Henry IV, Part I and Henry V are both wonderful plays, contextual with themes and rich in passion. However, Henry IV, Part II…err…pales a bit in comparison. The issue, of course, is that it feels very much like a retelling of Henry IV, Part I:

• Alternating scenes of politics and slap-stick humor,
• A prince who is disappointing to his a father, and his mad-cap friend who is simultaneously young and old, cowardly and confident, dim-witted and clever
• A king who wracked with guilt and needs to prove his legitimacy
• Rebels who are continuously trying to overthrow the country

Additionally, there are a few other things that feel wrong with the play:

• The play is named for Henry IV, so it should really be about Henry IV, yet half of the play is clearly devoted to the antics of Falstaff.
• Questionable historical significance
• And didn't the king and the prince reunite in the first play, so why are they at odds in the second?

Yet, if you're teaching the history plays, , this one falls right in the middle, and it just seems odd to go from Henry IV, Part I to Henry V. So what do you do? You focus on the aspects that make this play both necessary and worthwhile:

1. The country is in distress. Henry IV, part I opens with three groups seriously trying to overthrow the country. These aren't just a couple of different rebels trying to pass some time and plotting to overthrow the government; these are groups who have deep-seated distrust of the ruling monarch. Though at the end of Part I, Hal wins the battle, it doesn't mean that the war is won. Such grievances aren't so neatly tied up. Henry IV, Part II is really quite necessary in that it demonstrates the true tenor of distrust that permeates the country.