The Greatest of All the Archetypes: The King Archetype - The One Archetype to Rule them All An Analysis
And why it's the greatest
It is no surprise or strange thing to describe the King Archetype as the greatest Archetype of them all. It is inherently the most fascinating, the most powerful and the most impressive one of them all. And this can be seen in literature, in cinema and in psychology, where the most powerful presence in myths and legends both onscreen and in literary format is always the King.
The King Archetype is a character that is fascinating in a way that no other Archetype can be, because he embodies them all in one character. He is priest, he is lover and he is warrior all wrapped up into one.
As the priest he is annointed by God, so to speak as the chief representative of his people and the heavens, much like Theoden and Aragorn are considered as such by the Rohirrim and the people of Gondor & Arnor. The two of them are essentially elected by their people, nominated to their positions from the ground up even as they are appointed by virtue of succession and from the heavens.
A King in his fullness thus derives his authority from a mixture of places; there is the Mandate of Heaven, the Divine Right of Kings and then there is the nature of Royal Succession.
The first of these Mandate of Heaven, is really about the character of the King. How he behaves under duress, and how he is able to put his people above all else, especially himself. The Mandate is a Chinese philosophical notion in which the King receives the right to rule half from the heavens but it is conditional; he must always put the people first and above himself.
The King must put the nation above his own interests, wants and desires, putting his people above himself. In such a way that almost no other mortal man could ever hope to do. He then earns the Mandate from not only the Heavens but the people, who make their happy nomination of him clear by selecting him as their new monarch, as shown near the end of Lord of the Rings when Aragorn receives permission to be crowned King.
The Mandate in a way is shown in a physical form in Arthuriana, in those stories though it takes on the shape of a sword by the name of Excalibur. Certainly it is also the embodiment of Royal Succession, but in the case of Excalibur it is much more the Mandate. Bad Kings such as Uther Pendragon lose the Mandate when they become more consumed with their own lusts, and are thus cast aside by fate and the people. In turn though, Arthur keeps it until he has the blade thrown back to the Lady of the Lake, at which time it is later given to Galahad in some versions who goes on to rule well.
In this way the Mandate passes from Arthur on his death-bed to the pure Knight with the King’s consent, as the Mandate is too sacred, too important to give willy-nilly to just anyone.
It is in reality the people’s will.
There is then the nature of the Divine Right, this is made manifest by a King’s annointment and coronation. It is also at this time that in stories the Divine makes his will known by selecting a certain person to rule, this much can be seen in stories such as the Shadow Kingdom.
In that story the crown of Valusia has passed down and lost all power across a thousand years because of the Snake-Men, who run the state and enslave the souls of the Kings they often take the shape of after slaying them. Kull is warned of this by several of the Picts, and is given a phrase that reveals the Snake-Men for what they truly are.
It is in a way the annointing of Kull, and the appointment of him to cleanse the house of Valusia of this shadow deep-state. Something that he carries out with a great deal of fervour and passion, and zeal to such an extent that the Snake-Men are later broken as a people and never able to properly menace Valusia ever again.
This is the great contribution he makes to earn the approval of the Divine. It is a great moment just as the coronation of Arthur and Aragorn are in literature.
The Divine Right is quite literally that; the show of God’s favour on the King to rule. And then we get to Royal Succession which is the King’s lineage, and ancestry that gives him some sort of edge over other potential rivals and rulers.
On occasion there is no Royal Succession, but in those cases the character is founding a new dynasty, but usually there is indeed a Royal Succession. Conan may have Brule & Kull behind him as ancestors (very likely), just as Aragorn has Isildur, Elendil and Elros.
In superhero fiction one could say in Superman that it is Jor-El who grants Superman this sort of status, or Thomas Wayne to Batman this sort of Succession. And then there is the story of Taira no Kiyomori the taiga dorama, where the epynomous character has the Divine Right to rule, has Royal Succession and the Mandate. While he does die and his family loses the ensuing war, their policies are proven correct by the fact that the Ashikaga later carry them out, almost a hundred and fifty years later.
In the case of Taiheiki the drama, Takauji has the Mandate and the Royal Succession but not exactly Divine approval so that he struggles and struggles to assert his claim until at last his grandson is born. This is a grand event and it is this grandson within the context of the series who has the Divine Right, the Mandate and the Royal Succession (established in away by Takauji himself).
So a King should have all three to stake his claim in literature. But the most important ones are the Mandate and the Divine Right, without these he has no right to any throne, not even to lording over a kitchen.
