Henry V, Act One

I've read several classmates' posts about Henry V, but I didn't do any additional research before beginning to read (mostly because holy cow, how is it Thursday already??). Much like Cara did in her post, I'm just going to list the thoughts that occurred to me as I read through Henry V, act one. Maybe some of these will turn into questions that I research in depth later on.

THOUGHTS:

Prologue

• Hey, there's a chorus. That's...Greek. Okay.
• Shakespeare, you and your words. Why are you so excellent? "the very casques / That did affright the air at Agincourt," beautiful. Affright the air, affright the air. I think I'll just say that over and over and make my roommates wonder what's wrong with me. 
• "For ’tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings, / Carry them here and there, jumping o'er times, / Turning th' accomplishment of many years / Into an hour-glass" So, Shakespeare totes wrote this after he met the Doctor, didn't he? (Sorry, non - Doctor Who fans, all my references are probably annoying. You can solve this problem by watching some Doctor Who.)
• So, wait, why is there a chorus? Is it a history-play convention? Would it have made the audience of the time think the play was more genuine?

Scene 1

• Canterbury's comments about Henry (or Harry, I guess. So why isn't this play called King Harry?) are quite interesting. It's an easy way to transition from Henry's behavior in Henry IV to his more kingly behavior here, but it's sloppy as far as character development goes. Tsk, tsk, Shakey. Still, it sounds like I'll be rooting for this guy.
• Seriously, Shakespeare and his WORDS. How does everything sound so sonorous? 
• Canterbury: "It must be so, for miracles are ceased, / And therefore we must needs admit the means /
• How things are perfected." That's a pretty grim view! Is this a commentary on the kind of man Canterbury is, or was this an everyday view?

Scene 2

• BORING HISTORY IS BORING
• Canterbury, this sounds like a terrible argument. "The Bible says you can have the throne!" Would the audience have thought this was legitimate and rousing, or would they have been skeptical about all this sophistry?
• Ely: "You're strong and young and powerful, you should go kill people." Exeter: "That's what kings are 'post to do." THANKS DUDES.
• Henry, I think you should probably focus on the Scots thing and forget the France thing. ...No? Okay, so no. Maybe I'm just not very patriotic...to England...six hundred years ago. 
• On the upside, at least they don't want to invade Russia. 
• Canterbury, are you like the Polonius of this play only not funny? I AM DISAPPOINT.
• Ambassador, I appreciate your brevity, but did you decide that tact wasn't part of your job that day? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Decide to TRY to incite a war?
• TENNIS BALLS ROFL BRB DYING FOREVER 
• Henry, you rock. I'm not sure I believe you about the whole "mingling with the common people totes on purpose" thing, but you sure know how to deliver a stinging retort to this ambassador, who should probably be fired. Or, more apropos of the times, beheaded.
• Wait, so is all of this happening because the Church doesn't want this bill to go through, so they're directing the king to get money by invading France instead? SCUMBAGS. What would the audience of the time have thought of this?

Hey, this is pretty good so far. Maybe I will actually like this play...or at least I'll enjoy raging about it.