Is it that way (genuinely asking) or is it a consequence of the way we write history being unkind?

I don't doubt for an instant that I work harder than QEII for example, but 2-300 years ago, a ruling class person would have probably worked somewhat hard, much like a CEO works today, since an entire ecosystem depended on the estate.

I doubt very much that a lord didn't understand what was bringing in the money for his estate, and the realities of what it means if the circumstances are not right to fulfil the criteria to bring in money.

(I sound like I'm advocating that this was a good thing or that I think they worked really hard, but I'm just postulating that we could be minimising their contributions based on our modern sensibilities and desire to dislike people of that class, and I include myself in that).

I think the criticism of that rentier class is based on them not contributing much so taking to role of owner rather than executive in today’s terms.

I don’t know about you but I certainly wouldn’t want the Queen’s job.

Yeah, I’m slightly skeptical about claims that the head monarch of the UK doesn’t work hard. They have to do a lot of ceremonial things and voluntarily go to a bunch of other more philanthropic/PR/outreach things, even well into retirement age. I am still dubious as the value it provided but it’s definitely a kind of labor, given that it’s essentially expected.

In the past they’d not only have to do these tasks but also actually rule. Being a ruler in general sounds like a pretty sweet gig but I’d have to imagine it’s similar to being an upper level manager in that your entire day is filled with meetings and requests for meetings.