>Me> Even though the King is a lunar scumbag, he is the
> > legitimate King of Tarsh.
>'Legitimate King of Tarsh' is, I suspect, debated by various Tarshite
>factions:
>[snipped - PHM] But the tribes
>southeast, protected by the line of forts from Dunstop to Goldedge to
>Slavewall, refused to submit, and the kingdom was fractured. The non-
>Lunar tribes, called the Tarsh Exiles, ..."
>Surely their 'exile' nature is due to the fact that they do not
>recognise the 'King of Tarsh'.
There's a difference IMO between refusing to submit to the legitimate king of Tarsh because he's a lunar and refusing to recognize his title. If they deny that his title was legit, then they could crown their own king but show no signs of having done so.
The Throne of Tarsh is hereditary, and has been so since Arim the Pauper. On that grounds alone, there are no grounds for denying the King's title.
There has been a Tarshite King, Palashee Longaxe, who took over the throne with out any colour of right as stated in the records. But there are a couple of things unusual about him.
For starters, he overthrows Philigos who is condemned not for being a lunar but for having "usurped the throne due to his mother's magic". So why does Palashee take over the throne himself? As a temple orphan, his origins are unknown.
Secondly, he's "responsible for the "Old Tarsh" loyalty which continued in the land even long after his death. He was revered as a hero even by many Lunar worshippers". Rather odd for an exile to be liked by Lunars and if he was an orphan, how did he manage to be responsible for the Old Tarsh loyalty?
My guess is that he was abandoned at the Wintertop Temple after his mother was displaced in King Phoroneste's affections by the mother of Philigos and Phargentes.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail