Beaumont and Fletcher

I must apologize. I couldn't resist writing questions that dealt with both plays.

I wanted to start out by asking a general question that I would like to discuss: why Spain? Both A King and No King and Philaster feature an unlikable Spainish (Iberian in one case) Prince, Arbace and Pharamond respectively. Are these negative portrayals of Spainish nobility in line with other attacks on the Spainish in the period? Is A King and No King questioning the legitimacy of the Spainish King? Were Spainards seen by the English in the period as the sort of womanizers that we see in the portrayal Pharamond in Philaster? What is the state England's political relationship with Spain when these plays are being written?

What is Beaumont and Fletcher's stance on kingship? Both of these plays put an extrordinary empahsis on who is a "rightful" monarch and who is not. This empahasis is so extreme that Philaster, who is not king, acts like a king but Arbace, who is king but is not "rightfully" king (though he is not aware of this fact at first), does not act like a king. What does is mean to act like a king? Are Beaumont and Fletcher trying to reinforce the idea of 'the divine right of kings'? Is this a critique of the current English monarch? Do they see James as not 'rightful'?