| Sunday, 11 May 2008 |
| king or kingmaker? |
Would you rather be the King, or the Kingmaker?
I was doing my share of research on Tokyo for the upcoming trip and I started reading about the Japanese Imperial Family and how their lives were controlled by the Imperial Household Agency. It must be real ironic, to be part of the Imperial family of the world's 2nd largest economy and yet, have absolutely no freedom at all; to have almost every aspect of their lives being subjected to the control and manipulation of a group of rather sinister people. Which got me thinking: would I rather be the King or the Kingmaker?
Now everyone knows what a King is. A King (or Queen) is the ruling monarch of a dynasty. He (or she) rules over a country, over a state, over a people; he (or she) lives in luxury, basks in the glow of lavishness, enjoys the fruits of his (or her) people's labour. The monarch has it all. So really, who on earth wouldn't die to be part of Royalty?
What then is a Kingmaker? Well, according to wikipedia, '"Kingmaker" is a term originally applied to the activities of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick during the Wars of the Roses in England. The term has come to be applied more generally to a person or group that has great influence in a royal or political succession, without being a viable candidate. Kingmakers may use political, monetary, religious, and/or military means to interfere in the succession.' So in short, Kingmakers are the evil eunuchs who bitch behind the monarch's back, or the pissy butlers who slip poison into the wines of princes they hate, or the two faced politicians who publicly support a prince but secretly offers to back the claims of another.
So who wields the real power? The King or the Kingmaker? Nevermind that most modern day monarchies have to teeth: they are just figure-heads, dependent on taxpayers' money for a living, dependent on present day politicians for a backbone, dependent on public sentiment and support for survival. In today's modern context, it pays to be the Kingmaker more than the King, because power no longer lies in the person who sits on the coveted throne, power lies in the shadow that holds the leash of the person who bears the crown. He who lurks in the shadow controls the light.
Then again, the concept of how real authority and power lies in not the King, but the shadow behind him might not be such a new concept after all. Throughout history, even in the good old days where monarchs had absolute power and could demand the decapitation of any single person without a reason, there have been numerous examples where people who are able to influence the thoughts of the monarch have come up tops in the ever ending race to maintain survival. Get in the good books of the present monarch, and you'll will have your own personal god-sent assassin to kill your rivals. Attaining the favour of the monarch is thus a one way ticket to riches and glory. The converse is also true, whereby offending the monarch is a one way ticket to losing your head and testicles. So being the Kingmaker like any form of investment, has its fair share of risks. The higher the risk, the greater the possible dividends and losses. Its all just a matter of whether you've backed the winning (or luckier) side really.
I think the perfect situation is to be the Kingmaker to a perfectly ineffectual King who cannot go against you, or to be a Kingmaker to a succession of Kings. Raise the Crown Prince to treat you as his rightful father, not the bloody useless man-whore who currently sits his fat arse on the throne! So when the time comes and the King starts to resist your malevolent control, you initiate a coup and install your lovely god-son to the throne, and tada! You have a new King that is loyal to you and a former King who is drowning in the lake behind the palace.
Then again, to be a King with absolute power and actually have the brains to use it, is much better to be than a Kingmaker. Alas, no one in history has been able to be become such a perfect King. We had our fair shares of successful Kingmakers, but not successful absolute monarchs.
If you push aside the whole literal meaning of Kings and Kingmakers, such concepts can also be applied to real life. Do you wish to be the King, the 'best', the top dog in whatever you are seeking to do, or to be the Kingmaker, the person who provides the solid foundation to your supremacy, the one without whom, all would not be possible. To be honest, I'll rather be the Kingmaker: the one person who who lacks sufficient resources or position to win at a given game, but possesses enough remaining resources to decide which of the remaining viable players will eventually win. Everyone would be dying to get my support, to get my endorsement, to be in my good books, so much so, I'll feel like a king as well. All the pampering, none of the stress of being King. Now that, is really what it is to be King.
Perhaps there is no difference between being the King or the Kingmaker. Perhaps to be the Kingmaker, is to be the King.Labels: question |
posted by voldemort33 @ 21:15  |
|
|
|
|
|
