So having seen "Tudors" and "Edward II", I came to a conclusion that I would be a rather lousy monarch. Probably capricious, moody, bestowing honors and gifts on my boytoys and beheading people left and right if they pissed me off (which would be daily). :P
How about you?
P.S. This is technically a drunk thread since I'm inebriated. :P
Yes. Yes I would.
Please justify your answer. :P
Just don't end up like Edward II. That was a little *too* kinky. :unsure:
I would be the degenerate lovechild of Bluebeard and Vlad Tepes.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2009, 03:05:26 PM
Just don't end up like Edward II. That was a little *too* kinky. :unsure:
Maybe my aversion to anal means I was Edward II in past life? :huh:
Yes. Authority flows naturally from me, as do equal measures of revolutionary, proper ideas and self-restraint.
To be both King and God, now wouldn't that be something?
Since I have considerable experience appears as an agent of the monarch, yes I would. :)
I would rule from a sense of justice rather than personal interest, and I would try not to let my moral convictions become that of official policy, subjugating others to my will.
as a proponent of small government, I think i'd be a fine monarch.
my rule would collapse into chaos when my newly created pseudo democratic institutions and old school conservatives would go to civil war against me on the grounds of my hedonism, atheism, and splurging on stuff like canals, roads, harbours, professorships and sponsorship of heretics and foreign crackpots.
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2009, 03:17:31 PM
my rule would collapse into chaos when my newly created pseudo democratic institutions and old school conservatives would go to civil war against me on the grounds of my hedonism, atheism, and splurging on stuff like canals, roads, harbours, professorships and sponsorship of heretics and foreign crackpots.
Sic Semper Tyrranis! :bowler:
I dislike making decisions so I'd probably surround myself with advisors. Depending on how good my choices are i'd either been seen as a great king, or beheaded.
Like what kind of monarch? Like the emperor of Japan who doesn't do anything? I can do that. Like a medieval monarch? I'd probably be like Louis XI or Charles the V if I do well, Charles VI if I'm not so good. Probably a mix like Ivan IV.
No, I'd probably end up sharing the same fate as Prospero. :(
No, I'm too nice.
Depends on the era, really.
I think I would make an excellent King of Russia, cirka 1917.
I think I'll be a very bad monarch.
1. to do nothing and achieve nothing will be my overarching policy
2. tendency to fire bureaucrats and commanders with large egos, and to promote people who have no ambition at all
3. strict adherence to written rules and promotion of fairness over well-being of population
4. total refusal to go into deficits or to borrow, even in the most taxing times
5. no interest in the short term wellbeing of people
6. no interest in foreign affairs
7. no awareness of coups
8. tendency to maintain the status quo at all costs
9. not afaird to ignore vested interests
10. poor people skills
I bet I have a very high chance of dying from a coup. Or a revolution. Or an invasion.
I would end up being an other Pinochet, so yes.
Lousy monarch. I seriously doubt that I would be ruthless enough for the job, despite my own fond imaginings of what I'd like to do to certain politicians.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 03:31:21 PM
Like what kind of monarch? Like the emperor of Japan who doesn't do anything? I can do that. Like a medieval monarch? I'd probably be like Louis XI or Charles the V if I do well, Charles VI if I'm not so good. Probably a mix like Ivan IV.
Medieval monarch. An actual ruler.
I'd probably grow the body mass of Henry VIII and also use my position to fuck around (but minus the beheading). In financial matters however I'd probably be more like his father who despite starting his rule after a 30 year long civil war managed to leave behind a well stocked treasury. AFAIK king John was also a very successful tax collector and was known to hold grudges (as I am prone to do). I guess I'd have to sign some kind of magna charta at some point, oops.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
So having seen "Tudors" and "Edward II", I came to a conclusion that I would be a rather lousy monarch. Probably capricious, moody, bestowing honors and gifts on my boytoys and beheading people left and right if they pissed me off (which would be daily). :P
How about you?
P.S. This is technically a drunk thread since I'm inebriated. :P
I would make an excellent monarch. I am extremely intelligent, I have great empathy, I love making decisions, I am unafraid of conflict when I deem it necessary. I bring out the best in people.
I don't know. I think about it some times. I'd probably be history obsessed, but that could pretty easily make me some kind of proto-Renaissance figure. I think I'd be okay; I try to be fair minded with people, even those I dislike, and I also try to be tolerant of minorities. I don't think I could have ever allowed any kind of pogrom or ethnic violence, though I would probably try to conquer new lands and set up Colonia, like the Romans. I'd also probably try to model my army on what I understood of classical armies, and I'm not totally sure how well that would have gone.
