Perrin's new station in Andor

[AvroChris]

 

The above is true. The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

 

Is it clear? Funny that, I thought she had to talk a lot of nobles into backing her for the Throne and fight a war. Rand said that as far as he was concerned, the Throne was Elayne's because that was the rule of succession. She didn't fight the siege to mend her ego, she fought it because that was the way succession works in Andor. You have to have the backing of the nobles to be Queen, and it was certainly never stated that Rand influenced the nobles into swearing for her, beyond making his opinion known.

As to Cairhien, she was handed that on a plate.

 

 

You don't need the backing of the nobles when you possess an entire Aiel army and Dragon legion at your disposal at your city gates, which you foolishly opt not to use. Furthermore support of the nobles by defeating them with mercenaries is doubtfully a better way to legitemize your rule then simply stating "the Dragon reborn wishes it so," and then proceed to enforce rule with his men.

 

I agree, she didn't need to do it that way, but taking the throne in the same manner as the other claimants is a far more legitimate way of doing things. If she took the throne on the authority of the Dragon Reborn, which is pretty much "I have a mahoosive load of soldiers and magic on my side", then her authority only lasts as long as he does. This way, she's presented her claims to the nobles, proved to be more competent or more lucky than the other claimants, and decapitated her opposition. And she can say "I did it myself, in the Andoran style, in the same way my opponents tried, so anyone who disagrees with my right to be Queen can shove it".

[David Selig]

You don't need the backing of the nobles when you possess an entire Aiel army and Dragon legion at your disposal at your city gates, which you foolishly opt not to use. Furthermore support of the nobles by defeating them with mercenaries is doubtfully a better way to legitemize your rule then simply stating "the Dragon reborn wishes it so," and then proceed to enforce rule with his men.

 

It doesn't make much sense to me either that the Andoran nobles were ready to fight the obviously superior army of the Dragon if he acted as more than a temporary regent before they settled the Succession between themselves, but it was made abundantly clear in the books that it had to happen that way, otherwise there would've been a full scale war - all Andoran houses against Rand's forces. Which would've led to way more casualties than the Caemlyn's siege and the whole Succession struggle.

[Suttree]

LOL. Yeah, Elayne claimed the throne in her own right.

 

After Rand rescued it from a Foresaken, and the Aeil restored order.

 

But no, she certainly did it all on her own, by walking into an unguarded palace and saying so.

 

The most unconscionable thing Elayne did, in the whole series, was subject her people to unnecessary months of war so that she could say that she wasn't accepting Andor from Rand.

 

Yes she walked in and claimed it based on her right as the Daughter Heir. The books made it clear it had to happen in that in that way. Not just Elayne but Dyelin and all the Adnoran nobles thought so. In addition we have the pov from Davram Bashere where he explains why foreign soldiers cant be utilyzed by Elayne. So one of the greatest military minds in Randland agrees that Elayne went about it in the right way earning it herself.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

LOL. Yeah, Elayne claimed the throne in her own right.

 

After Rand rescued it from a Foresaken, and the Aeil restored order.

 

But no, she certainly did it all on her own, by walking into an unguarded palace and saying so.

 

The most unconscionable thing Elayne did, in the whole series, was subject her people to unnecessary months of war so that she could say that she wasn't accepting Andor from Rand.

 

Yes she walked in and claimed it based on her right as the Daughter Heir. The books made it clear it had to happen in that in that way. Not just Elayne but Dyelin and all the Adnoran nobles thought so.

 

 

In all honesty the entire charade was simply put in there to give Elayne a storyline, filler and add more depth to Elayne as a character. It was certainly not based on any intelligent deduction or the slightest reason. Simply looking at the entire affair pragmatically I come off thinking Elayne is a stubborn child who condemned her nation to a civil war and prolonged hostilities to the detriment of the common people based on nothing more than her bruised ego and personal vain. Her husband or father of her children already conquered Caemlyn, killed it's previous ruler and commandeers entire people and nations from the Aiel to Illian to the Seafolk to Cairhien. No noble would put up much resistance against her rule because it would be suicide.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

LOL. Yeah, Elayne claimed the throne in her own right.

 

After Rand rescued it from a Foresaken, and the Aeil restored order.

 

But no, she certainly did it all on her own, by walking into an unguarded palace and saying so.

 

The most unconscionable thing Elayne did, in the whole series, was subject her people to unnecessary months of war so that she could say that she wasn't accepting Andor from Rand.

 

Yes she walked in and claimed it based on her right as the Daughter Heir. The books made it clear it had to happen in that in that way. Not just Elayne but Dyelin and all the Adnoran nobles thought so. In addition we have the pov from Davram Bashere where he explains why foreign soldiers cant be utilyzed by Elayne. So one of the greatest military minds in Randland agrees that Elayne went about it in the right way earning it herself.

 

The Bashere note was just added to the book to try and explain away just how farcical the entire thing appeared. But it raises the question as to why is it not acceptable to utilize the men of her future consort and father of her children BUT it is ok to use lowlife sellswords, mercenaries, ex-brigands/bandits, Seafolk, Aes Sedai etc.. to establish her rule? How does that make any possible sense?

