Clarence was played by Sam Troughton, Pat's grandson, whom I think you last saw playing Edmund in Simon Russell Beale's Lear.
The scene I found oddest was Henry striking his deal whereby he'll declare Richard of York his heir on condition that he can remain king for the rest of his life. Given that Henry doesn't seem to like being king very much, I was left wondering why he was so keen to hang on to the role (I'd have been less surprised if he'd offered York the throne on condition his own son could succeed later, though of course the Yorkists would never have kept that promise). If he thinks he's king by God's will so it would be sacrilege to abdicate, why doesn't that apply to his son? Does he secretly suspect the boy isn't his, which is never indicated?
In the text, Henry comes over as more of a politician improvising in a tricky situation than the good man out of his depth he usually seems to be. He marches in asserting that York is a traitor and he's the rightful king who will never give up his throne. When Warwick and York challenge him to prove this, he mutters in an aside "I know not what to say; my title's weak." When Exeter* comes up with the bombshell "My conscience tells me he [York] is lawful king", Henry has another aside: "All will revolt from me, and turn to him." He cheers up a bit when Northumberland and Clifford back him, but then Warwick calls in his soldiers, at which point Henry makes his compromise offer to York. But I'm not sure I believe it on the page, either.
* Although, in this BBC version, the Duke of Exeter has been played by Anton Lesser throughout, this is a different man. The Duke of Exeter in Henry V and Henry VI Part I is Thomas Beaufort (1377-1426), half-brother of Henry IV. The one in Henry VI Part III (or, in this version, Part II) is his half-great-nephew Henry Holland (1430-1475). I think it's the BBC rather than Shakespeare who's decided to conflate them, giving one man an active role in English politics for well over half a century...
no subject
The scene I found oddest was Henry striking his deal whereby he'll declare Richard of York his heir on condition that he can remain king for the rest of his life. Given that Henry doesn't seem to like being king very much, I was left wondering why he was so keen to hang on to the role (I'd have been less surprised if he'd offered York the throne on condition his own son could succeed later, though of course the Yorkists would never have kept that promise). If he thinks he's king by God's will so it would be sacrilege to abdicate, why doesn't that apply to his son? Does he secretly suspect the boy isn't his, which is never indicated?
In the text, Henry comes over as more of a politician improvising in a tricky situation than the good man out of his depth he usually seems to be. He marches in asserting that York is a traitor and he's the rightful king who will never give up his throne. When Warwick and York challenge him to prove this, he mutters in an aside "I know not what to say; my title's weak." When Exeter* comes up with the bombshell "My conscience tells me he [York] is lawful king", Henry has another aside: "All will revolt from me, and turn to him." He cheers up a bit when Northumberland and Clifford back him, but then Warwick calls in his soldiers, at which point Henry makes his compromise offer to York. But I'm not sure I believe it on the page, either.
* Although, in this BBC version, the Duke of Exeter has been played by Anton Lesser throughout, this is a different man. The Duke of Exeter in Henry V and Henry VI Part I is Thomas Beaufort (1377-1426), half-brother of Henry IV. The one in Henry VI Part III (or, in this version, Part II) is his half-great-nephew Henry Holland (1430-1475). I think it's the BBC rather than Shakespeare who's decided to conflate them, giving one man an active role in English politics for well over half a century...