Women, or lack thereof, in “Henry V”

Although Shakespeare writes a multitude of male characters and gives them all vastly different and complex character traits in Henry V, there are only four women within the whole play, all of which revolve around basically the same traits. You may argue that Shakespeare writes in the Hostess and then those of the French Royal Court, which are two obviously different roles. So, on the surface, yes, there are character differences between the women. However, we’re back in that binary we had in Titus: the “proper” lady, one who is portrayed as virtuous and obedient, and then the “common” lady, one who goes back on her word and is linked more with promiscuous behaviors. Guess which one the audience is supposed to like?

I’m going to specifically focus on Katherine and Mistress Quickly because those are really the only two we’ve had a chance to see have more developed lines by Act 4. Both women are linked with the institution of marriage, with Mistress Quickly being the reason for the harsh feelings between Nym and Pistol and Katherine being set up in an arranged marriage to Henry. Off that note, these women also make sexual jokes/references through their mixup of words. Mistress Quickly does this in Act 2, Scene 1, lines 36-37 and Katherine does it in Act 3, Scene 4, lines 50-4. Even though one of these women is supposed to be higher in rank, education, and virtue, she still makes the same mistake as the other. What does this say about the attitude towards women? All the men are off fighting the big battle, while the women are just foolishly making sexual puns unknowingly. How does is the idea of women at this time reflected in Shakespeare writing? Also, why must these women always be linked back to sex or marriage? What does that constant connection and reference make the audience connect women with in general? As a side note, both these women speak in prose, which we know is linked with characters of lesser intelligence or worth in the play. This is an interesting note since one of these women is obviously highly educated since she’s part of the French Royal Family. Could this use of prose be a statement about the rank of women in general, not only within the play, but in reality?

Finally, keep in mind that in this History, we have women that are there purely for entertainment or to further the male leads. However, when Shakespeare writes a fictional tragedy, although they’re not perfect, we see two fairly strong female characters with a much more complex development and role in the workings of the play. Could this be a statement towards the position of women? Why is he able to do this in a fictional tragedy and not a nonfiction history?