Prince Harry: Henry's Punishment?

In Act 3, scene 2, King Henry finally confronts Prince Harry about the way Harry has been behaving and reveals his dissatisfaction to his son. Interestingly, King Henry elucidates that he believes Prince Harry is “the hot vengeance of and the rod of heaven / to punish my mistreadings”. In King Henry’s mind, having a son as dishonorable as Harry, is God’s “secret doom out of my blood” and revenge for “some displeasing service I have done” (3.2. 4-7). Most likely, Henry has developed a guilty conscience for overthrowing Richard and catalyzing his assassination. Now, King Henry worries that his Harry is divine retribution, a rather cruel (though slightly humorous) assertion for a parent to make. However, one has to wonder if King Henry is correct in assuming his son is a curse from god, and Hotspur , whom Henry see’s as the magnificent “infant warrior” the added insult to his injury (3.2.113). As Hotspur’s character develops we see that he may be more infant-like than warrior-like. Notably in 3.1 (which importantly directly proceeds King Henry’s expression of dissatisfaction with his son and his comparison of Harry to Hotspur’s greatness in 3.2), Hotspur offends his powerful ally Glendower my mocking his cultural traditions of magic and paganism. For example, Hotspur challenges Glendower to “raise” the “devil” if he have the” power” to (3.1.56-7). Hotspur also often ridicules Glendower for speaking Welsh, insultingly saying, “I think there’s no man speaketh better Welsh” (3.1.48). Moreover, Hotspur complains about the way the river runs through his portion of the land, insisting it be straightened while Glendower insists that “[He’ll] not have it altered” (3.1.112). As if dealing with an unruly child, Worchester reprimands Hotspur for being too stubborn, a “fault” that “oftentimes” reveals “harsh rage / Defect of manners, want of government, / Pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain,” traits which all “Loseth men’s hearts, and leaves behind a stain / Upon the beauty of all parts besides” (3.1.179-84). Indeed, Hotspurs stubborn and rude nature, like Prince Harry’s mingling with commoners, may ultimately be his form of the “contagious clouds” which, like Prince Harry, “smother up his beauty from the world” (1.3 .176-7). I think however it can be argued that Hotspur’s appetite for petty arguments and his lack of political decorum reveals a person whose characteristics make him less fit for the throne than Prince Harry with his “flaw” of participating with the commoners and the lowly lives they lead. Is King Henry really correct in assuming that Prince Harry’s sociable and down to earth nature is really his downfall, especially considering how important dealing with different types of people is in the political sphere? After all, a parallel can be drawn between the Welsh and the English commoners, as both are seen as barbaric in the haughty eyes of the English Royalty. One need only to recall in Act 1 how King Henry disgustingly mused on the alleged practices of “Welshwomen” in the “beastly, shameless transformation” of the dead English soldiers , and how he described Glendower as being “irregular and wild” (1.1.40-6). King Henry and Hotspur both seem to lack the political art of dealing with people outside of their own group and transmit a condescending attitude toward those they deem they are above. Where Hotspur lacks all the social graces of a good politician, Harry seems to have the social training to excel. It will be interesting to see if Prince Harry really does cast off his former ways and abandon the attitudes and friends of his youth and adopt a persona more like his fathers. I am curious to see how such a transition in personality would ultimately affect him in his role as leader and in the eyes of his subjects. Last, I feel that Shakespeare is exploring the nature of divine retribution. How does divine retribution take form? Is it through bad heirs, as King Henry seems to think? Or is it targeted very directly to the individual who has committed the offense? Perhaps depending upon how the play ends (for example, if Prince Harry fails and breaks his oath to his father, or if King Henry perishes, but his son succeeds the throne in glory) will reveal what Shakespeare thought about the nature of divine retribution. And if nothing ostensibly bad happens to Richard or Harry, then what might Shakespeare be saying about the existence of divine retribution in general?