6
$\begingroup$

Let's say a strict monarch who ruled a kingdom of "hunters" was overthrown by a race/group of "witches" in a way that wasn't proportionate to any crime the recent ruler may have committed, but instead to how they felt the last generations of hunters had treated them.

The most recent ruler of the hunters was trying to improve things, but to the witches, they'd waited long enough, and thus an uprising began.

Some of the witches now in power are remorseful of what happened and thus rule the kingdom as fairly as possible, and even a bit better than the hunters did, though at first at a heavy cost.

  1. Would a descendant of the hunter (just 10-20 years later) have any business taking back the throne?

  2. Why would they do so, apart from "it's their right"?

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ 1. Descendant of a deposed (maybe even murdered?) monarch is always in business of getting the throne back, even if he/she has no desire for it; 2. The new government is illegitimate, at least in some people's eyes. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Aug 1 '18 at 23:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ we're missing information (otherwise we're just writing your story for you, which is off-topic here). What were the culture & politics like before the uprising? Are witches good or bad? Has their rule been good or bad? Other than power, what has the descendant lost that he wants back? If the witches feel bad about the uprising, why wouldn't they just give him the throne? What is the culture & politics of the present? What are the ramifications of another uprising? Also, it isn't necessary to play games with bold text. It actually makes things hard to read. $\endgroup$ – JBH Aug 2 '18 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH I thought bold would help, it draws your eyes to the key stuff. The witches have no original fault, though, they do have mistakes of their own. Both parties made laws to prevent one from overpowering the other, they relied on each other. The hunters grew wary though & began to make laws that only favoured them & put witches @ a disadvantage. Soon witches were under hunter control & those who opposed were hunted. Their kingdom dissolved into just another province of the growing hunter territory. From then on hunters were pretty bad. All youth are taught to hunt witches also. $\endgroup$ – Honey MASQ Productions Aug 2 '18 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ Anyone that has desire and plausible means of taking power is in the business of snatching power. They can invent any number of excuses for that, from being a miraculously survived heir to ending oppression, to abstract "Justice!". All that matters in the end is if they can do it and who will support them. $\endgroup$ – Alice Aug 2 '18 at 15:06
6
$\begingroup$

1. Personal vendetta.

Maybe the hunter feels wronged in some way. Either they had a bad clash with a witch that is now in power, or they have a fundamentally decent family member(s) who were violently deposed.

2. Collateral Damage

Maybe the witches, in the process of liberating themselves killed a good number of decent folk, who were just collateral damage. They may have a good cause, but violent insurrections will always have detractors.

3. Personal impropriety

Maybe the witches, while benevolent rulers, have one, or many, people who are personally shitty. E.g. Elder Witch X may have great fiscal policy, but also has a secret torture dungeon.

4. Secret Threat

Maybe a select cabal within the ruling coven aren't what they appear to be, and though their compatriots are just interested in being decent rulers, this secret, malevolent clique, has some nasty plan: like converting non-witches into vessels for demonic power. This may give your protagonist reason to ally with some of the good witches. When the evil is vanquished, the communal effort, by hunter and witch, against an existential evil, helps to mend past social strife.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch Aug 2 '18 at 13:11
5
$\begingroup$

Witches are capricious. They cannot be trusted in the long term.

This was evidenced by the opening paragraph. The witches attacked because of ancient grievances. Now they suddenly feel fair minded. Who knows what will motivate the witches next?

The current methods of the witch rulers are worth emulating, true. But the chaotic witchy nature of witches makes them bad rulers over the long term. Hunters need to get the throne back for the sake of stability.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Who knows what will motivate the witches next?" tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/… $\endgroup$ – RonJohn Aug 2 '18 at 1:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thumbs up. This answer and mine essentially agree. I tried to add some background about why that sentiment might exist and the problems that sentiment can cause. I like the tone of this answer for the way it shapes the argument from the point of view of common citizens. $\endgroup$ – SRM Aug 2 '18 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ On the other hand. Hunters are weak. They cannot be trusted to keep the throne and stability in the long term. They've failed once, they may fail again. $\endgroup$ – Alice Aug 2 '18 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ While your first paragraph may be correct, it isn't supported by your second paragraph. Historically, it's common for oppressed classes to revolt when things are starting to get better, and the perceived evils perpetrated by the last generation of hunters aren't ancient. $\endgroup$ – David Thornley Aug 2 '18 at 17:12
4
$\begingroup$

What constitutes legitimate government and why does that matter? Therein lies your answer.

A government may be doing a terrible job, but if it is the legitimate government, people grumble and bear it. Why? Because living continuously in revolution is a dicey existence. Lots of writing about “the state of nature” in various political philosophy and political science texts on that topic. Even rule by despot is often preferable to the chaos after (see Iraq post-911 and citizen sentiment in newspapers for almost 10 years after Saddam Houssein).

The US Declaration of Independence analyzes this question AT LENGTH. The revolutionaries were quite concerned with the legitimacy of the new government. They had to show essentially abdication of the duties of a king, not just that George was — in their opinion — a bad king. France did not take so cautious an approach, and the result was many challenges to legitimate rule after fall of monarchy.

Legitimacy creates stability that is more long-term than the short-term policies of the government.