[AquilaInfernus]

Horray, just read three pages before people started using the internal logic of the books. The whole situation may not even need to last as long as Perrin's lifetime, just long enough for Rand to cede his status as High Seat to (presumably) his son (the daughter will remain a Trakand), that Elayne is currently pregnant with!

 

Also it was Rand who stuffed up with his talk of 'giving the throne to Elayne'. Selective memories and opinions aside, I think Elayne has proven herself to be one of the more astute political minds in the series (whatever you think of her). Older and wiser heads seem to spend most of their time poltiking for status and we're led to believe Morgase was considered a good queen until crops started failing and Rahvin turned up. I've always considered leaders (feudal ones especially) as having to follow a Machiavellian logic to an extent that often alienates us more 'enlightened' types.

 

And on the (original) topic of Perrin's status; I'm pretty sure that the Two Rivers was only technically in rebellion, since raising the Wolfhead and Manetheren Banner occurred in the context of raising morale during a trolloc invasion if I recall correctly. The whole scene seemed more like the parties involved were avoiding setting precedent for other noble houses to follow. It was all about appearances to prevent more politically opportunistic parties starting something.

[David Selig]

 

The Bashere note was just added to the book to try and explain away just how farcical the entire thing appeared. But it raises the question as to why is it not acceptable to utilize the men of her future consort and father of her children BUT it is ok to use lowlife sellswords, mercenaries, ex-brigands/bandits, Seafolk, Aes Sedai etc.. to establish her rule? How does that make any possible sense?

 

This reminds of one of the classic lines in the infamous ISAM summaries:

 

Elayne: I must hire mercenaries for the Royal Guard, or the people will think I cannot control the city, and they will rebel.

Dyelin: The Aiel in the city would have controlled the city for you before you sent them away.

Elayne: But Aiel are foreigners. The people hate foreigners, and would have rebelled.

Dyelin: Most mercenaries are foreigners.

Elayne: But they are MY foreigners.

[Suttree]

 

The Bashere note was just added to the book to try and explain away just how farcical the entire thing appeared. But it raises the question as to why is it not acceptable to utilize the men of her future consort and father of her children BUT it is ok to use lowlife sellswords, mercenaries, ex-brigands/bandits, Seafolk, Aes Sedai etc.. to establish her rule? How does that make any possible sense?

 

This reminds of one of the classic lines in the infamous ISAM summaries:

 

Elayne: I must hire mercenaries for the Royal Guard, or the people will think I cannot control the city, and they will rebel.

Dyelin: The Aiel in the city would have controlled the city for you before you sent them away.

Elayne: But Aiel are foreigners. The people hate foreigners, and would have rebelled.

Dyelin: Most mercenaries are foreigners.

Elayne: But they are MY foreigners.

 

But that is the point. The way RJ wrote the story Elayne could not seem to use Rand's forces to claim the throne. As funny as that dialogue is the truth is Dyelin agreed with Elayne as did the other Andoran nobles and Bashere. As illogical as it can seem to us that is how RJ wanted it and you can't argue with that.

[David Selig]

I definitely agree with you. Jordan wrote it this way and repeatedly made the point that it had to happen this way, so even if it seems somewhat implausible, in-story it's justified for the characters to behave this way.

 

The summary still makes me laugh though. ;)

[randsc]

Certainly he wrote it this way, on purpose.

 

The question is why. I tend to favor Rembrandt's explanation.

[Muad Cheade]

Think it a bit further along. If Faile assumes regency in Saldaea it would mean that due to Saldaean custom Perrin would assume a co-regency. Elayne has no right to command the King of Saldaea for anything. It is not rebellion if he refuses to send arms either from Ghealdan, Saldaea or his holdings in Two Rivers. It is the same reason why the King of France could not command the King of England (also Duke of Normandy and Count of Aquitaine) to muster soldiers for his campaigns.

It is rebellion if he does not marshal his troops from the Two Rivers. Also, Ghealdan is in alliance with Andor and is subject to Perrin. Saldea would be in alliance with Saldea under Faile and Perrin, so if Andor were to enlist her allies, they both would honor it. Elayne can order Perrin, Steward of the Two Rivers. She cannot do the same with Perrin, King of Saldea.

 

The above is true. The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

Elayne took it by herself. Took a few books but she did it. By using the Saldeans and Aiel, she would show herself o be nothing but a puppet. Bashere (one of the Five Great Captains) even explained this to Bael.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

People don't like being conquered no matter who the conqueror is. Notice how rebellion sprung up almost instantly in every nation he took. People resent that. For Elayne to be "given" the throne shows that she 1). is merely a puppet of the Dragon 2). has no legitimate authority (and that helped propel the nation into war).

 

 

I disagree. In an absolute monarchy on the late medieval model, the nobility lost power and privileges to the throne, but the common people did not lose power and privileges to the nobility.

