Kings who don't know the rules...

The plays for this week offer two kings who obviously haven't read the "how to be a good king" book.  Arbaces is a vain-glorious ruler who's praise for his soldiers generally goes something like this: "I grant, you were my instruments, and did / As I commanded you; but 'twas this arm / Mov'd you like wheels; it mov'd you as it pleas'd" (I.i).  Not only does he deny them their earned gratitude for service, but he also desires them to be flatterers to him, not good counselors.  These actions are detrimental because they upset the delicate "gift cycle" balance in the relationship between king and servant (this demands service, acknowledgment by words, titles, and gifts, and acceptance of advise from those most dutiful).  Before we reach the end of the play, it is apparent that Arbaces cannot be a "true" king because he is unfamiliar with the proper way to rule.  Can any man be taught to rule in the "correct" manner?  Can this play be read in support of the rule of divine right?  If so, why is this important to stress at this period in English history?  (Is there a reading here between "King and No King" and "Tamburlaine"?)

The King in "Philaster" also struggles to fully control his role.  From the beginning, we are aware that he has obtained his reign through dubious means and that his people have more confidence and love for Philaster.  Our opinion of the King's ruling capabilities is further damaged when he acquiesces to Megra's blackmail and later to Arethusa's plea for the lives of Philaster and Bellario.  Here is a king who commands things that are not "possible and honest" and are therefore impossible to perform (IV.iii).  Why are we once again presented with a king who cannot fulfill his role; who is essentially deficient in all kingly qualities?  Is this intended to be a comic trope?  Or are we being presented with a pessimistic view of what monarchies have become since the days of "true" kings and knights and wars?  How can we connect this with references to "noble" blood and actions throughout the play?  Finally, are we presented with a better option for king in Philaster by the end of the play?