Not all politics change over the years

Is the king really like any other man? It's hard to tell if Henry believes that or if he's just being charismatic once more. It seems ludicrous to compare someone who was brought up to be the ruler of the country to a subject. There is simply a different lifestyle and mindset. Sure, the king is human like everyone else, but he is still inherently different in an entire view of the world.

Prince Hal really isn't different, despite his attempts to claim and behave otherwise. Certainly, there is a difference between Henry V and most kings, as his father inherited the thrown by force, and as a prince he chose to spend his days in the tavern with "the people"- if by "the people", he means thieves and lowlifes. I suppose that has served as an advantage to him. However, can you really compare him to those people? Sure, he took part in their doings, but even then it was part of a greater plan that involved his future leadership. He was never the same as they.

If anything, for all the complaints Henry IV makes in the last play about how his son is a disappointment to him, both Henry's are quite a bit alike. They are both charismatic and scheming. In Richard II, Bolingbrook seemed to have a similar style of politics by making himself appealing to the subjects. Yes, they executed this in different ways, Bolingbrook being more of the traditional baby kissing politician, and Hal being more blatantly scheming, spending time with the lowest of the low whom he probably knew he would be destroying later. Yes, I do think that the movie gives him a little too much credit. Reading the play, I really do have a hard time envisioning King Henry V crying because he's hanging someone he never respected in the first place (not to mention that that's not actually how hangings were done- - - but I digress).

So what is it that makes Henry V a more successful king than Henry IV? Is hanging out with drunken tavern thieves really enough to make you a good leader? Well, I don't know about that, but the fact that he would actually spend time with these people, as opposed to just smooth talking them, did give him the advantage of understanding their psyche. What do they want to hear? They want to hear that the king is no different than they are. Let's face it: that's just true in politics. How many times in presidential and congressional elections do you hear supporters of a candidate say "He's a regular guy, and not just another politician", when we all know damn well that that isn't true? Moreover, charisma that Bolingbrook had in Richard II didn't carry over to Henry IV. It seemed like something about him died after he "accidentally" had Richard II killed.

It seems to me that the reasons Henry V was a good leader are the same reasons I wouldn't want him to be my friend. Or, at the very least, I wouldn't want to go drinking with him.