 

What we have here is commoners losing democratic rights to an hereditary nobility, while the nobles are in turn losing rights to a centralizing monarch. IMO, that puts us more in the realm of the despotic monarchies of antiquity than in an absolute monarchy as that term is usually understood.

Despotism implies that the ruler rules by his whims and does not follow any laws. You also will notice that the "commoners" willingly gave up their "democratic rights" to a lord they chose. Also, the Two Rivers still have democratically elected mayors and women councillors.

 

Another reason why Andor seems to be an enlightened absolute monarchy is that Elayne has created a standing army independent of the nobility and strengthened the crown via Mat's Band, the dragons, and the Kin.

 

So after the Two Rivers was fomenting outright rebellion against Elayne which was only simmered down by Perrin's prudence, the plan is to have one of Elayne's children become lord of Two Rivers? I see that working real well and being entirely realistic,...

It is realistic as Elayne's children are Rand's and therefore are his heirs. Currently, they are heir to the Lordship of the Two Rivers and the throne of Illian. It is likely she elevtes Perrin and his line to Lord when Rand dies.

 

How is it treason? If Perrin and Faile assume regency in Saldaea which is a legitimate fear considering the childless nature of the current Queen, it would establish them as King and Queen foremost. Elayne cannot command the King of Saldaea to muster arms on her behalf anymore than the King of France could force the English King to muster forces in Aquitaine or Normandy. It's simply not how things work, nor is it treason for one Regent to not come to arms for another Regent.

It's only treason if Perrin, Steward of the Two Rivers does not muster his forces. If Perrin, king of Saldea, declines to marshal his nation's troops, he's not committing treason although he is in alliance with Andor.

 

In nobility you are always labelled and distinguished by your most senior title. I am sure you don't disagree that King of Saldaea outranks Steward to the Lord of Two Rivers? As Queen of Andor Elayne can scream her face blue and Perrin won't have to come to arms if he chooses not to, or more accurately knowing the relationship/marriage Faile decides not to.

It depends on the circumstances. Notice when Elayne allowed the Borderlanders to journey through Andor, she did so as an Aes Sedai of the Green Ajah, not as the Daughter-Heir, as the Daughter-Heir wouldn't have that authority. Perrin, king of Saldea has no authority in Andor. He is just a foreigner, albeit a royal one. The opposite goes for Perrin, Steward of the Two Rivers.

 

Of course Elayne could then insist that Perrin abdicate the Stewardship or in most historical cases the lesser title was relinquished. But the entire purpose of it all was because of the rebellious nature and insurrectionist atmosphere in Two Rivers that Perrin was even made ruler. Elayne feared she might lose the region entirely if she pressed Perrins self-appointed role in the region. The place is hanging on a thin enough string with enough contempt for the royal house in Caemlyn as is. I am sure forcing Perrin to give up lordship there to prevent conflict if he assumes a title in Saldaea will go down real well with the locals who are probably of more mind to just declare secession to Saldaea than they are to accept Caemlyn rule.

Who says she would force Perrin to give it up. He is Steward. He only rules in Rand's absence, and like I said before, Elayne's children will have a claim to that title.

 

On an even more convoluted note to show how stupid this entire thing is. Should Two Rivers rebel and Elayne as she threatened send a military force to brutally crush/suppress the rebellion. I am sure it would more than strain the relationships to her largest neighbor considering the Prince of Ravens was born in said region and still possesses family there who might be killed by Andoran forces.

This is just a hypothetical situation. For example, what if Mat had a change of heart and joined the Seanchan, who then attacked Andor? 1). We have no basis to believe that will ever happen. 2). Why would the Two Rivers rebel when a compromise was made that was more than acceptable to every party.

 

You don't need the backing of the nobles when you possess an entire Aiel army and Dragon legion at your disposal at your city gates, which you foolishly opt not to use. Furthermore support of the nobles by defeating them with mercenaries is doubtfully a better way to legitemize your rule then simply stating "the Dragon reborn wishes it so," and then proceed to enforce rule with his men.

The Aiel and Saldeans just prove she is her lover's puppet and has no legitimate authority. Once the Dragon left, the wolves would come to feast, and they did. Re-read Bashere's conversation with Bael for clarification.

 

LOL. Yeah, Elayne claimed the throne in her own right.

 

After Rand rescued it from a Foresaken, and the Aeil restored order.

 

But no, she certainly did it all on her own, by walking into an unguarded palace and saying so.

 

The most unconscionable thing Elayne did, in the whole series, was subject her people to unnecessary months of war so that she could say that she wasn't accepting Andor from Rand.

And if she did accept that aid, she had no legitimate authority. Say China occupied the United States, and the UK forced them out. However, instead of a President coming to power as precedence states (election), the UK hand-picked a candidate and he was to be the President of the United States. That President has no legitimacy. Just look how people acted when they believed President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. If the leader has no legitimacy, then anarchy will follow.

