In the play Hal is incessantly picking out defects from Falstaff and speaking about his negatives. He speaks about a ‘…buff jerkin…’ (1.2.35) (a constable’s leather jacket) being sweet for Falstaff. This could be Hal implying that Falstaff will get arrested showing the viewer Hal’s true feelings about Falstaff. In addition, Hal mentions ‘…Moorditch’ (1.2.62) (a foul smelling open ditch in London where beggars gathered) when speaking to Falstaff. This emphasises what Hal thinks Falstaff’s future could entail, again weakening the audience’s sentiments towards Falstaff. This frequent repetition of negatives may suggest a dislike towards Falstaff and maybe that Hal should not be spending his time with such a man. Likewise Hal once again throws Falstaff an insult and calls him a ‘…villainous abominable misleader of youth…that/white-bearded Satan’ (2.4.383-384). This offence is particularly momentous because Hal calls him a ‘misleader of youth’. If Hal is referring to himself as ‘youth’ then he is agreeing that Falstaff is doing him no good and that he would be better off without him. These frequent offences are happening all the time and are not specifically concentrated to a certain scene or section. Hal is therefore not having an unsystematic surge of loathe towards Falstaff but is in fact showing the audience how he regularly acts and possibly how he truly feels. If Falstaff is failing to satisfy Hal’s pleasure then Hal has no advantage of being or even knowing Falstaff.
Despite all accusations, Falstaff and Hal have a powerful relationship to the extent that Falstaff could replace the King in the role of Hal’s Father. Act 2 scene 4 in particular shows this side to their friendship, it shows them acting as father and son yet these two roles do appear to fit them well. Hal tells Falstaff to ‘…stand for my father and examine me upon the particulars/of my life’ (2.4.310-311), thus demonstrating Hal’s attitude and possibly his requirements. This has established Hal’s need for Falstaff; this is also true the other way round. Falstaff too has a desperate need for Hal, a need for someone he can take care of and love, a need for a son. This is made very evident when Falstaff tells Hal ‘…I do not speak to thee in drink, but in/tears; not in pleasure, but in passion; …’ (2.4.341-342). Falstaff is trying to show Hal his affection for him, just as a father has affection for his son; he is trying to give Hal advice and to guide him to a better future. All these things which he is trying to do for Hal are through care which amplified their relationship and gave it new meanings. Despite the audience having no real idea of how long this relationship between the two characters has been, it makes it seem like a long one, even from Hal’s youth.
On the other hand, Hal already has a lot of commitments to attend to and Falstaff will only impede him in his duties. We can see that Hal’s obligations are rapidly increasing and that he does intend to take them on. This is first made palpable by his reformation in which he intends to ‘…pay debt I never promiséd’ (1.2.169). This has portrayed the vastness of his duties and how difficult his future maybe. Later on in the play this commitment it is made additionally plausible when Hal reassures his father telling him ‘…God forgive them that so much surged/your majesty’s good thoughts from me!’ (3.2.130.131). Hal is tying to convince his father that he will live up to his responsibilities and leave his old ways behind. This means that he indeed will have to leave behind Falstaff for two reasons. Firstly, Falstaff is part of his ‘old ways’ which he promised to abolish, secondly, if Hal will have the duties of a future king then he will be unable to find time for Falstaff or for his ridiculous banter. However, despite these promises and his obligations, Hal agrees to Falstaff’s betrayal towards the end of the play, in which Falstaff lies that he killed the ‘gallant Hotspur’ (1.1.52), not Hal. This can be seen when Hal says ‘For my part, if a lie do thee grace’ (5.5.148).This comes as a bit of a shock to the spectators, after Hal’s promise to kill Hotspur himself and that he was expected to leave Falstaff behind. It has shown Falstaff as a thief and literally stealing away Hal’s honour. This strengthens the argument against Hal’s relationship with Falstaff, that perhaps Falstaff is only using Hal for his own benefit. Falstaff frequently speaks about honour and it is made very possible and almost inevitable that Falstaff is in search for more honour, this source could indeed be Hal, Falstaff’s supposed friend.
It is acknowledged that Falstaff is Hal’s entertainer as well as his friend. They bond together incredibly well all through the play yet to the extent that their affiliation could deceive individuals to be as far as father and son. However, despite this physically and mentally powerful relationship, Hal is frequently speaking of Falstaff’s negative side and showing his observations of how Falstaff has a dull and declining outlook. Falstaff however, is telling Hal of his bountiful future and is attempting to maintain their relationship, quite divergent to Hal. This could be for Falstaff’s benefit to both stay close to people of a high importance or as a supply of honour. Throughout most of the play it is made rather oblivious that Hal is trying to eschew Falstaff from his presence, yet at the end the roles seem to reverse; Falstaff betrays Hal but Hal maintains the relationship. Therefore Hal should not let Falstaff’s outrageous banter affect their relationship because they are strongly connected and deep down inside, they both want to maintain their relationship with one another despite Hal having other things to attend to.
