Holy Worlds Christian Forum :: View topic - How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel)

May I be critical?

I can write out my thoughts in a post if you want, though I'm not a historian, and may be wrong.

Mistress Kidh has made most of the points I was going to bring up, chiefly that offering full rights as citizens in exchange for submission to colonists whose chief grievance was being denied those rights in the first place was not something those colonists would likely believe. (The colonists said that they were British citizens, who had been willing to live with somewhat diminished rights in exchange for basically being left alone, but objected to having duties levied on them that were in their view heavier than could be legally imposed on British citizens; on the other hand, Parliament and the Crown claimed that the colonists had been enjoying the benefits of British citizenship while evading the responsibilities for decades, and should now pay their fair share of the recent costs.) But there is one thing in your train of thought that I think can, with a bit of tweaking work well.

The Revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" actually illustrated one of the major differences of legal theory between the colonists and the home government: The colonists felt that they had no representation at all in Parliament, but the Crown and the Parliamentary leaders insisted that the members of Parliament represented the whole of the British Empire, not just their districts. (Much like how U.S. senators "represent" an entire state, including the rural low-population-density areas, even if they only receive votes from and even campaign in the cities.) If the British government had been willing to accept the colonists' understanding of representation as a reasonable one (if not necessarily making it the law of the land), and add Parliamentary districts in (and elevate Peers from) the colonies to address that complaint, many patriots' anger would likely have been appeased.

(On the other hand, there were other grievances, which a more-responsive government might or might not improve, especially depending on whom King George raised to the House of Lords; I suggest reading that passage of the Declaration of Independence carefully.)

How can I use that to my advantage? It would be mean to Nathan, but I'd be willing to make Nathan's father just as hated as Edric, if it helps the plot.

You're being super helpful, by the way. Don't stop.

Currently, in the original, the war with RI was settled right before Nathan's father was murdered. Nathan's father had been installed partway into the war, and had been the one to agree to the peace treaty with RI. At the ball celebrating peace between NB and RI, Nathan's uncle (Edric) set fire to the palace, and used the chaos as cover for the murders. The war with the rest of the US was settled under Edric sometime after, during the 10-year break between the prologue and the main story. It's assumed Edric would not have agreed to the peace treaty, since that's not his style, but it was already signed when he took the throne.

Now, here's something that may or may not help us figure this out. One rough spot in the history of the original book was: Why does everyone hate Edric, but nobody suspects him of murdering Nathan's father?

In other words, nobody likes Edric, especially not on the RI side. They all resent that he took the throne, and he rules rashly and harshly. But for some reason no one--not even anyone from RI--suspects him of having illegitimately stolen the throne. It's a bit of a weak spot.

The story that Edric puts out is that Nathan's parents were suspected of treason, and when confronted about it, resisted. The resulting skirmish resulted in the palace fire and their deaths. In other words, Edric murdered them and claimed it was in self defense/casualty in battle (the area was still somewhat of a war zone, after all). I had also considered having him blame the patriots--the patriots attacked the palace--but I don't think that made it into the final book.

As for Nathan, I also have to explain why he never tries to contact England and get their help in restoring him to his throne. Part of the explanation is that he's afraid to make any move, because England is a long ways away, and if Edric catches him first, he'll surely be dead. The other explanation is that NB carefully controls all the trade routes back to England, which could make sending mail unsafe--reasonable, but not a complete excuse. The other explanation was that Nathan feared he wouldn't be welcomed in England, because the rumor still exists that his parents were French sympathizers and traitors.

(Of course, Nathan doesn't WANT his throne, which is important, but there needs to be a good reason why his caretakers never did it for him.)

I'm wondering if it would make more sense if, instead of Edric murdering them in cold blood and just coming up with a cover story, that Nathan's parents were actually tried and hung for treason. The accusation that they were going to ally with France could still be false, but Edric's tracks would be better covered. Then it would make sense why Mark and a handful of others are the only people who know Edric did everything illegally, and no one else suspects otherwise.

Maybe the rumors of French allegiance are even true. Either way, if his parents were actually tried and hung, that would explain why Nathan never reached out to England. The family name has been disgraced.