 

You don't need the backing of the nobles when you possess an entire Aiel army and Dragon legion at your disposal at your city gates, which you foolishly opt not to use. Furthermore support of the nobles by defeating them with mercenaries is doubtfully a better way to legitemize your rule then simply stating "the Dragon reborn wishes it so," and then proceed to enforce rule with his men.

 

It doesn't make much sense to me either that the Andoran nobles were ready to fight the obviously superior army of the Dragon if he acted as more than a temporary regent before they settled the Succession between themselves, but it was made abundantly clear in the books that it had to happen that way, otherwise there would've been a full scale war - all Andoran houses against Rand's forces. Which would've led to way more casualties than the Caemlyn's siege and the whole Succession struggle.

No one likes a conqueror, more so the conquered. In Tear and Cairhien rebellion sprouted as soon as he took power.

 

In all honesty the entire charade was simply put in there to give Elayne a storyline, filler and add more depth to Elayne as a character. It was certainly not based on any intelligent deduction or the slightest reason. Simply looking at the entire affair pragmatically I come off thinking Elayne is a stubborn child who condemned her nation to a civil war and prolonged hostilities to the detriment of the common people based on nothing more than her bruised ego and personal vain. Her husband or father of her children already conquered Caemlyn, killed it's previous ruler and commandeers entire people and nations from the Aiel to Illian to the Seafolk to Cairhien. No noble would put up much resistance against her rule because it would be suicide.

Oh, so you're privy to all of RJ's notes and reasoning? Could you tell me how Tarmon Gai'din ends?

 

How is she stubborn? She took the situation she was put in and made the best of it. Before she became queen, Andor was on the ropes. Now, it is the greatest nation in the Westlands.

 

The Bashere note was just added to the book to try and explain away just how farcical the entire thing appeared. But it raises the question as to why is it not acceptable to utilize the men of her future consort and father of her children BUT it is ok to use lowlife sellswords, mercenaries, ex-brigands/bandits, Seafolk, Aes Sedai etc.. to establish her rule? How does that make any possible sense?

Or...it makes perfect political sense. Mercenaries are very much different than using another nation's soldiers (Bashere and his troops) and a people who devastated the Westlands two decades prior, both of which are controlled by the man who conquered the same nation and who some think killed the Queen.

 

And on the (original) topic of Perrin's status; I'm pretty sure that the Two Rivers was only technically in rebellion, since raising the Wolfhead and Manetheren Banner occurred in the context of raising morale during a trolloc invasion if I recall correctly. The whole scene seemed more like the parties involved were avoiding setting precedent for other noble houses to follow. It was all about appearances to prevent more politically opportunistic parties starting something.

Pretty much.

[Mr Ares]

Think it a bit further along. If Faile assumes regency in Saldaea it would mean that due to Saldaean custom Perrin would assume a co-regency. Elayne has no right to command the King of Saldaea for anything. It is not rebellion if he refuses to send arms either from Ghealdan, Saldaea or his holdings in Two Rivers.

Actually, it is rebellion if he refuses to send arms from his holdings in the TR, as that is part of Andor. Elayne has every right to command the Steward of the TR, even if she has none to command the King of Saldaea.

 

The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

Rand did not conquer Andor, he liberated it - he sees the distinction, even if you don't, as he took no title there, did not make Elayne a Steward of the Dragon, nor did he allow the Aiel to take the fifth. So to him, and to them, it is a matter of him ousting a Chosen, but not conquering a country. And let us not forget that he abandoned Andor before Elayne returned to Caemlyn. He left a power vacuum, and it was left to Elayne to fill it. Elayne took power on her own merits, she did not accept it from Rand - he was in no position to gift it to her.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

Think it a bit further along. If Faile assumes regency in Saldaea it would mean that due to Saldaean custom Perrin would assume a co-regency. Elayne has no right to command the King of Saldaea for anything. It is not rebellion if he refuses to send arms either from Ghealdan, Saldaea or his holdings in Two Rivers.

Actually, it is rebellion if he refuses to send arms from his holdings in the TR, as that is part of Andor. Elayne has every right to command the Steward of the TR, even if she has none to command the King of Saldaea.

 

The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

Rand did not conquer Andor, he liberated it - he sees the distinction, even if you don't, as he took no title there, did not make Elayne a Steward of the Dragon, nor did he allow the Aiel to take the fifth. So to him, and to them, it is a matter of him ousting a Chosen, but not conquering a country. And let us not forget that he abandoned Andor before Elayne returned to Caemlyn. He left a power vacuum, and it was left to Elayne to fill it. Elayne took power on her own merits, she did not accept it from Rand - he was in no position to gift it to her.

 

 

 

If that is truly the case and such a move does constitute. Why did the Duchy of Hanover side with Great Britain in the war of Austrian succession? More interesting why does no one consider Hanover going to war against it's North-German confederates, most prominently Prussia to have been an act of treason? Oh yeah. Because due to the Act of Settlement the descendants of the Electress of Hanover became the royal family of Great Britain. Hanover despite being allied with Prussia was a holding of the King of England (George Louis or King George was also the Elector of Hanover), the King of England declared war on Prussia and the Hapsburg dynasty. Hanover mustered arms for England and not a single soul spoke of treason. So what you're trying to paint there would be a revolutionary concept that has no bearing on history of actual factual analysis of the same situation in the past.

