Just read Alloy of Law by Sanderson, which was fun. Going to try an art book and a new thing next, and then we’ll see what else! I started the Netflix Lara Croft; so far, good, but I’m not very far at all. Also I’m trying out the AMC series Dark Winds, based on Tony Hillerman’s books.
I am about to go on vacation, so don’t expect another Saturday Note for a couple of weeks.
Fantasy Monarchs
Because so much of the fantasy genre is built on a facsimile of medieval Europe, monarchy comes up quite a bit! Which is fine–although it would be cool to see more fantasy authors playing with other types of government. Fantasy worlds with republics, or something, would be neat. I understand the appeal, though: after all, it’s a way to represent the people in power with a fairly limited cast, whereas a representative government would require a much larger cast to develop (or, in movies/television, to hire to play). Pratchett gets round this by having Ankh-Morpork be a dictatorship with an amusing dictator, rather than a straightforward monarchy.
Anyhow! Here are some things I would like for fantasy authors to keep in mind when writing fantasy monarchies:
ONE: Even Absolute Monarchy Isn’t All-Powerful
I think that a misconception many people have about monarchies is that people think that a king is pretty much all-powerful within his nation-state. And that’s not quite true. Historically, the medieval system often worked on familial ties and oaths of fealty–but that meant you had to keep all of your nobles happy by fulfilling your obligations to them, as they see it, or else they might rebel against you. This is harder if you’re some sort of outsider, rather than someone who already has family ties to the country. In The Prince, Machiavelli points out that while conquering the Kingdom of France would be relatively easy (you just have to kill/replace the king, and eliminate his heirs), actually keeping it would be difficult, because the kingdom is a collection of territories belonging to warrior nobles who outnumber you, and you have to convince to remain loyal.
And all of those vassals don’t always remain loyal! Remember when the Duke of Normandy went and conquered England? His dynasty had to beat down English and Welsh uprisings, while there was a whole Thing about whether or not he was still a vassal of the French king.
None of that is even Absolute Monarchy. We know that Absolute Monarchy wasn’t omnipotent because, well, it didn’t last forever. Even if the king is the one who technically has all the power, other people in the court or the government may decide to not listen to him, or work behind his back.
Not to mention, a kingdom has a finite amount of money. A king runs out of money… his ability to do stuff is limited, especially if the people he’s supposed to be paying found out about that. I’d be very interested in seeing a fantasy kingdom run bankrupt–you rarely see that, although it’s not never (Powder Mage has this happen, although it’s very French Revolution-inspired).
TWO: A Good Monarch Can be Unpopular, and a Bad Monarch Can be Very Popular
Henry VIII of England sucked. He killed a lot of people, among them his wives and members of his court, started a new religion because the old one got in his way, seized religious land and wealth for himself, and threw lavish parties. He’s generally remembered as a bit of a silly fellow instead of an outright tyrant.
Richard I of England wasn’t great either. He spent a large chunk of his time (and money!) fighting in foreign wars, and left his country in a financial toilet, that his brother tried to fix through taxes. He’s remembered as a noble warrior king beloved by his country today–which is funny, because it’s likely he didn’t even really think of himself as English at all.
Tyrants can be immensely popular in their home countries; sometimes that’s propaganda, sure, but sometimes it’s genuine, if they’ve got a good public image built on serving popular interests (like killing the pagans). Likewise, really good monarchs can be seen as bad or weak by the people because they don’t do exactly what the people wanted. George III actually cared about his subjects in the American Colonies, but he wasn’t able to do much about it, so we in the US paint him as a particularly psychotic tyrant–Hamilton has him ranting like a particularly nasty spurned lover.
I was kind of impressed by how Greatcoats covered this? The king that our heroes served was a good king and overall seems a good man, but the dukes all rebelled against him and tend to portray him as both a bad king and an inefficient one. This is in part because the king didn’t let them do what they wanted, though it’s also because of other flaws the king had.
