145 réponses à ce sujet

[X Equestris]

It doesn't matter that the Couslands are higher than Loghain. Loghain's regime has attainted the Couslands, stripping their lands and titles and giving them to Arl Howe.

[Jeffry]

Yeah, you are correct about Fergus, we simply can't say how he became Teyrn or if it would be possible to keep that title for the younger sibling. And my mistake about the Banns under the Teyrn, the Teyrn is after all appointed only by the ruler, since he can grant and revoke titles (not at his whim tho, because he needs the support of Banns).

 

Well I believe the consensus about those lines being wrong comes from the fact that epilogue was more likely created later and corrected some mistakes (on the other hand it is fair to point out the epilogue was bugged in other cases) and Awakening follows the epilogue in that regard. So the lines during the Landsmeet stand alone and are not repeated. But again, this is a mistake on BioWare's part and we can only assume what is more correct.

 

About the ToH's claim. I believe that in the scenario no rightful heir was left, he would be in a very strong position to get the throne based on his rank. But it would also depend on other factors (what authority and respect he commands, if there is someone more respectable, etc.).

 

Well I don't consider Anora a half-wit. Loghain is a genius and skilled manipulator (also still a hero to the entire nation), but that does not mean the ones he outsmarts are incompetent

 

Arl Eamon is a vassal of the ruler just as ToH his, not all Arls are vassals of Teyrns and as you said he is just as eligible to be elected if there are elections. He is the most senior relative of the royal family (though I believe seniority is not a huge factor here), he is known, loved and commands a huge deal of respect and authority. By combining all of those factors he has better chance than a young Cousland would (if Bryce was still the ToH, that is another discussion).

 

I was looking at the pages for Maric and Cailan and their respective codex entries, but there is no mention of any election, in fact in none of the codex entries or elsewhere. I still think you are interpreting the word support wrong. In feudal monarchy the King also needed the support of his vassals, he couldn't rule without them. He needed them and they needed him. Required suppord does not at all means the need to be elected.

 

Well, Loghain started the civil war, but is not the rebel anymore. Rulers who are sitting on the disputed throne, are winning the civil war and have the support of the majority of common folk and up to the point you, Alistair and Eamon show up the majority of nobles as well, are not the rebels. But that is not important. Also no contradictions in my statements, Loghain had a strong claim, he was the father of the Queen and a Regent of the kingdom named by said Queen (and I am not even counting all the other less important factors that helped him put himself on the throne).

 

You are mixing the types of monarchis, the codexes for Ferelden describe our feudal monarchy as we know it, almost perfectly. There are there to dinstinguish Ferelden from other types of monarchies - like the absolutist one which is Orlais. (more on this later)

 

Funny thing, when I was trying to find more info about Cailan, I came across this discussion: http://dragonage.wik...ne_of_Ferelden?, while the OP is not about our problem, it is discussed there as well (roughly in the middle).

 

Darrion's lines are really nothing more than a talk "I don't know about here, but outside your castle, people discuss your family a great deal. Some say your father should have been king instead of Cailan. But it is just talk, I think, borne of affection of your father."

 

Some more quotes from that thread, no point for me to reiterate them, will quote them isntead, since they are basically saying the same as I have been, but these quotes are probably better worded. Though I will highlight the most important parts:

- "There's no mention of electing the ruler of Ferelden - none - not in the game, the novels nor any other authorized material that I've seen."

- "The evidence only supports that the Landsmeet gets involved when there's a disputed succession with no clear heir. Maric succeeded Moira, who succeeded Brandel, all without any election from the Landsmeet."

- "And approval by the Bannorn is not the same thing as being elected by them see: http://dragonage.wik...ics_of_Ferelden. Moreover there's that inconvenient Orlesian king of Ferelden, Meghren, who did in fact hold his throne without the approval of the Bannorn, which makes taking that entry too literally rather risky." (note: Orlais didn't really have to abide by the laws of Ferelden since they conquered it, but the point about taking that codex too literally still stands)

- "On page 24 of The Calling, Maric says to Loghain "Look after Cailan. If something happens to me, you’ll need to be his regent and keep the kingdom together.” In other words, Cailan is Maric's undisputed successor - despite being a child at the time - there's no talk of an election or possible Cousland succession."

- "I've already said that there's plenty of evidence that that Landsmeet and Bannorn get involved when there's no clear successor (as when Cailan died or the Arland vs. Sophia case 200 years ago), but nothing to indicate an election when there's a clear heir (which, BTW, Calian is referred to as in The Calling)."

- "You've constructed an elaborate theory of an elective monarchy with eligible candidates based on a couple of exerpts with questionable/disputed contexts. Not one reference explicitly says that the Bannorn elects the monarch. In all the official game material (game, RPG, novels) I've seen - the words 'elect' or 'choose' appear nowhere. Yes, the crown depends on the support of the Bannorn, but all that means is Ferelden is not an absolute monarchy. The Kings of mediveal England and Scotland (upon which Ferelden is based) required the support of their Parliaments. When they didn't get it, there was usually a war until they either obtained said support or were deposed - but that doesn't mean Parliaments elected the kings of those countries. I believe the same applies here. What you've offered so definitevely is a theory, unless your name is David Gaider..."

 

While the comparison between Ferelden and England should not take precedence over hard evidences from the game, comics, novels, additional materials or the devs themselves, but when there are no such evidences, it is still relevant, because in that case it is the only thing we have other than pure assumptions. And it is beyond doubt that probably all of Thedas has its inspiration somewhere in our history, somewhere it is just more apparent, like Orlais = absolutist France, Ferelden = medieval England (with little bit of Scotland and Ireland).

[Saphiron123]

How is this thread still a thing, it's 6 pages of people explaining why someone unrelated to the king or queen can't assume the throne by default.

Anora lives. If Alistair doesn't knock her off the throne (being the son of the king himself with the support of the landsmeet) then she is the queen no matter who marries her because she was married to the actual king. The warden can't unseat her because he's just a random noble. Alistair can rule alone, or with her consolidating power, or with the warden because he has an actual claim by blood.

[Jeffry]

I don't know about the others but I am kinda bored, just finished DAI (after countless excrutiating hours). I should really find something else to do, shouldn't I.

 

It is actually kinda funny, that the whole problem we have lies in one signle sentence in one codex entry - the thing about kings needing the support of banns. For some it means Ferelden is an elective monarchy and everytime the king dies there is an open election. For others, me Included, it equals typical feudal monarchy, where the king can't rule without the support of his vassals, but is not elected. Support =/= elections.