 

Oh wait. Let's name more examples. Peter III was the Tsar of Russia, but he was also the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. When Russia went to war with the German provinces, how did Holstein muster? Or why not flip it around. The Duke of Württemberg serving alongside the King of Prussia instead of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor during the 7 years war. When Phillip II mustered forces for the Third Crusade, did he consider it treason when the men in Poitou, Aquitaine or Normandy mustered instead for Richard I? Richard I after all being a Plantagenet from a line of French Dukes originating from the Normandy. No, nobody spoke of treason in any of these cases.

 

So please bother explaining to me as to how Perrin, when King of Saldaea, refuses to send men from the Two Rivers to support House Trakand if Andor enters a conflict? Please I beg you. There is literally not historical precedent to consider it such. Just open a damn history book.

[capuga]

Think it a bit further along. If Faile assumes regency in Saldaea it would mean that due to Saldaean custom Perrin would assume a co-regency. Elayne has no right to command the King of Saldaea for anything. It is not rebellion if he refuses to send arms either from Ghealdan, Saldaea or his holdings in Two Rivers.

Actually, it is rebellion if he refuses to send arms from his holdings in the TR, as that is part of Andor. Elayne has every right to command the Steward of the TR, even if she has none to command the King of Saldaea.

 

The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

Rand did not conquer Andor, he liberated it - he sees the distinction, even if you don't, as he took no title there, did not make Elayne a Steward of the Dragon, nor did he allow the Aiel to take the fifth. So to him, and to them, it is a matter of him ousting a Chosen, but not conquering a country. And let us not forget that he abandoned Andor before Elayne returned to Caemlyn. He left a power vacuum, and it was left to Elayne to fill it. Elayne took power on her own merits, she did not accept it from Rand - he was in no position to gift it to her.

 

 

 

If that is truly the case and such a move does constitute. Why did the Duchy of Hanover side with Great Britain in the war of Austrian succession? More interesting why does no one consider Hanover going to war against it's North-German confederates, most prominently Prussia to have been an act of treason? Oh yeah. Because due to the Act of Settlement the descendants of the Electress of Hanover became the royal family of Great Britain. Hanover despite being allied with Prussia was a holding of the King of England (George Louis or King George was also the Elector of Hanover), the King of England declared war on Prussia and the Hapsburg dynasty. Hanover mustered arms for England and not a single soul spoke of treason. So what you're trying to paint there would be a revolutionary concept that has no bearing on history of actual factual analysis of the same situation in the past.

 

Oh wait. Let's name more examples. Peter III was the Tsar of Russia, but he was also the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. When Russia went to war with the German provinces, how did Holstein muster? Or why not flip it around. The Duke of Württemberg serving alongside the King of Prussia instead of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor during the 7 years war. When Phillip II mustered forces for the Third Crusade, did he consider it treason when the men in Poitou, Aquitaine or Normandy mustered instead for Richard I? Richard I after all being a Plantagenet from a line of French Dukes originating from the Normandy. No, nobody spoke of treason in any of these cases.

 

So please bother explaining to me as to how Perrin, when King of Saldaea, refuses to send men from the Two Rivers to support House Trakand if Andor enters a conflict? Please I beg you. There is literally not historical precedent to consider it such. Just open a damn history book.

 

Where in a damn history book does it show people in our history fighting each other with the One Power. The point being, the fictional political relationships in this book do not have to function in exactly the same fashion as similar relationships in our history did. I won't argue whether or not you are accurate regarding our world's history because I don't really know anything about it - the only thing I'm concerned about is how the political parties function in the book. It seems to me after reading the book that if Perrin were to become King of Saldaea in addition to Steward of TR, his responsibilities as Steward of TR would require him to raise the Andoran troups in his care if the Andoran queen told him to. I also do not believe that those Andoran troups would be required to fight for Perrin in a Saldaean conflict. These are just my opinion's based on how I perceive the text. What matters is how Perrin, Elayne, and the citizanry view their obligations in their world - not how these relationships functioned in our world. Whether or not Elayne could disipline King Perrin for his treason in not raising TR troops - she wouldn't be able to execute a foreign monarch but I would imagine that she could remove his Andoran title and impose trade and other political penalties about Saldaea.

[Suttree]

Think it a bit further along. If Faile assumes regency in Saldaea it would mean that due to Saldaean custom Perrin would assume a co-regency. Elayne has no right to command the King of Saldaea for anything. It is not rebellion if he refuses to send arms either from Ghealdan, Saldaea or his holdings in Two Rivers.

Actually, it is rebellion if he refuses to send arms from his holdings in the TR, as that is part of Andor. Elayne has every right to command the Steward of the TR, even if she has none to command the King of Saldaea.

