Who lives a better quality of life: A 16th century English king or an American making 35,000 a year?

being king isnt that great wrote:

And do you think that the life of a 16th century English king was just so leisurely that he was able to hang out all day? Being king was an incredibly high pressured job that included cementing alliances, granting favors, fighting wars, settling internal disputes and always having to keep an eye open for someone trying to take your crown.

If you want to be a responsible and hard working king then go for it you will become so and so the great. You can do that as a nobody and maybe someday people will remember that great nobody that worked hard.

If you want to be remembered as the noblest king and you are a nice person you can go touch lepers and become the greatest nicest king as your legacy.

If you want to go full on caligula you can do that too.

The point being you can do whatever you want that matches your ideals and it just makes it better.

Sure, you could absolutely neglect your kingdom, if you want to lose it all.

Modern day life would be my choice, absolutely.

Mostly for the basics (improved healthcare, sanitation, and technology - no, not just for entertainment, but more importantly for the improved possibilities as 'being king isnt that great' already mentioned). Also, because I don't want to have to be responsible for the well-being of millions of subjects who would likely detest me if I did them wrong (and they were wise enough to realize it), such as neglect governance which would lead to famine, disease, war, and inevitably my death either at the hands of my subjects, my council, or another king.

Without a doubt, I'd choose modern day life.

Kings had power and babes but the power was constantly being challenged, assasination worries all time. Diseases running rampant, no cures for harldly anything. No electricity, no lights, no cars. The babes were dirty, never heard of a close shave (I hate hair). Religious wars and civil wars daily.

I'm not in college, quite older (Hell, I'd be dead now if I were 16c king) and make a bit more than 35k. So I'll take my peaceful, warm little house, car, and watch porn every day until I'm 70ish rather than deal with the aforementioned life of a king. Was never much for power and greed anyway.

No happy times in front of a computer screen? The average thinking person gets more satisfaction from a day on the miracle of the internet than Henry VIII got from years of "doing whatever he wanted," which ws mostly trembling in fear of deceit and beheading threats to his power.

R U efiin kidding me?

A King or a low paid wage slave?

runit boa wrote:

King are you kidding me no contest. Life would have been so sick (in a good way) back in the day. I wouldn't miss technology obviously since it didn't exist in the first place. Life could be so much more reckless and wild a few hundred years ago. Plus if you're the KING, you have a bunch of power.

Never mind indoor plumbing.

I guess domination and endless women just does not have the appeal it used to have. We might as just have an alien race come down and pay us $10 hour to be their pets.

You people's fantasy's about being a king in the 16th century are an example of what the novelist Douglas Coupland called "vaccinated time travel".

And I'm not sure you would have had as much power to do whatever you wanted.

akkakal@akkaka.net wrote:

You could cut the salary well below $35000 and still live better than Henry VIII or Edward VI. You would not have the social prestige or psychological benefits of being king, which isn't chopped liver, but your level of day-to-day physical comfort would be much better in the modern world.

I'll go with this. Seems to me what makes people happy with their lives is when they think they are doing better than their neighbors. A $35k guy does not think that unless he lives in a very poor place. More likely he is always worrying about money and the next unexpected bill.

a king is top of the pyramid and lives better than anyone else. That would do a lot to make him happy.

If I had to choose one or the other, I would definitely choose king.

mr cuddles wrote:

I guess domination and endless women just does not have the appeal it used to have.

By the way, Your Highness: those "endless" women are going to give you diseases that, in the 16th century, are also endless. Have fun, pissing fire every time you take a leak. And, as someone said, good luck with your appendicitis attack.

This doesn't even address the everyday stuff, like your rotting teeth (only available dentistry: pulling them out). Elizabeth I, for instance, lost so many teeth that she stuffed her cheeks with rags for public appearances--otherwise the cheeks fell in from lack of support.

And how about the constant torment from vermin, like lice and mosquitoes? King Christina (of Sweden--17th century) had a miniature cannon with which to shoot the fleas in her bedchamber; a bedchamber actually without fleas, of course, was an impossibility.

I was accepting some of what you said until you' wrote "food in England is terrible to this day". Since you clearly don't know what the fvck you're talking about,I dismissed the rest.

Blew it wrote:

I was accepting some of what you said until you' wrote "food in England is terrible to this day". Since you clearly don't know what the fvck you're talking about,I dismissed the rest.

The only good food in England is from immigrants from the old empire.

I'd be the 16th century English king. That way I can convert the nation away from the dark ages caused by christianity and move towards establishing an atheist nation without the shackles of unenlightened thinking. I figure with this in place we can have all the comforts of modern day society within a few decades.

BowlerBoonie wrote:

I'd be the 16th century English king. That way I can convert the nation away from the dark ages caused by christianity and move towards establishing an atheist nation without the shackles of unenlightened thinking. I figure with this in place we can have all the comforts of modern day society within a few decades.

And you would have been promptly cast a heretic and either burned at the stake or beheaded. The world would not be changed one bit and you would be remembered as one of the many murdered kings.

A shall play my trump card: We have toilet paper now. And flushing toilets.

Have you read something like this

http://amzn.to/1fNXRxH

or atleast a bit?

I'd say income level is only one factor but I can live a rich life on 35k assuming no debt.

the new servants and winches would no doubt, at some point, bring you some type of venereal disease and your d1ck would rot off. leaving you to die a slow, painful death.cheers

king dong. wrote:

The king can screw a new servant every day and doesn't need a computer to watch porn.

question man wrote:

The king would ...live in the lap of luxury...

Not really.

No air conditioning, rotten food in the winter, no decent beer, inability to travel any distances, not to mention the horrific state of medical care.

Dental surgery, sure, they could pull a tooth, but without anesthesia. Cut yourself... you could die from infection. Flu was often fatal. Tuberculosis epidemics occurred frequently. The Black Death wiped out 1/3 of the population. Life expectancy was less than 35. The people who lived longer often had serious, debilitating, painful injuries or diseases.

My dog has better health care than a 16th century king.

Imagine it's January... freezing outside and you're the king looking at my house through some magic mirror.

He sees fresh apples, oranges and bananas. A refrigerator and freezer. Running water. Hot water. Instant fire on the stove with a click of a button. Constant temperature all year around. Worldwide telephone service. TV. Radio. Electric lights.

umm wrote:

I doubt 35k is even above the poverty line. Make it 150k and it might be an interesting discussion

You Mitt Romney?

In 2013, for the WHOLE USA, for a single person, the poverty line was $11,490.