Thomas Knowllys (Knowles), Lord Mayor of London. He was mayor during the reign of the very mild-mannered and easily-shocked Henry VI of England, who mostly was interested in religion and education and seems over all to have been a pretty good king, if he had not lived in violent times that needed a stronger hand…it was also during the time of Joan of Arc and the end of the War of the Roses. if you look at his portrait as a guy who might have played basketball if he’d been a shade less interested in his book collection, it seems about right. A good mind, perhaps, but not suited to be in a position of power in those times.
I kind of view him as a prime case of what happens when you put a good and kind but unrealistic person in charge of a bad situation. A lot of people came to violent ends while he was being non-violent.
Y’all are practically kissing cousins. Interesting that your family lines keep meeting and crossing through history. I don’t know if that says anything mystical or profound, but it is remarkable, and kinda neat. If those ancestors kept finding each other compatible, copacetic, sympatico, that’s good; it perhaps explains how you two enjoy each other’s company. What a nice situation to be in!
On that king, ruler, business: Certain people are suited for primary leadership. Others are better off as secondary leaders or advisors. It takes a certain backbone, sang-froid, and bloody-mindedness, I suppose, to be a leader of a nation. It doesn’t do to be a mild-mannered, peaceable man when the rest of the world is filled with people dueling, scheming, and on the whole, more like Lady Macbeth than a more enlightened, humane ruler. Heck, Elizabeth I could be quite sharp if need be, though from what I’ve read, she was better than most in her time as a mostly beneficial, effective ruler.
Though I think I’d much prefer a mild king to a dangerously insane one or a stupid or vapid one. …On the whole, one prefers presidents to kings, however. 😉
There’s also seasoning. Being a real leader, an effective leader, takes experience, both before and during leadership, small roles first, then larger.
One of the things that really bug me on general tv—when someone takes a politically correct stance about some issue that—if they do this, as a leader—will kill a raft of other people. That’s Henry VI to a tee. Sweet fellow. The amount of bloodshed that happened because he was sweet and scholarly was horrific. I think in a way that creeps me out more than, say, Emperor Palpatine, or whatever his name was…the Emperor in Star Wars. Some guy who goes on cultivating his books and his roses while Europe dissolves in blood and fire—you can’t argue with him. You can’t make him look at the big picture. He’d give you alms for two poor orphans. He’d appoint them an income and see they were all right. But take the hard decision to understand the conflict and do something to impose peace…no, he’d go prune his roses and read a book. THAT is creepy.
it’s also the differernce between starting a fight and finishing it. A leader dosn’t have to start a fight, a war or battle or strike against an individual or group. But when someone else, another country or group, starts trouble, a national (or other form of state, region, place) has the responsibility to do something to stop the trouble, whether it’s his own people he sends or a “coalition” of allies. If it’s another nation-state making trouble, then maybe a set of international allies is a good idea, but it is more expedient to do it yourself. If there’s a problem that needs solving that requires “starting something” (a fight, some violence) then, well, that’s a harder call. But if it’s hassling your own people and perhaps neighboring nations, then that gives a clearer reason.
That’s one of the reasons a national leader is put in place, to solve disputes, to clean up messes…and not to start it if it can be avoided by other means. Better to take action and stop a fight, a problem, from getting worse, bigger, continuing to hurt people and trade, etc.
We may not *like* that there are people who like to make trouble, including violence, but there are, a great many of them, who don’t care about peace or lives, people or other life, or what we think is right. A national leader is put in place to prevent such other people from harming his (or her) own country and the neighboring countries. It may not be “nice” and sometimes it has to involve putting people in harm’s way, but it *is* part of the job.
That said, I am very glad I am not the one who has to send people off to stop fights, clean up violent messes, and so on. But someone has to. A group of people, a nation, has to have a leader (or leaders) who will do what’s right to minimize trouble, violence. Minimize does not mean there won’t be any fighting, it means there will be, one hopes, less, and in a controlled, rational manner to reduce losses to one’s own people and to anyone who’s not part of the problem.
This, by the way, is in general, not a criticism of anyone in particular currently in office.
