I think it was mostly modern fiction (and the Victorians) that gave us the idea that a 'good king' was concept.
Um, I can't parse that sentence.
Easy to tell from the arts. If they spent that much money on beautiful items, then it clearly wasn't helping the populace.
General problem with the super-rich, whether they're monarchs or not.
On the other hand, rich people being patrons of the arts is often the only reason we have "the arts" at all. Though I suppose the argument there is that it's better to spend money on the Sistine Chapel than it is to spend money on things the public can't enjoy. Which is a good point.
But this all reinforces my point, in a way; because if monarchs are normally selfish, then one is more likely to be a "good king" if one is a "good man", not the other way around.
no subject
Um, I can't parse that sentence.
Easy to tell from the arts. If they spent that much money on beautiful items, then it clearly wasn't helping the populace.
General problem with the super-rich, whether they're monarchs or not.
On the other hand, rich people being patrons of the arts is often the only reason we have "the arts" at all. Though I suppose the argument there is that it's better to spend money on the Sistine Chapel than it is to spend money on things the public can't enjoy. Which is a good point.
But this all reinforces my point, in a way; because if monarchs are normally selfish, then one is more likely to be a "good king" if one is a "good man", not the other way around.