 

If Dai Grepher won't see that even the idea of Ferelden being an elective monarchy is kinda preposterous (at least in the setting of Thedas) and that absolutely no evidence from anything we have even remotely supports that notion, we will get nowhere and might as well end the discussion now.

 

Either way, I thik I have nothing more to add on this matter.

[Dai Grepher]

X, the Bannorn did not recognize Loghain's legitimacy. And by law, Rendon and Loghain were traitors and did not have the authority to take or reward titles. Even if they did, by your rationale, killing Rendon would have stolen the title back anyway.

 

Jeffry, assuming it was created later, that doesn't mean it corrected anything. A correction would be to go back and fix the lines that are wrong, not create new lines elsewhere. I don't think it's an assumption to believe that the Landsmeet lines are correct. Given their importance, it is unlikely that they got these wrong. It is more likely that the epilogue team misunderstood the storyline (and the epilogue is discarded in some instances anyway for future events). Anora was trying to place the "consort" title on him so she could be the one making the decisions. That was her thing. But pressing her on the issue reveals that the "consort" title is bogus. Awakening may repeat the epilogue mistake, but DA2 and Inquisition repeat the concept that the Hero becomes king. Awakening also implies this at least in stating that the Hero rulers in the court. A consort does not rule. At the same time, the same epilogue also states that the two are rumored to possibly usher in a new golden age if they don't end up vying for control of the throne. If the Hero is nothing but a consort, then he can't possibly vie for control of the throne.

 

Thanks for agreeing that the ToH has a strong claim in the case of no rightful heir. I hope you will go further and agree that Origins showed such a case. After all, Loghain issued a claim to the throne himself, and he was considered a teyrn at the time.

 

Anora's incompetent for letting her father brush her aside, and failing to command any kind of opposition against him. For all the love her people supposedly had for her, it seems the only person who was willing to help her was Erlina, her handmaiden. Even Anora's tip about the alienage has no use in the Landsmeet. And you can win even if she betrays you. She's really quite useless, politically.

 

The Arl of Redcliffe is probably a vassal of the king, but there was no king at the time. My point is that the ToH was the top ranking official. As such, Eamon's support should have legally gone to him if anyone. Eamon was eligible, but was he the better candidate? Also, was he running for the throne? No to both questions. As for being loved, that isn't the case. His codex states that people think of him fondly when they remember to think of him at all. Besides, he owes the young Cousland, as do a few other nobles. I would say the younger Cousland can actually surpass Bryce in terms of influence and popularity.

 

That isn't the only text though. The codex for "The Bannorn" states that no person has ever sat upon the throne of Ferelden without first winning the approval of the Bannorn. Queen Fionne is quoted as saying, "Who would believe that these same banns, now trying so hard to kill one another, just last year united to give me the crown?"

 

The election for Maric was pretty much a given. He defeated Meghren and all his allies supported him, so he was crowned king as the leader of the rebellion. Cailan's election you won't find in the codex entries, but I think the text of one of Origins' loading screens mentions it.

 

Being father of the "queen" means nothing, and Anora wasn't the queen anyway. She was a consort. She had no power except when Cailan specifically granted her admin privileges. If she had been queen, then the Landsmeet would have merely been called to stop Loghain, not elect the next monarch(s). Being named regent by the consort is equally worthless, and those like Teagan recognized the fact that Loghain named himself regent. Loghain never had support of the majority of banns. Most did not take a side until the Landsmeet. Loghain had no power or authority to appoint himself to the throne. Remember, only the banns can grant the throne, which Loghain never attained.

 

I'm not mixing the types of monarchies, I am differentiating between them. Orlais is the inherited monarchy, as is Nevarra. Ferelden requires that the banns vote in the Landsmeet to elect the next monarch(s). The codex entries prove this.

 

Dairren's quote isn't just talk. The statement indicates that it was possible for the ToH to be king instead of Cailan. Yes, people say this because they like Bryce, but the point is that they know it was possible for Bryce to have become king. If such a thing had been impossible, then they would not talk of it as if it were possible. They would say they wish Bryce could become king, not that he should have instead of Cailan.

 

The quotes of other people in that thread are uninformed. They make claims that are simply false.

 

The point about Meghren is irrelevant, as that doesn't deal with Ferelden law. Besides, even Meghren had supporters in the Bannorn. That's how Orlais was able to conquer Ferelden. But either way, it's moot.

 

Maric only names his successor, knowing he will most likely be the next king (correct assumption). That does not disprove the fact that all new monarchs are elected. From Calanhad to Cailan, they were all voted in.

 

As I wrote, the codex entries clearly state that the banns grant the crown, that power rises from the banns, and the game itself shows that the Landsmeet votes on who to support. The game also shows the Warden choosing who will rule, with the banns sworn to uphold the choice of the one who won the duel.

 

Still waiting on your evidence from the game's canon.

[9TailsFox]

You not Queen because you have no valid claim to the throne and.

[9TailsFox]

I don't know about the others but I am kinda bored, just finished DAI (after countless excrutiating hours). I should really find something else to do, shouldn't I.

 

It is actually kinda funny, that the whole problem we have lies in one signle sentence in one codex entry - the thing about kings needing the support of banns. For some it means Ferelden is an elective monarchy and everytime the king dies there is an open election. For others, me Included, it equals typical feudal monarchy, where the king can't rule without the support of his vassals, but is not elected. Support =/= elections.

 

If Dai Grepher won't see that even the idea of Ferelden being an elective monarchy is kinda preposterous (at least in the setting of Thedas) and that absolutely no evidence from anything we have even remotely supports that notion, we will get nowhere and might as well end the discussion now.

 

Either way, I thik I have nothing more to add on this matter.

I think it some mix of Primogeniture and Feudal Elective. 

[Sunbrow]

Claims mean nothing if you can't back it up.  The daughter of a traitor, sitting in prison tower....some how could stop the Hero of Ferelden. The nobles would be a happy meal for her mabari if they tried that crap.  You forget who's leading all the armies??? Yea the Earl seemed an ungrateful sort who would choose Anora over the one who gathered the ashes of Andraste for him.  This is not even considering what the masses would do to you...did you not play this game? Simply put...you don't ask for something you can't take....The Hero of Ferelden could easily take the throne.   

[Jeffry]

@Dai Grepher

 

Yeah, if there was no clear heir, the Couslands could easily become the next royal family.

 

Hold on a sec, first you say that the Hero of Ferelden is a king or a queen and not a consort, but Anora was a consort? There is no mention of her being a consort. Btw according to codex entries from DA2 and DAI it seems that female noble wed to Alistair is indeed queen, whereas human noble wed to Anora is prince-consort. So much for gender equality But in DAO codex entry for Anora, if the male human noble decided to marry her, he is king-consort. I'd skip this point entirely, because it is a mess. But for the record, I would agree, that the female human noble should be queen when married to (at least unhardened) Alistair.