If your witches took power illegitimately, there are likely power struggles constantly throughout the country and within the capital. That internal strife may be pretty bad. The good policies that the witches are enacting could also be enacted by the hunter king returning... but the hunter king could do it easier because he/she would arguably not be distracted fighting legitimacy claims. Certainly the hunter-king could see returning as benefitting the stability of the country, especially if a larger country is thinking of invading to take advantage of the power gap.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

In the UK we have a civil war that we call the civil war. I'm guessing all the other civil wars weren't quite so civil. One of them was over the legitimacy of the first ruling queen of England, "Lady" Jane Grey, the nine days queen.

The problem was, while she was technically queen, only a very small group accepted her as such. She was only a cousin after all, there were two others closer to the direct line of whom (Bloody) Mary was the oldest and considered the rightful queen. Not by the power brokers you must understand, they wanted Jane, but by the people. And the people have a surprising amount of power even in an absolute monarchy and with that they have a strong idea who their "rightful" rulers are.

If the people, and with them the nobles who lost power or influence when the witches came along, don't think the witches are their rightful rulers, then there will be a call from the remaining nobles, supported by the people, to get their rightful ruler back into power.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Would a descendant of the hunter, (just 10-20yrs later) have any business taking back the throne?

Definitely. That's what the sons, nephews, husbands of daughters and nieces, etc of deposed kings have done across the planet and throughout history.

It's so pervasive in history that there's even an entry on The Site Which Shall Not Be Named. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RightfulKingReturns

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

There is always conflict over how society ought to be run

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. Alexander Hamilton

At no time in the history of the world has any government running a country of any significant size done everything right. In fact, it is not possible to do everything right, because to do that, first you have to get everyone to agree what "doing everything right" even means. But people value different things. The various interest groups that make up said nation will find that they do not agree on what is important. So it is impossible to get everyone to agree.

Say the trapper's guild and the artist's guild are in a disagreement. The artists say that the trappers are killing too many animals and ruining the forest, so they can't draw/paint/sculpt their works of art anymore. The trappers say hunting might not bring in as much money as the artists, but they bring in a lot of food and make much better warriors when called upon to defend the kingdom than artists.

No matter what you do, there is no way to make everybody happy here. Any society is full of conflicting interests like this, and balancing them all to keep the peace is a large part of the job of any ruler.

Consequently, there is never any shortage of people who feel like they're getting a raw deal from the current regime. There will always be those who believe they have a better idea, and if only they were in charge they know they could prove it.

It will not be difficult at all for these people to link up with the hunter heirs and build a coalition to make the kingdom a better place. As for a moral justification, that's easy. If the witches are the legitimate government now, then they got that way by overthrowing the previous regime and thus are not in any position to complain that someone else is better at it than they are. And, of course, if they're illegitimate, then that's all the justification you need.

Look at modern politics: Fundamentally the different parties have differing views on The Way Things Should Be, and they fight it out. They just don't literally fight it out anymore. Society has evolved to the point that people who lose these fights don't lose their lives, but it was a long and bloody struggle to get to a point where that actually worked well. Policy disagreements have always been around; nowadays it is considered entirely inappropriate to resolve them with actual force, but this was not always so.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh but they do fight, and how they fight. Google for fight in parliament and you'll understand why the UK parliament still has lines drawn on the floor that are measured in swordlengths. $\endgroup$ – Separatrix Aug 2 '18 at 8:35
1
$\begingroup$

It would be totally normal for the Hunter Descendant (HD) to want to take back his or her "rightful place" on the throne. However, HD's gonna need popular support. An "uprising" doesn't just happen small-scale. HD wouldn't just be able to march up to the witch ruler (or council?) and be like "can I be in charge now?"

I personally like exploring a divide between the witches. Maybe the witches aren't as united as they seem. Maybe there's one group who is trying to be good, and one group who is doing very questionable activities. Maybe the Good Witches, upset by the others in their group, want to put HD on the throne, to take power away from the Bad Witches.

Either way, SOME PEOPLE have to be upset with how the witches are ruling. Monarchs aren't deposed because they're doing a good job. People have to be unhappy, and they have to think that HD would be a better ruler than whoever is currently in charge.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It wouldn't be the descendant who wants to reclaim the throne that would start the process; it would the the old ruling class who supported the previous king and probably had a larger influence in the previous regime than they have now. They would want their power back and would need a figure head to get popular opinion on their side.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

There is one crime which is illegal to attempt, and the punishment for the crime is death. Buy if successfully committed there is no punishment.

That crime is treason. More discography overthrowing one larder and replacing them with a new one You don't honestly need a good legal reason for why you are overthrowing your current monarchy.

You just need a reason that the Maes can get behind and support.

Be it thru lies: Queen my antagonist drowns kittens and pulls of the tails of puppies because she is evil.

Moral outrage: (you mentioned witches) Witches receive powers because they made a deal with the devil, you have the next best thing to Satan leading this country into hell and damnation.

Or Jaqueline Kennedy levels of public manipulation:

"When my father was king it was like we were living in Camelot, he was king Arthur and the kingdom prospered. He was such a good king and only ever did good things. The fields grew fruit trees and wheat naturally rather then weeds. I will bring back the golden Era that this Morgana stole from you."

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.