HOW FAR DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VIEW THAT IN HENRY IV THE PRESENT IS ALWAYS OVERWHELMED BY THE PAST

King Henry IV himself is also running from a past that haunts him and keeps him awake through the night - ‘uneasy lies the head that wears a crown’. This unrest is partially down to worry concerning Prince Hal, but is also related to the way in which Henry himself seized power. Henry’s trouble stems from his own uneasy conscience and his uncertainty about the legitimacy of his rule. Previously he had illegally usurped the throne from Richard II, therefore breaching the divine right of kings, a power bestowed upon the monarch from God. This past troubles him greatly and suppresses his ability to become a great leader. The influence of the past on Henry IV is clearly great; there is no escape from it other than impending death. Therefore one can assume that throughout the play he is simply running from past events rather than focusing on the future, in this case the future of his country. This is therefore an example of how in King Henry IV Part II the past overshadows the present and the future.

The role of Northumberland as a leader of rebellion forces is also influenced by decisions made in the past. In the battle of Shrewsbury he decides not to send his military forces, which ultimately leads to the demise of his son, Harry Hotspur. Therefore later in the play when the rebellion forces call upon him once again his refusal to send troops to aid his son introduces an element of guilt as to whether to send reinforcements for the second battle. On one side it seems that due to his initial failure, sending troops would be the only way to regain honour, yet on the other hand it would seem horrific that he would not send troops to save his own son yet would be prepared to do so at this point. Therefore it would seem fair to argue that Northumberland’s past decisions overshadow his situation at the present time, showing how that in the play the past has an influence over the present.  

Falstaff seems to be the only character who can, to a degree, escape the confines of his past. This is mainly due to his nature, and his ability to escape from situations relying on his wit. Throughout his relationship with Doll Tearsheet it would appear that Falstaff had made many false promises, such as marriage and his word to repay his monetary debt to her. However, unlike King Henry he is not haunted by the worry of these events, he instead continues forward allowing them to take their own path, only dodging out of their way when cornered with no chance of escape. He is well aware of his illnesses, yet would rather brush them aside and live his life day by day, he turns disease into commodity and flirts with Doll through a desire which has long outlived performance. In this sense one could argue that in Falstaff’s case he lives for the present and the future rather than allowing his past to overshadow his current situation.

Therefore, in conclusion it seems that to large degree the argument that the past predominately overshadows the future is valid. In the case of many of the main characters previous decisions and ways of life have a profound impact on the way in which they behave in present situations. The past is clearly a powerful entity and one which plays a key role in defining the plot and decisions made throughout the play, in many cases overshadowing the present and destroying the future.