Active Users:721 Time:05/11/2024 11:45:26 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 1957 Views
If only... - 15/05/2011 08:28:45 PM 929 Views
How dare you assume a king outranks an Aes Sedai in his own kingdom and palace?! - 16/05/2011 03:22:19 AM 740 Views
Or any woman for that matter. *NM* - 16/05/2011 01:00:55 PM 317 Views
True, but Aes Sedai are more equal than others. *MN* - 16/05/2011 09:11:40 PM 523 Views
Well actually - 16/05/2011 06:02:57 PM 704 Views
I'd be surprised. - 18/05/2011 02:01:31 AM 661 Views
Re: I'd be surprised. - 18/05/2011 04:19:43 PM 585 Views
Not necessarily - 19/05/2011 12:33:24 AM 664 Views
That's an intrinsically flawed system though. - 19/05/2011 05:03:59 AM 612 Views
exactly - 19/05/2011 08:06:43 AM 652 Views
Re: That's an intrinsically flawed system though. - 19/05/2011 09:10:33 AM 749 Views
Where does this come from... - 16/05/2011 06:39:06 PM 713 Views
Re: Where does this come from... - 16/05/2011 06:53:55 PM 761 Views
Ah, I missed that part of the marriage bargain *NM* - 16/05/2011 09:46:34 PM 294 Views
You're mistaken... - 18/05/2011 02:49:51 PM 669 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 795 Views
Not necessarily... - 17/05/2011 05:05:56 AM 650 Views
Re: Not necessarily... - 17/05/2011 06:55:01 PM 569 Views
Ummm... that was exactly my point. - 17/05/2011 11:34:46 PM 607 Views
My point... - 18/05/2011 02:21:56 PM 660 Views
Of course the setting is malleable in TAR. - 19/05/2011 04:21:50 PM 641 Views

Reply to Message