No matter what role you play, there’s always someone better suited to play it. So when it comes to royalty, it’s time to ask: Who is the best suited to be king or queen?
There’s a clear answer to this question, and it’s far from what you might think. George Pattinson is the best fit for the role of king. Not only does he possess the looks and mannerisms of a king, but he has also proven himself to be a capable leader and a wise ruler. (Just take a look at his royal lineage: He is the grandson of Queen Victoria and is third in line to the throne.)
You might assume that the king’s job is easy. But with so much responsibility comes a great deal of stress. This is especially the case if you compare the duties of a modern-day monarch with those of a typical English king from the 17th century. Here are some of the differences.
Majesty Versus Responsibility
One of the most noticeable differences between a modern monarch and a 17th century one is the way they view their responsibilities. Take Queen Elizabeth II, for example. Even at the age of 75, she still considers herself to be queen of England and expects her subjects to behave accordingly – with proper respect, of course.
On the other hand, George II did not consider himself to be a king and did not want his people to think of him in this way either. To prove that he was not a king, he often went about incognito. In fact, he was so anxious to maintain his position that he even changed his will in order to make himself less eligible for the throne.
Although George II had the manners of a king, he lacked the authority of one. This is largely due to the fact that he spent most of his time in England pursuing his personal desires and hobbies. As a result, many people did not consider him to be a true king, even though he ascended to the throne at the age of 17. (He was first in line to succeed his father, George I, who had no surviving children at the time.)
The responsibilities and stress of being king or queen are not something to joke about. Anyone who takes the role seriously will tell you that their life can be extremely demanding. This is especially the case if you compare their daily schedules with those of ordinary people. While an ordinary person may go to work, come home, and go to sleep, a king or queen will typically remain active for much of the day. (In fact, some historians have suggested that the 17th century German king, Frederick William, who was known for his heavy work schedule, may have contributed to the end of his life.)
Additionally, when you are king or queen, your decisions carry more weight. While an ordinary person may ask for someone’s opinion before making a decision, a king or queen will typically make a decision, then solicit feedback on whether or not they made the right choice. This trait is called ‘The King/Queen Effect’ and can make you seem almost god-like. (Just ask the American people, who thought they were voting for the lesser of two evils: President Trump and Hillary Clinton.)
The Difference in Manners
One of the things that makes George II so suited to the role of king is his manner. Throughout his life, George II was known for his love of the dashing good looks and the charming ways of a real-life monarch. (He even wrote a letter to his sister, Queen Charlotte, in which he described how he would regularly send ‘royalist glances’ at courtiers. “I cannot look at someone without ogling them,” he wrote. “It’s my besetting vice.”)
It is this very personality quirk that has allowed George II to become the best-suited for the role of king. As charming as he was, George II could be extremely annoying. According to one of his most well-known critics, the English novelist, William Beckford, the king “had the knack of turning up wherever he went, at all hours, and in every place where he was unwelcome.” (Although Beckford was critical of the king, he did say that George II was “the most elegant and attractive of all European sovereigns.”) A contemporary biographer described George II as having “a strong will and an obstinate character.” This coupled with his charming manners could make him seem like a true king-in-waiting, or even a king-in-person.
A Fondness for Grand Designs
Another important factor that sets George II apart from his 17th century predecessor is his interest in big plans. While George II did not always have the best relations with his siblings or other members of the Royal family, he did maintain a close relationship with his nephew, King George III. This was largely thanks to their shared interest in grand designs. (The grand designs of the King’s uncle and great-uncle, King George II and King George III, still define the course of English history more than 200 years later.)
The King’s relationship with his nephew was something that attracted the interest of the French writer, Chateaubriand, who visited England as part of a literary tour in 1803. During his visit, Chateaubriand was often in the company of the Prince Regent, later George IV. While Chateaubriand was very complimentary of the Prince Regent’s looks and manners, he was not particularly kind to King George II. (In one of Chateaubriand’s books, he referred to the King as “a poor, timid, and vulgar creature.”)
King George II was an unattractive king in every sense of the word. He was described as “unpromising in appearance,” and “little more than an ugly, fat, clumsy man.” But despite his looks, King George II was considered to be very smart and cunning. This is largely because he was always thinking five steps ahead. (One biographer noted that the king “exhibited extraordinary acumen in political affairs.”) As a result of this calculating mind, many considered King George II to be “the most consummate polity of his time.” (His wife, Queen Caroline, once referred to him as “a thinking creature.”) This makes him highly qualified to lead his country – and someone you might want to keep an eye on if you ever find yourself in line for the throne.