Henriad (History Plays, Book 5)

Author's Note

This work is based off of Shakespeare's three plays, Henry IV parts 1 and 2 and Henry V. I used historical context to streamline ages (Shakespeare's timeline is non-sensical for the most part), however I too took liberties with the actual historical timeline.
Richard Caterbury (Ned) was a real person, a priest (correct spelling is Courtenay, Shakespeare conflates him with the Bishop of Cantbury, he was in fact Bishop of Norwich) who was a childhood friend of Harry. He was known for his beauty and intelligence, and worked closely with the young king before Richard eventually died of dysntry while on campaign for Harry. Harry was eventually buried next to Richard in Westiminister, when he too died of dysentry a few years later, which was not very heterosexual of them. Jokes aside, rumors of the nature of their relationship persist but as Henry V was known as a pious man it's possible they merely had a plantonic bond as they were both deeply religious. Either way, Henry didn't marry until he met Kate, after Richard's death, and he was not known for having any affairs.
Ned Poinz seems to take Richard's place in Shakespeare's first two plays, but Richard himself does appear in Henry V, as a Bishop delivering the famous tennis balls, but chronologically Richard died at Harfluer, mid play. Whatever Shakespeare's motive for having two characters, I chose to have one for sake continuity, as Poinz is mysteriously absent in the third play. Courtenay, Shakespeare didn't know was Henry's friend, at Shakespeare's time he was thought to be 15-20 years older and a father figure, in reality they were acquainted at least from mid teens and about the same age. For continuity I collapsed the real person/relationship into Ned, and explained his absence, as Ned is completely absent from the third play for no apparent reason. I assume Shakespeare just needed to give Harry someone to play off in the first two so he invented a young companion, who Henry certainly had, Shakespeare and we didn't know the name. Sadly, Shakespeare would have LOVED writing Courtenay's rather intense, duplicitous, and rather gay character, but he didn't have any real information that he was anyone beyond one of Henry's privy council.
Kate and Henry's courtship scene from Henry V is relatively famous, and it is generally staged as a sweet, flirtatious interaction. In reality, Henry was in his mid thirties at the time, and Kate was nineteen. The marriage was a political alliance, and Henry left his by then pregnant wife in England, and returned to France where he would die, never meeting his son, by design. Kate herself was all right, she barely knew her husband, and pretty quickly began an affair (if it had not already begun) with Owen Tudor, one of the page boys that helped convey her back to England. She and Owen would have several children, the eldest being Edmund Tudor, father of Henry Richmond (Henry VII).  In reality the couple was cordial at best, Henry showed little to no interest in women his whole life, his most meaningful relationships (unknown if they were sexual) were with men, and he made no attempts to come home and meet his son, which he well could have.
I chose to make Harry and Kate have a loving relationship because that's how it's portrayed in the play. I also chose to have Harry have the relationship with Richard, because we do have some historical evidence and also because I didn't want Kate to be his first love. It's a very transient book and it's very much about enjoying the moment and life's experiences, I didn't want it to feel like we'd waited the whole thing for them to get together. It's also coming of age story so I thought it was in the spirit of Shakespeare that the relationship with Ned was romantic, as Shakespeare usually put in queer narratives often as possible, he just didn't know it was possible here.
Oldcastle and Falstolff were among two of several essentially guardians who oversaw our prince Harry's upbringing and education while his father was on various campaigns and exiles. Neither real character bear any real resemblance to Shakespeare's Falstaff, whose interesting relationship with Harry is entirely fictional, to the extent that Shakespeare himself was forced to change the name of the character from Oldcastle to Falstaff. Oldcastle was more so, Fastolf was in charge mainly of Thomas.
Harry's complete list of siblings do not appear in the plays, I took their names and ages for historical context, as well as Edmund Mortimer, who likewise does not appear.