 

I really would not hold it against her for being outsmarted by Loghain, he persuaded at least half the nation of his "truth" and convinced a lot of people you and Alistair are traitors. Btw Anora's tip about the Alienage can help, I always successfully bring up the topic of slaves being sold to Tevinter, but that is not important.

 

The young Cousland indeed could surpass Bryce in basically every aspect, after the battle of Denerim that is and indeed Eamon could support him/her, he is after all quite old and his son can't be an heir (since he is a mage), but I don't know if he would be willing to go against the rightful queen, those are again speculations.

 

The Landsmeet was not called to elect a monarch at all. It was called to stop Loghain before he ruins the country and to put Cailan's true heir on the throne, so Ferelden can be united once again, these are the only reasons Eamon called for the Landsmeet. There is a "vote" only because Anora is an "heir" as well and is not willing to give up her claim (after all why should she, she is the queen).

 

You should not really dismiss the quotes I posted, they, just as well as I are basing their claims on the available materials, they were not pulling their arguments out of thin air. There is simply no mention of an election, anywhere. And I don't recall a loading screen talking about an election when there is zero mention of it in the whole codex. And it does not really seem that Maric was just assuming Cailan would "win" without problems, he was both young and absolutely unprepared for such a task, for the sake of the stability and prosperity of the kingdom now would be the best time to put on the throne someone who can hold the country together.

 

And again about the Bannorn and codexes talking about similar things - the king needs the approval and support of his vassals, it has always been so (in Ferelden as well as in feudal monarchies), but there is no mention of a need to elect a king every time the previous one dies. Only when there is a crysis or disputed succession such events happened. No king can rule without the Bannorn, that is a fact we can agree on, but that doesn't mean the Bannorn can just vote for whoever they want or god-forbid elect somebody without a claim against a rigtful heir.

 

What evidences do you want for crying out loud? Firstly I either posted several of them or said where they could be found and secondly I am saying there is no mention of an election anywhere, how am I supposed to prove that? Do you want the links for all codex entries, digital versions of the books and so on? You are the one who is required to post an evidence about it. And not the Bannorn or Politics of Ferelden codex, but an actual proof with the word "election" / "elect" / "vote" etc. in it.

[Jeffry]

Claims mean nothing if you can't back it up.  The daughter of a traitor, sitting in prison tower....some how could stop the Hero of Ferelden. The nobles would be a happy meal for her mabari if they tried that crap.  You forget who's leading all the armies??? Yea the Earl seemed an ungrateful sort who would choose Anora over the one who gathered the ashes of Andraste for him.  This is not even considering what the masses would do to you...did you not play this game? Simply put...you don't ask for something you can't take....The Hero of Ferelden could easily take the throne.   

 

Yeah, food for the mabari... the Hero of Ferelden could also send Zevran and Shale on a killing spree and could persuade Avernus for another army of demons and just take the throne, right? No.

 

Also, all the armies? You mean those armies that are with you only because Warden treaties compell them to fight against the darkspawn or because their respective lords send them with you (to fight against the darkspawn)? You have zero armies of your own, they have been decimated near Ostagar and back home by Howe. I can only see the dwarves or mages eager to help you start a new civil war for satisfying your petty whim

 

I mentioned this previously, while you could certainly take the throne by force by some means, you wouldn't be able to hold it.

[X Equestris]

Dai, sure you're Teyrn/a after killing Howe and winning the Landsmeet, but that will disappear once Fergus comes back.

Claims mean nothing if you can't back it up.  The daughter of a traitor, sitting in prison tower....some how could stop the Hero of Ferelden. The nobles would be a happy meal for her mabari if they tried that crap.  You forget who's leading all the armies??? Yea the Earl seemed an ungrateful sort who would choose Anora over the one who gathered the ashes of Andraste for him.  This is not even considering what the masses would do to you...did you not play this game? Simply put...you don't ask for something you can't take....The Hero of Ferelden could easily take the throne.

Ferelden's forces are severely weakened by the Civil War and Blight, and the rest of the force you assemble isn't compelled to help you against non-darkspawn. You also suffer heavy casualties at Denerim. The Hero of Ferelden seizing the throne by force would probably provoke another civil war. You might be able to take the throne, but you couldn't hold it. And you clearly don't win any second Landsmeet that might happen post-Blight, as Anora becomes Queen in this situation.

[Rizilliant]

You have shown, said, and proven evrything you possibly could Jeffry. Sometimes you just cant get it through.. You definitely showed irrifutable evidence to back your claim. Along with quotes and proof. 

 

Good luck with this lot.

[Dai Grepher]

First, I agree that theories outside the game/lore should be put away for now. Lets stick to the canon and the likely choices of a human noble. Some players might have made human nobles who would raise armies of werewolves and demons, but lets keep this within reason and just address the regular Heroes who actually have an in-game choice to become monarch.

 

@Jeffry Glad you agree, but do you also agree that Origins presented a case where there was no clear-cut choice, thus allowing the Cousland family to have a strong claim?

 

I will happily explain that. The game shows that Cailan was elected, but Anora was not. Then after Cailan was made king he married Anora. This made Anora a queen-consort. She also admits this, that Cailan granted her the ability to handle certain tasks, but she always carried them out in his name, never her own. The difference with the Cousland is that he declared that he and Anora would rule jointly, and the banns elected them both at the same time. That is why their marriage six months later did not matter in making either one of them a consort. They became king and queen in the Landsmeet.

 

The part about a female Cousland becoming queen just shows that BioWare was being inconsistent. The female's case is the same as the male's, except she doesn't have a spouse who tried to downplay her actual role. See, the female is elected queen, and becomes such. The male is elected king, and becomes such. It is the same case, the same kind of vote. The difference is that Anora tried to add the title "consort" to the male in certain situations in order to grab for more power. I think this is where the epilogue team got confused. The story is that Anora incorrectly referred to the male as consort in an attempt to make less of his actual kingly role. But you'll notice that she does refer to him as king at the coronation ceremony.

 

On a side note, if the F!Cousland does become queen, then it doesn't make sense for Anora to take the throne if Alistair dies. But like I wrote, lore-wise the F!Cousland should have been able to rule alone in this case. Gameplay is what prevents it. Thanks for agreeing, and I would also like to thank you for carrying on an intelligent discussion. Others I have debated this with in the past have usually resorted to insults and ignoring what I write. So I appreciate your opinion and I respect you.

