As I noted in Richard II, Shakespeare did not invent the events of the chronicle plays. He had several sources to which he turned to get not only his facts, but also the general story line. Some people find history fascinating to read, and I frankly count myself among them; however, history is not meant to be entertaining, and it usually is not. Thus, Shakespeare had the difficult task of converting historical events into theatrical drama capable of attracting large audiences for weekday afternoon performances.

His primary source for Henry IV is again Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, the second edition of which was printed in 1587. But he also uses a verse account of the time, Samuel Daniel's Civil Wars, which is a long narrative poem published in 1595, and only infrequently read today.

In a very general way one might say that Shakespeare took the story line and the facts from Holinshed, but he looked to Daniel for moral elements which most contributed to the drama of his plays. The overall moral point focuses on Henry's illegal seizure of the crown from Richard II and the continuing consequences of that act--namely the series of uprisings around England against Henry. Stability of the monarchy promoted stability of society because people tended to know how the king or queen would react to given situations. But when the monarchy changes society becomes more fluid and individuals are less certain. Domestic tranquility is challenged and in some cases shattered. But all of this is leading us away from the sources and toward the themes of the play.