Prince Hal's story continues in the second part of Henry IV, but in a different key, as it were—indeed, the play as a whole has a different tonal colour. The sense of urgency that pervaded part 1 is noticeably muted, when not simply absent. To be sure, there are still threats to Henry's reign, but they are neither as dramatically dominant as was that of Hotspur and his co-conspirators, nor are they dealt with in such a violent and exciting manner. The rebellion led by Archbishop Scroop, Mowbray, and Hastings never comes to an open battle at Gaultree, as did the near-run thing at Shrewsbury, but is instead defeated by trickery. There is a second challenge that does come to blows, but we no sooner learn of its existence than of its defeat: ‘The Earl of Northumberland, and the Lord Bardolph, / With a great power of English and of Scots, / Are by the shrieve of Yorkshire overthrown’ (4.4.97–99). Moreover, with the exception of the spectacle that Prince Hal has crafted for his ascending the throne as King Henry the Fifth, there is not much of either political or philosophical substance being dramatized in this play. But what an exception that is! For the lesson conveyed by a proper understanding of this sensational coup de théâtre is one of comprehensive importance, though doubtless many find it not to their taste. Perhaps it is meant to test the depth of a person's ‘love of truth’. Since preparing for this spectacular finale is apparently the philosopher-poet's underlying intention guiding almost everything portrayed in the action which precedes it, that intention serves to focus my interpretive comments on the events leading up to this contentious conclusion.