True to this novel, Henry was about sixteen at the time he fought Hotspur (Hotspur was an adult, however). In reality, we don't know if he personally killed Hotspur or not, likely not since he was on the opposite side of the field (it was due to him the battle was won though). During the battle, however, he did get shot through the cheek with an arrow. In a medical miracle of the time, it was removed with no real lasting effects other than scarring. The king was never painted from his right side so we do not know the extent of the damage, though simply put based on the description of surgery, it was likely severe. It's unlikely his cheekbone survived and he at least had severe scarring given his face was cut away to reveal the arrow...at worst he likely had a permanent hole where the arrow entered.
In reality, Henry IV died at the age of forty five, a full ten years after the battle of Shrewsberry, when his son was in his mid twenties. I condensed that time line to be more similar to Shakespeare's for the sake of continuity. Shakespeare doesn't specify technically. Henry IV was remarried to Joan, and he did have at least one illegitimate child from another relationship. Henry IV did not personally kill Richard II, though it was more than likely at his command.
Richard II, is mentioned briefly in this novel. In reality, Richard did take in and foster the Lancaster children, training Harry and probably Thomas in war fare. Their mother was already dead and with Henry Bolingbroke either at war or banished, the six Lancaster children were in part cared for at court. Henry V later had Richard II interred, which hints a fond enough relationship with the late king whom his father deposed. From historical context, it is believed that Richard II did suffer from some sort of mood disorder, such as schizophrenia, which is what he is stated to have here. In reality there's no real evidence Richard did, debates aside if he was a good king or not, he was fairly consistent and reacted to situations understandably, and overall was a pretty nice guy to his little cousins.
This is based off of historical notes and reports of his moods and behavior. Given that the Lancaster children were fond enough of him, and that he had an apparently good relationship with his wife, Anne, I personally do not believe he had schizophrenia, which usually manifests in the mid to late twenties, by which point Richard was sadly at the end of his life. Richard was terribly in-bred, and a more physiological cause such as untreated maladies of the heart or blood, could easily have caused what was perceived as an ill mood. Similarly, Tourette's syndrome would explain what people perceived as outbursts, and would in fact manifest in childhood as Richard's illness did.
Again, based off the fact that his personal family was apparently fond enough of him (including Henry Bolingbroke for a time, and his father John of Gaunt) I would suspect that he did not have a massive mood disorder, which would be unlikely to manifest so young, and would have alienated people sooner. Henry obviously had fond enough memories of him from age twelve, which feels unlikely had Richard been raving with psychosis. However, because it is often concluded he was schizophrenic I did that here, in which case he'd be medicated because it's not the middle ages and he'd get to function in society.
In reality, Richard's Anne died of illness, not suicide. I really had so many people in this story dying of illness I just, kind of wanted to not. I mean it's based on the middle ages I know but like still. I added it to add gravity to Henry's blood revenge, and because it put the agency back in her hands. She choose to die. She doesn't get much if any page time, but in the end, she lost her soul mate, and she made a choice, she wasn't taken by illness and her death serves nothing but to free her and then in turn we get to see though how that choice affected her son and the Lancaster children.
The rest of the Lancaster's I based off of historical precedent and tried to keep them true to their characters, including physical descriptions. For more information on any of these topics, check out Encyclopedia Britannica, english.monarchs.uk, Westminster Abbey (mostly for things about Richard/Ned, who I couldn't find a lot on, Richard Courtenay has no biography's written), and of course if you haven't, Shakespeare's plays. The BBC Hollow Crown series is very, very good and does the entire Henriad. Kenneth Brannaugh has a version as well which I do not like other than the courtship scene, which he does with his then-wife the brilliant Emma Thompson, because they were in fact in a relationship at the time of filming it's a really good scene, however overall I prefer the Hollow Crown's Tom Hiddleston as our Prince Harry. Last I checked his 'band of brothers' and 'once more unto the breach' speeches are on Youtube as clips from the series.
Final Note; Henry V is my brother's favorite play so I've been told I'm not allowed to have my gross high school fanfiction mess it up. It is not my favorite play, Richard III is my favorite play because apparently I have personal problems.