So there’s a ‘Triune’ nature of authority to the King Archetype, just fruit for thought for all writers to ponder about and who this might relate to theologically.
As to the three-part nature of the King, we shall examine the Priest aspect first since it is the most relevant to the Divine Right of which we already spoke. The nature of the priest in the King typically is inspired as much by the Christian King of France or England or Scotland who are said to have had a healing touch, just as there is an element of piety that is ultimately linked to Chinese Emperors in literature.
The Emperor is meant to be a kind of bridge between the divine and the mortal realms. This can also be seen in the Kojiki, and in early Japanese literature such as Genji Monogatari, where the Emperor is almost more priest than warrior or lover. The reason for this is that the King is the Chief Priest of the realm, he is the first one to make sacrifices for the state and also is meant to lead most ceremonies.
The King is in touch with the Divine, because he is meant to be the Divine’s representative on earth, he is meant to embody the divine among mere mortals. One can see this in how St-Louis carried himself in the 13th century, taking his duties as ‘Chief Priest’ as seriously as possible and as seriously as any man could.
It is from the moral and philosophical role of ‘first in the kingdom’ that the King knows to serve his people. Because the idea is that priests help direct a society upwards towards the heavens, with the Priest-King supposed to lead the charge on this front and so he does.
This is why Child-Rulers and Elderly Rulers are usually seen wearing robes, dressing more like priests than like warriors, as they must cede to either a regent or one of their sons’ or nephews the role of the Warrior-King respectively.
Robes might seem like a superficial way of marking out a King for what he is, but it is a good exemplar in a visual sense of the nature of the ruler. There are three aspects to the King Archetype, therefore when he dresses as a priest he showcases this aspect of the Archetype.
It is also remarkable that the Priest-King aspect can also be seen as the ‘Philosopher-King’ taken from Alexandrine and Carolingian times. The Philosopher-King should be an expert on history, a master of philosophy and a temperate man who demonstrates that he favours logic over emotions.
This aspect can be seen in the first appearance of Sukjong in the tv series of Dong Yi, who shows himself to be much more of a Philosopher-Emperor than any other in the first episodes he appears in. Later he takes on the aspects of the Warrior & Lover King, and embodies them well.
But just as he appears in this capacity, we must look on this aspect of a ruler in a drama and book as a very special one. Because just as he is the embodiment of virtue, of reverence for the Divine, he is also the height of logic, of philosophy and of scholarship. One can see this in the historic example of Marcus Aurelius and Charlemagne, both of whom were very intelligent men with a fascination for philosophy and morality.
In the case of Aurelius he is often depicted in cinema and such as a brilliant philosopher and thinker, which he was.
One could also look to Odysseus as one such figure in mythology, as he is a King, and usually bent towards trickery, stratagem and cunning but also philosophy. Nowhere near the warrior others are, he is however still talented and skilled and ends up having to often fall back on reason to save his bacon so to speak.
The next aspect of the King we must examine is that of the Warrior. It is in this capacity that the King is at his most straightforward. He is the Fount of Chivalry, the height of courage and is always the one who ‘defies the odds’, as he is a profoundly powerful figure who will not back down from any challenge whatsoever.
The very embodiment of what a Knight should be, he is not only the strongest warrior, the mightiest of heroes but also the most noble of them all. Just as he embodies the values of manhood, he is to be a guardian who keeps the Legions strong against the enemies of the nation.
A true King Archetype will often lead from the front as exemplified by the likes of Simba and Theoden.
There is also Arthur who in this capacity is the greatest warrior in the realm, greater than Lancelot, greater than even his legendary nephew Gawain. But he is also the most honourable man, the most chivalric individual, and thus the mightiest, or he is supposed to be.
In the case of the likes of Robert the Bruce in the Bruce trilogy by Nigel Tranter, the King in there must resort to dark tactics and underhanded tricks to fight for his people. This after open warfare fails, so that he resorts to guerrilla tactics to disrupt and slow down and kill the English armies sent against him.
He does this though it seems dishonourable, because above all other duties is that of protecting his people the Scots. He must rescue them, and so he resorts to the most disgusting tactics imaginable, he must resort to the most heinous stratagems because they are honourable.
Why are they honourable? Because the most honourable thing he can do is protect his people, from those who refuse to fight fair, who refuse to treat them as anything other than cattle to be slaughtered. If the enemy has no honour, why should the King treat with them fairly?
