"STRANGER BLOOD": THE CAPACITY OF A FOREIGNER TO INHERIT LAND OR CROWN

By juxtaposing John's dubious title with the Faulconbridge controversy Shakespeare's play poses the question of how inheritance and succession are related. Implicit in the disposition of the throne by will is the analogy between the demise of the crown and the devolution of property. But is the analogy a sound one? To what extent do the legal principles governing the inheritance property apply to the succession?³⁸ Because English law precluded foreigners iting land,³⁹ this question bore significantly on a central issue in the succession debate: whether a foreigner could accede to the English throne. John's reign was a central interpretive crux on this point: did his tenure affirm the principle that no foreigner can sit on the throne (i.e., was Arthur barred by having been born in France?), or was it simply a usurpation by John that deprived the rightful king?⁴⁰

The bar cast a dark cloud over James's hopes to succeed to the throne on Elizabeth's death. Though he favored James, Thomas Wilson reports that "some thought [Arabella Stuart] more capable then he, for that she is English borne (the want whereof, if our Lawyers opinions be corani, is the cause of his exclusion)."⁴¹ James took steps to remove this blemish from his claim by attempting to establish his right to the so-called Lennox lands which had been the property of his paternal grandparents, the Earl and Countess of Lennox. Establishing this right would have bolstered his claim to the throne precisely because of the importance of the analogy between inheritance and succession. Borrowing the Bastard's phrase we could say that James attempted to ground his title to the crown "upon the footing of [English] land" (5.1.66).

Elizabeth also well understood the significance of this property to the Scottish king, justifying her refusal to resolve the question because "some consequences which depende therupon hath made us forbare to dispose of [this matter] one way or the other."⁴² She used those "consequences" to her best advantage, promising the lands to James in 1588 when the approaching Spanish fleet cast its shadow, but later reneging, hinting that James's rival Arabella had a colorable claim to them while never expressly rejecting James's.⁴³ On his part, James sought judicial recognition of his claim, but also continued to press it with the queen—most forcefully in 1596 and again in 1601—even trying to cast the annual pension he received from Elizabeth as compensation for the loss of this property.⁴⁴

Shakespeare's play gives dramatic impetus to the arguments in the succession debate over foreign influence on the English throne. Shakespeare's portrayal of Arthur, emphasizing his youth (everyone repeatedly refers to him as "boy" or "child"), underscores his dependence on the King of France. Arthur himself acknowledges his subservient status when he refers to his own "powerless hand" (2.1.15). His youth and temperament raise grave questions about his capacity to govern. Unlike the character in TR, Shakespeare's Arthur does not speak in his own behalf or otherwise actively pursue his own claim (he is even embarrassed about the fight over it—"I am not worth this coil that's made for me" [2.1.165]).⁴⁵ His role is symbolized by his absence from the stage during negotiations over the peace pact between the kings.⁴⁶ Arthur's relative impotence enhances the power of the French king, who describes himself as Arthur's "guardian" (2.1.115). Philip's announcement of himself to the people of Angiers—'"Tis France, for England" (2.1.202)—bluntly dramatizes the spectre of alien intrusion. Shakespeare shapes the contest more sharply as one between the countries rather than between John and Arthur, with the French king's ascendancy graphically depicting the disturbing possibility of foreign dominion over the English throne.

At the same time that Shakespeare's Arthur is portrayed as more submissive than his counterpart inTR (and many historical sources),⁴⁷ he is personally treated more symphathetically and his claim to the throne more favorably, all of which casts John in a much more doubtful light in Shakespeare's play that inTR.⁴⁸ Arthur's status as a royal rival has a continuing, decisive impact on the action of the play, his irrepressible claim haunting John and impelling him toward Arthur's murder. Pandulph articulates the pressure Arthur's very existence exerts on John's dubious title:

A sceptre snatch'd with an unruly hand
Must be as boisterously maintain'd as gain'd;
And he that stands upon a slipp'ry place
Makes nice of no vild hold to stay him up.
That John may stand, then Arthur needs must
  fall. …
                                (3.4.135-39)⁴⁹

UnlikeTR, Arthur's youth and innocence render his death in Shakespeare's play a much more lamentable scene and its link to the barons' defection is much more direct and firm (4.3.111-13). Underscoring the pathos of the event Shakespeare adds the Bastard's denunciation of the "cruel act" (4.3.126) and his apotheosis of Arthur as "[t]he life, the right, and truth of all this realm / [Who has] fled to heaven" (4.3.144-45).⁵⁰ Pitting the appropriation of Arthur's claim by hostile powers against the record of John's perfidy forces Shakespeare's audience to assess whether the native born John was indeed preferable to his immature, encumbered victim. Once again framed to admit no easy resolution, the question prompts evaluation of the categorical bar against accession by a foreigner.

Shakespeare further amplifies the issue in the figure of the French Dauphin Lewis, who also asserts a claim to the English throne. As with his treatment of Arthur, Shakespeare makes the issue here a subtler question than inTR by rendering Lewis in a much more favorable light than the earlier play, which depicts his villainy at every possible turn.⁵¹ In Shakespeare there is even some sympathy for Lewis's firm resolve in the face of bad news (5.5.21-22; much qualified inTR, Pt. 2, 977-82), especially, in lines without counterpart inTR, for his ringing declaration of independence from the Pope—"Am I Rome's slave?" (5.2.97)—echoing John's own earlier affirmation (3.1.147-60). Even while opposing him in arms, the Bastard applauds Lewis's resolve: "The youth says well" (5.2.128). The split within Catholic Christendom which Lewis's speech represents echoed a historical reality. Some Catholic rulers (and the Pope himself) opposed the Hapsburgs' claim to the English throne because of the disproportionate power it would give Spain.⁵² In England, too, Catholic subjects were split, with some ("the Appellants") actually negotiating with the Crown's representatives, not for a Catholic king, but for religious toleration under a Protestant one.⁵³

Perhaps most striking is the difference in the way Lewis's claim is handled. InTR it is repeatedly compromised by being framed as "[t]riumph in conquest" (Pt. 2, 942), his express aim that of French dominance: "The poorest peasant of the Realme of Fraunce / Shall be a maister ore an English Lord" (Pt. 2, 949-50).⁵⁴ In Shakespeare, though, Lewis spells out the substantive basis for his claim, through Arthur, in his union with Blanche ("by the honor of my marriage bed / After young Arthur" [5.2.93-94]), the deal struck by Philip and John in 2.1. UnlikeTR where the Bastard repudiates Lewis's "fained claime" (Pt. 2, 686), the legal validity of this claim is never challenged. Through Lewis Shakespeare's play replicates the intertwined lineages of the royal houses of Europe. "The centuries of dynastic marriage," according to the historian Joel Hurstfield, "had indeed created a situation in which most of the crowned heads of Europe could claim each others' thrones with some degree of plausibility."⁵⁵ Because in Lewis's case it is through just such a marriage that the English crown is exposed to a foreigner's claim, the play prompts scrutiny of exactly how that union came about. Specifically, how did it come to be proposed, not by any of the contestants for the throne, but by the citizens of Angiers?