Henry IV Acts I & II

I have to say before anything that the history plays have proven to be some of my favorite pieces of writing. I like that they mix all the fun and drama of Shakespeare’s imagination with the actual history of England. Reading Richard II and now Henry IV is just as addicting and entertaining as watching daytime drama.
My first observation while reading, however, is that there is not one genuinely likeable person in this whole cast of characters. And if there is (for instance, I liked York in Richard II) they are not particularly important characters with smaller parts. Is this really necessary? Does all of the aristocracy have to be so terrible? Is there a reason for this? Was the aristocracy really just a group of bad people? I was wondering if Shakespeare was making the rulers look bad so that he could write in a hero later, when Elizabeth takes over the crown.
In the meantime, I find King Henry particularly unlikable. I remember the prophecy of Carlisle’s from Richard II and I have a feeling that Henry’s reign will come to a violent end at the close of this play. I guess Shakespeare is taking this opportunity to really make a point about divine rule- King Richard may not have been a great guy, but he was the one anointed by God, thus Henry could be a better ruler, but will not be given much of a chance because he was not pre-determined by God.
The Prince is also extremely unlikable. Of all the characters of the play, I think I dislike the Prince the most. How old is he supposed to be? He seems like a very stupid teenager, in which case I suppose his behavior could be excused or at least better understood, but if he is supposed to be any older than about 20 he’s really just spoiled and stupid. His great plan to make himself “-imitate the sun, /who doth permit the base contagious clouds/ to smother up his beauty from the world (1.3.175-177)-” so that he can eventually act like a civilized, princely human being and be praised for it sounds like the plan of a badly behaved six year old.
All that being said, I have to discuss Lady Percy. I find her to be the most likeable character so far. I always try to pay careful attention to the women in Shakespeare’s plays, and particularly in the three history plays I have read. I remember last semester reading Richard III, Queen Margaret, whom the people cast off as mad, prophesized Richard’s doom and proved herself quite wise. In both Richard II and Richard III, women play a relatively small role, and are used mostly by men to propel themselves to higher social ranks. In this case, however, Hotspur and Lady Percy are already married. I find the nature of this relationship to be slightly confusing. In 2.4, she seems to already have a more important role as a stronger woman than the women in the aforementioned plays, and it is not really her that I am interested in so much as him. Hotspur generally is rude and dismissive toward his wife, and I certainly don’t like him but there are parts of this interaction that make me wonder if he really means what he says? If in fact he doesn’t, then he might prove to be more likable by the end of the play. I’m interested to see if she plays a bigger role in the play as it progresses.