"Come they of noble family?": Genealogy and Shakespeare's History Plays

            Shakespeare wrote ten plays called “The Histories,” all focused on the British monarchy from King John to Henry the Eighth.  Although he also wrote historical plays set in Greece and Rome, only the British are marked “The Histories.” Even Macbeth, that Scottish play, although set on the British isle and anticipating the reign of King James the First, is listed under “The Tragedies.”

            Exploring the genealogies of the British monarchs is a fascinating way to navigate Shakespeare’s history plays.  A genealogy, also called “a family tree,” is a charting of lineage.  The absolute basis of the conflicts and triumphs that define the course of Shakespeare’s history plays is how family members fought and murdered each other to assume the throne.  By the rule called “primogeniture”—the sequence of descent was through the first-born son, and thereafter through his progeny.  If there were no children, the throne would go to the next-born son—and so on.  But as with all things human, interpretations varied and, as we noted in the post on “Come, here’s the map,” lesser family members were optimistic that, given some finagling— murder and war—they could circumvent what was considered “the natural course of things.”

            Genealogies, like all human constructions, are interpretations—selective attention.  The above chart is focused on the figures featured after Edward III (1327-1377).  King John (1167-1216) five generations back.  This genealogy deletes Edward III’s two other sons, as it does Henry IV’s other three.

            What we also don’t see is the intermarrying within Edward III’s descendants—an attempt to secure claims to the throne.  For example, when Shakespeare presents Richard III as a disgusting lecher wooing Ann Neville—whose husband and father-in-law his side of the family just killed.  But if we look at the genealogy for Richard’s mother, we can see that Richard and Ann were cousins.  Richard III is at the bottom right of the tree; Ann was descended from Richard’s uncle Neville at the top left of the chart:

In fact, Richard and Ann were cousins who had played together and loved each other from childhood.  Ann had been married off by her “Kingmaker” father to—look at the first chart above—Henry VI’s son, Edward, in the hopes of her becoming queen some day.  The marriage with Richard was likely a marriage not only of power, but affection.

            Go back to the top chart: Another interesting piece of history is how Henry VII—Henry VIII’s father—assumed the throne.  Henry V was married to Katherine Valois—in order to secure powerlines with France.  Henry V was in Edward III’s direct bloodline. When Henry died, his son, Henry VI, a nine-year old child, was crowned king.  His uncle Richard (descended from Edmund of York, was made Regent—in charge of managing affairs of the state until Henry VI came to maturity. The three Henry the VI plays focus on how this led to the York’s wresting the throne from the Lancasters, descendants of John of Gaunt, who had first dibs—being of an older son—on the throne.

            Henry the VII’s mother, Katherine of Valois, married Owen Tudor after Henry V died.  So, Henry the VII was not a blood relation to Edward III.  He was only Henry V’s posthumous stepson.  John of Gaunt had four illegitimate children by Katherine Swynford, his long-time mistress, whom he married after his legitimate wife, Blanche of Lancaster died.  These children were given the name “Beaufort,” after a French lands John once owned.  By rights, according to the customs of the day, illegitimate children had no right to the throne.  John had them legitimized after he married Swynford.  But King Henry IV decreed they had no right to the throne.  So, it’s dicey.  Margaret Beaufort, a female descendant of a questionably legitimate progeny of John of Gaunt, was Henry VII’s mother.  A very thin thread.

            Go back to the top chart.  You’ll see that Richard the III is descended from Edmund of York.  Richard’s oldest brother became King Edward IV.  Edward the IV married Elizabeth, with whom he had Edward V and Richard.  When Edward died, it was discovered that he was still married to a previous betrothed. So, Elizabeth was not a legitimate wife.  So, after the middle brother, George, was executed for treason (he had sided with the Lancasters and Henry VI against Edward), Richard III had a right to the throne. 

            Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Richard the Third, based on the works of Thomas More.  More served John Morton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a political revile to Richard the III, so his history is biased, at best. In his play, Shakespeare characterizes Richard as precipitating the deaths of his nephews.  But their legitimacy had been countermanded, so he would not have had any reason for their demise.

            Meanwhile, mother Margaret was pushing for her son to wage war on Richard for the throne.  He prevailed at the Battle of Bosworth.  But wait.  This is only a stepson in the lineage, and a son of Margaret, who was not actually legitimate. To further secure his place on the throne, Henry VII, he would have to go back and deny that Elizabeth Woodville was a legitimate wife to Edward IV, so he could marry their daughter, Elizabeth of York, as a royal.

            Yes but—that means that little Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury had first dibs on the throne.  As Josephine Tey cogently argues in The Daughter of Time, Margaret Beaufort and or he son Henry, were more likely to have managed the demise of the two princes. 

            Forays into genealogy not only provide historical details to help moor Shakespeare’s plays, but provide us opportunities to see where he favored Drama over historical Truth. In Macbeth, we have Lady Macbeth forcing Macbeth to murder the good King Duncan in his sleep and then later committing suicide in time for her husband to deliver his famous Sound and fury soliloquy.  Let’s take a look at the genealogy of the actual Lady Macbeth, Gruoch, from Susan Fraser King's book, Lady Macbeth:

  

            You can see that Lady Macbeth, King Duncan, and Macbeth had a common ancestor: Malcom I.  Duncan and Macbeth were both descended from Malcom II.  In the history books, Macbeth killed Duncan fairly on the battlefield.  Duncan had been fleecing the Thanes so that he could pursue his conquests to enlarge his kingdom.  The thanes had to stop him.  Nonetheless, Duncan is made out to be a victim in Macbeth.  But if Duncan’s death is in 1040, that means that Macbeth reigned until his death in 1057, for 17 uncontested years.  Lady Macbeth’s dates, as women’s and slaves’ dates often are—not considered to be important—is marked with a question mark. Lulach, Gruoch’s son by another marriage, became King of Scotland for a year after Macbeth’s death.

            And here comes Shakespeare, choosing Drama over Truth, taking liberties with Lady Macbeth’s dates.  On some accounts, Lady Macbeth actually survived Macbeth, which would put the lie to her suicide.

Works Cited:

Genealogies:

Edward III: https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/history/the%20histories/kings1.html

The Nevilles:  https://www.pinterest.com/pin/359162139016484723/

The Beauforts: http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_47.html

Edward the IV: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/74379831320531178/

Texts:

King, Susan Fraser. Lady Macbeth. New York: Crown, 2008.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. Boston: Pearson, 2008.

Tey, Josephine.  The Daughter of Time. New York: Scribner, 1951.

            Because I Can Teach:

https://becauseicanteach.blogspot.com/2020/03/come-heres-map-charting-shakespeares.html