But, of course, it is not only a question of the actual etymon of this or that particular word, though it may also be significant. It is something in the whole construction, the whole style, the whole type of speech that betrays the French king's "foreignness". All these French and Latin words are here used in contexts which are not English and that is how they must have been apprehended by the contemporary audiences. 

There are plenty of word-combinations in the French king's text which strike you as unnatural and make you think of French equivalents which might have been lurking somewhere at the back of his mind. Expressions like "one's best object", "in this trice of time", "to dismantle... folds of favour", "to monster something by being of unnatural degree", "fore-vouch'd affection", "to fall into taint" do not occur anywhere in the works of Shakespeare, except in this particular speech of the French king. They are, apparently, intended to represent the French way of saying things, the rhetoric of French feelings and French pathos, which are, of course, quite different from the English ones. We might go so far as to assume that to Shakespeare's audiences grandiloquence and effusiveness were firmly associated with the French temperament, which is also borne out by the way Shakespeare portrays his French characters in Henry V.

We have spoken so far of words and word-combinations. But there are also specific points of grammar which could be used as further evidence, for instance, whom instead of who [incidentally, the pronoun was "amended" to who in the Folio (2)]. Some editors, arguing that the Folio (1) reading is ungrammatical, strive to find an excuse for the King of France. It was said, for instance, that presumably ‘France’ began to say "whom you loved most" and changed the construction in the middle of the sentence. Similarly, they find it difficult to explain away the Folio reading "fall" (the Quarto reading "falne" cannot be easily accounted for, either). As far back as the eighteenth century Samuel Johnson spoke of amending "affection" to "affections", or "fall" to "falls". Some editors have adopted the following interpretation: "Either she has committed a monstrous offence, or your fore-vouch'd affec­tion must now be discredited as having been all along unjustified". We should then assume the existence of a second "must" before "fall", which is hardly convincing.

The editors are also at odds with each other over a similar case in the second monologue of the French king: "Love's not love / When it is mingled with regards that stands / Aloof from th'entire point" (I. 1.238-240), where both the Quarto and the Folio agree on the reading "stands". Some of them find that "though a plural subject often has a singular verb, the line sounds better without the 's' " — and drop it altogether. 

The number and variety of discussions and emendations of this kind could be greatly increased. But all this is hardly to the point. What we have striven to assert, all along, is that the solecisms were intentional, that this was Shakespeare's idea of portraying the French character, thus adding to the cumulative effect of ‘strangeness’ and ‘foreignness’ created by the whole manner of the king's speech. 

In conclusion we would like to add one more example from the above quoted monologue. In the Quarto, where the Folio reads "The best, the dearest", we find a different version: "Most best, most dearest". Although this is not the only use of a double superlative in Shakespeare, in the light of what has been expounded above we would be inclined to include this in the list of the French king's solecisms. In terms of textual criticism we would prefer the Quarto version to that of the Folio. 

If now we carefully go over all the evidence we shall be able to make out a strong case for our hypothesis. It was part of Shakespeare's artistic intention to put into the King's mouth all those awkward grammatical slips, make him use odd collocations and obscure his speech by ponderous and clumsy syntactical constructions in order to create the ‘outlandish’ traits in ‘France’s’ text and make him to ‘speak French in English’.