What's it like to have royalty?

[Avarice]

Eh? Could you please explain to me the meaning of the American phrase "Old Money", then?

It seems to me that the American "royalty" (that sounds sarcastic, but it's not meant to be - I just can't think of an alternative word) has substantially more political power than royalty elsewhere in the world.

That said, I just broke one of my own rules and mentioned politics, so let's get back to royalty in gaming and forget this real world nonsense!

While I don't know for sure, I suspect the majority of American "Old Money" families are quite a bit closer to their working class roots than those of Europe. While it's true that some American blue-bloods (such as the Roosevelts) can trace their fortunes back centuries, a great many have come to prominence much more recently. IIRC, Joe Kennedy earned a large amount of the family fortune bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada back in the 20s. Of course, none of this explains why we keep electing the 'nobility' to public office.

To bring this back to the topic of royalty in gaming, I find that most of the players in the games I've been in have held those with inherited power in pretty low regard. Seldom will they bend the knee and give proper courtesy unless they're reasonably sure the noble in question can beat them silly if they don't. I wonder if this sort of behavior is a common characteristic for American gamers, or merely characteristic of the questionable sorts of people I hang out with...

Edit: Curse you, herald! Get out of my mind!

 

[Agemegos]

Not to start a political debate, but the Kennedys didn't always have money, they got most of it running bootleg booze into America. In many ways the Kennedys weren't an old money Family when John Kennedy came along. (That doesn't mean to me that he was a bad president.)

I never said they were old money. I said that they inherited it rather than working for it

Old Joe was a hard-working bootlegger. But Jack, Bobby, and Ted just inherited.

 

[Snoweel]

Here in Germany, the president gets elected by a weird assembly of our Upper and Lower Houses. He has next to no political power - most of the authority he has is moral. When he speaks, the country listens. He can't set policy - that's the job of the chancellor.

Is it just me or is it impossible to think of the word 'chancellor' without imagining some evil, scheming old guy?

 

[med stud]

The English disposed of their monarchy in 1649 and restored it pretty successfully in 1660.

In those days you could restore a monarchy because it filled a function. Today it would feel very wonky to chose a new monarch; who should be the monarch? Could anyone apply or should only the oldest noble families be eligible? There would be many problems like that when electing a head of state without power.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I like the British monarchy... they amuse me.

It costs me ~10 pence a year for the civil list (£8 million divided 70 million ways)... So I think they're a bargain. I'm guessing they're a lot cheaper than our Prime Minister with his presidential trappings - tons of bodyguards, Blair Force 1 and so on.

Prince Philip is great - he manages to voice views that really should be left well alone - makes the 'spin doctors' work overtime and provides a few cheap laughs in the tabloids. I hold out very high hopes for Prince Harry - his drug and booze fueled school escapades show promise for the future! Anytime now, I'm expecting to see a headline involving drunkness, several floozies and some sort of Hogwarts gag - it's going to be great.


Anyway, in game I've noticed players don't tend to show much respect for royalty. In fact our current campaign the party paladin branded the last king we met a 'stinking coward, sired by cowards.' - excellent roleplaying (in no fueled by a 'beer or two')... He ate a little humble pie and was allowed to live.

I've noticed players often underestimate NPCs - except for famous magic users. They tend to scare people. So I've decided for my next campaign all kings will be high level wizards - pointed hats instead of crowns - that ought to work.

 

[Fenes]

Swiss here, and we have had no monarchy far longer than the US existed, so I am somewhat in the same boat.

As far as my game is concened, it took me a long time, but I am finally at a point I roleplay people that grew up in a monarchy or aristocracy and are not rabid democrats/republicans such as myself. It comes with other medieval values I roleplay, which are contrary to my own beliefs - like capital punishment for small crimes such as theft, or that slavery/serfdom is ok. It is hard to get rid of the notion that all humans are equal, but if I can roleplay a woman I can roleplay a commoner who believes that aristocrats and especially royality are better than commoners.

I actually have a problem with too much modern values in medieval fantasy settings nowadays - it can ruin a campaign for me, especially if the player expects the rest of the game world to share his or her views.

 

[S'mon]

I think American players/GMs generally have no concept of the idea of "noblesse oblige" and the social contract theory particularly strong in England especially, that the nobility and royalty have, by reason of their position, duties to society and an obligation to behave in a certain manner to their 'social inferiors'. So royals are expected to maintain high standards of decorum, always be polite and good-natured, be tolerant of lapses in decorum by those 'beneath' them, and condider their Duty to their people first and foremost in everything they do. Breach of this social contract (as the American revolutionaries believed had taken place by the Georgian monarchs) is seen as justifiable grounds for revolution.
My impression is there seems to be some sense of 'noblesse oblige' in certain circles of the American aristocratic/plutocratic political elite, but it's much weaker than in UK & Europe, and not much of a sense that great wealth & power incurs great social responsibility.