 

The alienage thing... I think maybe it's less points than talking about the tortured noble. I remember possibly losing a Landsmeet if the alienage is brought up instead of Sighard's son. Either it's less points or it's no points. Can't remember. Personally, I blame Anora for not being able and/or willing to stop Loghain. She knew what he was when word spread of the Couslands. She knew when he allied with Howe. She should have done more to oppose him. It seemed to me like she only started caring when Loghain was becoming a threat to her chances at ruling.

 

Eamon didn't want Anora to begin with because she didn't have royal blood. Now, I'm sure Eamon would rather have Alistair than the Cousland, sure, but if Alistair didn't even want to put in the effort to even run, then I don't see what choice Eamon would be left with. Eamon owed the Cousland his life, his wife's life, and his son's life. As for accomplishments, the Cousland would have saved Redcliffe from undead, found the Sacred Ashes, saved the Circle from demons, gathered an army of dwarves and elves, and helped various nobles personally. He also showed up at Ostagar to help fight even though his family had just been killed, which is what Bryce was going to do, help at Ostagar. What did Anora ever do except get married and jerk Eamon's nephew around by the leash? The best he ever said about her was that she was a capable administrator for Cailan's lands. Eamon also said at Redcliffe that he would not go forward with the Alistair plan without the Warden's blessing. So again, I don't see any option for Eamon but to support the Cousland regardless.

 

The Landsmeet was called to stop Loghain... by deciding the next monarch(s). That removes Loghain from his contested position and forces him to swear fealty. Anora wasn't an option in the Landsmeet unless and until; 1. The Warden brings her up, 2. She brings herself up after the duel, 3. Loghain throws his support to her in the case where she betrays the Warden. Until any of those points, the argument is between Loghain and Alistair, and even then the Warden does not have to say anything in favor of Alistair, just against Loghain.

 

Please post canon proof that the banns only vote for the next monarch if there is a dispute (no clear heir). Also, assuming this is the case, there was no clear heir in Origins after Cailan died. So the banns did in fact vote on the next monarch(s), and my point still stands that the Cousland can choose himself and Anora as joint-rulers. Same with F!Cousland and Alistair.

 

I think the codices are clear. They aren't talking about political support or approval for policies or laws. They are talking about title. The quote from Fionne clearly states that the nobles united to GIVE her the CROWN. That is not just a case of them being in favor of her policies. They united to make her the monarch. That's what "give the crown" means.

 

Well, I would like evidence of your claims. You claim that Ferelden is an inheritance style monarchy. What is your in-universe basis for thinking this? What canon evidence is there that the throne is inherited? Also what is your evidence that the Cousland becomes consort, not king?

 

The things you quoted were from members of the Dragon Age wiki. The things they stated were incorrect. I would prefer you post your own research. You can't really rely on others who posted things so long ago to back your present-day claims.

[Dai Grepher]

X, by the time Fergus shows up, the Landsmeet has already elected the Cousland as a monarch.

[Jeffry]

The codexes for Hero of Ferelden from DA2 and DAI state that human male noble wed to Anora is a prince-consort, whereas human female noble wed to Alistair is a queen (no other titles mentioned). It is either because the ruling monarch can decide what title his spouse could use or because BioWare messed it up. Either way this point has no significance to the other points discussed, so I would skip it completely.

 

The only clear mention of an election prior to the 9:30 Landsmeet is the case of Calenhad and that of Sophia Dryden. http://dragonage.wik...ryden's_Journal, she and her cousin were both candidates and the majority of nobles voted for Arland. But said voting happened because both had the same claim and the succession was thus in dispute. The case of Fionne is ambiguous, we can't say with certainty what it means or what circumstances preceeded it, can we? It is only said that the nobles "gave her the crown" and this is exactly the same case as with the "the king needs the support of the banns". We can't say what that means with certainty, since the only mentions of elections are when there was a dispute, there are ZERO mentions of elections when there was a clear heir (like Maric, Cailan, etc). I honestly think, if there were elections held in all cases, it would be mentioned at least somewhere and you are required to prove it, not I. (actually prove it, elections, elect, voting, votes, candidates, not something that can be explained in different ways)
 

The female Cousland would have absolutely become a queen if the wedding and corronation had already happened. The problem is it had not. She couldn't get the crown automatically in that situation, since she has no claim to it. Fiancees have no claim to anything, that is the main problem. The Landsmeet agreed on a joint rule only and Alistair has to be alive for that to happen. Probably the most logical thing that should have happened is a new Landsmeet that would decide between the female Warden, Anora and Eamon (if he decided to be a candidate, because he could). But it is not illogical when the game rules that out and automatically puts Anora on the throne (she after all has the strongest claim).

 

As I see it neither of us can definitely prove if Ferelden is an elective or classic hereditary feudal monarchy, since no such proofs exist. There are only vaguely written codex entries that can to some degree be interpreted in many different ways. However what we can say is, there are only clear mentions of elections when the succession was in dispute (Landsmeet during the game, Sophia + Calenhad). There are absolutely no clear mentions when it wasn't (and again, that is really not up to me to prove). So what is left? Either pure speculations or drawing parallels from our history which the whole world of Thedas is based on (and that has more weight than pure speculations based on what you think and on a few ambiguous codex entries). So when we add what little we have - i.e. nothing saying elections happen in normal situations and Ferelden is based on England (and that is very obvious, even the Landsmeet is described precisely as medieval english parliament) - we have slightly more points for feudal monarchy and nothing in favor of elective monarchy.

 

One last question and I'll rest my case, look on the documented cases of elections during disputed successions, why the voting was limited only between the rightful claimants? Don't tell me that for 400 years, during several uprisings, occupation and disputed successions there was never a stronger candidate than the one of the Theirin family. Not even after the rule of the tyrannical king Arland for example? Or could that maybe mean there were no cadidates at all, since no voting has ever happened when the matter of succession was clear?

[X Equestris]

X, by the time Fergus shows up, the Landsmeet has already elected the Cousland as a monarch.

And they lose that when Alistair dies.

[Rizilliant]

Cailen was not "elected".. Marrick, his father, passed on he throne via succession...

 

If were sticking to the canon, the Hero has no ability to have Elves, weerwolves, Dwarves, mages, etc back him in usurping the throne.. This is all made up.. You say not to use outside source, and keep within the confines of the game.. Well, i dont recall any codex, conversations, or even whispers of those races willing to go into battle for the Throne.. 

