What's it like to have royalty?

[diaglo]

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.

i would mention the fact that many of the noble class now charge money to view their grounds and estates. partly b/c they can't afford to keep them afloat.

 

[Beale Knight]

From what I hear, they mostly inherit it, don't they?

True, but there's a huge chunk of their parent's money aken by the federal government before the kids get a penny. This "death tax", while widely hated, was enacted in part to prevent the de facto establishment of an American Aritocratic class. How well that's turned out is wide open for debate of course.
Celebs are certainly a kind of royalty, but more often than not they don't inherit their power and influence, the Barrymore's being a clear exception.

Winding this back to topic, I use a variety of governments for Next Age Heroes, monarchy, theocracy, despot tyranny, and open councils to name a few. But having been born and raised in a democratic republic with as much corruption as ideals, I can't say how historically accurate my portrayals are. Probably about as accurate as my historical portrayals of dragons.

 

[Evilhalfling]

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.

\
Have you seen the king template from a magical midevil society?
I dont have the book but I remember they have to rule a large population -
100,000 or 1 million
immune to divination spells, +4 chr bonus, energy resistance based on HD
new list of aristocat class skills.
I also have the famed kings regalia - 13 different magic items, few of great power (4-10k each) including crown of persuasion, amulet of health, glammered mithril full plate etc. Most focus on keeping the king alive.

Also if you give PC's roleplaying/problem solving xp then whoever is running the kingdom should be getting this on a daily basis.

 

[darklight]

Sorta off topic, but I'm just watching the wedding of the Danish Crown Prince Frederik and Mary Elizabeth Donaldson...
I have to say, there is emotional power in such an event, just watching the faces of the bride and groom and especially their parents...it's beautiful...

My girlfriend and her sister (who are Australians) are in Copenhagen to experience the wonderful atmosphere of hundreds of thousands of happy people wishing the newlyweds well...

Wonderful...

darklight

 

[Tonguez]

If you want an opinion from a non-european 'tribal monarchy' which is also part of the British Commonwealth then yes the monarch is an important figurehead in my community, who is given differential treatment and is spoken about (often quite scathingly) mainly when he does not meet the expectations the people beleive he is obliged to (there are a lot of jokes about his croissant fetish lately since he now spends a lot of time in Belgium with UNESCO).

He is expected to have mainly a diplomatic function with regards to political relationships, our current man is a member of the World Heritage Committee and the Paciifc representative to the world council of UNESCO. he also recently attended the state funeral in Fiji.
Domestically -although he is technically voted in like everyone else - he is pretty much guaranteed a seat on the tribal council and economic authorities (where he is invariably made chairman, although in practicethe deputy chair usually stands in).

As I said we are also members of the Commonwealth and so the Queen in England is technically head of state which is fine she is remote and hardly even considered whereas our own man here is much more approachable (to those of us related to him anyway) and more able to lend us a sense of pride

of course how this all helps with a game set in pseudo-medieval europe I'm not sure

PS the oldest monarchy in the World is that of our relatives in Tonga

 

[simmo]

Births, Death and Marriages tend to bring the Royalty back in to the spotlight. In a campaign world this is likely to be the same for most of the common people with only the nobles having any kind of interaction with their royalty.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with the literary model used. IME, D&D isn't generally based on history except in a roundabout way. It's much more generally based upon literature. So, how the king is treated will depend upon the game:

-Fear, Respect and Loyalty: A Robin Hood (vis a vis the true king of course), Lord of the Rings, or King Arthur style game.

In this model, the king is just (though his regents may be crooked and rebelled against) and powerful and will generally be followed loyally. This is a rare model in modern literature and cinema--partially because the king is an authority figure and the dominant forces of our day see that as sufficient reason to be disrespectful and subversive, and partially because it's very rare to see justice and goodness presented non-ironically. (Even Peter Jackson couldn't bring himself to do so wholeheartedly in the Lord of the Rings films, as demonstrated in the way he screwed Faramir's character and changed Elrond and Aragorn).

