Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

About Elayne making Rand lord of the two rivers...


Smokey Bear
 Share

Recommended Posts

Smokey, I think you're confused here. Elayne did not make Rand lord of the Two Rivers. She give the title to Perrin. Perrin is not the King of Illian. No connection.

 

Not right. Technically he Dragon Reborn is Lord of the Two Rivers and Perrin is his Steward. I don't believe Rand will really ever assume his duties as Lord of the TR. It was done that way to explain the TR's special status(exempt from taxes etc.) to the rest of Andor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smokey, I think you're confused here. Elayne did not make Rand lord of the Two Rivers. She give the title to Perrin. Perrin is not the King of Illian. No connection.

 

Rand is Lord of the Two Rivers and Perrin runs it as his Steward. Giving the TR to the Dragon Reborn is how Elayne was able to justify giving them special considerations that the other Andoran nobles to not get such as no taxes.

 

Edit: Ninja'ed by Suttree

Edited by Mark Grayson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First: The statements above I would say are correct in that giving Rand the personal land does not give Illian the land inside Andor. She gave them to "Rand" not to "The King of Illian." In a contractual obligation to a monarch, the lands and titles then would not be part of Illian because whoever succeeds Rand in Illian would not get that land.

 

Second: Also commented above (correctly as far as I can see in the book) is that Rand is given the Two Rivers as land (no he doesn't know it yet. Presumably that will be covered in the meeting everyone gathered for that hasn't happened yet. If at all), with Perrin as his steward.

 

Politically speaking, giving Rand that land does two things: #1 if the land belongs to Rand, it was not rebelling against it's rightful Lord (as Rand is from there in the first place and all the Two Rivers folk have been doing his bidding).

#2 It makes Rand al'Thor a Lord of Andor, which requires (if he gets around to it) certain oaths of fealty and obedience to HIS QUEEN (Which would thus be Elayne).

 

Oh, and it gets Perrin out of trouble for being 'presumptuous' with a title he was not given by the crown. :)

 

While it may all come to nothing after the Last Battle, it is more of a shrewd contingency plan on Elayne's part that allows for the quelling of murmurs of rebellion within her kingdom for the moment, and (assuming enough folk survive that are part of this deal) puts Rand in a position where he can't do whatever he wants with Andoran people without having some level of discussion with his Monarch. (Which, we all know that's complicated anyway given certain other personal things between them ;) ). And beacuse of those relations with Rand, it would bring the Two Rivers nicely back under Crown control.

 

It's a very logical and clever bit of politicking. :smile: Elayne was well within her rights as Queen to make things much more uncomfortable for Perrin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queens have no rights. Or at least, no more rights than anyone else. The Two Rivers has no "rightful lord" other than the one the have chosen themselves.

 

As far as legalities go, the Dragon breaks all bonds. That's all the excuse anyone needs for "rebellion."

 

And just because Rand (assuming he even takes the title) is an Andoran lord, doesn't mean he needs to obey Elayne. He's still a sovereign in his own right, and the Dragon Reborn, and the strongest magic user in the world.

 

Further arguments may be found in many other threads.

Edited by randsc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting opinions. I will certainly look up the other threads.

 

My observations are made based on Jordan's extensive basis (by his own admission in various interviews) of his political situations in real medieval politics (Daes dae'mar for example follows a large number of real existing historical precedents with some logical and clever variants), and the nature of monarchs within their own kingdoms (modern day real world politics not included as they clearly don't apply to the Kingdoms in Randland as Jordan has designed them). Whether Rand would actually do what Elayne wants is, as you say, not really the case. However, since the question seemed to involve one of understanding the politics behind why Elayne would do it, I offered a proposition based on how politics has worked in the books to this point, which follows almost entirely medieval european politics. (Minus a few elements removed for logical reasons, such as the divine right of kings and primogeniture in most of his kingdoms.)

