Kings

The song is about Magna Carta. Richard the Lionhearted was a grand king of England who had total rule. He was succeeded by his younger brother John. John was weak and had to cave in to the English noblemen who wanted to share in the rule of the country. By asserting that the king had less than total rule over his country and all his subjects, Magna Carta became the initial basis for many prinicpals which are now part of what we consider to be basic human rights. Richard was a much more valiant king, but he ruled without regard for the common people. John was a terrible king, but his weakness made his government less despotic.

I don't think Richard and John refer to Kennedy and Nixon. I think it's about how we immortalize the memory of our past leaders. History ignores their faults. King Richard is dead. A bunch of guys hang out in the pub/bar and toast the memory of his conquests. However, while he acquired great wealth for the nation, the common people didn't benefit. King John succeeds King Richard, and you can only expect more of the same.

It seems to be the recurring theme of Can't Buy A Thrill: life is a grind and unjust to the point where it seems to be not worth living -- and don't you dare even think that ordinary people can change the way the world works. But since you're alive anyway, you may as well deal with it. Raise up your pitcher to the powers that be because they are the power and you have none. NONE!!!!

This song and Steely Dan are both great. It's about the english monarchs, like in Robin Hood. Could it also be about Nixon and Kennedy?

I don't know... Nixon was before my time, but how many people really regard him as a good king?

This song is definitely a reference to Nixon and Kennedy. Can't Buy a Thrill (the album from which this comes) came out in October 1972, just before the 72 Presidential Election. Though Nixon would go onto win this election in a landslide, his policies were still in question, especially among the Dan and people like them. The references to "good King Richard" as an able leader refer to the fact that he ended American involvement in Vietnam, a conflict that had been enraging the nation for a decade. Nevertheless, the Dan realized that at the same time, he was ignoring problems at home such as poverty and hunger, which is where the line "And though we sung his fame/ We all went hungry just the same" comes from. The speaker is harkening back to the glory days of what was really the last great president, John F Kennedy. Very cleverly written. One of the Dan's best.

Interesting, on the back of the sleeve of my copy of Can't Buy a Thrill, it actually says "no political significance" under Kings on the list, so it's definitely political.

I was never sure if he wasn't referring to Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

Does anyone know what the official story is?

If the song was about Richard Nixon, then it was prescient! Song came out in 1972, Nixon did not resign until 1974. But in retrospect, one tends to think of Nixon when listening because of the times the song came out, the turbulent seventies. What I tend to believe most is that the peasants are singing about their beloved king (Richard) who passed, and cheer for their new king (John) but their lives will be just as miserable and their children just as hungry as before no matter who is king, so they might as well raise their glass and stay drunk.

Maybe my favorite Dan song. No, it isn't as epic or experimental as "Aja" -- it's radio-ready soft rock, maybe even a little Laurel Canyon-ish. But between the percussive piano, dramatic background vocals, and amazing fuzz guitar playing, it has a throbbing, manic tension that I can't help but (gently) bang my head to.

As to the meaning: Richard Lionheart might be there in the verses, but I think we all assume that "King Richard" is allegorical.

I'd be surprised if it was directly about Nixon, in the way that Kid Charlemagne is about Bear Stanley. Don't forget that JFK preceded Nixon, with LBJ in between. But perhaps he did inspire it.

Richard Daley, on the other hand, didn't start his six-term run as mayor of Chicago until 1989. I doubt even Fagen is nerdy enough to have written a song about a DNC backroom boy running for Illinois state government. (Robert Hunter, on the other hand...) And when had he "plundered far and wide?"

Anyway, since so much of the song is about the narrator's experience, no one person strikes me as the subject -- his "subjects" are. More than once, we're shown a group of people pretending to praise a ruler who doesn't deserve it. Richard obviously doesn't, because he let people starve. And "Good" King John has only been king for a day, tops.

So I think it's mostly a song that's about how folks are obliged to carry water for a leader or idea that doesn't warrant it, as with groupthink, or the "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Moreover, and I think this is the true point of the song, there's a sense of resignation about all this, like it's just another day at the office. "Roll out the bones!" Wheel that damn corpse out here so we can toast him and go home. These arrows aren't going to fletch themselves. (Or, if you like, "Pick up my guitar and play / Just like yesterday"...)

So, in my view, even if it was about Nixon running for re-election in '72, it's still not so much direct satire as an ode to political malaise.

Good lyricists, and good artists in general, rarely restrict the meaning of their works. If the literal meaning of this song resonates with other parts of life, then the artists have accomplished their goal. "Kings" tells one story, but the story repeats throughout history in various ways. The song describes a single historical story, but the lessons learned from that story were not learned well enough to keep them from happening again and again.

Here's a more detailed synopsis of the story in the song: "Kings" describes a hypothetical meeting of people toasting the memory of King Richard Coeur de Leon, who died in 1199, as well as the conditions among the common folk at the time. There is a glaring disconnect between the "greatness" in the memory of "good" King Richard and the lot of the impoverished lower classes. It's juxtaposed as an ironic statement, that when we elevate a person such as Richard, we might, knowingly or not, forget or ignore the dark side of their legacy.

He never learned to speak English, though he was born and spent most of his childhood in England. He was regarded by some to be a great king, but of his 9-year reign, he spent less than one year in England. The rest he spent "plunder[ing] far and wide" in the 3rd Crusade, and he spent a few months in captivity.

When they raise a glass to "Good King John," who is remembered as a rather incompetent king, and historians believe he killed Arthur, his young nephew and potential rival to the throne of England, that is another ironic juxtaposition. But there was good in John's reign. He agreed with the barony that the king is also subject to the law (Magna Carta, a concession to get funds for his wars in France), though the gesture has more meaning today than it did during John's reign.

Bottom line: Nobody is all good or all bad. Raise a glass!