Is there real world precedent for more laid back monarchs?

[MonkeySage]

I've got a monarch in my setting who tries to make the people he's speaking to feel at ease,though it doesn't always work. Adelard, though an emperor, has from time to time allowed commoners that he's met face to face to refer to him by his first name, and this is because of the background he's coming from. His father, the previous emperor, had sent him to train as a knight in a tiny fiefdom in the west, under the tutelage of a knight whose primary concern was the defense of her serfs.

She instilled in him a sense of humility, and he kept that even after being named heir to the throne.

I've been wondering though if there is historical precedence for something similar happening. I'm also wondering how much it might realistically hurt his image in the eyes of his vassals, or if his martial prowess might somehow foster respect in them.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I hear Napoleon (yes, that Napoleon) was actually a bit like this. Didn't give much thought to titles, wanted to appear a man of the people. The keyword here is of course appear. I'm not sure how much of it he meant and how much of it was show. After all, that other fellow that took over Europe had very similar habits.

[MonkeySage]

It just might fit....

In my setting, there were two empires that dominated this area; the first was ruled by a tyrannical blue dragon that enslaved humanity, while the mission of the second was to make sure that another one like the first never came back. The name of the second empire even comes from an ancient word for dragon-slayer.

The first emperor even attempted to ban slavery as it existed under the reign of the blue dragon.

[Knaight]

There are plenty of examples. Outright dropping the title seems comparatively unusual, but the extent to which leaders emphasized titles and similar varied. This is particularly true among leaders that were soldiers first, who didn't necessarily need the trappings of power as much when they had a well known history of military success. Julius Caesar is like this to an extent, as just one example.

[Duke_Daisuke]

There's several examples from history I really like the real life examples from the trope the good king. Tsar Peter the Great and Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil are particularly interesting.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGoodKing

[veti]

Henry V of England was "Prince Hal" as heir, mixed very much with the common folk, and was consequently much more popular than his father, to the point where it became a serious issue between them.

But as king, he decided he had to drop his "low" connections and preserve more distance. He'd still talk, man-to-man, with his soldiers (famously on the eve of Agincourt), but he was also conscious that his role in life was very different from theirs, and he couldn't do it by being one of them.

Unless the ruler really us just a figurehead, with little in the way of real powers and responsibilities - like most modern European monarchs - I think they have to preserve some distance from The People.

[Geddy2112]

The Byzantine emperor Justinian I was not only born to common folk, but remained an open and approachable monarch, although like always, some people disagreed.

[hamishspence]

There's several examples from history I really like the real life examples from the trope the good king. Tsar Peter the Great and Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil are particularly interesting.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGoodKing

A possible better-fit:

What's Up, King Dude?

with Charlemagne being an example.

[dps]

I've read that Frederick the Great of Prussia was a bit like that in some ways.