“King Henry's Skill as a Ruler in Henry V” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayOften remembered for his wild and childish characteristics, King Henry assures his fellow Englishmen and those who oppose him that he has evolved from Prince Hal into a competent king. Although some of Henry's actions in battle carry immoral implications, he defines a "competent" king as one who fully exercises the responsibilities of a ruler, as shown in his response to the Dauphin's assertion that Henry does not is still only young. Henry's calm demeanor and well-crafted rhetoric when addressing various characters reveal that he is confident in his abilities as a leader. Therefore, Henry's rhetoric serves to convince the other characters and the audience, rather than himself, that he is capable of holding the throne of England, because he has grown from his past as Prince Hal and “will show [his] sail of greatness”. on the “throne of France” (I.ii.275-276). After receiving the gift of tennis balls from the Dauphin, which symbolizes Henry's image as a mere sportsman with no capacity for government, Henry responds with intelligent and serious rhetoric. The Dauphin's insults do not dismantle Henry's attitude, revealing to what extent the King of England has matured: Henry says that he is "glad that the Dauphin is so agreeable" and grateful for the "present" and the “pains” of the Dauphin (I.ii.260). -261). As Henry converts the imagery of a tennis match into that of a war, his words and attitude become very severe; he declares that England will "play in France, by the grace of God, a set" and "strike [King Charles's] crown in danger" (I.ii.263-264). Henry acknowledges the Dauphin's references to the savage Prince Hal by arguing that he never appreciated his position in England. Henry, however, claims that he used his past as a child. “To be like a king,” Henry declares, he will “show [his] veil of greatness,” and the taunts of the Dauphin will “mock the mothers of their sons.” , make fun of castles” and let the unborn child curse the ridicule of the Dauphin. (I.ii.275-288) Henry's rhetorical tactics carry a weight of severity that is somewhat masked by his earlier wordplay. While comparing the war to a tennis match, Henry appears to casually make threats, but, near the end of his speech, he uses rhetorical manipulation to blame the cause of the impending war on the taunts of the Dauphin. The audience already knows that Henry made the decision to wage war on France before speaking with the ambassador, but Henry makes it seem as if the Dauphin's insults led him to declare war. Henry's manipulation also gives the impression that he is quick to anger, thus giving the image of a serious ruler capable of overtaking the French empire. The primary function of rhetorical manipulation, however, is to convince the Dauphin and France that Henry is a competent ruler; he could have simply declared that he had declared war, but his tactic places the blame on the Dauphin, revealing hasty and intelligent decision-making. In his argument with Michael Williams, Henry's rhetoric serves to justify his duties as king and to convince his soldiers that a competent ruler is not responsible for the deaths of his soldiers. Williams states that King Henry is responsible for the disgraceful deaths of his soldiers because those who die, since they were led into battle by Henry, could not disobey orders because they are the king's subjects. Henry objects with a series of analogieswhich focus on the structure of people dying following orders from a superior. Henry argues that a king's duties do not require him to "meet the ends of his soldiers", just as father and masters "do not intend to put their [subjects] to death / when they offer their services” (IV.i.151-154). Although a soldier, a son, and a servant are subject to their superiors, Henry maintains that a king demands service from his men but does not order them to die. Henry's rejection of responsibility does not serve to demean his power as king, but to assert that those who die in battle suffer God's vengeance due to their own personal sins. A king, Henry argues, is no more "guilty of [his soldiers] / of damnation than he was before guilty of those impieties / for which [his soldiers] are now visited" because those who die must be prepared to the justice of God. (IV.i.169-171) By arguing that "the duty of each subject / is that of the king, but that the soul of each subject is his own", Henry transfers responsibility for death to the soldiers. (IV.i.171-172) In speaking to the souls of soldiers, Henry targets their most intrinsic parts; soldiers are essentially forced to clear their consciences before combat, lest they experience an unpromising afterlife. Henry is once again clever in his rhetorical manipulation as the soldiers are both obligated to follow their king and also responsible for their own deaths. If a man dies without repenting of his sins, he is meritorious because of his lack of faith, and if he dies after repenting, it is to his advantage because his conscience is clear before the judgment of God. If a soldier were to live after clearing his conscience, Henry asserts, it would mean that he has been blessed by God for his preparation and should therefore advise others to prepare for death. Henry's logic and manipulation convince the audience that he is a capable leader by avoiding his soldiers' assertions of belief, and thus avoiding the negativity of death produced by war. By transferring responsibility from himself to his soldiers, Henry creates a system that encourages obedience in his soldiers while making their fate strictly a product of repentance and the will of God. After his argument with Williams and Bates, Henry expresses, in a soliloquy, how he is entrusted with the lives of all his people. The responsibilities given to Henry bring him nothing but sorrow, as the only compensation he gains from being king is a ceremony that has no value to Henry. In an attempt to find value in her ceremonies, Henry addresses "Ceremony" directly, asking her what her value is and why he should admire her. Henry states that ceremony provides only "place, degree, and form," things that only inspire fear in others through "poisonous flattery" (IV.i.236-243). Henry does not find satisfaction in the fame and glory that kingship is supposed to bring, because everything that results from the ceremony is superficial and meaningless. Since Henry views this Ceremony as all that separates him from an ordinary man, he argues that the reward of the Ceremony alone cannot even cure him of illness, thus depriving him of immunity against a danger common to all living beings. Henry's reference to illness places him on an equal level with his people, thus underscoring the fundamental uselessness of Ceremony. This rhetorical tactic proves effective because Ceremony is inanimate and therefore cannot oppose Henry's argument. As Henry refutes each supposed benefit of the ceremony, his argument builds up with clear reasoning, which later helps convince the audience of his competence as king. Henry..