What makes Good king? Compare Henry IV and Ben IV

Answer 1

Picture two men standing before their kingdoms. One of them walked into Paris in 1594 and the streets erupted, because he had just ended ten years of slaughter and the people looked at him and said, without being asked, "Good King." That is Henry IV of France, and the title was not a historian's footnote, it was a crowd's verdict.

The other man, Henry IV of England, sat on a throne he had taken by force, and for fourteen years every rebel who crossed his path had one question that no amount of military genius could answer: "By what right?" He won battles. He survived plots. He administered a realm. But he never once won the room, because a king who must justify his existence is a king who has already lost the argument. His son Henry V understood this instinctively, which is why Agincourt was not merely a victory, it was a rebranding campaign.

So here is the test, and it is simple: did the people give you the title, or did you have to take it? One man was named by the crowd. The other was named by the sword.

Answer 2

Justin R. is absolutely spot on & I wish to only add/support his essential platform by taking his use of

"characterization" and making this point deeper & wider.

This kind of prompt is tasking you to sit with & understand as deeply and as carefully as is possible.

In other words, your main goal or task is to compare & contrast the two kings side by side. Then, after comparing the strengths & weaknesses of both kings, form your very own opinion or judgment of them. But notice that this also means defining for purposes of your work or the topic/discussion just what "good" means as applied to rulers. Where or how you place such a definition or explanation is entirely up to you...it is usually best to save this for last as you are also working out some of this along the way. Writing is a tool for thinking out loud onto paper or screen & for working out or processing along the way. Readers or audience will appreciate this.

It is also very vital here to understand the importance of the time, era & setting of the culture as it was then. Justin R. refers to this aspect and I am only supporting & adding to this basic aspect of analyzing & understanding characters, era-specific elements & such.

So to summarize & recap: you will also want to end up with a final judgment or evaluation of the two kings that is based on 2 things: 1. their independent or distinct traits as human characters; and 2. some kind of explanation that makes very clear your ultimate assessment & what, exactly, you are basing your opinion/assessment on...i.e. are you basing your evaluations upon current feelings & trends? Or, alternately, are you basing your assessments upon feelings, trends & sentiments that were common or popular back in the time of the two kings?

As you may be able to see, the depth & width of your understanding is what is being called upon with a prompt like this. The precise outcome only depends upon your own mind & desires.

I hope this helps...I will be on this site & around as much as I possibly can as this type of work is what I love & live for.

Jeff Honnold

Answer 3

Ah, a Characterization Question!

Here are some tips I can offer for the comparison of figures on the basis of moral goodness. First, consider what the word "good" means in the context of this question.

Good could mean:

1. A King who was admired by his people
2. A King who brought power to a nation
3. A King who had strong beliefs in others

This question sounds most likely like an argumentative question based on the characterization of a King. This means it is not necessarily about right or wrong; it is evaluating your ability to form an opinion and prove/argue it!

If you need help with this or questions like this, I am a tutor and ELA Teacher and would love to help during a session! You got this!