Active Users:296 Time:02/05/2024 11:12:59 PM
Not necessarily sleepinghour Send a noteboard - 19/05/2011 12:33:24 AM
Instead, having a country with two rulers with equal power would bring it into chaos eventually, very non-borderlander.

Prior to the Seanchan invasion, Tarabon also had two rulers with equal power: the King and Panarch. Amathera wasn't a very good ruler, but nothing says the system couldn't have worked well had both been competent and capable of working together. Which should be easier if the rulers also happen to be married.
Reply to message
Do you realize - 15/05/2011 07:29:13 PM 1893 Views
If only... - 15/05/2011 08:28:45 PM 875 Views
How dare you assume a king outranks an Aes Sedai in his own kingdom and palace?! - 16/05/2011 03:22:19 AM 687 Views
Or any woman for that matter. *NM* - 16/05/2011 01:00:55 PM 292 Views
True, but Aes Sedai are more equal than others. *MN* - 16/05/2011 09:11:40 PM 466 Views
Well actually - 16/05/2011 06:02:57 PM 648 Views
I'd be surprised. - 18/05/2011 02:01:31 AM 597 Views
Re: I'd be surprised. - 18/05/2011 04:19:43 PM 528 Views
Not necessarily - 19/05/2011 12:33:24 AM 605 Views
That's an intrinsically flawed system though. - 19/05/2011 05:03:59 AM 557 Views
exactly - 19/05/2011 08:06:43 AM 595 Views
Re: That's an intrinsically flawed system though. - 19/05/2011 09:10:33 AM 689 Views
Where does this come from... - 16/05/2011 06:39:06 PM 658 Views
Re: Where does this come from... - 16/05/2011 06:53:55 PM 700 Views
Ah, I missed that part of the marriage bargain *NM* - 16/05/2011 09:46:34 PM 270 Views
You're mistaken... - 18/05/2011 02:49:51 PM 611 Views
Actually, if there is any truth to her Accepted test, he isn't THAT much in charge. - 17/05/2011 02:51:12 AM 739 Views
Not necessarily... - 17/05/2011 05:05:56 AM 599 Views
Re: Not necessarily... - 17/05/2011 06:55:01 PM 512 Views
Ummm... that was exactly my point. - 17/05/2011 11:34:46 PM 549 Views
My point... - 18/05/2011 02:21:56 PM 598 Views
Of course the setting is malleable in TAR. - 19/05/2011 04:21:50 PM 582 Views

Reply to Message