soundness of the person of the monarch as well as his / her strong claim to the throne , and that instability which leads to tragedy is a corollary of the monarch ’ s incompetence and lack of ancestral / legal legitimacy .
This can be easily seen in what unfolds throughout the play : as a result of Henry ’ s inefficiency and ineffectuality , the way becomes open for the rise of – in Shakespeare ’ s view – the illegitimate Yorkists to power and their ascension to the throne for a couple of decades – a theme that continues through to Richard III – when England falls into chaos and despotism and becomes overwhelmed with misery and fear , until the rightful and righteous Richmond of the House of Lancaster returns to salvage it .
I see King Henry in this play as a parallel of some sort to King Lear : both , being inefficient and ineffectual , have to helplessly watch the disintegration of their kingdoms and the havoc wrought upon their people by greedy and murderous others while it is they who bear the greatest shame and torment , only for being “ king .” This , I think , can tell us and also Elizabeth something about the responsibility of those who hold high offices . No matter what they themselves “ do ,” it is in their name that history and its events are written . In this regard , King Henry is a very tragic character , and he keeps telling us about it and lamenting for himself and for England throughout the play : “ O piteous spectacle ! O bloody times ! / Whiles lions war and battle for their dens , / Poor harmless lambs abide their enmity ” ( Act 2 , Scene 5 ). As a result , the whole country falls into chaos , which affects all and in turn calls for a massive ritual purging or bloodletting of the nation , which culminates and is – supposedly – resolved in Richard III .
164