Or, perhaps... In the current story, Edric lied about Nathan's death (even though the lad escaped), just so that there wouldn't be any holes in the story. But maybe Edric didn't lie about it; he made the true report to England that some dissenters had escaped with the son, and so there's a bounty on the head of Nathan's adoptive parents, if not himself as well. That would again explain why Nathan is insistent that his true identity never be discovered, because his adoptive parents would probably face arrest and death.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ May 23rd, 2016, 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:	How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel)
While I probably won't have time to rewrite this book until next year, I'm still going to work on fixing the plot this year. Hubby and I were discussing the universe/backstory, and together we got the political history better worked out. Let me know what you think! *** As the war with the patriots progressed, England realized that their fatal error with the colonies ("taxation without representation") could also be their salvation. Establishing Boston as their new capital, England turned their holdings into an official province of Great Britain, named New Britain. An open invitation was made: All colonists who would swear loyalty to the crown and contribute at least one man to the war effort would be granted British citizenship with its full rights. This encouraged all the loyalists--and many former patriots seeking the protection and privileges of full British citizenship--to flee to Boston. England was able to draw incredible numbers and strengthen their war effort. Meanwhile, the remaining colonies managed to ratify a hasty Constitution, but the Union was strained. After securing most of the northern colonies, England began to push along the eastern seaboard, attempting to cut off the fledgling United States from the ocean. They surrounded the patriot holdout of Rhode Island. Realizing they were losing the seaboard, the United States decided to fall back and focus on securing their southern and western holdings. The patriots in Rhode Island were offered a chance to flee under the protection of the US army. But one rabblerouser, already dissatisfied with the Constitution, instead incited the patriots in Rhode Island to hold their ground. The US fell back, and Rhode Island established themselves as an independent colony. They took up the battle fighting for their land against the British--a battle they quickly lost. The first governor of Rhode Island died in battle, and Peter's father Stephen was quickly elected to replace him. In a desire to spare their land and lives, Stephen arranged a peace treaty with New Britain. In exchange for keeping their small amount of land and independence, they would pay a tribute to New Britain yearly. New Britain, knowing the small amount of land was not worth the effort when they had the greater threat of the US and France to face, agreed. This arrangement might have brought peace to Rhode Island for many decades had it not been for Edric. A forgotten second-son with no major land holdings of his own, Edric saw the developing country of New Britain as a way to finally have a duchy of his own. The first duke of New Britain (Nathan's father) made the mistake of having a French wife. As France threatened to enter the war on behalf of the patriots, Edric used this political tension as an opportunity to spread lies that Nathan's father was planning on turning New Britain over to France. The resulting storm of gossip and rioting allowed Edric to murder Nathan's parents in cold blood and steal the throne without England realizing the truth. As the duke of New Britain, Edric was forced to uphold the treaty that Nathan's father had signed with Rhode Island. But as he abused his power, exacting more and more tribute money from the poor colonists, certain patriots in Rhode Island began to reach the breaking point... Over the next ten years, New Britain and the United States also sign a peace treaty, with the United States staking claim to the western wilderness and New Britain maintaining control of most of the southern states and the eastern seaboard. Rhode Island remains completely cut-off without any hope of assistance from the US or France. And while a shaky peace has been maintained between New Britain and Rhode Island, the fact that loyalists gained full British citizenship during the war--while patriots are still considered enemies of the crown with no rights--sets the stage for the tension, cruelty, and drama that will happen during Peter's Angel.

Author:	Mistress Kidh [ May 24th, 2016, 5:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
May I be critical? I can write out my thoughts in a post if you want, though I'm not a historian, and may be wrong.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ May 24th, 2016, 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
Mistress Kidh wrote: May I be critical? I can write out my thoughts in a post if you want, though I'm not a historian, and may be wrong. NO YOU MAY ABSOLUTELY NOT. ...what did you think I was gonna say? Yes, please do. That's why I posted it.