I think I'd go down like Catherine de Medici, the best laid plans...:(
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 04:50:56 PM
I don't know. I think about it some times. I'd probably be history obsessed, but that could pretty easily make me some kind of proto-Renaissance figure. I think I'd be okay; I try to be fair minded with people, even those I dislike, and I also try to be tolerant of minorities. I don't think I could have ever allowed any kind of pogrom or ethnic violence, though I would probably try to conquer new lands and set up Colonia, like the Romans. I'd also probably try to model my army on what I understood of classical armies, and I'm not totally sure how well that would have gone.
Knife in throat, day 3.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 05:18:44 PM
Knife in throat, day 3.
I'm a light sleeper, 6'4 and fairly well built. That'd be hard, though not impossible. Poison would be a lot easier.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 05:27:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 05:18:44 PM
Knife in throat, day 3.
I'm a light sleeper, 6'4 and fairly well built. That'd be hard, though not impossible. Poison would be a lot easier.
They'd come at you in numbers, and make it look as if you'd died in your sleep. I suspect a red hot poker up your arse is not a particularly pleasant way to die.
a 3rd grader would get to Spellus.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
They'd come at you in numbers, and make it look as if you'd died in your sleep. I suspect a red hot poker up your arse is not a particularly pleasant way to die.
I don't know a lot of people who died in their sleep from a red hot poker up the arse, do you?
Can we pick the era? Best would be one where monarch weren't getting killed/deposed even if they were incompetent imbeciles.
So... 17th/18th century Europe? :pope:
Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:29:47 PM
They'd come at you in numbers, and make it look as if you'd died in your sleep. I suspect a red hot poker up your arse is not a particularly pleasant way to die.
I don't know a lot of people who died in their sleep from a red hot poker up the arse, do you?
Edward II, if I recall correctly. The theory is that it will leave no external marks of violence; I believe the procedure to be the insertion of a metallic outer tube, then the poker is shoved in and wiggled around.
Of course, a secret is only a secret as long as only one person knows about it, and I figure that this method of removing a troublesome king is a five man job.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:33:40 PM
Edward II, if I recall correctly. The theory is that it will leave no external marks of violence; I believe the procedure to be the insertion of a metallic outer tube, then the poker is shoved in and wiggled around.
Of course, a secret is only a secret as long as only one person knows about it, and I figure that this method of removing a troublesome king is a five man job.
If you have five people, I'm thinking you can do a smothering with a lot less effort, and the red hot poker was not a contemporary theory.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:33:40 PM
Edward II, if I recall correctly. The theory is that it will leave no external marks of violence; I believe the procedure to be the insertion of a metallic outer tube, then the poker is shoved in and wiggled around.
Jesus. I thought it was because he was a famous sodomite? And didn't people know about smothering back then?
Quote from: Sahib on October 02, 2009, 05:31:03 PM
Can we pick the era? Best would be one where monarch weren't getting killed/deposed even if they were incompetent imbeciles.
So... 17th/18th century Europe? :pope:
I dunno - it seems like the post-1945 world is a good time to be a monarch. Limited responsibility, maximum public adulation, plus running water. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2009, 05:39:06 PM
plus running water. :)
Water doesn't have feet. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 05:38:48 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:33:40 PM
Edward II, if I recall correctly. The theory is that it will leave no external marks of violence; I believe the procedure to be the insertion of a metallic outer tube, then the poker is shoved in and wiggled around.
Jesus. I thought it was because he was a famous sodomite? And didn't people know about smothering back then?
That's what I thought as well.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 05:30:24 PM
a 3rd grader would get to Spellus.
Yeah that would be a problem.
Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:33:40 PM
Edward II, if I recall correctly. The theory is that it will leave no external marks of violence; I believe the procedure to be the insertion of a metallic outer tube, then the poker is shoved in and wiggled around.
Of course, a secret is only a secret as long as only one person knows about it, and I figure that this method of removing a troublesome king is a five man job.
If you have five people, I'm thinking you can do a smothering with a lot less effort, and the red hot poker was not a contemporary theory.
He may be biased, but he is still a contemporary source, having been a member of parliament in 1327 and present at Edward II's abdication. The major problem with it is he did not make this statement until at least two decades after Edward's death. Given Edward III's attitude to his father's murder, one would have thought that the story could have been circulated earlier.
