I believe that Henry seems arrogant, but I think he makes himself appear humble by claiming God (a Divine Right) gave him the throne, rather than to his own power. This speech kind of foreshadows and hints at what Henry will look like in the future, what his characteristics, specifically as a king, will be. He claims that his enemies’ evil doings are to blame, then views himself as an instrument of God. And that there is no other job than to further God’s will, which leaves him no choice as to how to behave and act; it’s an attempt to justify what he has said and done.

Westmoreland invokes a common belief held by the British monachy, and old piece of advice really. In order to invade other European nations, such as France, the English must first conquer Scotland. He uses a metaphor and compares Scotland to a weasel who takes any chance to take advantage of English weakness.

The other men think Henry is concerned about bands of Scottish thieves and small militias. Henry moves to point out that Scotland is unreliable and always seems to be looking for a chance to invade. The Scottish and British had a tenuous nature at best, and had time of frequent conflict. This was much like the English and Irish.

Henry realizes the chance that while they are away conquering France, the Scots may seize the opportunity to invade England and take advantage of their absence. In the way, Henry learns from the mistakes of his father.

This is the Archibishop of Canterbury speaking – a leading representative of the church. They have their own reasons for wanting Henry to go to war with France so when they see that the nobles are getting riled up, they sweeten the pot by saying that if Henry goes to war, they’ll work harder than usual raising money (in the forms of tithes from the common churchgoers) and will generate more money for Henry than they ever have for any of the previous kings of England.

Westmoreland (who is Henry’s cousin, by the way) is saying that Henry’s subjects are so loyal and eager to fight on his behalf that “in their hearts” they’re already setting up war camp in France. All Henry has to do is let their bodies follow to where their hearts have already gone.

This is a reference to the “holy” bloodline Henry comes from. That he is heir to the throne, and thus the brave feats his family has done run in his blood. Ely glorifies his family while assuring him it is in his blood to be brave and noble.

Edward, the Black Prince was Henry’s great-uncle (and son of Edward III) who enjoyed great military successes against the French at the battles of Crécy and Poitiers.

The Archbishop is arguing here that this law was actually from Charlemagne and not from the much earlier Pharamond since the Franks didn’t even possess the “Salique land” until Charlemagne subdued the Saxons.

The argument here is that “Salique Land” only applies to the specific area that is now located in Germany. Charlemagne is claimed to have settled French people in this region who found the local German ladies too immoral to entrust with authority, so in that region only was it forbidden for women to inherit the throne. French ladies in France would still be fit to inherit if a suitable man could not be found, only degenerate German women were excluded from the throne.

One of the tenets of Salic Law which the French followed was agnatic succession, a rule excluding females from being able to inherit the throne. This differed from the way the law worked in England, which leads to the dispute over the French throne.

Henry’s grandfather was John of Gaunt which made his great-grandfather Edward III who had a claim to the French throne.

Shakespeare here has the Archbishop expressing his belief in the cessation of miracles which would have been a hot theological topic in Shakespeare’s time.

He’s using a strawberry bush as a metaphor for King Henry’s maturation process.

To understand the metaphor, you need to know that the prince (now King) was wild and unruly in his youth, only interested in getting drunk and partying. (Think the cast of Jackass.) But now, as King, he’s suddenly become this responsible, respectable adult. It’s as if Steve-O turned his life around one day and suddenly became the next George Clooney.

Now think about a strawberry bush: on the outside it’s messy and covered in nettle, but underneath all that is the good stuff, the strawberries. So, the person Henry was as a youth (wild and unruly) is represented by the nettle of the bush, and the person Henry has become (stately, respectable) is represented by the actual strawberry fruit.

Now have a strawberry. Or a drink.

Here the Bishops continue to discuss the character of the King in glowing terms, raising our anticipation for seeing him in person- a common storytelling device, wherein a character is introduced by proxy. Similar devices are used in the very outset of Casablanca, before the viewer meets Rick, where the maitre d' informs a rude guest that Rick never dines with customers.

Never did persistent, stubborn bad behaviour vanish as quickly and completely as it did in this king.

This is an ironic anecdote written by Shakespeare. Canterbury is basically stating that Henry IV’s death made Hal an adult, and that it is a blessing that this happened because now Hal is the perfect gentleman. However, there is nothing angelic about the adulthood that Hal has to live. Ironically, innocence is angelic, so the fact that they are considering Hal’s adulthood to be an angel is quite the contradiction. This is also considering the fact that they now want Hal to declare war to usurp the throne. How exactly is the angelic nature when war comes from the act?

Knowing Henry respects the church, they are going to try and use that to their advantage, so the bill remains un-proclaimed allowing them to keep their riches and lands.

We need to carefully think about what to do here. If this bill passes, we are going to lose more than half of our possessions. For the lands which devout men have left the church in their wills would be taken from us.

This is the reason why Canterbury works so hard to convince Henry V to go to war, as he believes that if he can convince Henry that much more money is to be gained by invading France, then perhaps Henry will take the church’s side in this dispute.

In 1410 during the reign of Henry IV parliament had unsuccessfully attempted to confiscate church land.

Pleas for the audience’s kindness and patience are frequent elements of Shakespeare’s plays, and Elizabethan theatre in general. They can occur at the end as well as the beginning of plays; compare e.g. the speeches at the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest.

Here the chorus is basically asking the audience to forgive the actors (the spirits) for not being perfect replicas of the characters they portray.

In the real world, Harry (King of England) would be so warlike that his face would take on the image of the Roman God, Mars, God of War. (And you know, dude ain’t playing when he starts to look like the God of War.)

