Someone in a Discord channel was pontificating, "Kings are high level characters".
That reminded me of the famous lines:
I principati sono o ereditari, de' quali il sangue del loro signore ne sia stato lungo tempo principe, o e' sono nuovi. (...) Sono questi domini così acquistati o consueti a vivere sotto un principe, o usi ad esser liberi; ed acquistansi o con le armi di altri o con le proprie, o per fortuna o per virtù.
Il Principe, capitolo primo
Principalities are either hereditary, in which instance the family of the prince has ruled for generations, or they are new. (...) Dominions taken in this way are either accustomed to living under a prince or are used to being free; and they are gained either by the arms of others or by one's own, either through Fortune or through virtue.
The Prince, translated by Peter Bondanella
An hereditary principality goes to its heir. Did he get it later or earlier?
Late in life, then he might be a high level character, he probably was exposed to teachers, masters, and examples. Maybe he was entrusted commands and diplomatic missions.
If a young lad, the high level character is the person behind him. Why not his mother? If one takes chess as a game of court intrigue, the queen (mother) lays waste before his son.
A principality gained by arms may well go to a high level character. The violent group is ruled by its virtuoso. Fortune did help.
And then my thoughts wandered towards Cairo a century earlier, where Ibn Khaldun taught us about nomadic warlords taking over and "farming" sedentary societies:
Once the barbarians solidify their control over the conquered society, however, they become attracted to its more refined aspects, such as literacy and arts, and either assimilate into or appropriate such cultural practices. Then, eventually, the former barbarians will be conquered by a new set of barbarians, who will repeat the process.