 

Again, they were only there to quel the blight.. The Landsmeet was to quell the civil war, and place a propr ruler.. The choices being 1 of 2..No more! You cant ignore some aspects of the game, thnen inject you own theory to make your point..

[Dai Grepher]

@Jeffry Assuming the Cousland is NOT elected as monarch at the Landsmeet, then it would seem like the ruling monarch does get to decide, in which case Alistair considers the F!Cousland a queen, and Anora considers M!Cousland a consort. Though, I still wouldn't be sure on the legal authority vested in this "queen". Would she be a regnant queen or a consort queen?

 

DA2 does indeed claim the M!Cousland is a consort, but Bodahn is quoted as saying that the Grey Warden (M!Cousland) is married to the queen now. He then states, "Fancy that. A Grey Warden, ruling Ferelden." Which suggests that the M!Cousland is a monarch. DA:I also features Elan Ve'Mal referring to the King of Ferelden in my M!Cousland King world state. Two other such references exist that I know of. So BioWare has screwed up in any case because they are claiming two completely different things, and I think they should fix this.

 

I agree that we can set the references from the other games aside though. The discrepancies found can be used to support either side.

 

Sophia... I did a chart on this once regarding lineage, but to make a long story short, Sophia's bloodline claim may have been less than Arland's. Assuming it was equal, she still had a different last name. Which for posterity would make Arland Theirin the more desirable candidate.

 

Calanhad is the clearest example of a candidate using force to win the crown.

 

Fionne's related codex says that no one has ever sat upon the throne without FIRST winning the approval of the Bannorn. That statement indicates that in order to initially get to the throne in the first place you must win "support" from the banns. Now, define "support" or "approval" any way you want, the point is that you cannot even get to the throne unless you have it. If this were merely a case of the inheriting monarch needing support in order to do anything or even maintain the throne, then the statement would not be that no one has sat upon the throne without first winning the banns over. Fionne's statement cements this when she says the banns united to give her the crown. Now, maybe she ran against other Theirin's, sure. But this at least indicates that the banns grant the crown. And like I wrote, I think the previous statement is clear. In order to get to the throne you need the banns. And the Landsmeet clearly shows the banns voting.

 

I realize I am required to prove my claims, but you made claims of your own. You are required to prove your claims. Prove that the throne is inherited. I am in the middle of playing Inquisition, but I will try to go into Origins and find the relevant quotes from the loading screens, and I will also check into something about Anora.

 

As for the F!Cousland becoming queen, I think it depends on the agreed upon statement at the Landsmeet. If their marriage was a condition of their ruling, then yes. But if F!Cousland dies instead of Alistair, then Alistair still gets to be king, rather than Anora. So I think the logical answer is that this was all due to gameplay, not storyline. Otherwise, the Cousland is elected in the Landsmeet and that should be what makes them a monarch. Again, this can fall through for gameplay reasons.

 

I don't argue this based on the fiancée thing, my argument is what the banns voted on in the Landsmeet. If the F!Cousland stated that she and Alistair would be joint-ruling monarchs, then even if Alistair dies, she should still be elected monarch, as would be the case with Alistair if she died. But, I don't know what the F!Cousland's lines are, since I never played as one. If her statement was something like, "I will become queen by marrying Alistair" then yeah, I agree that Alistair dying would reset the decision and the banns could then elect Anora. I don't agree that she would have the strongest claim, but yes, the new Landsmeet could elect her.

 

I don't think the statement, "No one has ever sat upon the throne of Ferelden without first winning the approval of the Bannorn", is ambiguous or can be misinterpreted. It clearly states that to first sit on the throne you must win the approval of the banns. It doesn't say, "To maintain rule the monarch must seek the approval of the banns". Another codex could be interpreted that way, but not this one.

 

Also, what about the Landsmeet in Origins? It came down to Loghain vs. the Warden. The banns agreed to abide my the outcome. Is that, and the previous voice of support, considered voting? Even if you say voting only happens in cases where the throne is disputed, it was disputed in Origins, was it not? As such, doesn't the Cousland have a valid claim? And if the Cousland wins the duel, can't the Cousland take the throne in the same way as Calanhad?

 

All I read from that is that you have no in-game evidence that the throne is inherited. You go to real world references, but I don't think Ferelden is anything like England. I think that's just your opinion. I think Ferelden is more like feudal Japan, or perhaps even the United States in some ways (like the electoral college).

 

Which cases are your referring to? Arland vs. Sophia? Who said it was limited to them? Maybe they were just the top two out of five. What other case is there? The one in Origins? Well, Loghain can win the Landsmeet, but he certainly has no inheritance claim to the throne. He's considered a teyrn, and he has the forces. Then there is Dairren's statement that shows Bryce was at least eligible to be king. So I dispute the notion that there have only been Theirins to elect.

 

As for the 400 years of unknown history, it is entirely possible that only Theirins were elected, because remember, in many of those cases there may have only been one Theirin who was worthy and none ran against them. The point is that each Theirin, opposed or unopposed, was elected. In other words, a Theirin king could name an heir, and put that heir forward before the Landsmeet, but the banns will still have to elect that Theirin even if he's the only candidate. Now, there may have been numerous cases of a Theirin being opposed by other noble houses, but look at the setup. You had only two teyrns, not including the king. Either of them could match the other as far as legal title, or the Cousland could eek out the family that ran Gwaren at the time. But the royal family could beat the Couslands on title. So it would come down to experience, legend, and power. The royal family had the Bannorn. The Couslands probably only had the Coastlands, and Gwaren had the Brecillian forest, the wilds, maybe Lothering. So the system was set up to favor the Theirins. For any noble house to unseat any new Theirin of the bloodline, that family's candidate would need to be REALLY good, and possibly that Theirin would have to be really bad. As was the case with Bryce and Cailan, but even in that case Cailan still won (and I'm sure Bryce even supported him out of respect for Maric). So just because the banns went with the Theirin each time doesn't mean they don't vote on each one.

 

As for Arland. I'm sure many were mad at him, but so what? He had the forces. He wrapped the Couslands up like presents on Feastday when they sided with Sophia. He was a tyrant, but he was a tyrant who could not be opposed. I'm sure his heir had a hell of a time convincing the Landsmeet, but I'm also sure the Landsmeet had no one else willing to run. There were probably concessions made and bargains struck, but at the end of the day, the Bannorn elected another Theirin. That Theirin may have been harsh as well, but nothing compared to his father. And the appearance of reasonability may have been enough to convince most banns. For all others, there was still the fact that this Theirin still commanded Arland's loyal troops. So, yeah.

