Chaucer has characters representing the feudal group the church group and the city group Why do you think he chose not to include any royalty?

Answer 1

For a number of reasons, really. For one, royalty wasn't so much a social class or political group as it was collection of unique individuals, and Canterbury Tales is largely about social and political commentary. Secondly, as stated, Canterbury Tales was a work of social and political commentary and critiscism. Chaucer may have been a learned man of letters, but he was hardly above the wrath of the King of England, and so could not afford to anger him by making less than approving remarks. On the other hand, he may not have wanted to sacrifice his literary principles by lavishing praise on the royal family just so that he could include the king, or any other member of his family. Third, each character was a made-up figure meant to be broadly represtantive of their social class or group, or sub-classes or sub-groups. Each king, queen and other royal personage has a unique personality, you can't just make sweeping generalizations about them like you can other organizations, like the Church or merchants. Finally, Canterbury Tales was set in England, and the pilgrimage was to Canterbury Cathedral where Thomas Becket was murdered and matyred by the stooges of King Henry II, supposedly because of an off-hand remark. Naturally, Canterbury was a sensative subject for the King of England , whoever he happened to be at the time, and it may simply have been politicaly prudent for Chaucer not to mention the royalty.

Answer 2

Chaucer may have chosen not to include royalty in order to focus on representing a wider range of social classes within his society. By including characters from the feudal, church, and city groups, he is able to provide a more comprehensive view of medieval English society. Additionally, excluding royalty may have allowed Chaucer to critique the existing power structures without directly implicating the monarchy.