not to sound like harold bloom by glazing falstaff but i have to wonder if falstaff taking credit for killing hotspur was in some way a mercy because on one hand while hotspur’s epicness is a threat to henry iv’s continued royal line (aka if hal gets got like richard) but on the other hand since henry iv seems to kin hotspur and view him as immensely powerful a la mr henry “iv” bolingbroke in his prime era of taking a bad bitch (richard ii) down, then the idea that hal killed hotspur would probably evoke next level anxiety in the (terminally ill and aged) henry iv, even if hal is his rightful heir. (thinking about the way jeremy irons delivers “why did you take away the crown” in hollow crown 2H4 like a whining child almost who can’t understand his turn with the toy is over.)
so falstaff taking the credit cuts the tension there, even if it makes hal look more cringe, and falstaff’s function is to indeed cut the tension so we don’t get too for serious and grim and thus closer to death in here … except by taking the credit for killing thee hotspur, falstaff is kind of a threat to hal when hal becomes king. even if falstaff didn’t actually kill hotspur, it’s the idea that this random fat old dude who is too silly to function in most cases was able to destroy such a Paragon of Manhood. so of course hal has to literally ruin him forever. which is fucking crazy.