-Loyalty (The Three Musketeers, James Bond, etc)

In this model, the king is a figurehead. He (or she in the case of James Bond) may or may not be ineffectual but is rarely relevant to the plot. Rectifying injustice is up to the PCs and this knowledge inspires a certain free-spirited attitude where "minor" indiscretions (whether they are pretending not to be able to hear the Queen's representative in the closing sex-scene or duelling with the cardinal's guards and romancing the queen's ladies in waiting) are expected to be overlooked by the monarch.

-Rebellion (The Star Wars series, Willow, etc).

In this model, the king is the source of evil and injustice and his is who the PCs are fighting against. In some fiction this may be done in favor of a different claimant. In the classical stories, it would be done in favor of the true king whose throne the current king had usurped (Prince Caspian). IME, however, for most modern stories, the fact that the protagonists are rebelling, however, is far more important than what they are rebelling in favor of. Braveheart talks a lot about freedom and only a little about the rightful king of Scotland. IIRC, the original StarWars trilogy managed to finish without ever mentioning that the rebels were going to set up the New Republic (or whatever it's called).

I'm sure there are more literary models of rulership than this suggests and that the amount of class consciousness and formality in society (in America, most people seem to want to be on a first name basis--Miss Swan's "call me Elizabeth" line at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean was perfect modern American egalitarianism) plays a role in how characters interact with monarchs and other important people. However, I suspect the dominant literary model of the campaign's treatment of the monarch is even more important.

 

[nikolai]

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 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?

Speaking from the UK: the monarchs function is largely ceremonial. They do have powers and privileges (public money relating to their upkeep, and tax exemption), but there's no question that parliament is in charge. Politics goes on much the same as it does in the US. There is a continuing simmering debate about the future of the monarchy, but it isn't a big issue. People worry about other things and it would take a lot of effort to change the situation, effort that most people would rather spend changing other things.

Some people love the monarchy, and others hate it just as much. Current opinion is probably slightly in favour. There aren't weekly love/hate polls on the monarchy (as the job of running the country rests with the Prime Minister), but there are polls and there's an awareness that the monarchy need public support to exist. Mostly the royal family it treated as soap opera stuff for the tabloids.

This type of consitutional monarchy doesn't really have much in common with the sort of tyrannies that used to rule large chunks of Europe. I'm not sure if the present monarchies are the best place to look at as models for D&D. Kingship used to be a really violent and oppressive institution which was just about gaining and holding on to power. There are all sorts of very bloody incidents in history to do with the seizure or maintainance of the throne.

It's also probably worth pointing out that there are monarchies which are despotisms and where the King does have very real power, and you'd get quite different answers from people living in those places.

Re: the Interregnum

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.

There are countries who have reinstituted a monarchy quite recently, Spain for example. There are plenty of dispossessed aristocrats wandering around Europe, who given the right political climate, would jump at the chance of getting their families old jobs back. Some states ruled by monarchs have been founded quite recently (i.e. in the 20th century), several Middle Eastern countries spring to mind. The return of monarchs and the increase in their powers isn't unknown, and moves in this direction are still happening in some places (Afganistan and Liechenstein anyone?).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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

I blame Bismarck, personally (look up the details in the Castle Falkenstein RPG).

Of course, he at least had the good sense not to start a World War, which cannot be said for the Emperor who kicked him out of office...

 

[S'mon]

Re UK monarchy - while Parliament certainly has the Real Power these days - and the English Civil War established that Parliament trumps King - it's notable that when I joined the Territorial Army and took the Oath of Allegiance (which is taken in many other contexts, like becoming a citizen) I swore allegiance primarily to "The Queen, Her Heirs and Successors" and secondarily to her representatives in government (ie Tony Blair & whoever succeeds him). Being a solemn oath, I take this pretty seriously, and I expect a lot of other people do too. The monarchy thus has a balancing/stabilising function in the British system, just as the "Flag, and the Constitution for which it stands" does in the US system. Because we don't swear allegiance directly to the executive head of government - the Prime Minister or President - or to the operational head of the military, it becomes much harder for them to rely on the support of the armed forces if they were to attempt to subvert our democratic system. If the Queen were to withdraw support from the PM, the armed forces in theory are obliged to go along with that decision. Of course the Queen in practice goes along w what Parliament decides, and I expect would only ever withdraw support from a Prime Minister who attempted to dissolve Parliament and institute a dictatorship, which hopefully is unlikely to happen anytime soon.