Niccolo M. Machiavelli wrote in “The Principe” of the 16th-century that leadership was largely a function of theatrics. To be a successful leader, you must be a talented actor or be convincing to win the trust of your people. The King was not surprised that his son, Prince Hal, was a lackluster leader at a moment when his kingdom’s political situation was in tatters. King Henry IV was completely unaware that Prince Hal had a secret plan to win over the people. While Prince Hal and Henry V (the future Henry V) may have appeared to go through a dramatic character change, they were actually just playing the different roles that their fathers and subjects needed them to. They are then the most static character in the entire trilogy. Shakespeare explores Machiavellian principles through Prince Hal. This prince is more concerned with theatrics in politics and achieving his desired goals.
The reader can “see” Hal develop into the King of the future, who will unite England. At first, according to his dad, Hal was an unrepentant brat, a rake. He hung out mainly with people who were the opposite of what a prince should be hanging out with. The most corrupt, amoral and evil character of the tetralogy is his closest friend. The reader is shown him gambling, committing a theft, hanging around with prostitutes or drinking with his idiotic friends at a local tavern. The Harry that the reader is introduced to in “Henry V” is a King who motivates his soldiers by delivering rousing speeches, such as “once again into the breach”. Character development would appear to be a process that will go into the soul of the prince, making him worthy and honorable. If not for this speech, it would seem to all that character development is being done to make the Prince honorable and worthy of following.
It is by my promise that I will deceive men. I’ll be so offensive, I can make it a profession,/ And redeem the time men least expect. (1.2.202-224)
Prince Hal starts to show that he’s not as dishonorable as the world perceives him, but is actually playing the role to appear even more like a King. Prince Hal may be a master manipulator, but there are several reasons for his actions: His father has usurped power and the country is in turmoil. His people must trust him and appreciate him in order to not dethrone the prince when it is his turn. The “redemption” of Hal will be a source of hope for his people. Hal’s development as a character is made to appear as if it was all a ruse. Henry’s most Machiavellian traits are also revealed, as the act he performs is just a tiny part of his larger plan.
Hal becomes the center of attention as the lies and truths of the situation are impossible to discern. Henry’s genuinest moment and most authentic act is when he discovers that Catherine can’t speak English. All he says in response is an “Oh”. He may be displaying a personality, but his actions and relationships are questionable.
On that occasion, it is possible to compare Hotspur with Henry IV and Prince Hal. Multiple times, both Henrys (in Richard II and Henry IV Part I) are portrayed as having the potential to become good monarchs. These are leaders who have a strong moral code, and most importantly, honor. People know that they’d make good Kings. Hal, in contrast, is a rake. A childish young boy, Hal’s father would be ashamed of him. And the King and people are both increasingly worried about what will happen when Hal becomes king. The plays show how Hal is a better leader and King than his father. Hal’s plan worked. While his father and Hotspur were authentic, Hal was not. Another Machiavellian feature of Prince Hal is the duplicity in his character that allows him victory.
Prince Hal dishonors himself and his father’s good name by creating a rift between them to give the impression of a depraved man. He confesses in Henry IV Part II how this distance hurts him, because he wants to weep with his father. But he also knows that it will make him look like a hypocrite. He also knows how the people feel about him. They are distrustful and afraid of him. He doesn’t openly express his sadness or cry. Hal will accept all the consequences resulting from his actions and what they may bring as long as it brings him the respect and loyalty of the people. Machiavellian thinking is evident in his decision that “ends justify means”.
Prince Hal has been a controversial figure amongst scholars for ages. He could have been wicked, manipulative and intelligent. You can’t come to a conclusion that is absolute, as this would reduce his complexity. Yet he feels for his people deeply and is willing to do what he can to help them. His father is furious, but he still loves him. He is not only a warrior who loves to fight, but also a great orator. Then, while Prince Hal might be the very definition a Machiavellian, he could also be a noble man.