Active Users:194 Time:17/05/2024 10:19:35 AM
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 1902 Views
If only... - 15/05/2011 08:28:45 PM 882 Views
How dare you assume a king outranks an Aes Sedai in his own kingdom and palace?! - 16/05/2011 03:22:19 AM 692 Views
Or any woman for that matter. *NM* - 16/05/2011 01:00:55 PM 293 Views
True, but Aes Sedai are more equal than others. *MN* - 16/05/2011 09:11:40 PM 469 Views
Well actually - 16/05/2011 06:02:57 PM 652 Views
I'd be surprised. - 18/05/2011 02:01:31 AM 602 Views
Re: I'd be surprised. - 18/05/2011 04:19:43 PM 537 Views
Not necessarily - 19/05/2011 12:33:24 AM 609 Views
That's an intrinsically flawed system though. - 19/05/2011 05:03:59 AM 563 Views
exactly - 19/05/2011 08:06:43 AM 602 Views
Re: That's an intrinsically flawed system though. - 19/05/2011 09:10:33 AM 694 Views
Where does this come from... - 16/05/2011 06:39:06 PM 665 Views
Re: Where does this come from... - 16/05/2011 06:53:55 PM 707 Views
Ah, I missed that part of the marriage bargain *NM* - 16/05/2011 09:46:34 PM 271 Views
You're mistaken... - 18/05/2011 02:49:51 PM 617 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 743 Views
Not necessarily... - 17/05/2011 05:05:56 AM 603 Views
Re: Not necessarily... - 17/05/2011 06:55:01 PM 520 Views
Ummm... that was exactly my point. - 17/05/2011 11:34:46 PM 553 Views
My point... - 18/05/2011 02:21:56 PM 606 Views
Of course the setting is malleable in TAR. - 19/05/2011 04:21:50 PM 590 Views

Reply to Message