If you were a King?

Democracy and brains. Neutrality and no military. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. Plus having nothing that anyone else wants.

@Joker94 Er….what do you mean “if”?....

If i were to become the king of my country i would get rid of the monarchy.
It cost a lot of money and they don’t have a real function, all decisions and laws are made and implemented by the government.
We would lose our Queens Day (an annual day of festivities with music and flea markets) though.

Is abdication of the throne out of the question? Unless I am in a nation the size of Monaco, there’s no way I would be able to keep up. Thinking about this question is giving me anxiety. I don’t want to be responsible for the politics of an entire body of people.

@wundayatta What do you mean by neutrality? And the idea of no military sounds kind of interesting..

@wundayatta : I don’t know if you intended humor with ”Plus having nothing that anyone else wants.” Damn the lack of non-verbal cues! But I laughed…very astute! GA

I would free the people…

No idea. No matter what I’d do, even if it was well intended, it might not satisfy the people, and who knows, I might be a total tyrant, sinking into that I’m doing it for the good of all and then just being a dick to everyone. Upon realization of this, which would most likely never be, it’s back to square one, with nothing accomplished but megadeath and unpaid taxes.
I don’t think stuff like that, outside of fairy tales, is synonymous much with anything beyond oppression and darkness.

And here I go acting like, if I were a queen, that I’d try to do the good thing. I’m not a good person, I’m very selfish and self centered, so it’s probably a good thing I don’t have rule over anyone.

But if I were some kinda royal figure, I’d probbaly just get drunk and play some fancy instrument while my kingdom burned to the ground.

If I were king I would immediately have myself declared queen. Not that I’m hung up on gender roles, I just don’t want there to be any confusion as to which bathroom I will be using when I wander out and about among my subjects, because I am going to be that kind of queen, at least in the beginning, until I get to know my subjects, and I them. Then I will dissolve the Monarchy and have myself declared Dictator for Life because all the pomp and circumstance and ceremony surrounding the monarchy is going to make me feel uncomfortable and the money could be much better spent on other, more important things. Then I am going to find a consort, maybe a few of them and do that for a while. And when I tire of all the consorting, I will get down to the business of running things and imposing my benevolent will, a will that will always, of course, be infused with wisdom, on my grateful subjects. Then I’m going to do some more consorting, I think. Maintaining that delicate balance between consorting and imposing my will on my people is going to be tough; I’m not sure if I’m up to this but I’m willing to give it a shot.

@Joker94 Neutrality means not taking anyone’s side. Like Switzerland. Costa Rica has no army, so that’s my model for that. They get along just fine, and don’t have to spend all the money other nations waste on a military.

As to not having anything anyone else wants—I see what is funny about that, @JilltheTooth, although I didn’t intend it to be funny—then no one has much interest in invading you. So no oil, no mineral resources, just mountains full of jungle and snakes and even if you did clear the land, nothing else would grow.

Costa Rica seems to be making a name for itself with eco-tourism. Sounds good to me. I think if I were king, that’s the way I’d make money.

After watching Braveheart, I decided to go read up some shit on King Edward the First, or Longshanks if you will. I read up on some other kings after that, and a poor 17 year old queen who reigned for…nine days before being executed for treason.

Anyways being a ruler back then doesn’t sound like fun at all, especially when your job back then wasn’t to ensure much of a future, (Unless that meant being a dick to the French, but no doubt they were just as horrible in their own ways.) rather than it was cleaning up the messes left by war and political fuckery; and causing more of your own. Such as wasting all and any who questioned you, or kissing their asses if you were a wuss. What do they got against Scotland and Ireland anyways?
I know it’s way more than what is in this post, but dude too much of a job for me.
I guess the mindframe or times or whatever back then were too different to apply to today, what with basically nearly living in a time when advancement wasn’t even an idea, and you just had to deal with shit as it happened. I guess the smartest thing to do is take advantage of everything and everyone as much as you could, as Edward the Third seems famous for, and therefore the most ’‘efficient’’ king of all English history. Both by biased and non biased historians alike.

Obviously, something musta changed somewhere though, but I haven’t got that far.

So far however, yes I’m sure I could be a total jacksack to my people, but I don’t think I’d be able to to deal with how complicated and severe everything was, especially the consequences, that is, if I could even approach the realistic situations of back then in a comprehensive manner.

Of course there’s other types of kings all over history, but it’s probbaly all as complicated as what I’m reading is, right? I can’t do it.

Establish democracy. It’s what Juan Carlos I did after 1975.