 

In short, Elayne is presented as playing The Game of Houses within her own domain in order to deal with the large numbers of people in her realm who aren't capable of understanding (or are unlikely to accept) other decisions without a reason being put to them. Because there are people in her kingdom, and elsewhere, are looking for reasons to threaten her hold on the throne. In a position where she is still looking to strengthen her position as monarch, it's a political situation that requires some delicate maneuvering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, again, "The Dragon Breaks All Bonds" is in the books. Ituralde encourages the Saldaean who saves him (can't recall the name) to become Dragonsworn, using the rationale that doing so would save him from execution for treason.

 

No one owes House Trakand allegiance any more than they owe allegiance to the royal line of Farashelle.

 

And, as you will see in other threads, just because the Lord of the Two Rivers might owe Andor allegiance doesn't mean that the King of Illian would, EVEN IF they were the same person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are arguing two sides of the same coin.

 

I agree, the Dragon Breaks All Bonds. Whatever Elayne does here, is mostly in word only. (I don't think even she 'expects' it to stick.) In the absolute of the book, yes this is technically correct.

 

I at no point have I meant to state (or imply) that the King of Illian WOULD owe her Allegiance. The point I am trying to make is rather the opposite: that the King of Illian would 'not' owe her allegiance, beacuse the King of Illian does not get those lands. Rand is a different entity by the very semantics of the wording (She said Rand al'Thor, not "The King of Illian" and in a royal decree, that difference makes it very clear that no King of Illian could claim those lands, not would she be ceeding them outside her lands).

 

I apologize if the previous wording was confusing.

 

The trick with allegiance within kingdoms is that at the moment the royals of Andor's allegiance is specifically what Elayne has been trying to get. She required the allegiance and support of a certain number of those houses in order to claim the Throne at all (and she got it). They have chosen to give her their allegience (whether it was owed or not, they did give it). Even if all bonds are technically broken, they will still need to be remade as necessary for the prophesy to come to pass. Elayne is trying to stop dissention within Andor. If they aren't fighting each other, than there are more people available to fight in the Last Battle.

 

And yes, I have read the other threads. The majority of what I have seen agrees with this interpretation. Thank you for pointing them out.

 

But, again, "The Dragon Breaks All Bonds" is in the books. Ituralde encourages the Saldaean who saves him (can't recall the name) to become Dragonsworn, using the rationale that doing so would save him from execution for treason.

 

No one owes House Trakand allegiance any more than they owe allegiance to the royal line of Farashelle.

 

And, as you will see in other threads, just because the Lord of the Two Rivers might owe Andor allegiance doesn't mean that the King of Illian would, EVEN IF they were the same person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the original post, no Illian does not get the Two Rivers. This nicely mirrors politics up until the late 18th century (and possibly later), where the King was separate from the State. What the King rules personally in no way reflects what the nation rules.

For historical precedent, you can look at the relationship between the Poles and the Saxons at the turn of the 18th century, where the Polish King ruled both nations. However, Poland did not own Saxony. They were merely close allies, because the same man ruled both nations. The same goes for the situation between Hanover and Great Britain - a Hanoverian was given the British Crown in the early 18th century, but Hanover had no authority over Great Britain.

For a modern day perspective, look at the relationship between the English Crown and the Commonwealth nations. All of the Commonwealth is ruled by the Queen, but she is not 'Queen of the Commonwealth', she is the Queen of each of the Commonwealth Nations individually. Follow this link, for a list of all her (numerous) titles.

Rand is the King of Illian, and he is also the Lord of the Two Rivers, but Illian does not rule the Two Rivers, and they're council of lords and council of commons (names?) have no authority over the Two Rivers, much as the British Parliament has no authority over Canada.

 

What Elayne did was very smart. She realized that the Two Rivers would never accept Royal Dominion and Taxation, so she created a situation where she could legally and logically exempt them from all such taxation while not appearing to have backed down in the face of Perrin's 70k troops. If she'd just done what Faile (probably) wanted, and ceded the Two Rivers over to Perrin, the rest of the Andoran nobility would have been furious with her and she would likely face rebellions five or six years down the line, from a nobility that would have considered her weak for giving up a huge chunk of Andor in the face of Perrin's army. This was her only 'safe' way out of a very tricky situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely put Erunion. Those are great more recent historical examples! :smile:

 

To answer the original post, no Illian does not get the Two Rivers. This nicely mirrors politics up until the late 18th century (and possibly later), where the King was separate from the State. What the King rules personally in no way reflects what the nation rules.