Author:	Mistress Kidh [ June 2nd, 2016, 8:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
You said you wanted thoughts, not criticisms! I had to ask. Well, it doesn't seem to me that an offer of British citizenship would have made any difference, or have made technical sense. When the British colonized, they were to have the full rights of an Englishman. That was explicit. The problem that brought on the Revolutionary War was that up until the mid 18th century, Britain had basically ignored America, and they had had an unprecedented amount of freedom. When Britain tried to assert its sovereignty later, the Americans did not tolerate it. I believe an offer of British citizenship would have made no difference to the American colonists-it was beside the issue. Most of them were from Britain, and whatever they had given up by going to America, had been voluntary and they considered the bargain in their favor. And I think the Americans were British citizens. I know they were earlier in the colonization. The problem wasn't a problem of Britain taking tribute from some foreign, subjugated nation, it was that of Britain trying to get a group of their own people to pay a share of taxes-which, for various reasons, the Americans could not tolerate. I think that type of invitation would have worked better in Ireland, at the time; in Ireland the British were trying to destroy the Irish society, and treated the Irish as uncivilized and below them, without common rights, and with complete separation between the two people groups, I believe. As far as I can tell that wasn't the case in America. There may be some kind of a difference between a colony and what you call a province, but if the difference meant that America would have representation in British government and some amount of self-rule, that would have been giving in to what the Americans-at least the patriot leaders-wanted in the first place, and the war would have ended, I believe. If it didn't give them representation or self-rule, then I'm not sure what difference it is meant to make. I'm also doubtful of whether the states would have stayed united if they had been forced to give up the eastern seaboard. The first states were the most politically mature and unified, while the inner states/interstate areas were typically formed because of schisms, early on, and in addition would have resented the much more numerous and differently cultured populations of the older colonies descending on them. Well, I'm not certain what you mean by east states and west states and eastern seaboard, regardless, since at that time the colonies formed a vertical strip on the coast. If you showed it on a map it would be cool. And the constitution which was put into place during the war wasn't much to object to-it was Articles of Confederation, not executive systems or laws. George Washington did most of the executive management himself. But I guess a great anti-federalist could have objected to the last article of perpetual and inviolable union. Most of the actual articles were nothing more than a contract of cooperation in war and foreign policy, which were essential to the victory of the states. I think Rhode Island was too small to have thought it could survive without being in military union. Feel free to contradict...these are my impressions.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ June 2nd, 2016, 11:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
You oughta know me well enough to realize I always welcome feedback of any kind. Tsk. Just teasing! Thanks so much for taking the time to write that out! All very good points. I know my general idea can work, I'm just trying to figure out the fine details of the political motivation, so it makes sense and sounds realistic when characters relay it in backstory. Interestingly--regarding your comment about self-rule--the duke over New Britain ends up with a lot of freedom to self-rule. I am wondering if I should switch it up and, instead of playing it like Britain was offering a refuge, say they sent the duke to rule like a king with an iron fist over the territory. He had the backing of the military, deposed any existing colonial government, and ruled his rapidly expanding territory like a duchy. As part of his political move, he offered pardon and citizenship rights to anyone who would defect to him and join his war effort. That would still satisfy my need to have a British duchy that pushed out the patriots, and it would also justify why the duke of New Britain rules fairly unchecked. And it still allows me to have the distinct political difference between British citizens and patriots in the aftermath of the war. What do you think?

Holy Worlds Christian Forum https://archive.holyworlds.org/

How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel) https://archive.holyworlds.org/viewtopic.php?f=193&t=9527	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Mistress Kidh [ June 3rd, 2016, 5:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
Sorry. You're welcome! Well, that wouldn't be too far from how the colonies were supposedly ruled in the first place. There were British government appointed governors over each colony, and they had extensive powers, in theory. But the Americans got addicted to democracy, and the lower, elective assemblies usually wrested the actual powers from the British governor, who was typically unknowledgeable about and non-sympathetic to American interests if I remember right, and so the colonies ruled themselves to a degree. How would the appointment of an overarching governor/duke make a difference? On second thoughts, if the person appointed as first duke of New Britain was, first, American or had been in America for any length of time, then I think that would draw support from the Americans more than anything else and would probably have split the Patriot party, because it would have been a partial compromise and would potentially have satisfied several of the biggest impediments to American/British cooperation. The Americans would be able to expect that the duke would be more sympathetic to American interests, even if he was an autocrat. Though some of the Patriots, those most for separation, would not accept it. Second, if he had been a competent military leader, that would have made a difference. I still don't think phrasing it as "citizenship rights" makes much sense, but whatever. Pardon makes sense, though. If the Patriots actually were split, between the aggressive Patriots, and those in favor of compromise, then many of the founding fathers, who created the American constitution and government, may have ended up instead being part of New Britain. Weird.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ June 3rd, 2016, 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
Well, the wrench (or possible solution) in this is that the duke of New Britain changes almost immediately. Nathan's father is the first duke, the one who signs the treaty with Rhode Island. He's viewed as at least tolerable. He mostly views this whole scuffle as beneath him. While he's still British and the patriots aren't fond of him, he did seek peace, so Peter doesn't hold a grudge against him. However, almost immediately after the treaty is signed, Nathan's uncle kills his father and takes over the throne. And Edric is portrayed as hated and abuses the patriots at every angle. Therefore, when Peter discovers Nathan is still alive, he's eager to put Nathan back on the throne because he knows/hopes Nathan will be more benevolent to Rhode Island. (But this is also because Nathan and Peter are personal friends, or so Peter thinks, and he thinks he can somewhat control Nathan.) How can I use that to my advantage? It would be mean to Nathan, but I'd be willing to make Nathan's father just as hated as Edric, if it helps the plot. You're being super helpful, by the way. Don't stop.