 

[Wormwood]

My impression is there seems to be some sense of 'noblesse oblige' in certain circles of the American aristocratic/plutocratic political elite, but it's much weaker than in UK & Europe, and not much of a sense that great wealth & power incurs great social responsibility.

One of America's founding documents, Amazing Fantasy #15, touches upon this in some detail.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

In the US, official, blooded royalty is contrary to our whole social structure -- ("All men are created equal.") To some, royalty is anathema -- ("I bow to no man.")

Except, of course movie stars and the super-rich, who are treated with deference (although to be fair, this applies the world over).

In most D&D worlds, the various nations are kingdoms ruled by royalty. But interestingly, most D&D is played in the US -- where people have no real experience with royalty. I wonder if American DMs portray royalty in the game differently than DMs in nations that actually live with/under royalty. I wonder if American Players play their characters differently in their relationships to the in-game royalty than the Players in nations with royalty.

I can’t say, never having been involved in a DnD game refereed by an American.
To a great extent, I suppose that it’s up to the referee how royalty is portrayed, and which historical model is used. Britain sort of drifted from a monarchy into a parliamentary democracy. Most, though not all, fantasy roleplaying games assume a quasi-medieval society, but few supplements give decent information on methods of constructing such a world. Monarchies could be portrayed with an all powerful King, through to almost modern parliamentary democratic monarchies. My campaign is set in a feudal early medieval society (Hârn). The seven civilised kingdoms are all different, even though six of them are monarchies (the seventh claims to be a republic). From this one example I could show you a middle aged King with a tenuous claim to the throne (oh, how he’d like to get rid of those with a better claim) barely in control of half of his kingdom, a young King regarded as weak by many nobles, but well regarded by the merchant classes, a Viking ‘Pendragon’ King, who receives tribute from his vassals simply because if they don’t give it he’ll collect it forcibly, an elderly and infirm King with no legitimate heirs (but three bastards and several nephews and nieces, all with a claim), a King who was reinstalled into his kingdom by a neighbouring state and immediately reneged on their deal and made himself King, not Earl. A powerful King who governs with a light touch and who is guided by a Council of Sages, Mages and Priests.
So, bottom line, it’s your game, your King (or Queen) is what you make him (or her), but remember, if there is a King, there will in all likelihood be Dukes, Earls, Barons, and all of the other nobles.
In my game my players have met one King, once. They would not consider being rude to him, they even treat lesser nobles and knights with respect. Nor would any of them be allowed near the King if they were armed and armoured.

Now, granted, royalty of the modern world is probably quite a bit different than royalty of the Middle Ages that the typical D&D campaign mimics, but then again, surely there are some similarities.

Not many

So, my question to the forumites here who live with/under national royalty: What is the relationship like? Do most people love the royals? Do any people hate the idea that royals still exist? Are there weekly polls showing like/dislike as Americans see about Presidents?

In Britain, as others have said, the Queen is separate from politics and exercises little or no power (other than fulfilling an ambassadorial role) so, in the main, no-one cares.

In general, what is it like living with/under royalty? What is the general opinion of royalty in general, and your royalty in particular? Should D&D royalty be more or less prevelent in the text? There is very little, if any, mention of royalty in the core D&D books; is this good or bad, accurate or false?

Very different, I imagine, to living under Henry VIII who was capable of standing up to the pope!

How do you refer to the royalty in normal, everyday conversation? Do you refer to them at all in normal conversation? Do you have political conversations about the royalty with you coworkers/friends/classmates as we Americans do about our politicians? Do the royals have any real impact on your life?

As others have said, no. Some parts of the British press have an interest in the private lives of the Royals, but the topic of the Monarchy never comes up in conversations. They’re dull, even more dull than Posh ‘n’ Becks. Other than the fact that they give some meaning to the pageantry at Buck’ House and appear to bring in the tourists, no-one thinks much of them. Though I am often amused by the more bizarre conspiracy theories regarding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Finally, also mentioned above was the title Chancellor. Don’t forget the King has a court, in the UK the Lord Chancellor is in charge of the Legal System and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in Charge of fiscal policy (in medieval times he collected the taxes). Also there will be a Chamberlain, or Lord Chamberlain who manages the Royal Household. Annoy him and you can be sure that he’ll tell the king ‘that oily little ne’erdowell XXXX wishes to see your majesty on a matter of urgency. I’m sure it’s nothing so I’ve given him an appointment in a months time.’ That is, if he even bothers to tell the King that you're waiting.

GOM

 

[Janx]

I would mention the old adage "money is power"

Therefore, any monarch that has money, has power.

It would not be accurate to say any of the "powerless" monarchs are powerless. They have investments in lots of things, and can afford lobbyists, and other means of influencing lawmakers.

Just like our big corporations in the US.