For historical precedent, you can look at the relationship between the Poles and the Saxons at the turn of the 18th century, where the Polish King ruled both nations. However, Poland did not own Saxony. They were merely close allies, because the same man ruled both nations. The same goes for the situation between Hanover and Great Britain - a Hanoverian was given the British Crown in the early 18th century, but Hanover had no authority over Great Britain.

For a modern day perspective, look at the relationship between the English Crown and the Commonwealth nations. All of the Commonwealth is ruled by the Queen, but she is not 'Queen of the Commonwealth', she is the Queen of each of the Commonwealth Nations individually. Follow this link, for a list of all her (numerous) titles.

Rand is the King of Illian, and he is also the Lord of the Two Rivers, but Illian does not rule the Two Rivers, and they're council of lords and council of commons (names?) have no authority over the Two Rivers, much as the British Parliament has no authority over Canada.

 

What Elayne did was very smart. She realized that the Two Rivers would never accept Royal Dominion and Taxation, so she created a situation where she could legally and logically exempt them from all such taxation while not appearing to have backed down in the face of Perrin's 70k troops. If she'd just done what Faile (probably) wanted, and ceded the Two Rivers over to Perrin, the rest of the Andoran nobility would have been furious with her and she would likely face rebellions five or six years down the line, from a nobility that would have considered her weak for giving up a huge chunk of Andor in the face of Perrin's army. This was her only 'safe' way out of a very tricky situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First: The statements above I would say are correct in that giving Rand the personal land does not give Illian the land inside Andor. She gave them to "Rand" not to "The King of Illian." In a contractual obligation to a monarch, the lands and titles then would not be part of Illian because whoever succeeds Rand in Illian would not get that land.

 

Second: Also commented above (correctly as far as I can see in the book) is that Rand is given the Two Rivers as land (no he doesn't know it yet. Presumably that will be covered in the meeting everyone gathered for that hasn't happened yet. If at all), with Perrin as his steward.

 

Politically speaking, giving Rand that land does two things: #1 if the land belongs to Rand, it was not rebelling against it's rightful Lord (as Rand is from there in the first place and all the Two Rivers folk have been doing his bidding).

#2 It makes Rand al'Thor a Lord of Andor, which requires (if he gets around to it) certain oaths of fealty and obedience to HIS QUEEN (Which would thus be Elayne).

 

Oh, and it gets Perrin out of trouble for being 'presumptuous' with a title he was not given1 by the crown. :)

 

While it may all come to nothing after the Last Battle, it is more of a shrewd contingency plan on Elayne's part that allows for the quelling of murmurs of rebellion within her kingdom for the moment, and (assuming enough folk survive that are part of this deal) puts Rand in a position where he can't do whatever he wants with Andoran people without having some level of discussion with his Monarch. (Which, we all know that's complicated anyway given certain other personal things between them ;) ). And beacuse of those relations with Rand, it would bring the Two Rivers nicely back under Crown control.

 

It's a very logical and clever bit of politicking. :smile:Elayne was well within her rights as Queen to make things much more uncomfortable for Perrin.2

 

Very nicely put. Clarifies multiple things Elayne was going for when she did what she did with Perrin. I had rushed through that section when I read it and hadn't really had time to absorb and digest the information, reading your explanation helped with that. :smile: Here's my 2 cents:

 

1 By naming him Steward of TR, I think Elayne still left herself open to that kind of criticism even if not as much as if she had named him Lord. After all, he still got the second highest position of leadership in the TR after "rebelling."

