral consequences of what happened in the first play with the deposition and murder of Richard I?    
 
Richard III—a remorseful king dies of a mysterious illness; a ruthless, usurping king is
     killed; and a brave, chivalric king brings peace
          
           Richard III (1452-1485), Edward’s younger brother, proves to be a ruthless villain, putting his other brother Clarence and his nephews to death in order to win the throne for himself when Edward dies.  He is himself killed in hand-to-hand combat by the Earl of Richmond, a chivalric warrior and the last surviving member of the house of Lancaster with a claim to the English throne.  He will become Henry VII after his great victory in the battle of Bosworth Field, the final battle in the Wars of the Roses.(1455-1485).  The play ends with Richard’s death and with Richmond’s proclamation that the wars have now been ended.  He receives his crown and announces his coming marriage to Elizabeth of York, thus bringing the warring houses together, and establishing the Tudor dynasty.
 
           Big Questions: What was Shakespeare trying to say about kingship in this and the other historical plays?  What did he think makes a good king?  Did Shakespeare think it was ever justified to de-throne an anointed king?