 

@X That depends on what the F!Cousland said at the Landsmeet, but we have agreed that the F!Cousland loses to Anora in that case. The question is why that is. I say it is a gameplay issue, not a storyline/legal issue within Ferelden lore and law.

 

@Riz Maric certainly named Cailan his successor, but that doesn't mean Cailan was not elected. The election by the banns is what bestows the crown. The naming of a successor merely grants a claim to the throne.

 

I agree that the concept of launching any kind of rebellion is beyond the scope of the game, regardless of whether players made the kind of Warden who would do that or not. I also agree that it is unreasonable to demand that BioWare make this an option, or adhere to such a fanon possibility.

 

I was merely saying that Meave's fanon was possible. Not that it was likely, or even that it was remotely hinted at in the game. Meave made some valid points, but it's not like that matters to BioWare. They're going to write the game they want. BUT, my own personal points on this issue are that BioWare DID write it so the M!Cousland could be monarch, and I assume that the same is true of the F!Cousland, though I don't know that for certain.

 

There were more than two choices, and Loghain was one of them (for the banns anyway). Interesting enough, you can discuss the possibility of supporting Loghain with Eamon. He says it's possible, but could they really trust Loghain not to turn on them. So there were in fact more than two options...

 

1. Alistair

2. Anora

3. Alistair and Anora

4. Alistair and F!Cousland

5. M!Cousland and Anora.

6. Loghain

 

And if Eamon and Teagan had thrown their hats in, 7 and 8.

 

I contend that had it not been for gameplay constrictions, the Cousland could have ruled alone as well. This is what Loghain intended to do, at least at first. He tells you (if you recruit him) that the plan was always to make Anora the monarch eventually, but only after he defeated the blight.

 

So yes, a teyrn can issue a claim, can win, and yes the banns vote on who rules Ferelden.

[Jeffry]

Yes, that Fionne and Bannorn quotes are ambiguous. They could very well mean, that the Landsmeet must approve the king by swearing their fealty to him upon succession, to show that the new king can't rule without them (unlike emperors of Orlais). It could just as well mean they had to elect him. But we don't know for sure which one of these (or even if something entirely different) is correct. Tha Landsmeet is the main legal body, the king has to seek the banns' approval during his whole reign. They can even overrule his laws. But the whole thing about support and giving the crown can really mean a few different things. You can't disprove that, neither can I and by talking semantics we will get nowhere. But the fact that there are no clear mentions of elections or even candidates still stands and you can't disprove it. I am very much interested in the photos of loading screens, but don't you think that this would be mentioned somewhere else as well?

 

On a side note, Ferelden is totally England (with a mix of Scotland and Ireland), you have no shogun, emperor and daimyos here, you have the standard european setup of freeholders, barons, counts, dukes, the king and a bloody english parliament the king has to run his laws by. I don't know how you can see Japan in this (especially the dynamics between shogun and the emperor). (really, read something about the history of the Parliamant of England, it is basically the landsmeet) And United States? Are you serious now? The next time you will tell me the king wins his throne by a popular vote (ran through an ellectoral collage or not) and that Ferelden is totally a democratic presidential republic...

 

Why Alistair became the sole ruler if female Cousland dies is quite obvious. He is the rightful heir of King Cailan. The female Cousland is not, she is not even a claimant, because she can't be. It could also mean, that Alistair has indeed a stronger position then his possible wife, but I really don't want to go there again (damn you BioWare and your inconsitencies).

 

It doesn't matter if Loghain was teyrn. He could very well be an arl and still take the throne and force his daughter, the queen, to name him regent. He would have much harder time usurping the throne if he wasn't the queen's father. I would even say that it would not be possible, he would not be able to push the queen aside that smoothly just because he is a teyrn (he would only be able to push her aside by force and even more bloody civil war since he would have had far less supporters). He was able to push her aside because he was a manipulative father.

 

I said that the throne was in dispute in Origins and that the Landsmeet during the game is the 3rd recorded case of voting. And no, the young Cousland had no claim and Loghain had no real claim either. Alistair had a claim and that is why the Landsmeet was called in the first place. Also it should be noted, that in some cases Alistair doesn't even let Anora to be selected as the queen (with or without male human noble marrying her), he will simply take the throne because it is his by right. He lets the Warden always decide only when he is unhardened (when he is hardened he lets you decide only when it benefits him). And I would say this is not simply a game mechanic, but it is there to actually show us that the rightful heir trumphs all if he so wishes and doesn't act like a moron. Also the duel would only had real significance for you if both Anora and Alistair were dead by that time, then you could challange Loghain to duel you for the throne (similar to Calenhad). But you dueling a tyrant when there is a rightful claimant standing next to you? Something completely else.

 

And once again, there are no definitive proves for either your or my claims. None. You can ask me all day long, I can ask you all day long for them, but neither of us can truly deliver. There is only a matter of what is more probable. And so far more probable is feudal monarchy, since what little we have collected points that way more stronger than towards elections. You can't deny that during the game itself Alistair can take the throne for himself simply because he has every right to it and he only just realized it (and nobody protests against that, even Anora can do nothing), he will even defy your decision. The fact that the game clearly shows you you have no claim is not a restriction, it is a fact, Couslands have no claim as long as the Theirin line is strong or there are close relatives alive and willing to step forward (Anora).

 

Also, why does Alistair imprison Anora every single time and doesn't simply kill her? Even when not hardened, he is not a complete moron and very well knows the country is without a clear heir at this point. If he had killed her and then would have died, what would happen? Bunch of claimants scrapping for every bit of power they can. There would either be a civil war between few major parties or there would be clan wars and it would take another Calenhad to unite the nation once again by force (that could be Couslands indeed, but both Anora and Alistair have to be dead for that to happen).

 

P.S. I would say screw the elective vs feudal thing, that leads nowhere, since codex entries lead nowhere. You are dismissing real world parallels, but are not offering anything more besides 2 very ambiguous codex entries, that can be interpreted in both ways successfully. So either come up with more points or skip this thing completely, because it will lead nowhere if you will jsut repeat the things you have already said.

 

P.P.S. The teyrn can only issue a claim with no clear heir around (well he could try, but then there would be a civil war, just as when Loghain "issued" his "claim" and he was named regent on top of that). And no the banns don't vote (no mention of this anywhere). They either support the rightful king or don't. When they don't then that is a completely different story...

 

(for the next few days I will be busy and my answers will thus be short unless you can come up with something new)

 

EDIT: One more point, look at the time Ferelden was occupied. Brandel was partially to blame for losing the war, since he was a weak king. The country was then devided, many lords sided with the Orlaisians. How his daugher Moira came to be a queen? Was there some secret rebellious voting held (since Landsmeet was not used during the occupation) that put in the leadership of the rebellion the heir of the man who was defeated due to his ineptitude? Or maybe she just became the leader since it was her birthright? Just as any other Theirin before and after her.

