# How to retake a throne?



## Jabrosky (Jan 24, 2012)

My WIP's plot centers around a queen who has been deposed in a coup by her younger sister. Originally I was going to have my queen rally an army in another country to retake her throne, but then it occurred to me that it would be much easier (or at least cheaper) if the queen simply recruited a gang of assassins rather than a whole army to kill her sister. Furthermore, even if my queen's army were to defeat her sister's army in a battle, I don't know if that would suffice to convince the sister to abdicate; only a personal duel to the death between the sisters would do that. How does one retake a throne?


----------



## Devor (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm not sure assassins would be cheaper than an army.  Armies are peasants.  Armies can be free.  Assassins draw suspicions, armies draw patriots and pride.  If you kill your way to the top, you make yourself a target.  If you get to the top through a large outpouring of loyalty, nobody will touch you.  Maybe you want your character to be conniving, but conniving people think that way.  Desperate, lazy people think one step ahead - assassin - without thinking that some smart, ambitious person will realize what happened - hmm, that's suspicious how that happened, and nobody's loyal to her - and make you a target as well.

I know you're writing about other time periods, but if you want to learn about retaking thrones, take a read through on the history of Napoleon and why he was able to so easily reclaim his title of emperor.


----------



## Jess A (Jan 24, 2012)

Interesting topic. I agree with Devor. If I was a 'conniving Queen', I would rather rule with loyal subjects (even if they are mislead and manipulated) than by mistrust and fear. Give people a banner and a cause to fight for. 

If the sister doesn't abdicate, perhaps the rightful Queen could challenge her to a dual as you said. At least she would have a loyal army chanting her name as she fought.

-Queen wave-


----------



## Jabrosky (Jan 24, 2012)

Devor said:


> I'm not sure assassins would be cheaper than an army.  Armies are peasants.  Armies can be free.  Assassins draw suspicions, armies draw patriots and pride.  If you kill your way to the top, you make yourself a target.  If you get to the top through a large outpouring of loyalty, nobody will touch you.  Maybe you want your character to be conniving, but conniving people think that way.  Desperate, lazy people think one step ahead - assassin - without thinking that some smart, ambitious person will realize what happened - hmm, that's suspicious how that happened, and nobody's loyal to her - and make you a target as well.
> 
> I know you're writing about other time periods, but if you want to learn about retaking thrones, take a read through on the history of Napoleon and why he was able to so easily reclaim his title of emperor.



Good point about the assassins, but the issue is my Queen actually made herself pretty unpopular by destroying a sacred meteorite (in fact, this provided the pretext for her sister to oust her in the first place), so it would be hard for her to rally a large number of sympathizers.


----------



## Ravana (Jan 24, 2012)

Well, the _queen_ doesn't need to convince her sister to abdicate. She has an army for that. And _they_ don't need to "convince" her any other way than laying hands on her and giving her the heave-ho if they want. 

Prison is always another option: Mary Stuart spent two decades in "protective custody" before she was finally tried and executed. 

Really, the problem isn't so much getting the monarch to abdicate, it's finding a plausible reason for her to believe she can get away with _not_ abdicating after the loss. What makes her think she can hang on to her throne once her army's been trounced?

To spare you the suspense: Napoleon was able to retake the throne so easily because everybody running France at the time was an idiot, a coward, or both. Though a more detailed examination of the event would likely prove productive. 

Another period to look at would be the Wars of the Roses–be sure to catch not only the Wars themselves (1455-85), but the dynastic events that led up to them, which dated back as much as a hundred years earlier, depending on where you want to begin the count. Or, for that matter, the struggles following Henry VIII's death are fairly instructive (and which include, in the most extended analysis, the aforementioned Queen of Scots). 

Historically, it has never seemed all that difficult to convince monarchs to abdicate. After all, even in the worst case, doing so leaves them alive to return in a sequel.…


----------



## Devor (Jan 24, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> Good point about the assassins, but the issue is my Queen actually made herself pretty unpopular by destroying a sacred meteorite (in fact, this provided the pretext for her sister to oust her in the first place), so it would be hard for her to rally a large number of sympathizers.



