Honestly, i don’t think there’s any real difference either way. Simply being eligible for the throne is already painting target on his back, because just as some people might want to remove him if he’s a king, some people might want to put him on the throne to replace current ruler and others might equally want to prevent that. See: Francis and how that ended up for him.
Uhm. Wrong!
You can declare heir long before death beds!
If your an idiot like the Marshals father and hide it away, sure there can be contempt then.
Smart thing that most would do is declare heir LONG before deathbed. Which I could do. 1st book has that kid that survives the sickness. Make her my daughter, and declare her heir right then and there, publicly.
Sword wont have a choice in it. Maybe if she has kids. Again elimination of sword prior to death. Would cement the idea. Future Kings and Queens will most likely go with whomever their first is.
Mine specifically will only have 1 itself.
No idea what your on about with nobodies I didnt adopt.
Huh? There’s a gigantic difference. Lena is, as far as we know, a competent and at least accepted monarch. She has reigned for over a decade. Xavier, on the other hand, has been a Rhivenian prisoner for most of his life. If anyone would have wanted to put him on the throne it’d have been us. I’ve already pointed out the risks of instating him and how he’d be seen as a Rhivenian puppet.
No, no, you don’t get the point. I am saying they could claim you said it. If you think inheritance by appointment is an easy, take a look at the romans and see how well that went for them.
Furthermore, “The sword can’t choose” is an utterly preposterous statement to say in-universe. You do realize the sword is an object of their religion, right? Namherys? What are you attempting to say? That you will simply go ‘Actually we don’t believe in her anymore’?
8 Likes
I meant difference in the context of “placing Xavier on the throne would paint a giant target on his back”. He’s going to have that target painted on his back either way. No matter if he is a king or not.
But it does not mean that Rhivenia is the only faction that has potential interest in making Xavier the ruler. People who are dissatisfied with Lena’s rule (and there’s no reason to believe that there isn’t such people) may see him as a more pliable option.
Even if it was just Rhivenia, then some “patriots” may see it necessary to eliminate Xavier, simply so Rhivenia no longer has this option. He’s by no means safe simply because he isn’t a king.
We don’t actually know anything about Lena’s qualities as monarch. We only know that she’s been sufficiently cowed by the threat of having her brother kept as hostage, to stay pacified. How her own people view her and her rule is anybody’s guess at this point.
Also, let’s not forget that Lena’s own father thought she wasn’t fit to rule. Although he didn’t reveal his reasons for such view.
2 Likes
Not really? Like I said, Rhivenia itself are the ones with the strongest motivation to use Xavier as a puppet. Furthermore, Lena is a strong monarch. The chance of someone wanting to coup her is infinetesimally small than Xavier’s, even more so if she marries MC and secures a personal union with Rhivenia.
2 Likes
I will only have one kid Im adopting. There is no others. I couldn’t get accidentally pregnant either. Not with the wife sharing same parts. Now Lena might want a blood heir. Thats different case of argument happening.
If it was their belief to follow sword. The rebels apparently dont follow the sword. So they wont care its erased then. Its useless junk in my book that needs thrown out. The rebels would have to agree. Otherwise they accept the sword and I can keep it for my kid, kids generation. Depending on how many she has.
Edit Dont know if the kid is there in this edition or not. If she isn’t, then Lena can produce an heir if she wishes, I ain’t.
We know that despite being left to rule as a child, she managed to keep the throne for over a decade. And even so, you’re still ignoring that Xavier would be several times more controversial than her.
Sounds like a good way to throw your kingdom into chaos in the case she accidentally dies (Fun fact, this is why we got Emperor Nero) but your choice.
What are you even talking about? Which rebels? The southern kingdom? The peasant’s revolt? If the peasants revolt, your ‘choice’ is literally irrelevant as you are being overthrown anyway. Furthermore, even if you’re not being overthrown, then saying “Actually, I’m abandoning the literal living proof of our religion because I feel like it” is sure to finish the job.
7 Likes
I just think you’re pushing very hard the “Rhivenian puppet” angle when it reality it is far from granted. Was Nelson Mandela universally considered “apartheid puppet” because he’s spent nearly 30 years in prison before becoming the president of South Africa? (this isn’t to say he didn’t have critics, but it’s far from nationwide mutiny or somesuch)
Rhivenia doesn’t even have to do anything for Xavier to become the king – technically, he’s already been made one, by his father, and if he’s freed then it’d be natural to expect Lena to step down.
3 Likes
The rebels that want Richard disregarding the sword outright.