Then you have Buck who in a way is King of the Yukon Forests, who must treat fairly and equaniminously with all those he comes across, he loves his human family yet when they are slaughtered he takes up his duty as King of the Forests, and chases out those tribes that have dirtied and sullied the woods with hatred and murder.
In this capacity the King is usually a warrior of justice, someone who seeks merely to protect his borders, to protect and make right the wrongs inflicted upon his people.
Bowen in the movie Dragonheart is the embodiment of a Chivalric King, he’s a philosopher and engineer to be sure, but he’s primarily concerned with Chivalry. This is an important aspect of the King because it is what separates him from a fallen King, from a ‘Shadow-King’.
What is a Shadow-King? There are two types; the Tyrant and the Coward. The Tyrant like King Einon, lords over his people because he thinks he’s better than them, he’s superior and therefore deserves to be elevated above them.
He doesn’t believe in the Divine so abjures that claim (ordinarily), or if he does believe in it, he believes himself to be more divine than the Divine. It is the height of folly for him, so that instead of being in tune with nature and the mountains and forests like the Priest-King is, or in tune with the minds of men as a Philosopher-King is, or in tune with the values and chivalry of his nation like the Chivalric Warrior-King is he worries only about what he can extract from his nation rather than what he can pour into it.
Conan is the best example in our recent times of a Warrior-King. But in contrast to him, you have Tarascs who is a tyrant, just as the ‘Dark Lord’ Xaltotun is.
Xaltotun is a tyrant who doesn’t care for the world around him, and cares only for himself and his ideal paradise. What is his ideal world? Only he knows in his demonic ravings, as he like all other Tyrants is utterly detached from the real world.
The Tyrant is usually one who has become enamoured with his own heritage, his own status so that he doesn’t really understand the world around him and is utterly depraved. He fears the shadows, even as he despises the name of the True King. Who is the True King? Likely the heir he has or the nephew he usurped or the man he usurped.
Edward I in the Bruce Trilogy comes to detest the name of Robert Bruce above all else, as he’s become a tyrant by the end of his reign. This just as the likes of Scar hates the sound of Mufasa and also Simba’s names. Scar also begins to hunger for Nala, Simba’s intended as though she were a piece of meat for him to take as his own.
He has no right to her, or the Pride-Lands yet as he knows only how to take and take, he cannot give and she thus flees from him, wherefore she meets Simba falls in love and reveals to Simba the truth of what his Uncle has done and how he has destroyed everything.
The Tyrant at his core is intertwined with the Shadow that is the Coward.
Examples of Tyrants in literature and history can be found in the likes of; Dong Zhuo, Commodus, Nero, Caligula, Genghis Khan, Jowy Attreides, Einon, Justin Trudeau, Robespierre, Scar, Tarascus, Sauron, Zeus and so many others.
The Lover aspect of the King is one interwoven as mentioned with the way Scar seeks to tyrannize over Nala, just as King Claudius does in a way over Hamlett. He not only cuckholds Hamlett the Father but also the son by taking on the boy’s mother as his bride, and she’s an active participant in it.
Now in the Amledd movie this is turned on its head as the Queen Dowager helps her son escape Fang, and begins to sow the seeds of her second husband’s defeat.
This brings us to one of the core ideas of what is so important about the King. Just as he must be faithful to the land and the heavens as Priest, faithful to his nation as Philosopher-Priest, faithful to his people as a Protector he must also be faithful as a lover. He is the chief Lover who fertilizes the Queen, who fathers the Prince, who begats upon his great love the next generation of heroes.
This is an important duty on the part of the King. In some myths the whole thing becomes twisted as in Arthuriana, due to the Queen’s infidelities and the King also proves himself unfaithful to her. So that all is shadowed between them.
But in other tales such as those of Dragonlance, or any one of the Japanese Taiga doramas about a ruler of Japan, the King proves himself a faithful, and ‘leal’ Lover to his Queen. He adores her, and places her above all other women, adoring her and celebrating her love even as he goes further than any other man possibly could for his lover.
Conan fights and destroys a Dark Lord that he might have Zenobia for his Queen. Aragorn goes through the Quest of the One Ring and reclaims his ancient Kingdoms simply so that he might prove himself worthy of his beloved Arwen. Samwise who becomes Mayor of the Shire, and all but lord of the region does much of what he does also to prove himself worthy to Rose.