Author:	kingjon [ June 9th, 2016, 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
Mistress Kidh has made most of the points I was going to bring up, chiefly that offering full rights as citizens in exchange for submission to colonists whose chief grievance was being denied those rights in the first place was not something those colonists would likely believe. (The colonists said that they were British citizens, who had been willing to live with somewhat diminished rights in exchange for basically being left alone, but objected to having duties levied on them that were in their view heavier than could be legally imposed on British citizens; on the other hand, Parliament and the Crown claimed that the colonists had been enjoying the benefits of British citizenship while evading the responsibilities for decades, and should now pay their fair share of the recent costs.) But there is one thing in your train of thought that I think can, with a bit of tweaking work well. The Revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" actually illustrated one of the major differences of legal theory between the colonists and the home government: The colonists felt that they had no representation at all in Parliament, but the Crown and the Parliamentary leaders insisted that the members of Parliament represented the whole of the British Empire, not just their districts. (Much like how U.S. senators "represent" an entire state, including the rural low-population-density areas, even if they only receive votes from and even campaign in the cities.) If the British government had been willing to accept the colonists' understanding of representation as a reasonable one (if not necessarily making it the law of the land), and add Parliamentary districts in (and elevate Peers from) the colonies to address that complaint, many patriots' anger would likely have been appeased. (On the other hand, there were other grievances, which a more-responsive government might or might not improve, especially depending on whom King George raised to the House of Lords; I suggest reading that passage of the Declaration of Independence carefully.)

