In Act II, Scene 2, Falstaff is again confronted by the Lord Chief Justice. Their interaction in Act I established their dynamic as one that pits societal norms against individualism. The Lord Chief Justice, as his name suggests, embodies law and order as demanded by the state. He has the power to interpret and enforce laws at the behest of the king, policing civil obedience in London and England more broadly. In Falstaff, he encounters a confounding opponent who does not feel that the law applies to or binds him in any way. Even when Mistress Quickly is begging police officers to arrest him, even when the Lord Chief Justice appears at the tavern and orders Falstaff to pay his debts (both fiscal and social), Falstaff talks his way out of the situation. Through sheer force of personality, he rebukes the enforcement of the law. This reflects the play’s theme of Shaping identity Through Moral Choice. The Lord Chief Justice is a model of civic obedience, while Falstaff, through his series of choices, confirms his identity as an outsider.

The conflict between Falstaff and the Lord Chief Justice is not only personal. They are also competing for influence over the heir to the throne. In Henry IV, Part 1, Falstaff held a strong influence over the young prince. He was the character most responsible for leading Prince Hal in a wayward direction, much to the displeasure of the king. Prince Hal actively embraced this diversion, keenly nurturing his own reputation as a friend of Falstaff and all that that implied, including a fondness for alcohol, sex, and mischief. Falstaff thus embodies the prince’s youthful desire for what would have been seen as social and moral anarchy, but over the course of Henry IV, Part 2, Falstaff’s influence over the young prince wanes. The Lord Chief Justice, who embodies the maturity and order befitting an heir to the throne, emerges as a more authoritative and influential figure, to the point that he and Falstaff are essentially competing for the attention of the prince so as to manage his reputation among the masses. That King Henry is increasingly distant amid his illness and anxieties adds further weight to the conflict, as the Lord Chief Justice and Falstaff are competing to play the father figure to the young prince. 

For his part, Prince Hal is aware of this battle for the state of his soul. His reluctance to drink is an early indication that he will soon part ways with Falstaff and all that he represents. It is likewise significant that his brief confrontation with Falstaff (their last interaction before Falstaff is denounced in the closing act) is cut short by a summons to the king. Prince Hal does not think twice before going to his father; already, he is abandoning Falstaff for the responsibility demanded of his position. The confrontation in the Boar’s Head thus foreshadows the post-coronation denouncement and reveals The Evolution of Relationships Through Life Stages.

Act II, Scene 3 extends the play’s (and tetralogy’s) consideration of the moral conflict of rebellion. Northumberland is still suffering from the trauma of his son’s death, yet more is demanded of him, and he feels a duty to his allies to continue the fight. His internal conflict is made external in the form of the dialogue between Northumberland and Lady Percy, who wastes no time in excoriating her father-in-law for the death of her husband. She tells Northumberland that the same indecision that he is exhibiting now is also to blame for Hotspur’s death, as Northumberland failed to send his troops to the Battle of Shrewsbury at a time when they might have turned the battle in the rebels’ favor. Her outspokenness shows her strength of character and clear moral vision; she shows no fear when telling a powerful lord that his cowardice and indecision caused the death of his son. Following Lady Percy’s powerful speech, Northumberland feels suitably chastised. He plays no further part in the rebellion, his decision apparently made for him by his daughter-in-law and wife—a fact that, given the era’s gender norms, characterizes him as somewhat weak-willed and thus contributes to the play’s overall sense of national decline.