If she dies young before able to have kids then wouldn’t the sword highlight a cousin of hers?
If not, then I broke the sword! Haha!
I don’t give a shit. I ain’t making an heir myself. Lena can. Then it ends up in cousins of adopted daughter if she doesn’t. Most likely if siblings don’t get killed there will be cousins, as they seem to have that m/f relationships building on their own.
Nelson Mandela wasn’t King of South Africa in the middle ages, though. That’s not a very good comparison.
Xavier was never made King. Xavier was chosen by his father as heir apparent despite the fact that Lena was the supposed heir due to primogeniture, and then he got imprisoned by the Rhivenians.
You have to understand, medieval politics were very much different from our current ones. Xavier would absolutely be disliked by the nobles of Asinea as being a Rhivenian puppet. Like I said, from the viewpoint of an Asinean, there is literally no reason why the Rhivenians would give up such a gigantic piece of leverage against someone who by all means should absolutely hate their guts unless they benefitted from it.
And just like I said, how does that actually help your point? Either the rebels succeed (your choice is irrelevant) or the rebels don’t succeed (your choice will be disliked since you’re basically saying your literal source of legitimacy is invalid)
Okay, I’m sorry, but just…that’s not how it works. Do you know how politics and religion work? You can’t just “break the sword, haha!”. Are you even trying to see past your modern opinions to see how someone in the setting would actually think? This isn’t even foolish, it’s just downright chidlish. THE SWORD CHOSE YOU. You literally would not be the monarch without the sword. You can’t just “break” the literal thing that gave you power, and you DEFINITELY can’t just “break” the literal living symbol of your country’s religion.
15 Likes
I’m hearing the teeth grinding against each other as you typed this XD
6 Likes
Ugh.
I will win against the Richard whiners. The ones that reject the sword to begin with.
The breaking of the sword = your hypothetical adopted gal I have dies in your what if scenario. As shes the ONLY one. The sword has to pick a cousin then. IF IT CANT, then again, I broke the sword.
1 Like
I think it’s valid in the context of “the person in charge of the nation has a long history as prisoner and whether this makes them a puppet of their captors”.
But very well. Here, have an actual 15th century king who was a hostage for 18 years and yet far from universally hailed as a foreign puppet afterwards. Or at the very least, one who was pretty capable of establishing himself. At least for a decent while.
As you can see, actual middle age history doesn’t exactly confirm this opinion.
1 Like
If my adopted girl dies young. The sword HAS to pick a cousin.
This is a valid point, and it’s impossible to argue that the sword isn’t important (it’s literally the title), but I do think it is a worthwhile and important line of thought to pursue. Yes, the sword has religious significance, and obviously that carries weight in Rhivenia’s political structure, but nobody’s ever stopped to question why it’s that way. Who made the sword? How can we be sure it’s actually choosing a worthy heir? Yes, it’s provably magic, but we also know there’s witches of questionable or currently undefined morals out in the world.
The people of Rhivenia, and even the readers, have accepted that the sword is the judge without ever questioning if it’s a good judge, or if it truly has the best intentions for Rhivenia as a whole. This isn’t to say the sword is absolutely evil, maybe it is picking the best person, and maybe everything that’s happened was the best outcome for Rhivenia, who knows? But currently, the sword is just as big a mystery as the witches and the politics currently going on.
If the sword picks you, and you destroy the kingdom, then what exactly were you worthy of?
5 Likes
Stopping its evilness?
Do you really want to use a guy who spent most of his reign murdering his own nobles and who got assassinated as your example?
And this is a guy who already had experience leading troops and was educated during captivity. Xavier doesn’t have a tenth of the education and experience James I had.
6 Likes
I’;m using him to point out that he was not perceived as foreign puppet, despite your claim that it’d be inevitable result of medieval sensibilities.
The assassination was a result of being viewed as oppressive tyrant. Not foreign agent.
But, again, he was not disliked in the manner you claim was inevitable for medieval politics.
Let’s try to tackle it from the opposite side. Can you show me a historical example of medieval ruler who has spent some years in captivity and, after taking the throne, was universally perceived as foreign puppet because of that? After all, it’s a claim you make, so it’s only fair you back it up?
He was widely disliked and faced constant rebellions and resistance to his rule from the very beginning of his reign; his father was hardly a popular man, either. Do you really think Xavier, who doesn’t even have half his skills would be seen as any better?
I was thinking with witches involved. I may side with them.
Personally, I wanted Richard as King in first book as preferable. The economy is worth nothing to anyone. Not sure how we got allies if we dont produce anything anyway.