Author:	Mistress Kidh [ June 10th, 2016, 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
It's cool we more or less agree, kingjon. But I shouldn't be surprised, because I'm better informed on this than I have been in the past when we disagreed, I believe. And yes, that last sentence was meant to be a compliment, but I didn't say it very well. kingjon wrote: Mistress Kidh has made most of the points I was going to bring up, chiefly that offering full rights as citizens in exchange for submission to colonists whose chief grievance was being denied those rights in the first place was not something those colonists would likely believe. (The colonists said that they were British citizens, who had been willing to live with somewhat diminished rights in exchange for basically being left alone, but objected to having duties levied on them that were in their view heavier than could be legally imposed on British citizens; on the other hand, Parliament and the Crown claimed that the colonists had been enjoying the benefits of British citizenship while evading the responsibilities for decades, and should now pay their fair share of the recent costs.) But there is one thing in your train of thought that I think can, with a bit of tweaking work well. The Revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" actually illustrated one of the major differences of legal theory between the colonists and the home government: The colonists felt that they had no representation at all in Parliament, but the Crown and the Parliamentary leaders insisted that the members of Parliament represented the whole of the British Empire, not just their districts. (Much like how U.S. senators "represent" an entire state, including the rural low-population-density areas, even if they only receive votes from and even campaign in the cities.) If the British government had been willing to accept the colonists' understanding of representation as a reasonable one (if not necessarily making it the law of the land), and add Parliamentary districts in (and elevate Peers from) the colonies to address that complaint, many patriots' anger would likely have been appeased. (On the other hand, there were other grievances, which a more-responsive government might or might not improve, especially depending on whom King George raised to the House of Lords; I suggest reading that passage of the Declaration of Independence carefully.) This makes sense to me. It would be a major restructure to do that, though, and I think the same result (splitting the patriot party) could be achieved if the duke was potentially favorable to American interests (either because he was Anglo-American, or had been in the colonies for some amount of time, or for some other reason), but royalist; or, also, if the duchy establishment did not guarantee representation or self rule, but the first duke was potentially a libertarian minded man. Lt. General Hansen wrote: How can I use that to my advantage? It would be mean to Nathan, but I'd be willing to make Nathan's father just as hated as Edric, if it helps the plot. Did the war with the US as well the fighting with RI end before Nathan's father was murdered? Lt. General Hansen wrote: You're being super helpful, by the way. Don't stop.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ June 11th, 2016, 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
Currently, in the original, the war with RI was settled right before Nathan's father was murdered. Nathan's father had been installed partway into the war, and had been the one to agree to the peace treaty with RI. At the ball celebrating peace between NB and RI, Nathan's uncle (Edric) set fire to the palace, and used the chaos as cover for the murders. The war with the rest of the US was settled under Edric sometime after, during the 10-year break between the prologue and the main story. It's assumed Edric would not have agreed to the peace treaty, since that's not his style, but it was already signed when he took the throne. Now, here's something that may or may not help us figure this out. One rough spot in the history of the original book was: Why does everyone hate Edric, but nobody suspects him of murdering Nathan's father? In other words, nobody likes Edric, especially not on the RI side. They all resent that he took the throne, and he rules rashly and harshly. But for some reason no one--not even anyone from RI--suspects him of having illegitimately stolen the throne. It's a bit of a weak spot. The story that Edric puts out is that Nathan's parents were suspected of treason, and when confronted about it, resisted. The resulting skirmish resulted in the palace fire and their deaths. In other words, Edric murdered them and claimed it was in self defense/casualty in battle (the area was still somewhat of a war zone, after all). I had also considered having him blame the patriots--the patriots attacked the palace--but I don't think that made it into the final book. As for Nathan, I also have to explain why he never tries to contact England and get their help in restoring him to his throne. Part of the explanation is that he's afraid to make any move, because England is a long ways away, and if Edric catches him first, he'll surely be dead. The other explanation is that NB carefully controls all the trade routes back to England, which could make sending mail unsafe--reasonable, but not a complete excuse. The other explanation was that Nathan feared he wouldn't be welcomed in England, because the rumor still exists that his parents were French sympathizers and traitors. (Of course, Nathan doesn't WANT his throne, which is important, but there needs to be a good reason why his caretakers never did it for him.) I'm wondering if it would make more sense if, instead of Edric murdering them in cold blood and just coming up with a cover story, that Nathan's parents were actually tried and hung for treason. The accusation that they were going to ally with France could still be false, but Edric's tracks would be better covered. Then it would make sense why Mark and a handful of others are the only people who know Edric did everything illegally, and no one else suspects otherwise. Maybe the rumors of French allegiance are even true. Either way, if his parents were actually tried and hung, that would explain why Nathan never reached out to England. The family name has been disgraced. Or, perhaps... In the current story, Edric lied about Nathan's death (even though the lad escaped), just so that there wouldn't be any holes in the story. But maybe Edric didn't lie about it; he made the true report to England that some dissenters had escaped with the son, and so there's a bounty on the head of Nathan's adoptive parents, if not himself as well. That would again explain why Nathan is insistent that his true identity never be discovered, because his adoptive parents would probably face arrest and death. Thoughts?