Ahh.  Then she might want to try a double turn around.  Trick someone else into killing the current Queen, and then raise an army to oust _that_ person.  (Man, give me a title and don't mess with me, bub.)  Just make sure you keep a quick pace about it or it becomes a tangent; in one chapter, the lady tricks Mr. advisor into taking action, then the current queen dies, and the new queen says, "See now, I was a better ruler than him.  Here's evidence he killed his way to the top.  Let's go back to the glory days!  Raise the army!  Avenge the queen!  Let's retake our country!"


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 24, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> My WIP's plot centers around a queen who has been deposed in a coup by her younger sister. Originally I was going to have my queen rally an army in another country to retake her throne, but then it occurred to me that it would be much easier (or at least cheaper) if the queen simply recruited a gang of assassins rather than a whole army to kill her sister. Furthermore, even if my queen's army were to defeat her sister's army in a battle, I don't know if that would suffice to convince the sister to abdicate; only a personal duel to the death between the sisters would do that. How does one retake a throne?



For starters, you need to look at how the sister took the throne to begin with. You don't just kick the current ruler off a throne, put the crown on your head and go: "Booya! I'm calling the shots around here now!" You need serious political support for something like that.

If this is a feudal kingdom, there are going to be vassals - knights, feudal lords and nobility who've sworn alligiance to the ruler. They've been given land to rule over in return for servitude under the ruler of the land, which includes military obligations. These guys will probably in turn have a bunch of fighting men and peasants who in turn have similar obligations to them. Together they make up the vast majority of the kingdom's army. 

The only real way you get to usurp a throne is if most of those guys think you'd make a better ruler then the current monarch. In this situation, most of the nobility is going to be perfectly aware that the sister is an usurper. Some of them will be okay with that because they helped put her on the throne in the first place because the former queen did something to annoy them, or because they were bribed or promised some sweet deals. Others might call bullshit and argue that they swore to serve the ligitimate monarch, not whoever managed to make themselves the most popular with the nobles - I mean, what is this, a _democracy?_

So, it's not just a matter of going out there and rallying a bunch of peasants together. To get a decent civil war going, the Queen needs to convince enough of the feudal lords to fight for her. Alternatively, she needs a big pile of gold so she can either bribe them or buy herself an army of mercenaries and browbeat her way back to the throne. (It's worth noting that some of the more hesitant lords will probably feel a lot more willing to back her up if they think she stands a good chance of actually winning.)

As for the assassins, well, I dunno. I expect that would be seen as a rather dishonorable and cowardly tactic, even if she is the ligitimate queen.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jan 24, 2012)

I put more thought into my backstory and have decided to tweak it a little.

In my queen's culture, the priesthood has a lot of influence on politics and government. To better reflect that, I've decided that instead of the queen being deposed by her sister via a violent coup, the priesthood removes her from her post and replaces her with her sister. The priests tell the queen that if she wants her throne back, she'll have to earn it by finding a second meteorite to replace the one she destroyed (the sister may still act clingy towards the throne after receiving her new power though). Given that redemption is planned to be a major theme in my story anyway, I think this new backstory fits that snugly.


----------



## SeverinR (Jan 24, 2012)

If done correctly, assasins/spies can help in the process, but the queen would have to be clean of their actions.
Spies kill the important guards leaving an opening to drive the army through.

But I agree, the ruler that uses assasins to take the throne would have to rule with fear not respect/honor. One problem with using assasins, is that assasins can be used on the new ruler, and even the same ones. No honor among assasins, kill for money with no regard for who the sides are.  If the people believe the ruler used assasins, they would be less concerned if the new ruler was the target of assasins, what comes around goes around.


