Falstaff's potentially seditious views of honor and the importance of the individual's life over sacrificing it for the collective are thus validated very clearly in Welles' work. In Shakespeare these perspectives are raised, but however attractive Falstaff may seem as a character, they cannot be endorsed by the playwright because to do so would invalidate the entire English system of government. Falstaff's humor and pacifist values, even his value of self-preservation resonate more with contemporary American views of iconoclasm and individualism. Thus by making Falstaff the centerpiece of Five Kings, Welles was also making an implicit claim for the need for a uniquely American form of Shakespeare.

While some Americans might find the Henry cycle to be confusing because of its use of British history, they can, Welles' works demonstrate, always identify with Falstaff's zest...

The elegiac Five Kings and Chimes of Midnight is still Shakespeare, because the notes they strike are manifest in Shakespeare's own words, particularly when Falstaff speaks privately to the audience. Shakespeare himself even rewrote the character of Falstaff to allow the fat knight to take center stage on a comedy, showing he was not above using a popular product to good advantage. But what is not quite Shakespeare, what is more 'Welles' is the notion that a critic of authority such as Falstaff deserves as much attention as a king like Henry. Even Shakespeare's future critics such as Lear and Hamlet were also royal men: it would take an American to see a character like Falstaff as worthy of a drama (not simply a comedy) of his own.