Post/Author/DateTime	Post
niddhogg 07-10-06, 07:10 PM	Hi all, can someone explaion me the rule of succession in the old Kingdom of Galifar. I know Galifar was the king and his five children were the "princes/kings" of the five nations. After Galifars recession/death(?) his oldest child became the new king. And this "rule" was applied on every following king up to Jarot. Does it mean that every (following) king had to have at least five children and that these children were appointed as "princes/kings" of the five nations? (If so, what happened to the former "princes/kings" of the five nations? Did they had to resign their rule?) Or does it mean that every child of Galifar founded a new royal bloodline of the nation where he was the prince/king and everytime the king of Galifar died the currently oldest prince/king among the five nations became the new king of Galifar? I guess i mixed up something. Maybe someone can help me. :) Regards, Niddhogg
ieattrollsforbreakfast 07-10-06, 07:29 PM	Here is how it works (more detail on page 128 of Five Nations): -When the current monarch dies/abdicates, his oldest child (who always governs Cyre) takes his place as monarch. -The new monarch's five eldest children become the governors of each of the Five Nations. -If the children of the current monarch are too young to govern properly, the previous govenors (the monarch's siblings) will remain in place and become mentors to the children until they are old enough and can take the position themselves. The exact age of succession is not set in stone. -If the monarch does not have enough children to cover each of the Five Nations, the previous governors remain in place or a new regent is appointed.
Kaizer_Ryu 07-10-06, 07:34 PM	You know, I originally read it as the eldest of the rulers of the Five Nations took the throne, each being the head of their own royal line, and the other four would remain in command of their nation, but now I'm not so sure. It refers to Jarlot's children as the governor-princes of the Five Nations, and they are the ones who broke tradition. How it reads to me is that each king/queen had to have at least five children, and they took over for the previous governor-princes. As far as I can see, nothing is said as to the fate of the previous scions. It's possible they became the aristocracy of each nation.
Psionycx 07-10-06, 11:07 PM	Not every monarch had five children to take on the roles involved, nor were their children always of age to do so. The thing to remember is that it was more of a governorship than a true "royal" position to rule one of the Five Nations during the Kingdom of Galifar. It is, however, very similar to the state of affairs in many real world historical empires. It was very common in ancient empires for a single ruler (emperor) to have numerous sub-rulers (who frequently held the title of "king") and who may have been related to the emperor, including being his children. The various rulers of the Five Nations were really regents, rather than kings, and as was the case in many real world empires, their position was bestowed by the supreme ruler rather than being a hereditary succession in it's own right. When their positions expired, they would have either retired or moved to some other role within the government. This was, of course, exactly what broke down the Kingdom of Galifar, just as similar real world systems broke down. Inevitably, the various individuals occupying the regencies decided that they wanted to be real kings, and not just regents.
niddhogg 07-12-06, 04:54 AM	Thanks. Your explanations of the rule of succession make sense to me. As i guessed in my opening posting i mixed something up but now its clear. :)