Also! Consider: what’s the opinion of a monarch in one country might be different on the international stage. Elizabeth II was beloved in England; less so in Ireland! Vlad the Impaler is a national hero in Romania. Sometimes, I think about the scene in one of the Arn the Knight Templar books (written by a Swede) where a character monologues about how Richard I of England will be known as an oathbreaker and violent thug for all time, which, uh… he’s not, at least not in the English-speaking world.
THREE: Religion!
Monarchs have a religious role, yes? You know this? Sometimes, it’s overt, in the case of the English monarchy, in which the reigning monarch is also the head of the Church of England (at least, technically–my understanding is that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the one who actually does the business of running it). Other times, it’s less explicit, like the idea that the king or queen is meant to act in a way that spiritually uplifts the people–if the monarch is a moral degenerate ignoring the rule of God or the gods, well, deities in question might take it out on the whole country.
You’ll see, then, why some monarchs make a point to keep God (or the gods) happy. Founding monasteries and churches, or ensuring that the proper temples are built… well, that’s to make sure they don’t get smote! There are plenty of instructive stories in Greek mythology about kings and queens blaspheming and getting zapped for it. Not honoring the divine isn’t just about not blaspheming, it’s about observing the proper religious rituals that are believed to ensure a healthy relationship with whoever is Upstairs.
This is why, in the medieval period, excommunicating a monarch is A Big Deal. If the Pope says, “This guy is officially no longer in God’s grace,” well, then, crud! Why should any vassals follow him? That sounds like a one-way ticket to Hell! And you’ll see stories of nobles desperately trying to attain absolution and lift that excommunication.
You’ll also see through history rulers who tried the other way: sacking Rome and kidnapping the Pope. Either way, the role of religion was very important! A lot of writers don’t like getting into it, because they generally don’t consider religion important to politics, so they don’t understand how it relates to a medievalish ruler. But it is incredibly relevant to the world they lived in!
And in some cases, monarchs were believed to be of divine lineage. The two kings of Sparta were supposed to be descendants of Heracles (and thus, also Zeus). Part of the reason you had so many demigods in Greek myth was to claim that your royal line went back up to Olympus. The Norse did this too, with Odin and Freyr. Heck, the Emperor of Japan has a family tree going back to the sun goddess. Hard to argue with a ruler’s place on the throne if they’re descended from the gods (although this is why the shogunate developed–running the country without actually displacing the Emperor).
FOUR: Monarchy Doesn’t Have to be Hereditary
You do know that not every monarchy in history was hereditary, right?
There are cases in history where the next person on the throne was the one who was elected, by a council or court specially designated for this purpose. The Mexica (Aztec) empire had a thing like this; there was an heir presumptive, the person that the emperor would choose, usually a relative, but that choice still had to go through an approval process after he died.
Some authors do play with this. It actually causes the central conflict in Song of Albion when the idea of hereditary monarchy is introduced, because suddenly the prince feels like he deserves his father’s throne, instead of being selected by the circle of druids. A major conflict in one of the arcs in The Witcher 3 is that the lords of Skellige are trying to pick who the next king will be, and one of them has a domineering mother that wants to make the isles a hereditary democracy, as she thinks it will be more stable.
Except hereditary monarchies aren’t always stable! A king or queen can build a very good kingdom, and then someone further down–maybe the next in line, in fact–can ruin the entire thing. This also comes up in The Witcher 3, in which Redania’s former spymaster talks about how he built a great kingdom with the king, only for the king to die, and his son Radovid to become an insane, power-hungry git who oppresses half of his people.
Think about this, too: if there is more than one heir, those heirs might decide to kill each other rather than split the country. This was common practice in the sultan’s family in the Ottoman Empire, actually, and was just seen as how things worked. Y’know, the royal family in civil war every generation. Funzies.
A hereditary monarchy isn’t always the best choice! In fantasy, you can can explore that! Or you can show a monarchy that runs completely differently. Maybe it’s elected; maybe it’s divinely appointed; or maybe it’s some other system. Who knows!
—
And that’s all I gots!
No comments:
Post a Comment