"C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
>
> But he did build a good deal of ambiguity into his portraits of war
> leaders and indeed of monarchs, including the Tudors. E.g., from his
> text, you could make a good case for Henry V as a war criminal. (The
> matter is considered in an interesting article by that title by British
> academic John Sutherland.) --CGE
It's been a long time since I read Henry IV, but if I remember correctly, H4 is planning a crusade not through piety but to unify the homefolks and erase the antagonisms generated by the disposition of R2. And I forget which minor character it is, but there is that long speech on the eve of Agincourt in which he speaks of all those who will rise on judgment day missing arms etc. (overheard by Henry V & boisterously repudiated -- but ambiguity is certainly the term for that scene.
The real propaganda piece, however, is Richard III and its justification of Elizabeth's grandfather.
Carrol