The best stage performances make you sit up and notice something new ab

out the text. In Arden, for example, we were all surprised by the integration of Susan into the entire play, not just her last few lines. In the RSC’s production of 2 Henry IV, the character who came alive for me was Prince John, played by Elliot Barnes-Worrell. Through this performance, with limited lines Prince John reveals himself to be both cunning and a bit bloodthirsty.

In the text, Prince John—or, as my edition refers to him as, Lancaster—can come across as a one-hit wonder. He is in the background for the most part, but he surfaces to foil the rebellion for that pivotal moment. His impact in the narrative beyond that turning point is never well-defined. I must confess that, in my first reading of the play, I forgot that Lancaster was indeed the son of the dying king. He comes across as a powerful lord, skilled both in politics and in battle, but he does not have much substance.

The first thing this production does to make John stand out is to call him that in the program. By changing the name from “Lancaster” to “Prince John,” the production is shifting the focus back onto the character’s family rather than his social standing. This immediately builds a background for the character to inhabit; he gains characterization through the royal family because we can imagine what his home life was like when he was growing up. At the same time, this also reflects back on the landscape among his family members. (Indeed, to keep the label Lancaster might not be misleading, but it would certainly be a signal for a very different interpretation of the character.)

The costuming and physical appearance of Prince John indicates his character’s personality as well because his armor is not nearly as ceremonial as Hal’s or his father’s. Indeed, it seems that his dark black armor is his natural uniform as much as Hal’s dark red jacket is. It is meant for practicality, and as a younger son, he has no need to display his royal status as clearly. He also apparently wears it all of the time, as the reveal under his coronation best in the final scene shows. His youth but also his inner stability reflects his clean-shaven face, which highlights a stronger jawline. (Note the production picture from the rehearsal stages of the play and then the later production photos or rehearsal photos after the show started its run.)

Physically, this means that Barnes-Worrell’s Prince John is big. His shoulders are confident, and his body is still and severe. This particularly contrasts both with the tension of Trevor White’s Hotspur and the emotion of Alex Hassell’s Hal. Whereas most of the other characters tread lightly, you can always hear the clomp of John’s boots as he marches from moment to moment. Besides adding to the strength of the character as already displayed, it lends an air of mystery to the character. It is hard for the other characters and the audience to read his intentions when he is in warrior mode, and perhaps the open emotion during the meeting at Gaultree forest.

In that scene, Prince John’s one hit, as it were, dramatic yet effective cuts were made to enforce a colder reading of Prince John’s character. Chiefly, the character of Hastings was largely removed from the scene. This means that the loyalist cause is represented by Prince John and Westmoreland, which actually gives them a man-to-man disadvantage, as evidenced by the awkward suffling prisoners after the arrests. This is an interesting decision, but more important is how Hastling’s lines are dealt with. The pivotal line, “I do arrest thee, traitor, of high reason” is given to Westmoreland, which leaves Prince John to give a small smirk. He is not only victorious but he is gloating at his win, which suggests a deep, deep ruthless streak.

It’s an interesting performance, but is there textual evidence to support the dark undercurrent Doran is developing here? I found, upon rereading the play, firm ground. While the actual act itself, the switch-and-bait gambit Prince John offers the rebellion, is rather cunning on reflection, it is the actual things that Prince John does that make it conniving. John loves to speak in equivocations. Here is his speech upon receiving the grievances from the rebels:

I like them all, and do allow them well,
And swear here, by the honour of my blood,
My father’s purposes have been mistook,
And some about him have too lavishly
Wrested his meaning and authority.
My lord, these griefs shall be with speed redress’d;
Upon my soul, they shall. If this may please you,
Discharge your powers unto their several counties,
As we will ours…

Later in the play, when questioned about the promises he swears in this earlier speech, John corrects the assumptions of the rebels in the following dialogue:

ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

Will you thus break your faith?

LANCASTER

I pawn’d thee none:
I promised you redress of these same grievances
Whereof you did complain; which, by mine honour,
I will perform with a most Christian care.
But for you, rebels, look to taste the due
Meet for rebellion and such acts as yours.
Most shallowly did you these arms commence,
Fondly brought here and foolishly sent hence.

In not technically lying to the rebels, John finds that he can justify his arrest of the rebels. Yet it was not unreasonable for the rebels to assume that he was laying down arms against them. Besides the request for the armies to be sent away, John’s own words condemn him as a liar. He wants to find “drink together friendly and embrace,” which certainly sounds like a ceasefire.

It also means that John actually agrees with the rebels, and he still arrests them and sends them off to his death. On the page alone, then, John is already playing at a level above everyone else. That kind of great powers comes with great responsibility. In the text, the reading can be ambiguous. Is John a devoted son, or is he playing a higher game? This production falls closer to the latter. Incidentally, in making this choice, it also ties John better with his brother; they are both good at concealing their true feelings and emotions in order to get what they want. However, while Hal seems to fall into his own trap and gets hurt by the emotions he doesn’t expect, John is never forced to face the actions of his consequences.

I really do like what this production of the play(s) did with John’s character. It is much more engaging and dynamic to see the man put into proper context, and in general, such a characterization only adds to the richness and complexity of the world on stage, making it feel more alive and real to the audience. The one cloud in the sky, however, is that, by having such a great character, I wanted to see him more. I wanted to see him interact with Hal, with his father, with Hal and their father, or even with the audience in a nice soliloquy. Alas, that is not in the text, and so I was unfulfilled.