I tend to be conservative, though on some things, I’ve become more liberal over the years. I don’t like that fighting is sometimes necessary, but there are times it is, because not everyone is inclined toward peace, trade, freedom, and the like.
(I’m also of the opinion, if someone (or a group of someones) are elected into office, they darn well are supposed to work together, despite differences of opinion, to solve whatever problems of whatever kind there are within the country. If you’re elected to office, you’re put there to work together for the good of the country and people, to solve problems, to compromise, to find and try alternative solutions until one works. Not to blow hot air and refuse to work as a team or to compromise. It’s called diplomacy, statesmanship, public service for the public good. …Grumble, grumble… That, unfortunately, applies far too often, in far too many times and places. Again, a general comment, but in this case, I wish current national leaders, and not just in our own nation but others too, would…quit talking it all to death and take action to solve your own people’s real problems. Grr….)
Again, I am glad it’s not me in the hot seat. I am one of those who’s not a natural primary leader. An advisor? Fine, I can do that. A small leader? Maybe, but even then, someone else is probably better suited to it. Knowing that is part of the job too. Not seeking the job for fame, glory, wealth, celebrity, ought to be part of the job requirement.
From what I’ve read and seen about King Louis and Queen Antoinette, they were poster child examples of how not to lead, despite that Louis may have wanted to lead well.
When you live in times when everyone else in power is out to grab for themselves and they don’t care who they hurt if anyone gets in the way, that very much calls for someone to make the tough calls, even if it means a group of soldiers (or agents or whoever) are put at risk and might (or likely will) get hurt. — If you really want peace, non-violence, trade, freedoms, then you have to…clean up the neighborhood bullies, so to speak. …And that’s usually what they are, too, overgrown bullies on an international or regional or local scale.
If only the doing were as easy as the saying.
Myself, I’m far more suited to other things than to be a public leader. I know this, from small leadership tasks. I’m likely better at it than I was, but not the guy best suited for it. — When I was a primary caregiver, I could be fine about myself, mostly, up to a point at least, but being responsible for the well-being of another person or persons, that got to me. That, more than whether people follow a person’s leadership style or natural charisma. All the drama and the fussing aggravated me. Active resistance from various people, when I’m supposed to be the leader, instead of being willing to follow and listen and abide by a decision, whether caregiving or committees or work or non-profit projects, these bothered me. So I’m not the guy to be the national leader, president, general, admiral, king, whoever. But there are people who are natural leaders, good leaders, out there.
Heh, I’d see that as one of the problems with a hereditary form of government. If you’re not the one suited to be the leader and you know it, put someone in who *is*. My preference, though, is an elected democratic government, a republic. At least until someone invents something better, more workable.
Heh. I don’t usually express my opinions on things like that, but…well, I’d rather common sense than folly.
Good topic, by the way.
I have a daughter who can walk into a meeting, say very little indeed, and walk out with everyone else enthusiastically going off to do exactly what she wanted when she went in. All of this without ever telling anyone in the room what she wanted. How many of you know someone like that? I’d try to send her into politics, but she doesn’t want to have anything to do with the job. I don’t blame her!
Tao Te Ching, 17:
When actions are performed
Without unnecessary speech,
People say, “We did it!”
The itsy-bitsy spider
Climbs up the drainage spout
Spins up a web
To keep the water out
Out comes the sun
And the A/C doesn’t drain
And the airbag module fails
And the recalls come again
But not for Prii. (Whew!)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/17/autos/toyota-spiders-airbag-recall/index.html
Tao Te Ching 5:
Heaven and earth are impartial;
they see the the thousand things as straw dogs.
The wise are impartial;
they see the people as straw dogs.
Apparently our ~14th GGF is Henry Briggs, English mathematician. If we’ve got this right he’s father of Rebecca Briggs, wife of Thomas Cornell, one of the founders of Portsmouth, Connecticut, 6th GGF of Lizzy Borden! 🙂
Briggs was the one who convinced John Napier to change the base of his logarithms from a number based on “e” (2.7182818284590452353…) to Base 10! So, log(100)=2. So much easier, and just as effective.