QuoteOn the night of 11 October while lying in on a bed [the king] was suddenly seized and, while a great mattress... weighed him down and suffocated him, a plumber's iron, heated intensely hot, was introduced through a tube into his anus so that it burned the inner portions beyond the intestines. — Thomas de la Moore.
It is a myth that smothering leaves no evidence (at the least, it leaves highly bloodshot eyes.) However, I agree that it is unlikely that this would be recognised in the fourteenth century
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2009, 05:39:06 PM
I dunno - it seems like the post-1945 world is a good time to be a monarch. Limited responsibility, maximum public adulation, plus running water. :)
Would you really opt for being a well paid prop over having real power?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Would you really opt for being a well paid prop over having real power?
I know I sure as hell would.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2009, 05:39:06 PM
I dunno - it seems like the post-1945 world is a good time to be a monarch. Limited responsibility, maximum public adulation, plus running water. :)
Would you really opt for being a well paid prop over having real power?
The "well paid" part is the key...I love the easy life.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Would you really opt for being a well paid prop over having real power?
I know I sure as hell would.
Me too. If I could be a monarch I'd like to be like Ed 8. A little bit of influence but mostly a useful tool for the country. Also be fashionable and have women throw themselves at me. And rich.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 05:58:30 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Would you really opt for being a well paid prop over having real power?
I know I sure as hell would.
Me too. If I could be a monarch I'd like to be like Ed 8. A little bit of influence but mostly a useful tool for the country. Also be fashionable and have women throw themselves at me. And rich.
You do recall he was effectively exiled to the Bahamas as it was feared that if he remained in Britain, if there was an invasion, and if he fell in to German hands that he would be a willing puppet monarch for Hitler, don't you?
I'd be an awful monarch. Unfortunately reloading and typing montezuma doesn't work in real life.
I would sit perched atop a throne made of the skulls of my enemies, drinking their blood from a bejeweled goblet. On either side I would be flanked by giant breasted harem girls who would continually fan me with giant fans made from ostrich feathers with solid gold handles.
My court would be made of sniveling sycophants who would be permitted to engage in any cruel and savage acts they desired, so long as they were devotedly loyal to me and enforced absolute obedience to my rule upon the populace.
The court itself would be ringed with spikes upon which citizens accused of even the most minor infraction would be impaled, writhing in agony as they suffered the most painful, slow death imaginable. I would periodically taunt and laugh at these hapless souls and my court would ape my every insult or risk impalement themselves.
Every hamlet, town, and city in the realm would feature an enormous shrine devoted to me that all of my kingdom's wretched citizens would be required to worship at no less than a dozen times daily, and no less than one hundred times during the monthly celebratory feasts devoted to various aspects of my life (my birthday, the anniversary of one of my dozens of marriages, the beginning of my rule, my various conquests, and the like). Those that failed to pay the proper homage for whatever reason would have their eyes gouged out by robber crabs, and then fed to packs of wild dogs.
Whenever I deigned to walk among these hideous wretches, they would be compelled to drop to their knees and worship me in prostrate, repeating the "ZEBUN-ZEBUN, ZEBUN-ZEBUN HOBBIT" mantra or whatever it was from Young Sherlock Holmes. If they failed to do vigorously enough, they would be burned alive and their very existence erased from the annals of history. Those who dared to speak of them in future would be exiled to the Kerguelen Isles.
Oh, and also, free implants for all and Spellus's tongue would be cut out. :)
I like the cut of your jib.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 06:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 05:58:30 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Would you really opt for being a well paid prop over having real power?
I know I sure as hell would.
Me too. If I could be a monarch I'd like to be like Ed 8. A little bit of influence but mostly a useful tool for the country. Also be fashionable and have women throw themselves at me. And rich.
You do recall he was effectively exiled to the Bahamas as it was feared that if he remained in Britain, if there was an invasion, and if he fell in to German hands that he would be a willing puppet monarch for Hitler, don't you?
I made a mistake. I meant Ed 7.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 07:00:12 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 06:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 05:58:30 PM
Me too. If I could be a monarch I'd like to be like Ed 8. A little bit of influence but mostly a useful tool for the country. Also be fashionable and have women throw themselves at me. And rich.
You do recall he was effectively exiled to the Bahamas as it was feared that if he remained in Britain, if there was an invasion, and if he fell in to German hands that he would be a willing puppet monarch for Hitler, don't you?
I made a mistake. I meant Ed 7.
Edward VII had a lot more influence than I think you believe, for example during the Fisher/Beresford dispute and also during the "People's Budget" crisis before his death. I think you would have preferred to be Edward
before he ascended the throne.
