A king, realizing his incompetence, can either delegate or abdicate his duties. A father can do neither. If only sons could see the paradox, they would understand the dilemma.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A king without power is an absurdity.
The paradox is, I can't miss the good things about my father while he is alive, but I will of course miss him... when he is dead.
Why is it that the king can do no wrong? This shows they do not regard the king as being a human. But the king can do wrong.
Two paradoxes are better than one; they may even suggest a solution.
The paradox is really the pathos of intellectual life and just as only great souls are exposed to passions it is only the great thinker who is exposed to what I call paradoxes, which are nothing else than grandiose thoughts in embryo.
A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive him to despair.
It neither is reason nor in any wise to be suffered that the young king, our master and kinsman, should be in the hands of custody of his mother's kindred, sequestered in great measure from our company and attendance, the which is neither honorable to his majesty nor unto us.
Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subjects are rebels from principle.
Authority forgets a dying king.
A true king is neither husband nor father; he considers his throne and nothing else.