 

2 While she may be within her rights as Queen, she is way out of her league trying to face down a ta'veren and she almost did something very ill-advised. I think Elayne's been quite spoiled by having Rand as a lover and never having to worry about him as Dragon Reborn and about what he might do to her for her actions(i.e. expelling the Aiel and stripping his banners etc). Any other ruler would have faced serious repercussions if they had done such things in Illian, Tear, Cairhien etc. After all, Andor was in Rand's control just as much as any of the other nations. My point is that Elayne has no idea that there are forces in the world far, far more powerful than her even if she is Queen of Andor. Because she never had to worry about things like that, she acts uppity with Perrin and only wise advice from her mother stops her from doing something very foolish during her meeting with Perrin like exiling him or trying to execute him. I've bolded the text showing her mood. First she snaps, then she hesitates before doing something precipitous.

 

"I offered you a boon so that you could ask for forgiveness. I'd pardon you, and I'll be certain to send troops so that your people are protected. Accept this, and we can all go back to life the way it should be." "That isn't going to happen," Perrin said softly. "The Two Rivers will have lords, now. I fought it for a time. You may, too, but it won't change anything."

"Perhaps," Elayne said. "But recognizing you would be to agree that a man can just claim a title within my nation, then keep it by stubbornly gathering an army. It makes for a terrible precedent, Perrin. I don't think you realize the predicament you've put me in."

"We'll muddle through," Perrin said in that stubborn tone he used when he wasn't going to budge. "I'm not stepping down."

"You're doing a poor job of persuading me you will accept my authority," Elayne snapped. Not good, Faile thought, opening her mouth to jump in. A clash here would not serve them well.

Before she could speak, however, another voice cut in. "Daughter," Morgase said softly, drinking her tea. "If you plan to dance with ta'veren, be sure that you know the proper steps. I've traveled with this man. I've seen the world bend around him; I've seen bitter enemies become his allies. To fight the Pattern itself is to try to move a mountain with a spoon."3 Elayne hesitated, looking at her mother.

 

3 Here Morgase essentially pulls Elayne's butt out of the fire by keeping her from acting rashly. Elayne is lucky that Perrin is such a calm guy(usually)- a less cool-headed person would have rightly taken offense, turned back, and walked out on her the moment she threatened to execute him. Insulting a man with the backing of the TR(bowmen), Ashaman, Mayeners, Ghealdaners, ties to Saldea, and Seanchan allies is a foolish move no matter who you are, and threatening to execute him is far more than a simple insult. And that's not even counting the fact that he's one of the three ta'veren; as Morgase mentioned, opposing him would be like trying to fight the Pattern and the Wheel itself.

 

Long story short, Elayne's solution to the TR problem was quite clever but IMHO her meeting with Perrin was rather poorly handled.

 

P.S. I really like how you stayed calm while discussing your explanation in your previous posts while still being effective at making your points/arguments. It's something rare on these boards. I know I, myself, often have a hard time arguing something without seeming aggressive because of having strong feelings one way or another (as may or may not be evidenced by this post :wink: ).

______

 

EDIT:

 

Post copied and pasted in the "The conversation between Perrin/Faile/Elayne/Morgase/Alliandre - Re: The 2Riv 'Rebellion' in Andor" thread so as not to derail this thread. (New Post Link)

Edited by Ashandarei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In TEotW, when Min was telling her viewings to Rand, didn't she mention over Matt's head a "Red Eagle," and over Perrins "A Broken Crown?" Or is that just her reading about their romantic futures, since she also predicts toms, and I think lans, as well as rands. Or is it like the halo of glory over logains head, where she see's their future stations? Lan reclaiming his title of malkier, perrin moving to saldea when tenobia dies at the LB, Matt taking the TR (maneatherin is the red eagle right?)

 

I don't know, after reading AMoL, it will be entertaining to close everything out all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I at no point have I meant to state (or imply) that the King of Illian WOULD owe her Allegiance. The point I am trying to make is rather the opposite: that the King of Illian would 'not' owe her allegiance, beacuse the King of Illian does not get those lands. Rand is a different entity by the very semantics of the wording (She said Rand al'Thor, not "The King of Illian" and in a royal decree, that difference makes it very clear that no King of Illian could claim those lands, not would she be ceeding them outside her lands).