----------



## SeverinR (Jan 24, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> I put more thought into my backstory and have decided to tweak it a little.
> 
> In my queen's culture, the priesthood has a lot of influence on politics and government. To better reflect that, I've decided that instead of the queen being deposed by her sister via a violent coup, the priesthood removes her from her post and replaces her with her sister. The priests tell the queen that if she wants her throne back, she'll have to earn it by finding a second meteorite to replace the one she destroyed (the sister may still act clingy towards the throne after receiving her new power though). Given that redemption is planned to be a major theme in my story anyway, I think this new backstory fits that snugly.



It creates a quest, and the new Queen would be fighting against the success of the quest, or she loses the newly aquired power. This would be easier to utilize assasins, bad people are everywhere, so the fallen queen could face an army of assasins possibly a "reward" paid to the one that kills her, paid by a middleman of course. No one knows who put the hit out(if it is even discovered).
Or simply disinformation, tell the people in her path, that she is a rich noble with few guards, but vengeful friends(so don't leave any witnesses).  Queen faces an army of pathetic thieves to hinder her quest with the possibility that one will actually kill her.


----------



## Devor (Jan 24, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, it's not just a matter of going out there and rallying a bunch of peasants together. To get a decent civil war going, the Queen needs to convince enough of the feudal lords to fight for her.



Jabrosky's talked in other threads about mixing ancient cultures.  I don't believe the Nubians or the Egyptians had a feudal system like this, although I didn't catch which culture the queen is a part of.  Regardless, the throughline for rallying Feudal Lords might not be much different from rallying peasants.  Instead of giving a rallying cry, which isn't quite what I meant, she would have to sell the feudal lords on their own ability to give such a rallying cry.  And the disconnect between what the Feudal Lords will want and what the peasants will want was often not as large as it's made out to be.  A good many of them did genuinely want what was best for the people they ruled and would not want a war their peasants didn't support.


----------



## Ravana (Jan 24, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> In my queen's culture, the priesthood has a lot of influence on politics and government. To better reflect that, I've decided that instead of the queen being deposed by her sister via a violent coup, the priesthood removes her from her post and replaces her with her sister. The priests tell the queen that if she wants her throne back, she'll have to earn it by finding a second meteorite to replace the one she destroyed (the sister may still act clingy towards the throne after receiving her new power though). Given that redemption is planned to be a major theme in my story anyway, I think this new backstory fits that snugly.



In which case, it's the priests who will decide who sits the throne… if they declare the sister deposed and the old queen reinstated, there isn't much the sister will be able to say about it, is there? Again, you'll need to have a good reason the sister even considers it possible to retain the throne under such circumstances… perhaps a split among the priesthood as to whether the old queen has redeemed herself (or even can, in their eyes: some might not be forgiving, even after the quest is accomplished). But if the old queen is told this is what she needs to do, _she_ isn't going to show up with an army–not unless she already knows the sister is going to try to hold on to power, and has some plausible ability to do so.


----------



## Jess A (Jan 24, 2012)

You could even take a different angle.

The priests tell the sister to bugger off when the Queen brings back the second meteorite.

The sister refuses. However, something else happens to her before the Queen can raise her army or assassins or whatever. Maybe some religious power curses her and she dies, or she goes completely mad, or something along those lines. Or someone different could murder her and the Queen is blamed, even though she had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Feb 15, 2012)

Monarchs are little without all those wealthy-ass land-owners who finance everything.  Land-owners are interested in what benefits THEM, not the world.  Priests are interested in what benefits the CHURCH, taking a tithe from the wealthy land-owners.  See where this is going?  
It's a tangled web.  No one group is all on one side of ANYTHING.  You may have wealthy merchants supporting one queen while guilds support the other..... Title-holding landless nobles on one side, while their land-holding old-money competition like the other.  Some peasants may have had more freedom from the one queen who believes in religious freedom for all, while the other queen is supported by peasants who paid lower taxes under her rule.
The trick, I think, is going to be making it believable without segregating people into neat little piles of us vs. them, which will be unconvincing.


----------