 

The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

Rand did not conquer Andor, he liberated it - he sees the distinction, even if you don't, as he took no title there, did not make Elayne a Steward of the Dragon, nor did he allow the Aiel to take the fifth. So to him, and to them, it is a matter of him ousting a Chosen, but not conquering a country. And let us not forget that he abandoned Andor before Elayne returned to Caemlyn. He left a power vacuum, and it was left to Elayne to fill it. Elayne took power on her own merits, she did not accept it from Rand - he was in no position to gift it to her.

 

 

 

If that is truly the case and such a move does constitute. Why did the Duchy of Hanover side with Great Britain in the war of Austrian succession? More interesting why does no one consider Hanover going to war against it's North-German confederates, most prominently Prussia to have been an act of treason? Oh yeah. Because due to the Act of Settlement the descendants of the Electress of Hanover became the royal family of Great Britain. Hanover despite being allied with Prussia was a holding of the King of England (George Louis or King George was also the Elector of Hanover), the King of England declared war on Prussia and the Hapsburg dynasty. Hanover mustered arms for England and not a single soul spoke of treason. So what you're trying to paint there would be a revolutionary concept that has no bearing on history of actual factual analysis of the same situation in the past.

 

Oh wait. Let's name more examples. Peter III was the Tsar of Russia, but he was also the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. When Russia went to war with the German provinces, how did Holstein muster? Or why not flip it around. The Duke of Württemberg serving alongside the King of Prussia instead of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor during the 7 years war. When Phillip II mustered forces for the Third Crusade, did he consider it treason when the men in Poitou, Aquitaine or Normandy mustered instead for Richard I? Richard I after all being a Plantagenet from a line of French Dukes originating from the Normandy. No, nobody spoke of treason in any of these cases.

 

So please bother explaining to me as to how Perrin, when King of Saldaea, refuses to send men from the Two Rivers to support House Trakand if Andor enters a conflict? Please I beg you. There is literally not historical precedent to consider it such. Just open a damn history book.

 

Every day you prove more and more that while you can quite admirably parrot historical details from memory(incorrect though they may be in some cases) you have absolutely zero understanding of what RJ intended when writing his stories. The more pertinent suggestion in your case would be to just open a damn WoT book........AND a history book while you are at it.

 

Charles Eugene, Duke of Württemberg sided against Prussia during the 7 years war.

[David Selig]

Perrin can't become King of Saldaea. He can become only the consort of Queen Faile. Faile has younger brothers, who'd succeed her if she were to die without having born a heir.

 

And Perrin and Faile specifically agreed during the meeting with Elayne to put in writing a deal preventing one of their heirs holing both Two Rivers's Lordship (or Stewardship, whatever the term is) and Saldaea's throne.

[Muad Cheade]

If that is truly the case and such a move does constitute. Why did the Duchy of Hanover side with Great Britain in the war of Austrian succession? More interesting why does no one consider Hanover going to war against it's North-German confederates, most prominently Prussia to have been an act of treason? Oh yeah. Because due to the Act of Settlement the descendants of the Electress of Hanover became the royal family of Great Britain. Hanover despite being allied with Prussia was a holding of the King of England (George Louis or King George was also the Elector of Hanover), the King of England declared war on Prussia and the Hapsburg dynasty. Hanover mustered arms for England and not a single soul spoke of treason. So what you're trying to paint there would be a revolutionary concept that has no bearing on history of actual factual analysis of the same situation in the past.

 

Oh wait. Let's name more examples. Peter III was the Tsar of Russia, but he was also the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. When Russia went to war with the German provinces, how did Holstein muster? Or why not flip it around. The Duke of Württemberg serving alongside the King of Prussia instead of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor during the 7 years war. When Phillip II mustered forces for the Third Crusade, did he consider it treason when the men in Poitou, Aquitaine or Normandy mustered instead for Richard I? Richard I after all being a Plantagenet from a line of French Dukes originating from the Normandy. No, nobody spoke of treason in any of these cases.

 

So please bother explaining to me as to how Perrin, when King of Saldaea, refuses to send men from the Two Rivers to support House Trakand if Andor enters a conflict? Please I beg you. There is literally not historical precedent to consider it such.

These examples make no sense. Yes, but you also forgot to mention Great Britain (who was in a personal union with Hannover) was on the side of the Hapsburgs, who were the Holy Roman Emperors. The Kingdom of Prussia were considered the enemies and traitorous oppourtunists. Peter III (originally) joined his forces (both German and Russian) with the the Holy Roman Emperor, in the Seven Years War. However, when he later switch sides and attacked the Austrians, he used Russian troops not German. And really? You're going to use example of the Holy Roman Empire, in which princes and kings often held as much power as the true Emperor and whose own power became more limited as time went on? I don't see how that is an accurate comparison to Andor or the Wheel of Time currently.

 

Not sure why you referenced the Crusades at all.

 

Ummm....the Duchy of Wurrtemburg never fought alongside the Prussians during the Seven Years War. They were on the side of the HRE, so....yeah.

