It is fame enough to be a prince or king without being a musician!
If we delved among the records of the ancient Greeks and Romans we might find many a monarch who was celebrated for his flute playing or his singing. We know that these personages were excellent performers, for did they not win all the contests into which they entered, even when their opponents were the principal musicians of their countries? In fact, the continuation of the good health of the opponent required that the emperor should be victor.
We have all read the old story of how Nero fiddled while Rome burned. This is a very respectable and antique myth; for there are no records of any kind to show that the Romans knew or practiced the use of the bow—save to slay their enemies. No doubt the fiddle that Nero played on was a flute, that is, if he played at all on the occasion of that historical illumination.
Coming down to more modern times and less sanguinary musicians, we find the Emperor Charles the Fifth, of France, to have been quite a music critic (though that does not necessarily imply great musical erudition). His namesake, the Emperor Charles the Sixth of Austria was endowed with musical abilities of a very high order. So discriminating was his knowledge of musical worth, that Farinelli, the greatest singer of all Europe at that time, said that the Emperor gave him musical instruction that was "of more use to him than all the precepts of his masters or the examples of his rivals." The idea that this royal teacher advanced was that a more simple and less exaggerated style would reach the heart quicker than all the long notes, roulades, and tours de force that the singer could use.
King Henry VIII, he of frequent marriages, was regarded in his day as "extremely skilled in musical art" and as "acquitting himself divinely." He was quite a singer and played the organ, harpsichord, and lute. Besides this, he was a poet, and frequently set his verses
