Very little is written in the history books about the demands of the job. As far as I can tell, kings/monarchs varied widely in their work habits…George III of England put in 18 hour workdays-although his inability to be flexible led to the loss of his North American colonise. Christian IX of Denmark busied himself with architecture-he spent a great deal of time building up his capital city (Copenhagen). Then you had slackers like Louis XVI, who spent most of his time hunting and partying. We all know how that worked out for him. Louis Philippe (the “citoizen king”) worked himself to death-his subjects didn’t appreciate his efforts much.
How hard was it to a be an absolute monarch? Did you spend a great deal of msoat days attending meetings, or could you turn everything over to your ministers?
it’s good to be the king
I wonder what the King is doing tonight…
Read Michael Grant’s book The Twelve Caesars about how difficult it was to be Roman Emperor. In practice, you could leave an awful lot to underlings, but even the Emperors had duties they had to perform, functions they had to attend to, and (probably most important) decisions they had to make. For all the talk about their decadance and debauchery, even Nero and Caligula did a lot of work (Suetonius, of course, lists their accomplishments). Grant makes you feel sorry even for them. Tiberius gives the impression of an emperor that got away with delegating everything, but, even so, Wikipedia claims that, had he died in 23 AD he’d be called one of the best emperors – he avoided costly wars and built up the treasury.
Short answer – depends on the circumstances, the government, and the king.
Oh, piss-boy!
I saw this documentary.
Good work if you can get it.
It was easier than being a peasant.
It can’t be too hard. Tutankhamun became king of Egypt at 9 years old. He did OK.
James VI became King of Scots at 13 months; he eventually became King of England also (as James I) and found time to be an author as well as monarch.
What merriment is the king pursuing tonight?
I heard one historian point out that the Pharoahs were mostly religious figures rather than adminstrators. He said their primary official duty was to ensure that the sun rose every morning and set every evening. Pretty easy tasks as long as the planet does its part.
Right out of the box! Well-done!
Seems like after a while being king required an inordinate amount of time spent on remaining king. Especially if you had ambitious younger brothers or unscrupulous uncles.
One of my favourite English history questions is: what are the job requirements for being the King/Queen of England?
eldest son of the ruling monarch? no
child of the late ruling monarch? no
related to the ruling monarch? no
know anything about the monarchy, the politics? no
able to speak English? no
well educated? no
sane? no
There is ONE criteria: you must (nowadays) be Protestant.
Going back in history: the high powered gentry wanted your job or, if that proved unlikely,
they wanted to be able to influence you to their own advantage. History tells us of your good and bad choices. Also, if your country went to war, you were right there on the field,
with knights and banners around you so the enemy could find you easily. You had to have money, which was ok if you were rich and stayed rich, but not so good if you taxed your people, who muttered and tried to thwart your taxes. (You likely had no sense of economy which irritated those you taxed).
William I was a violent and angry man who threw anyone who opposed him, into prison.
Bishops, earls, his own brother - he didn’t muck about.
William II put down two baronial revolts. The king of Scotland rebelled after swearing fealty
so William killed him in battle. He was a tyrant, died on the hunting field by a badly aimed but well shot arrow. He never married, so of course there were rumours about this. When he died, his brother and heir left him on the field, and ran to seize the royal treasury.
Henry I came to the throne because his elder brother was away on a crusade and Henry was there. First he paid his brother a pension, then he invaded Normandy and defeated him, in 1106. He was called The Lion of Justice because he was a strict enforcer of the law.
But England needed a firm hand - his methods promised peace. There were no uprisings in Henry I’s time. He’d been born in England and married into the old line of English kings. He was greatly mourned when he died.
Do I need to go on?? Kings were wily and are remembered for being wise, or foolish and remembered for getting their just deserts. But usually it was a job that was fraught with insecurity - individual monarchs reacted differently to the job stress.
an seanchai
Reading “A Distant Mirror” by Barbara Tuchman, about life in France in the 14th century, I was strongly impressed by how much scheming went on around the king. People wanted the job. Failing that, they wanted to control the king. Or they opposed the king. Uneasy lies the head, indeed. That would have been the hard part of the job … the constant fear of being deposed/killed.
Be from England? No
Be willing to relocate to England? No
Not willing to relocate to England? Well, William Lion Heart only spent 6 months in England although he was king for ten years. But he was out saving Christendom! And then the evil French tossed his butt in the clink …
George I came to England for what he could get out of it. He didn’t like the place and he didn’t like the people. He went back and forth to Hanover as often as he could. (He was able to do this because he’d had a clause in the Act of Settlement repealed - the one that prevented the king from leaving England. He had every intention of leaving England whenever he wanted). And he died in Hanover.
an seanchai
I’d say it’s like most high-prestige, executive jobs.
You have no chance at all unless you’re born into the right social strata. From there, a fair amount of luck is involved: there are a handful of King jobs available to the many qualified aspirants, and a lot of competition. Think right place and time. Just for instance, being the obvious heir to the throne can put a huge bulls-eye on a young child, but be the key to getting the job later in life.
Keen social survival skills are a huge plus. The right alliances can be a life or death proposition. Understanding how to evaluate the loyalties of friends and foes would be an asset.
Once in office, some considerable time must be devoted to keeping the job, dodging assassins, and generally bending the other powers to the King’s will. Being a tyrant simplifies matters in some respects, but ups the ante in the paranoia department.
Securing the crown’s finances seems to have always been a big preoccupation. Living within one’s means could be seen as a sign of weakness. As already pointed out, in some eras the King was expected to also be the head field commander in time of war.
Walt
Richard Lionheart ?
~~from Robert E. Howard’s poem The Road Of Kings
Just for the record, George III, Christian IX and Louis Phillipe all weren’t absolute monarchs. The only one of the 4 you mentioned who was was Louis XVI (for most of his reign).
Let’s see:
King of Rock n Roll: pretty tough job, leads to substance abuse
King of the Road: free rail travel but no smoking allowed – moderately tough
King of Queens: need sense of humor, but can eat all you want – moderately easy