 

Just open a damn history book.

I'll be sure to do so in my history classes at my college. I'd advise you do the same.

[Muad Cheade]

Perrin can't become King of Saldaea. He can become only the consort of Queen Faile. Faile has younger brothers, who'd succeed her if she were to die without having born a heir.

 

And Perrin and Faile specifically agreed during the meeting with Elayne to put in writing a deal preventing one of their heirs holing both Two Rivers's Lordship (or Stewardship, whatever the term is) and Saldaea's throne.

Faile's brothers have all died. She is the sole heir of House Bashere.

 

Yes, you're right. However, Faile and Perrin would still become Queen and King of Saldea were Queen Tenobia and Lord Bashere to die or abdicate.

[David Selig]

No, only Faile's elder brothers are dead, her younger brothers are still alive as far as we know.

 

TSR, Ch. 41

 

My two older brothers died, Perrin, one fighting Trollocs, the other in a fall from his horse hunting. That made me the eldest, and it meant I had to study account books and trading. While my younger brothers learned to be soldiers, while they were being readied for adventures, I had to learn how to manage the estates! It is the eldest’s duty. Duty! It is dull, dry and boring. Buried in paper and clerks.

[Muad Cheade]

No, only Faile's elder brothers are dead, her younger brothers are still alive as far as we know.

 

TSR, Ch. 41

 

My two older brothers died, Perrin, one fighting Trollocs, the other in a fall from his horse hunting. That made me the eldest, and it meant I had to study account books and trading. While my younger brothers learned to be soldiers, while they were being readied for adventures, I had to learn how to manage the estates! It is the eldest’s duty. Duty! It is dull, dry and boring. Buried in paper and clerks.

I stand corrected. Regardless, Saldea, equal primogeniture determines succession, which means that the oldest regardless of gender becomes heir. That would be Faile.

[Nooska]

Perrin can't become King of Saldaea. He can become only the consort of Queen Faile. Faile has younger brothers, who'd succeed her if she were to die without having born a heir.

 

And Perrin and Faile specifically agreed during the meeting with Elayne to put in writing a deal preventing one of their heirs holing both Two Rivers's Lordship (or Stewardship, whatever the term is) and Saldaea's throne.

Sure he can. There is no precedent in WoT for the "Prince-consort" title of modern europe, and from the Glossary in ToM:

Saldaea: [...] It is ruled by a king or a queen, and is a hereditary monarchy. [...] The husband or wife of a saldaean ruler is not simply a consort, but an almost co-equal ruler. Saldaea is currently ruled by[...]Tenobia [...]; Her Marshal-General and the leader of her army is her uncle and heir, Davram Bashere [...]

[AquilaInfernus]

This is ridiculous now.

 

From the view of the general population:

Fact 1) Morgase disappeared after alienating her strongest supporters

Fact 2) Rand, the Aiel and Saldaeans appeared and Gaebril disappeared

Fact 3) Elayne is MIA on White Tower business

 

Therefore power vacuum in Andor

 

Fact 4) Rand naively claims that Elayne will inherit the throne

Fact 5) If Elayne acknowledges this, she prevents civil war, but appears a puppet to be toppled.

Note: Acknowledging includes using his armies to secure the throne

 

Therefore Elayne shuns Rand's assistance and uses her own initiative to gain noble support. Challengers to the throne engage in civil war

 

Fact 6) Rumours from the West suggest rebellion in Two Rivers

Fact 7) A farmer from the Two Rivers appears in Caemlyn with a huge army and Banners; is known as Lord Perrin Goldeneyes

Fact 8) an agreement is reached that gives Perrin official leadership (steward) without bestowing a title (goes to Rand), or Elayne conceding to the rebelling region.

Fact 9) Details of the agreement prevent Aybaras from holding both Lordship of Two Rivers and the Saldaean throne

Fact 10) Griffin Compact allies Andor, Ghealdan, Mayene (?) and Saldaea (plus any others?).

Fact 11) There is a common enemy up north (the Shadow) and to the south (Seanchan). Until both of these are neutralised, the alliance will hold.

 

The whole thing makes sense, if anyone is refuting it I suggest they reread the necessary chapters, it is all spelt out quite clearly as to why it had to happen this way. And the Reunification of Andor thread encompassed more than Elayne's ascension to Queen. I sense fandom tinting the reading glasses of certain contributors to the discussion...

[Nooska]

"The Griffin Alliance" is from Avi's trip through the columns, right? (I can't remember where its from of the top of my head)

 

The name actually sounds intriguing, as a griffon/griffin is half lion, half eagle - suggesting an alliance between Andor (the Lion Throne) and Manetheren (The Red Eagle) as the primary forces - however we see that the red eagle has been put down - will it rise again, or is this indicative that avi's future vision is already averted?

[jimhoffa]

First post here, and forgive my misspellings as I am a listener not a reader and poor speller to boot.

 

So what I've seen in this thread leads me to a few questions.