[Dai Grepher]

For the first part of this, let's see if we can find common ground.

 

If you believe that the statements are ambiguous and could go either way, then do we at least agree that BioWare has been unclear in this regard and that the point of if the Cousland is a monarch or consort is one of contention? Do we also agree that BioWare's writing staff should correct this?

 

If so, which way would you personally like them to go with this, monarch or consort?

 

Now, regarding the disputed statements...

 

"No one has ever sat upon the throne of Ferelden without first winning the approval of the Bannorn."

 

"...[the banns] ... united to give me the crown..." -Fionne

 

You already know what I think on the first statement, but if I were to play Devil's advocate for a moment, I think in order to interpret that as the monarch simply getting approval before taking the throne by inheritance, you would have to say that the statement indicates that all those to have sat upon the throne at any given time had first won the approval of the banns, not necessarily that they had to in order to get the throne. So it isn't that they had to first get the approval of the banns to sit on the throne, it's just that each one of them just so happened to get their approval first before doing so by inheritance.

 

Okay then. I will agree that this could be interpreted that way.

 

Second statement. The words "give me the crown" are a lot more difficult to interpret differently. If it were just swearing fealty, then why doesn't it say that? Swearing fealty is not the same as giving a crown. Even if you call this a coronation, where the banns simply gathered to coronate her and literally give her a literal crown, you'd have to explain why the statement doesn't clearly say that. Why doesn't it say that the banns united to coronate her, or recognize her as queen? The statement, "give me the crown" indicates that the banns bestowed that on her. The word "united" indicates that they had to reach an agreement with each other, but why is that if Fionne was the rightful heir and was queen by right and by law? Why would they have to unite for that? Wouldn't that just be a given for each of them that she was their queen regardless of their differences?

 

I will try to load up Origins tonight, but... no promises. Ha ha. And I'm sure it is mentioned elsewhere. I'll have to look.

 

My point is that you think my comparison to Japan and the U.S. is completely off base. I think your comparison to England is inaccurate, and thus not applicable. So this is opinion vs. opinion on this point, isn't it? So real world systems can't be used as evidence of anything. That's my point. And even if you're right and Ferelden was based off of England, that doesn't mean it's the same in every case.

 

Rightful heir or not, why was Alistair given the throne over Anora who also had a claim? This point is about what the banns agreed to. If the F!Cousland's monarchy holds the condition of marriage, then the same applies to Alistair. If Alistair's death means the throne is contested again, then the same applies if F!Cousland dies. Now, would the banns hold a new Landsmeet and elect Alistair over Anora? Certainly. Would they elect F!Cousland over Anora? Certainly... except... oh yeah, gameplay reasons. That's my only point. The F!Cousland doesn't get cut out of her monarchy because of storyline reasons, but rather for gameplay reasons. If we examine this based solely on lore and storyline, the F!Cousland was elected with Alistair, so even if he dies and a new Landsmeet must be held because her rule carried the condition of marriage, the F!Cousland is still the more desirable candidate. But if there was no condition of marriage, and the F!Cousland was elected queen along side Alistair as king, then even Alistair dying should not invalidate that election. It doesn't invalidate Alistair's. And him being Maric's son just makes him a candidate. It isn't a sure thing. If it were then the post-duel choice would not be necessary.

 

Loghain being her father was a factor, most definitely, but the only part it played was that he was able to easily pacify her with deception. Loghain murdered Cailan. You think he wouldn't have something in store for Cailan's consort had she been someone else's daughter? Besides, Anora had no influence or legal power. The King's death was a huge deal. That is what caused the instability. Loghain's power grab made it worse. But if Loghain had been an arl, his plan would have had no chance of success. Multiple other arls would have made counter claims, including Rendon. Loghain would have had very few supporters in that case, if any. It was his legal authority as teyrn over the arls and other banns that made him powerful. Anora had no power as a consort, but had she seized the opportunity and ignored Loghain, she maaaaaay have pulled it off. But her "supporters" were actually Loghain's supporters. Something she didn't realize until it was much too late. Her only chance would have been to unite the banns who were opposing Loghain, but would they have trusted her and would they have been enough? Hypothetical scenarios. The point is that Loghain used his legal position to declare himself as being the one in charge, as Teagan correctly points out.

 

What do you mean by Loghain had no real claim? He made a claim but it wasn't legal? Why? Because he killed the king? But he still made the claim, did he not? How was he able to do that if had no legal authority or basis to do so? And if he can make the claim, then why can't the Cousland?

 

The Landsmeet was called to stop Loghain by electing a monarch. It didn't necessarily have to be Alistair. But in a non-Cousland playthrough he is the only option they have that can beat Loghain.

 

Alistair takes the throne by force if he is hardened and will do anything to see Loghain die. That's not the same as him having a "right". He seizes the throne as Calanhad did, and as Loghain tried to do. Basically, he's pushing your Cousland out of the way and your Cousland is allowing it. The fact remains that the banns agreed to abide the outcome of the duel. If Alistair countermands that and the Cousland allows that to happen, then obviously the banns have no choice but to accept that reality. I would say that's a gameplay issue as well. We aren't given the choice to push back against pushy Alistair.

 

The duel is the duel. It's the deciding factor. Heirs or no heirs. Claims or no claims. The winner is the one who gets to choose, and that's how it is. Also note that the duel can be fought on two different terms. The first is that the Cousland fights in his own name. The second is that he fights in Alistair's name. He can declare himself Alistair's champion if he makes the related dialogue choices. If not, then he's fighting for himself. Also, didn't we already determine that heirs don't automatically get the throne? Okay, Anora was the previous king's consort. So what? That wouldn't trump the bloodline heir, as you put it.

 

Okay, but at least I posted things form the codices that show you why I think the way I do. Where is your canon basis for believing the throne is inherited? I mean, what gave you that impression in the first place? Did you simply hear the words "king" and "throne" and just assume that it was like England's system?

 

Why is it more probably that it's a feudal monarchy? According to what I've read, it's an elective monarchy, which IS a thing in the real world too, by the way.

 

Anora does nothing, she is nothing, she sits in here all day and plays that sick, repulsive, electric twanger! Sorry. Couldn't resist the reference. Seriously though, Anora can't protest Alistair's show of force because she has no power to do so. And I think the game only shows that the Cousland is merely agreeing with Alistair if he shows such force. So Alistair doesn't overrule the Warden, the Warden simply chooses not to stand against him. Unless you can cite an example of Alistair seizing the throne, the Cousland protesting it, and then failing to stop Alistair, then your claim is just speculation. Besides, it would have no relevance in the case where the Cousland declares joint rule and Alistair has his tantrum.