The Kaiser certainly did not see him as being a figurehead - he saw Edward's supposed malevolence towards him in many of Germany's diplomatic reverses of the period.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
So having seen "Tudors" and "Edward II", I came to a conclusion that I would be a rather lousy monarch. Probably capricious, moody, bestowing honors and gifts on my boytoys and beheading people left and right if they pissed me off (which would be daily). :P
How about you?
P.S. This is technically a drunk thread since I'm inebriated. :P
This should be in
my drunk thread. :mad:
:P
On the topic:
I would be terrible. Totally unfair, irrational, and womanly.
Quote from: Korea on October 02, 2009, 07:22:12 PM
On the topic:
I would be terrible. Totally unfair, irrational, and womanly.
Liz I would smack you across the face.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 07:00:12 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 06:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 05:58:30 PM
Me too. If I could be a monarch I'd like to be like Ed 8. A little bit of influence but mostly a useful tool for the country. Also be fashionable and have women throw themselves at me. And rich.
You do recall he was effectively exiled to the Bahamas as it was feared that if he remained in Britain, if there was an invasion, and if he fell in to German hands that he would be a willing puppet monarch for Hitler, don't you?
I made a mistake. I meant Ed 7.
Edward VII had a lot more influence than I think you believe, for example during the Fisher/Beresford dispute and also during the "People's Budget" crisis before his death. I think you would have preferred to be Edward before he ascended the throne.
The Kaiser certainly did not see him as being a figurehead - he saw Edward's supposed malevolence towards him in many of Germany's diplomatic reverses of the period.
The Kaiser was also an idiot. I said a little influence. I didn't say none. His biggest thing was creating goodwill in other countries (France in particular). In my opinion Ed is an example of a good modern King. His son was pretty good as well.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 02, 2009, 05:54:14 PM
The "well paid" part is the key...I love the easy life.
Well it seems like the difference between playing a nation building game and just watching the cut scenes of cheering crowds.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 06:26:55 PM
Oh, and also, free implants for all and Spellus's tongue would be cut out. :)
He types with his tongue? :x
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2009, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: Korea on October 02, 2009, 07:22:12 PM
On the topic:
I would be terrible. Totally unfair, irrational, and womanly.
Liz I would smack you across the face.
Why? She probably shared that view of most women.
Secondary question:
Of whom/when would you like to be king? Mine should be obvious.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 10:57:29 PM
Secondary question:
Of whom/when would you like to be king? Mine should be obvious.
Nothing about you is obvious.
I would be a great roi fainéant (i.e. do-nothing king), leaving government to counselors and only occasionally intervening If I considered something clearly wrong. But if I tried to actually rule, I would be generally well-meaning but lack the ruthlessness and energy required, and I would have to fight constantly against my innate tendency to procrastinate.
With luck I would find a Bismarck, Richelieu, Oxenstierna or Olivares to do all the work I didn't like for me, leaving me free to devote my time to the aspects of government that interested me and my strange hobbies, things like building steam machines and claim they would change the world some day. And, like Rudolph II, people would think I was engaged in alchemy, witch craft, astrology and heresy.
In the worst scenario, things could get quite nasty if I had power to have people killed instantly with one word... Nero supposedly tried hard to be a good emperor, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, the man that possess it must rule himself with an iron hand.
I guess Korea would be like Catherine II Velikiye of Russia.
I'll have to photoshop here image into a love scene with a horse to be sure, though.
since the modern Crown is merely symbolic of the people's collective sovereignty, ... sure. I would be Leviathan meets Walt Whitman as I contain multitudes.
In practical terms, I would allow the elected PM and his cabinet run everything, as I'm really just there to eat raw seal, sign a few bills, make appearances and prop up the constitution
Quote from: Alatriste on October 03, 2009, 04:43:33 AM
In the worst scenario, things could get quite nasty if I had power to have people killed instantly with one word... Nero supposedly tried hard to be a good emperor, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, the man that possess it must rule himself with an iron hand.
I'm not entirely certain that Nero was that bad of an emperor. He was mostly despised by the aristocracy who wrote the unflattering works we know him by today.
Quote from: Syt on October 03, 2009, 04:52:30 AM
I guess Korea would be like Catherine II Velikiye of Russia.
I'll have to photoshop here image into a love scene with a horse to be sure, though.
I do love horses. :) I really want a pony. :)
:)
I'd probably be a good monarch for administration, but a horrible one for the people, because I'd be smacking down idiotic policies left and right, whether the people like it or not.