 

Initially, Perrin's connection with Ghealdan was labeled as something Elayne could call on because Perrin was sworn to her. But then, the statements were made that Elayne could NOT call on Saldaean troops from Perrin if he were the King of Saldaea, she could only call on the people he was steward of in the TR. So, if she can't call on the Saldaeans if he were their king, why can she use him to call on the Ghealdans? Did Queen Alliandre swear to an Andoran Lord only, and not just Perrin? or did she swear to Just Perrin? I would assume for their to be any possibility for Elayne to be able to use Perrin to call on Ghealdan, it would have to be that Queen Alliandre swore to an Andoran Lord (i.e. the position, not the person). In this case the swearing would last as long as the lordship, not the person holding it wouldn't it? However, on the flip side, it would only last as long as Queen Alliandre was alive. This is all mute if of course the swearing was only to Perrin, or if there just is no possible connection between the swearing to Perrin and Andor itself, then Elayne can not call on Ghealdan directly through Perrin. She can only call on Perrin to muster the TR forces. He could then choose to call on Queen Alliandre's forces, or choose not to just as he could do the same with the Saldaean forces if he were there king.

 

This is not taking into account alliances, just the ability of Elayne to make use of Perrin's connections. I personaly don't put a ton of faith in alliances. They are a sort of, "maybe we will help you if its safe for us to do so and doesn't cause unncessary problems with our other allies." So while they increase the likelihood of help from another nation, they don't guarantee it.

 

I do find it amusing about all the laws and rules and the ownership of the land. Andor is just another name for the land that lies within it. RJ only knows how many other names its had, and how many rules and laws those nations had and how many more names it will have in the future and what their rules and laws will be... It would appear he's written it so that Andor has the possibility of being a Manetheranesque place, but all that guarantees in the end is utter destruction and rebirth, the wheel weaves as the wheel wills.

[Mr Ares]

Think it a bit further along. If Faile assumes regency in Saldaea it would mean that due to Saldaean custom Perrin would assume a co-regency. Elayne has no right to command the King of Saldaea for anything. It is not rebellion if he refuses to send arms either from Ghealdan, Saldaea or his holdings in Two Rivers.

Actually, it is rebellion if he refuses to send arms from his holdings in the TR, as that is part of Andor. Elayne has every right to command the Steward of the TR, even if she has none to command the King of Saldaea.

 

The throne was granted and Elayne accepted it. Some nobles took issue, however Elayne stubborn and dumb as she is opted to stretch out the misery by refusing to cooperate or accept the help of the local elements of the Dragon's military to suppress the rebellion. This lead to a prolonged siege and all around misery for many commoners, simply so Elayne could mend her bruised ego and delude herself a bit at not being granted a throne.

 

House Trakand was ousted due to how unpopular Morgase made herself out to be. It's quite clear that Elayne rules solely thanks to her standing with the Dragon. The Dragon murdered Lord Gaebril, conquered Andor, established his rule over the land (the creation of the BT alone shows his having been ruler over the land) and eventually gave her the city as a gift.

Rand did not conquer Andor, he liberated it - he sees the distinction, even if you don't, as he took no title there, did not make Elayne a Steward of the Dragon, nor did he allow the Aiel to take the fifth. So to him, and to them, it is a matter of him ousting a Chosen, but not conquering a country. And let us not forget that he abandoned Andor before Elayne returned to Caemlyn. He left a power vacuum, and it was left to Elayne to fill it. Elayne took power on her own merits, she did not accept it from Rand - he was in no position to gift it to her.

 

If that is truly the case and such a move does constitute. Why did the Duchy of Hanover side with Great Britain in the war of Austrian succession?

Because they were ruled by the same person. Most people tend not to declare war on themselves, as a general rule.

More interesting why does no one consider Hanover going to war against it's North-German confederates, most prominently Prussia to have been an act of treason?

I confess, I haven't read a lot of Hanoverian history recently - would you mind reminding me of when Hanover was a part of Prussia? That said, others have taken the trouble to criticise your knowledge of history, so perhaps you should demonstrate that you know what you're talking about first. As for me, I used to teach history, but that was along time ago, and a few facts are bound to slip through the cracks. My knowledge of WoT is far more current, though.

 

Initially, Perrin's connection with Ghealdan was labeled as something Elayne could call on because Perrin was sworn to her. But then, the statements were made that Elayne could NOT call on Saldaean troops from Perrin if he were the King of Saldaea, she could only call on the people he was steward of in the TR. So, if she can't call on the Saldaeans if he were their king, why can she use him to call on the Ghealdans?

It was agreed that if Elayne called her banners, Perrin would bring the TR, but he would also bring his sworn monarchs (Alliandre of Ghealdan). Alliandre swore to Perrin, so is obligated to come when he calls, but Perrin is only obliged to call her to support Andor because he agreed he was. Saldaea is a different matter, as that is an ally of Andor. The Queen of Saldaea is not sworn to him, thus is under no obligation to come when he calls. When (if) he and Faile rule, they will only have to marshall Saldaean support if treaty obligations require it.