There is also the likes of Sigmundr who struggles against this bride or that, until he finds the perfect bride for himself who mothers his beloved son Sigurdr. Never forget though that Sigmundr at that point in his life has become the Lover-King Archetype.
There is also in a way Goliath from Gargoyles who starts out in this capacity with his beloved ‘Queen’ Demona being his bride.
The Lover-King is an important aspect one of the most important. How a man treats his wife is a good example of how he will treat others. That said often times when the Queen dies, a shadow is cast over the King who becomes somewhat unbalanced, not to say tyrannical just grief-stricken and lonely.
Usually he’ll pour all he has left into his people and into his children, and yet he is somehow lost. Widowhood in myths rarely agrees with a monarch, with the likes of Theoden being a good example of this.
In his case he becomes a Coward, so that he succumbs to Grima’s whisperings and cannot accomplish anything. The trouble is that he must act. Naturally in this case he overcomes things, ceases to be a Coward-King and becomes a Warrior-King once more.
Another King to Grieve deeply in literature yet who rallies, is Aeneas. Though in his case he grieves for the death of his beloved father Anchises, the loss of Troy and his first wife, but also the loss of his great love Dido. Wracked with grief, he however bedecks himself in armour and ventures forth to fight for his third great love, Lavinia and defies the odds all in the name of Love.
In this way he stays true to his roots as Aeneas was always a warrior for love. The Son of Venus he is obviously interlinked with the ideals, of romance but as a warrior and prince of Troy he fought for Paris’ right to Helen and for Troy itself, only to then fight for his own love and a new Troy. So if you need the ultimate example of a Lover-King look no further than Aeneas.
But never forget the seeds were planted at the passing of his wife, then they bloomed with the passing of his beloved only son. He tolerated as a coward the abuse of his adoptive children, only to then rise to the occasion.
The Grieving King is a staple as old as time itself, and it is the saddest aspect but it can give way to a great Priest-King or Warrior-King or to the Coward. The Coward is one who doubts himself and often struggles to make decisions.
Aragorn struggles to make decisions after the Hobbits disappear, but he rallies and never doubts again. Why? Because he is the Warrior-King meant to rally his people and bring them back together, and he is also the Lover who must win for himself the right to wed the most beautiful and Queenly lady on earth.
The Lover-King Aspect is a trope in Fantasy fiction with good reason, as are the other ones. When in his fullness we get heroes such as Simba to be sure, but also the likes of Prince Adam from Beauty and the Beast or even the likes of King Richard from Galavant.
The Grieving King can be seen in Tangled in the shape of Rapunzel’s Father.
Thus there exists a Triune of Kingly Aspects, a duo of shadow Kings and one somewhat grey to bleaker aspect who can either sink deeper into the shadows or rally. Balance is important to a Monarch, just as the various aspects of his role are, as the roles he plays are his personality.
He must fulfill his roles because they are as much a part of him, as breathing is and it is in these aspects that he is liable to find glory and to prove himself worthy of the great heritage bequeathed to him.
The Priest-King binds the nation to the Divine, the Warrior binds the kingdom together through a shared code and the Lover binds the people to the Land, which he fertilizes. Just as he does this, he has three aspects.
The King can also appear in one of three ‘Shapes’ so to speak; the Child-King who is dependant upon others for protection, the youthful King who can fight and protect his people and the Elder King who is grown old needs some measure of protection and currently faces his mortality and must thus rally one last time for his people’s sake.
So three Shapes, three Aspects and three Bonds/Covenants. Yet there can be only one King over a Kingdom in literature and myths; more than one seeds the possibility of civil war and chaos never forget that. He might have three natures but he is also the only possible ruler over a land. That is if he rules well, Tyrants cannot be tolerated and are always overthrown as they rule unjustly, and have broken their bonds, and Cowards must either rise to the occasion or perish in ignominity, and the Grieving-King must rise up and prove himself one last time.
This is the nature of the King Archetype; greatest of all the Archetypes but never forget also that heavy is the weight of the Crown. Heavy and yet it is also a gift, so that a true King honours and loves it but is not vain about it, and is happy to serve. He is servant above all else after-all.
Simply glorious. In your essay I read much of what I had to research back in the day so I could create some of my characters. A man like Captain Anit'za, who comes from the ancient blood of Dzenta'rii Seekers. One who leads not mere underlings but honorable friends, who yearn to follow his every command and would stand by him beyond the gates of hell if need be.
Best essay yet