Introduction
Sir Henry Percy fondly known as Hotspur was born in the year 1364 and died in the year 1403 as the first son the third Earl of Northumberland also known by the name Henry the third. He started to gain popularity when he went to the Scottish border six years later and was working with his father.
It was then that he earned the name Hotspur since he took leadership in the north and where he had the responsibility of defending the northern. While he was there, he was able to accomplish many things that made him an outstanding character from the others such as he was the one who killed the second earl of Douglas in the year 1388 although he was arrested and thus earned the name (Shakespeare). Together with his father, they captured the Fourth Earl of Douglas during a battle that took place in Homidolm Hill in the year 1402 among many other achievements.
Hotspurs Personality that Disqualifies Him from being a Good King
Percy’s wife was Lady Elizabeth Mortimer who was the daughter of still another noble family and with whom he got a son and two daughters with. Although he raised a family with his wife, he would neglect her to an extent that he had a separate bedroom so that they would not share thus neglecting the conjugal rights of the wife. He preferred political activates and more so battles than spending time together with the wife and to an extent he would openly ridicule women. This means that he looked down upon women as lesser beings and thus would not make a good king. Any king is supposed to look at all human beings as equal and the good deeds should first be recognized and appreciated by his family before society acknowledges them.
He was short-tempered which again disqualified him from being a qualified king. Any king is expected to be in a position to rationalize things before reacting despite the intensity since they handle crucial issues involving the nation that could not only affect the people involved but bring a nation down for ages. This is clearly evidenced at an instance when the kings argued over the best place to dispose of some prisoners they had captured in Scotts (Shakespeare, p. 37).
Percy wanted to be allowed to have Douglass as one of his personal prisoners and deal with him in whatever way he felt it would suit him. On the other hand, Hotspur was for the prisoner being given to Glendower in exchange for his brother-in-law. Since they could not agree, they were summoned to court to solve the issue. In the process, the argument turned to an exchange of words to a point when Henry regarded Percy as a traitor and went to an extent of striking him and even plunged a knife on him while Percy just answered him in words only. This shows that Percy was tolerant and was capable of handling crucial situations more than Henry.
Over-determination was the other aspect that could have rendered Hotspur a poor leader. The instance of the argument and the repercussions shows that Hotspur was always rigid in his mind and was always determined to win in every difficult situation hence could not give in to listen to the views of the other people which is a character that any good leader should possess.
He would also get into constant arguments with his father as a result of his determination which the father could not see thus frequent conflicts. Good leaders should be tactical enough to solve and win people’s favor through the choice of words and not getting into arguments and fights and especially with those in power which could be looked at as disrespect to those in authority. This is a character not expected of people who would want to be leaders at a point.
He was a rebel which led to his death. When he would no longer agree with Henry IV, he organized a riot against him with the help of his uncle whom they were very close Thomas Percy and who was the Earl of Worcester, and another group called the Welsh rebel. In the process of organizing the rebel, Hotspur was killed in a fight when he was trying to get some fresh air since the armor, he was in was suffocating him and in the process, he was killed. He was cut into four halves to prove to all that the man was for real dead and thus no longer posed a danger to England. This meant that he was very hard to get along with.
He’s going to the fight before he was fully organized shows that he was too rebellious thus thought it not wise or time-wasting to get organized or to join the other groups so as to defeat their opponents and thus ended being killed by his rival who was thought to be of the same age with him and whose name was Hal and who became the Henry V of England.
Over courageous was another factor that made Hotspur a poor leader. Although he was able to achieve a lot, he would endanger his life in situations that he would otherwise avoid. Although he won the Admiration of many for example Hal’s father would sometimes wish that Hotspur was the real son instead of Hal. He took this admiration and instead of applying wisdom in order to win, he would use force to have his way out which won him many enemies as well. A good leader should be able to use influence other than force to win people on his side and would be more of a director of his people in a more peaceful situation.
He is also said to be merciless to all those who were disloyal and those who were against justice which is evidenced by the way he treated society in general. There were times when he was accused of cruelty and charged with persecuting religious groups. He was told that he was doing it for political reasons although he claimed that he was doing it for religious reasons. The French, however, felt that Hotspur was working to ensure that justice took the course since as they said it he was against the harsh treatment that Arundel who was a known Archbishop practiced against his people (Shakespeare). He would personally deal with all those people who would differ with his opinions and this is what Hotspur fought for and treated all those who were against justices with bitterness and severity and thus was not liked by many who were in power thus wanted him in a place where he would not criticize their efforts. Although he won favor from many, some still felt that it was against principles to work on those he thought were in the wrong. The way he treated his family also proved that he was not merciful thus not the best choice for a leader.
The same qualities that seemed to make Hotspur famous among many people were the same qualities that seemed to disqualify him in another when used in the wrong context such as what Hotspur was used to doing. He won the admiration of many from the efforts that he made in all his life hence proved to be a hero and is said to leave a legacy many years after his death as he was able to conquer and make many achievements and as such he was not only feared by the people who surrounded them but was also a threat to them thus were so much relieved by his death that when rumors started that he still lived they felt that it was better to clear the air through the cutting of the body to for quarters and taking them all over England as a proof that they had finally conquered.
He has a character of impatience, which disqualifies him many times. His father used to advise him to take his time since he could see that one day the son would run into trouble. The father would at times rebuke him and call him an impatient fool since he had analyzed his character and knew that his son had a problem when it came to handling issues that required more attention (Shakespeare). The father also argues that his son was not capable of organizing things as he should since he was always in a hurry and this is evidenced when he decides to go on to the war despite the fact that he knew the father had warned him that they required more strategies but he would not listen to him. This impatience and arrogance to other people led to his death.
The other argument the Hotspur’s father had was that the son was too much independent and disregarded other people’s opinions thus it was too hard to help him when there was a need for corrections. He also kept off his friends from his scheming and thus Hal took advantage since he was not honest and would make deals and would scheme with friends which are a quality that any leader should possess (Shakespeare, p. 78). He was able to acquire more knowledge and new ideas from the ideas that the other people gave him.
The other thing is that he lacked communication skills. Any good leader should have a good command and not necessarily use force.
Hotspur won admiration through his action but he was not able to form a union with people through the use of good and enticing language to win them. His biasness toward the male also affected him in that he would associate power to being a male and this he made known even in his language thus he lost contact with many people who felt that it was not fair. He makes it is well known that all the strengths are associated with men and any weakness is associated with females for example he is describing a certain Lord on the battlefield he says that the man acts like a woman in the way he talks, behaves and even the perfume he wears shows that he was nothing more than a woman.
When giving a reason why he was no longer interested in sleeping with his wife, he says that he has no need for a woman and in fact prefers the bloody noses meaning that his was not for peace or affection but was more interested in having political wars so that he would feel he has won. This is a drive of greed and shows that he was uncompassionate and had no value for other people and needs or even interests. Any leader leads by example and it is very clear that if he were to become the king, there would never be peace and he would use force or dictatorship in the way he would lead the people. People would also be denied the freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Hotspur explicated the characteristics which many adored and thought that he would make a good leader. However, there are strong points that disqualified him as a good leader. His father had tried to warn him of the dangers that may fall ahead but he had a problem in that he believed in himself to an extent that he forgot that other people also had a voice and can equally contribute to developing people’s ideas. It was for this reason that Hal who was the opponent had the advantage over him since he was able to win over him. He had people who advised him and were keen to obey other people’s opinions.
Works Cited
- Shakespeare, William. Henry IV Part 1 Study Guide. 1999.
- Shakespeare, William and Blakemore, Evans. E. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.