Of course, this exaggeration is in direct contradiction to the previous couplet. So which is it? Is the truest telling of the story to be found on the stage? Or in real life? Does it matter? These are the themes that Shakespeare (through the prologue) is setting up for the play.

The play begins with an invocation to the Muse, a tradition out of epic poetry (cf. the Iliad, like Henry V a war story).

Lines 9-14 are of particular interest to critics on both sides of the homosexual debate. Some argue these lines show that, despite his love for the young man, the poet does not want to 'have' him physically. The poet proclaims that he is content to let women enjoy the 'manly gifts' that God has given his friend. He is satisfied to love the young man in a spiritual way. But others contend that Shakespeare had to include this disclaimer, due to the homophobia of the time. "The meaning is conveyed not just by what is said but by the tone.

The theme of Sonnet 19, as with so many of the early sonnets, is the ravages of time. The poet expresses his intense fear of time primarily in the sonnets that involve his male lover, and his worries seem to disappear in the later sonnets that are dedicated to his 'dark lady.' Specifically, the poet is mortified by the thought of his lover showing physical signs of aging. There is no doubt that his relationship with his male lover is one built upon lust - more so than his relationship with his mistress, which is based on love and mutual understanding.

The poet is using a grafting metaphor in this line. Grafting is a technique used to join parts from two plants with cords so that they grow as one. Thus the beloved becomes immortal, grafted to time with the poet's cords (his "eternal lines"). For commentary on whether this sonnet is really "one long exercise in self-glorification".

The poet's record is, moreover, open to two objections; it is very imperfect, and, besides, posterity would not believe a full and accurate description of beauty, even if such a description were made. But the living record is open to no such objections; and, besides, it would confer an immortality additional to that given by the poet's verses.

In the perfection of joyous youth, which can last but a brief space.

The living portrayal which may thus be drawn surpasses every written record, and the "counterfeit painted by the hand of the artist."

It marks the beginning of a conceit based on flowers.

Shakespeare's first reference to the world as a 'stage.'

"It was generally believed that man's behaviour and events were influenced, though not determined, by the stars ('influence' is a technical astrological term = ethereal fluid flowing from the stars, affecting men and events), and such influence is described as 'secret' because it worked behind man's back ('unheard') like a political cabal or theatrical claque. Astrologers, of course, claimed to penetrate this 'secret influence'.

the poet first reveals that it is not through science ("astronomy"), his own judgement, or personal experience that he obtains his knowledge about life and love -- all that he knows comes simply and only from his lover ("But from thine eyes my knowledge I derive"). And the primary lesson the poet learns from his lover's eyes is that, if his lover refuses to create a child to carry on his (or her) lineage, all the ideals embodied by his lover will cease to exist.

This mastery and possession, as being, like all other men, subject to Death, it is not possible for him to attain. He may, however, live on in his children; and he is advised thus to perpetuate the honour of his house.

One of the most striking metaphors in the sonnets. The harvested crops, carried on the bier, wrapped tightly with protruding pale hulls, are personified as the body of an old man, carried on a cart or wagon to church, wrapped tightly in his shroud, with his protruding white beard.

Shakespeare here uses a literary device known as synecdoche (by which a specific part is taken for the whole); thus summer's green is the bounty of crops.

The exact meaning here is likely derived from the Old French hisde meaning dread. Thus we have a balanced antithesis in brave/day and hideous/night.

Would be the end of the world (due to lack of population).

O, change your intentions (never to marry) so that I may change my opinion of you.

In your children or you. This is not the most powerful way to end the sonnet - with 'thee' - as the poet has built up the argument in the last nine sonnets that beauty will not live on in his friend (in 'thee') unless he has a child.

Soul-killing shame; the same all-eating shame in Sonnet 2 that will devour the friend in his old age, as he regrets not having children.

This time the poet states his case using a music conceit. In the image of a family "sire, child and happy mother," the poet sees sweet harmony, similar to the gorgeous sounds produced by concordant notes. The poet seems to imply that his young friend is not a fan of music, which he must want to remedy. Merchant of Venice can be compared here.

The poet argues that, just as the sun loses its admirers after it has reached its zenith, so too will the young man lose the attention of his friends once he is past his prime. He will die unnoticed unless he has a son.

Here the poet continues to urge the young man to escape "black night" by fathering glorious children, and this time he tries the proverbial "strength in numbers" argument. Ten children would surely foil "Death's conquest," particularly if they all inherited the young man's beauty.

Here we have the introduction of "never-resting Time"; that ominous figure seemingly ever-present in Shakespeare's mind.

This time the poet states his case using a mercantile conceit. It is simply bad business for the young friend to spend his "beauty's legacy" on himself. Nature's account must be settled properly, and this can only be accomplished through procreation.

The young man need only look at his own mother to see how important his youth and beauty are to her, as a constant reminder of "the lovely April of her prime". The poet urges the young man to let another woman experience this joy, by having his children, and he too will benefit from seeing in his child his former "golden time".

The poet's lover is clearly handsome, and much desired. But the poet stresses his beauty will not last, and that it is selfish and foolish for his friend not to prepare for the loss of his youth. The only way he can truly prepare is to have a son who can carry on his name and all his wonderful qualities, including his unsurpassed beauty.

The perpetuation of your beauty. The grave, which will already consume the young man's body, will also eat any chance of his beauty living on, if the young man helps the grave by himself being gluttonous (in his refusal to have children).

The poet's focus in these sonnets is to persuade his friend to start a family, so that his beauty can live on through his children.