Shakespeare was a Brit. That's no surprise. And as a Brit at the time he lived (pre-tabloid, pre-house of lords) hemore or less had to portray the past English Kings as all around good chaps. As it turns out, most people who are bent on expanding their power, aren't so nice to be around. Most of the British Monarchy were pretty foul human beings.

In Henry IV, part I there a number of discrepancies between Shakespeare's history and current historical thought.

Each square contains a quote or a stage direction from Shakespeare's play. When you move the cursor over the square you get another version of the event.

Enjoy, pardners! But watch out for the Basho!

The

Discrepancy Page!

Yes, there are discrepancies between Shalespeare's version of Henry IV and other historian's versions of Henry IV. Shakespeare never sold himself as a historian. He had certain things like drama and entertainment to consider. And there is also the possibility that putting down the British Monarchy would not have been healthy for good ol' Will.

It's interesting to point out, though, that through Shakepeare's texts, a kind of propaganda, which Henry IV would have been proud to have authored himself, lives on.

Henry IV, even before he was king realized the power of spreading the word. As a young man he encouraged accounts of himself as someone who gave money to the lower classes, who had far-off adventures and who commanded respect from anyone around him. He certainly must have been a well connected man to have usurped the throne from Richard II as he did, but was he the man he made himself out to be? Probably not.