 

The Couslands have a claim as Bryce shows. The teyrns have a claim as Loghain shows. And yes, those who use force have a claim, as hardened Alistair shows. By the way, what are the conditions for Alistair taking charge? Hardened, obviously. What else?

 

Sure, I'll play along. Storyline reason for Alistair always sparing Anora? Because the Cousland heir could die in the same battle.

 

So screw the inherited vs. elective thing, screw the codices, screw the observations in the Landsmeet, and only consider the real world parallels? But not MY parallels, YOUR parallels. Um... doesn't that seem like dismissing all evidence in favor of your opinion? Just asking.

 

Banns opposed Loghain because they either didn't like him personally (as Ser Bryant I think he name was stated in Lothering) or because his withdrawal from Ostagar seemed suspicious to them. Under normal circumstances, the top ranking teyrn would have become regent by default. This is why Loghain had the Couslands killed first. A point that no one seems to acknowledge let alone address.

 

Moria was named by her father to be his successor, and the rebels supported her leadership. They declared her queen in order to combat Meghren's declaration that he was king. She still had to be approved by the banns before being given the "crown". And the same was true of Maric. It holds a strong parallel with the Couslands actually. Like when Howe attacked Highever and tried to claim the title of teyrn. Only the youngest Cousland's survival prevents Howe from doing this. Now, was Moria officially or legally recognized as such by law? No, not at the time. But that's what her supporters called her. She became the leader because she had the strength and cunning to lead. Not because it was her birthright.

 

If you want to reply to any of this, such as my questions to you, feel free. If you don't want to, that's fine. I will try to look for the Origins quotes tonight.

[Jeffry]

Boy, our posts grow longer every time, I now need 2 tabs to be able to answer

 

Yes, I said many times that BW screwed that up. In fact there are many dialogue and epilogue errors in DAO (lot of them can be fixed by mods like ZDF or Dialogue Tweaks). Honestly I think the title is just a formality anyway because of how BioWare intepreted the rule of both couples, I don't even know why they went that route, they should have sticked with one title for both male and female. But I am ok with male being only prince-consort, it makes sense (and on a side note I think this is another point for the parallel with England).

 

Well, BioWare often tends to leave things in the mystery, it is part of their magic I don't think that their games are supposed to be examined this way, they don't hold very well against it.

 

The quote about Fionne is really weird though and I still can't decide what interpretation sounds more plausible, since the context is missing and I feel we would need to know her whole story to decide. (again, damn you BioWare )

 

I really don't think that the female Cousland was elected as a queen with Alistair. I think "Alistair will be king and I'll rule beside him" was just a figure of speech, Alistair being the king does not depend on whether or not he is married, he is the heir, but for the female Cousland it does, since she can't get the throne otherwise. Even without restrictions, Alistair would stay as the king if female Cousland died.

 

Loghain has no real authority over arls if they don't belong to his teyrnir. There are many independent arls and banns and they don't follow any teyrn. Loghain was the general of the armies, the hero of Ferelden since the Orlesian occupation, he would have it just as easy, since he could easily push his daughter aside. If on the other hand he was an arl and not a father of the queen, that would be in my opinion impossible. Also if Anora had stood against him since the beginning, he would have had no chance as well, but she let him. She believed him, because she had no reason not to (just as all the other nobles, nobody knew about his treachery). If she hadn't named him the regent, he also would have had very little chance. Only too late she realized something was off and when she did, she was physically taken away and kept out of sight. We even can't blame Anora for letting her father seize the power through her, she couldn't possible know what happened and what will happen. But it was her actions (or inactions) that helped Loghain a great deal.

 

I never said elective monarchy is not a real thing, I even posted several examples from our history (Holy Roman Empire, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and said Ferelden is nothing like them, which really it is not.

 

What gave me the impression of inheritance? Honestly, everything, ever since I've played the game for the first time. Not the words king or a throne, but heirs and claims, you have no heirs if elections are held (the word has no meaning in that case), more on this at the end of my post.

 

Again, there is no clear show that teyrns have a claim. I explained how Loghain did not get the throne simply by being a teyrn and I posted the full quote of that kissass Darrien and said why it is just a talk, he even said that this talk is "born of affection for your father" or something like that. You can't take this line seriously as a prove of a claim or even as a hint of possibility. It was just a wish to see Bruce as the king, because his subjects loved him (and frankly, he would have made a fine king, much better than Cailan).

 

When I said screw elective vs feudal I meant leave it out completely with those parallels as well and focus only on the OP. No double standards regarding parallels here. And about codex entries, there are none that say either thing clearly, there are only those that talk about it in a way that can be equally plausibly interpreted in both ways. Or there are those that talk of an election only in cases of disputed succession and only those with claim by blood or by being relatives were able to be voted for.

 

Loghain took the Couslands out because they would never believe him, would oppose his treachery and could assemble large enough force to defeat him. Because Couslands were teyrns, they would be able to do that, but neither Couslands nor Loghain were claimants to anything. Even when there would be no relative to the ruling family we couldn't speak of claims, they still would have none. Loghain really couldn't get the throne easily without Anora's help, she was the key and he used it / her. Without Anora he would have to fight in order to get the throne in the first place.

 

Btw even when I said omit the elective vs feudal I kinda feel we would ended there anyway, when there are claims, do you think we can even speak of elections? Having claim and being the heir since birth kinda contradicts elections. Or do you think that elections only happen between the members of the royal family or between members of royal family + nobles of certain titles or only between nobles of certain titles? Or something else?

 

I thought about this when I watched the Landsmeet scene (from female Cousland perspective again) and Eamon is saying to Anora "Anora, the Landsmeet has decided against you. You must now swear fealty to our king, and relinguish all claim to the throne for yourself and your heirs."

 

How would you interpret this? Claim to the throne for yourself and your heirs. If there were elections, claims and heirs seem kinda pointless, don't they? Yet in the game claims and heirs seem rather important. Or do you interpret it as a claim to a "candidacy"? Or something else completely? Stuff like these are the reason I feel inclined towards feudal monarchy where blood and claims matter above all else.

 

P.S. If Anora was dead, then Alistair would gain the throne immediately after Loghain's treachery was proven and he was defeated. There would be no election and no need to decide who will be the king, since Alistair was the rightful heir and the only claimant (besides Eamon and Teagan who decided not to press their claims).