History's impact on the depiction of the English monarchy in literature during the twelfth, fourteenth, and sixteenth centuries

This thesis examines ideas pertaining to the institution of kingship as depicted in William Shakespeare's plays Richard II, Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, and Henry V, read through the lens of Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain and John Gower's Confessio Amantis. Each of these texts, which span the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries, seeks to define the ideal king. Their authors reflect many of the monarchial issues from their own lifetimes in the texts' pages, including the qualifications of a king, the succession to the throne by male-preference primogeniture, and the struggle between deposing a king who is harmful to the country and his divine right to rule. Despite their lives never crossing, Geoffrey of Monmouth, John Gower, and William Shakespeare all hold to one ideology: the well-being of the commonwealth is paramount and the monarch is central and inextricably linked to its health. To that end, each author sought to define a good king as a means to a healthy nation. Moreover, as each author struggles to define a legitimate king, he identifies the necessary attributes that comprise a good king. Those definitions do not solve the problem of accession, however, and the rise to the throne often involves conflict. Like Shakespeare, Geoffrey and Gower find it essential for a king to be wise, generous, and beloved. Each shows the disastrous effects of an unwise king who is easily manipulated. Whereas Geoffrey and Gower agree in their creation of ideal kings---implying that such a thing can be attained, Shakespeare provides a more complex and cloudy image of the institution of kingship. In three very different genres---Geoffrey's fictitious history, Gower's moral polemic, and Shakespeare's historical drama--- authors struggle with the makings of the ideal king and legitimate claims to kingship.