Hamlet was loved by the Danish people which Claudius points out to Laertes in Act 4, sc. 7, ll. 17-20. This indicates that the people would be in favor of having Hamlet as their king. Whether or not Hamlet would actually be a good king though, is debateable. For one thing, Hamlet is indecisive. It takes him the entire play to finally carry out the wishes of his dead father. He says he believes in the ghost in Act 1, sc. 5 ("It is an honest ghost,"), then recants that when he says at the end of Act 2, sc. 2 that he's going to perform a test in having actors enact the murder to see if Claudius reacts to see if the ghost was a real and honest ghost. He spends too much time contemplating and not enough time acting. He is more the peaceful student of philosophy than he is the quick acting king of a country. While that might make him peaceful and good, especially if everyone else in every other country that might be interested in Denmark was the same, that will probably get him killed by an invading army. He doesn't do anything to stop Fortinbras from invading and taking over Denmark. According to Horatio's explanation in Act 1, sc. 1 of Denmark's war preparation, the old King Hamlet won Norway in a fair fight. Young Fortinbras wants to take back his land by invading Denmark. He is brash and quick acting, but he is violent. He sacrifices his men for his goal as explained in Act 4, sc. 4. He is too rash and Hamlet is too slow to act. Hamlet might be a good king, but it would only be as long as there was no conflict for him to face and that probably wouldn't be very long.