I see where you are going with things, but I can't agree with you about the precedent bit. Those were the
only two such incidents
that we know about in the
entire history of the Sothoii kingdom. Were there more? Maybe. But we don't know that.
And outside of the dark wizardry, nothing that either Lord Warden did was
that much less than what Cassan himself did. Both of their actions were treason, in fact that was the
reason they were
able to be removed at all. Furthermore, Tellian was
not able to just remove Redhelm, he had to ask the King for permission and provide justification and proof, and even then it was apparently a close fight in the Great Council. So it wasn't on some sort of whim of Tellian's or Markhos' that these men were replaced. But
all three men were traitors. The only
real differences were the dark wizardry and the direct attempt on Markhos' life.
In the first incident you reference, Sir Festian Wrathson being made Lord Warden of Glanharrow in replacement of Mathian Redhelm, we know that the vast majority of his people were delighted by the change because of three reasons: 1)
one of their own was promoted into the vacancy, 2) the majority of the people there were also personally loyal to Baron Tellian and weren't asked to change their loyalty to, say, Cassan or Yeraghor, and 3) the vast majority agreed with Tellian's judgement that Redhelm was a hot-headed arrogant young idiot who deserved his punishment.
The first one is unlikely to apply in any potential replacement of Cassan's son. Even if one of the minor or major Lords Warding is promoted into the vacancy, there is at least a strong possibility many of the rest would say "why him instead of me?" The vast majority of them probably are loyal to the King, so part 2
may apply, but we don't know that for sure. And part 3
should apply now that dark wizardry was proven to be involved... but we don't know that for sure.
As for the other replacement, the exact opposite was portrayed. His knights, armsmen, and other subjects were all portrayed as sullen, resentful, grudgingly giving their obedience to their new Lord Warden but without ANY loyalty to him whatsoever. Nor did they have any loyalty to Baron Tellian either to mitigate this, and in fact the exact opposite was true because they saw their new Lord Warden as a creature of their new Baron whom they
also resented and disliked, because he wasn't truly "their" Baron in their hearts (yet, at least). Now perhaps I misread that. Or perhaps over time that has changed (or will soon, again wizardry could be a
huge trump card here). But that was the impression I got of this set of precedent, that it was tolerated, and only barely. Now none of them took up arms against their new lord warding (at least not on camera) but you can all-but-guarantee some of them at least considered it. And he was just a minor lord warding. Most likely many (or even all) of those who refrained did so not because they were convinced the new guy was a better ruler (he was and they weren't, or at least aren't yet). Most likely they refrained only because they knew they had absolutely no chance of success. Either that or they refrained only because they refused to disobey the King, no matter how much they hated his decision. Either way, this is not good precedent in your favor.
Now we're talking about a Baron, one of the five most important people in the kingdom, who had a significantly higher degree of loyalty and
at least the partially-informed consent of at least some of his subordinate lords who owed him fealty, who in turn will have loyalty from their warders who they can command to fight for them as well. They too might choose not to fight for many reasons. They could recognize that they would be ultimately doomed to lose and grumble but back down. They could recognize that they would be giving the dark exactly what it wanted and refuse out of spite. And they could refuse because they were so horrified by the fact that Cassan was mixing in with dark wizardry that they universally turned on him. And finally they could have such a degree of loyalty to the King that even though they might grumble and gripe about it for years or even decades, they might accept the decision anyway.
If ANY of those last four are true, then yes his son
could be replaced. For that matter, if either of the middle two are true about his son, then he wouldn't even
need to be replaced. But are they true? I don't know.
I do have to admit I could easily see a disagreement between the two sons on just how far they would be willing to go to repudiate their father's sins. Possibly the younger -- i.e. the one far less fully brought into Cassan's line of thinking because Cassan never expected him to become his heir -- might react far more strongly against what his father did. In such a case I could see the King making him Baron instead of his older brother. And what would happen then? Not sure, but I suspect that with the family lineage still intact the subordinate Lords Warding would be a lot more likely to throw in with the kid (as opposed to some "upstart").
Oh and I really don't think there's any chance Yurokhas will be made Baron of South Riding. Amusing idea, perhaps, but I can't realistically see either Markhos trying it OR Yurokhas accepting it.
Brom O'Berin wrote:In our past, what would normally happen in a civil insurrection is that somehow one or more members of a noble family could be found on each side. This allowed the titles and land to remain in the family, no matter which side came out the victor. Because of the support provided by the "winning" family member, the losing family members would almost always be allowed to live, and swear allegiance to the new ruler, instead of losing their heads.
Cassan may have kept his children from knowing everything he did, but they had to be aware of his opposition to the Crown plans and also that Cassan would be working to somehow nullify or midigate the results toward something more to his liking. They definitely were not opposing their father nor supporting the Crown policies.
I disagree that
precedent is for the son gaining the Barony.
As shown, Sothoi history seems to be against it. Tellian bounced the March Warden (Red-somthing) who tried to start the war with Hurgrum. He had not tried to assassinate Tellian, nor would his acts be considered treason against the Crown. They merely went against Tellian's policies - which was enough to allow his Lord Baron to remove him and give his lands to a more loyal vassal. He was not married, and I don't recall any siblings.
I believe Golden Vale had a family, but his actions in attacking Fermian resulted in his family being attainted (and Cassan also losing those lands and taxes to Tellian). Vale's acts were against the King's laws, but not even close to the level of Cassan's crimes.
Cassan's acts (treason, conspiracy against the Crown, attempted regicide, and knowingly consorting with wizards and other followers of the Dark Gods, etc.) were at the highest/most serious level, of such nature that the only penalty allowed was death, and were made worse by his being one of the four great nobles of the nation. With all the evidence that the Dark Gods are meddling in Sothoi, the King can not allow South Riding to be held by someone he can't trust. I would not be surprised if he gives it to his younger brother. Heh, he would probably do just to tie his brother down with responsibilities and problems ...
FriarBob wrote:Valentinian wrote:In OUR reality's history (European history, mind you), the family of a treacherous noble as often as not lost the right to inherit his title & holdings. It all depended on how loyal his vassals were to his house, and whether they were more loyal to his house than to the royal house...
Oh yeah, I agree that it would be the logical response from our history. For that matter, it's what I'd want to do in Markhos' shoes as well. But the precedent in the series seems to look like it might be hard to strip the son of his title and avoid a civil war.