 

Thanks everyone for the replies. This is what I was confused about, I mean obviously Elayne and Rand wouldn't move against each other, but I thought the next King of Illian would also have claims to the land. And yes I read through the part more than once, but I'm not so good with politics and the way Elayne handled this was bothering/confusing me. Thanks for clearing it up :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who becomes lord of the TR after Rand dies? Surely not his child, that would lead right back to Elayne and Andor. With the risk of Rand dying in the last battle, that would mean Perrin would be ruling in the TR for a very short time.

 

This was discussed in ToM, the plan is to potentially marry one of Perrin and Faile's children to one of Elayne & Rands eventually. This would seem to indicate Perrin is Lord in all but name....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who becomes lord of the TR after Rand dies? Surely not his child, that would lead right back to Elayne and Andor. With the risk of Rand dying in the last battle, that would mean Perrin would be ruling in the TR for a very short time.

 

This was discussed in ToM, the plan is to potentially marry one of Perrin and Faile's children to one of Elayne & Rands eventually. This would seem to indicate Perrin is Lord in all but name....

 

That wasn't mentioned until after Faile mentioned her line of succession to the broken crown (which is second/next) I don't think the line of succession will be all covered in an appendix after next book. Harriet might consider editing, or letting brandon edit a continuation RandWorld, in other books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queens have no rights. Or at least, no more rights than anyone else.

Rights exist in law. Queens make the law, therefore it is within the power of Queens to give themselves more rights than other people.

 

As far as legalities go, the Dragon breaks all bonds.
Not a very helpful phrase, no matter how many times it's trotted out.

 

In TEotW, when Min was telling her viewings to Rand, didn't she mention over Matt's head a "Red Eagle," and over Perrins "A Broken Crown?" Or is that just her reading about their romantic futures, since she also predicts toms, and I think lans, as well as rands. Or is it like the halo of glory over logains head, where she see's their future stations? Lan reclaiming his title of malkier, perrin moving to saldea when tenobia dies at the LB, Matt taking the TR (maneatherin is the red eagle right?)

Manetheren is the Red Eagle, but the TR is not Manetheren. I don't really see any support for Mat gaining the TR.

 

So who becomes lord of the TR after Rand dies? Surely not his child, that would lead right back to Elayne and Andor. With the risk of Rand dying in the last battle, that would mean Perrin would be ruling in the TR for a very short time.

Rand's child would be next in line for lordship of the TR. If he dies without issue then Elayne would have to create a new LotTR. Of course, Rand and Elayne's kids will have numerous titles to be divided up between them (Queen of Andor, First Prince of the Sword, High Lord of the Two Rivers, monarch of Cairhien, monarch of Illian (or possibly King, if Illian only takes Kings)). Some might end up with more than one title, depending on how things pan out, while other titles might be lost before that.

 

So who becomes lord of the TR after Rand dies? Surely not his child, that would lead right back to Elayne and Andor. With the risk of Rand dying in the last battle, that would mean Perrin would be ruling in the TR for a very short time.

This was discussed in ToM, the plan is to potentially marry one of Perrin and Faile's children to one of Elayne & Rands eventually. This would seem to indicate Perrin is Lord in all but name....
That plan was floated before the Rand-as-High-Lord-Perrin-as-Steward plan was put forward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The metaphysics of Randland, known to and accepted by all of the characters, hold that the Dragon breaks all bonds. Find it as unhelpful as you like, the fact remains that it is stated repeatedly in the books, unlike your elaborate and textually unsupported riffs on the legalities of Randland noble succession and allegiance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The metaphysics of Randland, known to and accepted by all of the characters, hold that the Dragon breaks all bonds. Find it as unhelpful as you like, the fact remains that it is stated repeatedly in the books, unlike your elaborate and textually unsupported riffs on the legalities of Randland noble succession and allegiance.

Yes, prophecy states that Rand is the "breaker of bonds." However, that does not mean that Rand's coming allows anarchy and voids the legal structure of every nations. Your reasoning is the same reasoning that Masema used to rationalize what he did and obviously, most people (including Rand) disagreed with that interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...