Author:	kingjon [ June 12th, 2016, 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How America lost the War for Independence (Peter's Angel
Lt. General Hansen wrote: Currently, in the original, the war with RI was settled right before Nathan's father was murdered. Nathan's father had been installed partway into the war, and had been the one to agree to the peace treaty with RI. At the ball celebrating peace between NB and RI, Nathan's uncle (Edric) set fire to the palace, and used the chaos as cover for the murders. The war with the rest of the US was settled under Edric sometime after, during the 10-year break between the prologue and the main story. It's assumed Edric would not have agreed to the peace treaty, since that's not his style, but it was already signed when he took the throne. Hm! The impression that I'd gotten (though I've no real idea how ...) was that the war with the rest of the US was settled some time earlier. The basic story that my imagination made to fill in the blanks was that the less- and later-committed colonies agreed to a peace treaty that gave them independence but made significant concessions (a guaranteed protectionist-level tariff on Dutch trade? Paying the taxes on the tea spilled in Boston Harbor?), but the most-libertarian patriots in New England weren't willing to go along with that and kept fighting until it was obvious that it was sign a treaty of some sort or lose the war entirely. (And if Edric was a military leader on the British side, his ruthlessness would be a factor there.) Lt. General Hansen wrote: Now, here's something that may or may not help us figure this out. One rough spot in the history of the original book was: Why does everyone hate Edric, but nobody suspects him of murdering Nathan's father? In other words, nobody likes Edric, especially not on the RI side. They all resent that he took the throne, and he rules rashly and harshly. But for some reason no one--not even anyone from RI--suspects him of having illegitimately stolen the throne. It's a bit of a weak spot. No one that we've seen has suspected aloud that Edric usurped the ducal throne. And since two of the POV characters know the truth, the others are all too young to have been aware of politics at the time of the coup, and situations where this could come up have been rare, that doesn't necessarily limit you. Your post made me think of several possibilities: Some people at the time did think he had them murdered, and he somehow managed to "prove" his "innocence" strongly enough that he's been left alone on the issue since. Some people accused him of doing it, and forces and/or courts "not under his control" had them arrested, publicly tried, and executed for slander and lèse-majesté People do think he did it ... and thus keep quiet about it, because accusing a tyrant with a larger army than any of his neighbors and possibly even a secret police of a particularly heinous crime he hasn't admitted isn't good for one's health However, on the list of points on which the expressed positions or lack thereof of the Rhode Islanders strains belief, this is not the one I'd put at the top. Maybe not even in the top five. Probably number two or three on the list of points just about Edric. (Not that I have such a list already made up ... but you, O Author, can probably guess what's firmly at the top, given what issues I have belabored at length in comments to you already. ) Lt. General Hansen wrote: The story that Edric puts out is that Nathan's parents were suspected of treason, and when confronted about it, resisted. The resulting skirmish resulted in the palace fire and their deaths. In other words, Edric murdered them and claimed it was in self defense/casualty in battle (the area was still somewhat of a war zone, after all). I had also considered having him blame the patriots--the patriots attacked the palace--but I don't think that made it into the final book. It didn't ... at least not anywhere in the first 195 pages. Lt. General Hansen wrote: As for Nathan, I also have to explain why he never tries to contact England and get their help in restoring him to his throne. Part of the explanation is that he's afraid to make any move, because England is a long ways away, and if Edric catches him first, he'll surely be dead. The other explanation is that NB carefully controls all the trade routes back to England, which could make sending mail unsafe--reasonable, but not a complete excuse. The other explanation was that Nathan feared he wouldn't be welcomed in England, because the rumor still exists that his parents were French sympathizers and traitors. The British didn't control all the trade routes before the war, when they were in nominal control of the entire coast from Hudson Bay to Florida; Dutch-imported tea, for instance, was notoriously-widely available. That George and Nana wouldn't know whom to contact, or reasonably feared that Edric would have an agent in all the New British, Rhode Island, and nearby harbors and/or every British harbor they would know how to get to London from, may even make a little more sense than why they were staying in New Britain in the first place. There's also the fact that the British political situation was uncertain at the top (though the most mercurial days of the Regency were, I think, a bit later than your Period); if there was any suggestion that Edric personally enjoyed Royal favor, seeking Royal justice would have been obviously a fool's errand. Lt. General Hansen wrote: (Of course, Nathan doesn't WANT his throne, which is important, but there needs to be a good reason why his caretakers never did it for him.) I'm wondering if it would make more sense if, instead of Edric murdering them in cold blood and just coming up with a cover story, that Nathan's parents were actually tried and hung for treason. The accusation that they were going to ally with France could still be false, but Edric's tracks would be better covered. Then it would make sense why Mark and a handful of others are the only people who know Edric did everything illegally, and no one else suspects otherwise. The prologue is IMO one of the strongest concepts in the book, since it introduces two of the main characters (or is it three? I don't remember if Mark's introduced there ...), introduces the setting, shows off Edric's ruthlessness, shows Nathan getting his scar, and demonstrates the fragility of the political situation. A ... better-organized ... coup like you describe here might not fit into that elegant idea so well. Lt. General Hansen wrote: Maybe the rumors of French allegiance are even true. Either way, if his parents were actually tried and hung, that would explain why Nathan never reached out to England. The family name has been disgraced. Perhaps it's merely the pervasive influence of one particular favorite fanfic and the fandom from whence it sprang (and maybe some other fanfics in other fandoms), but I've gotten the impression that in cases of high treason involving nobility, it is at least not guaranteed that the demesne will pass to any of the traitor's heirs, let alone someone as close as a brother or a son. (And given, again, the unpredictability of Royal decisions, I suspect Edric's advisors, if not he himself, wouldn't want to risk a decree that the duchy had reverted to the crown instead of allowing him to inherit it ...) On the other hand, another idea I had of one possibility of why nobody publicly suggests that Edric had his brother murdred is that he had enough connections in the government in London to have a fraudulent bill of attainder (i.e. printed by the real official printer, with some of the necessary signatures from the real people and the rest forged ... or have Parliament pass a real one, which seems less plausible) issued against his brother. Lt. General Hansen wrote: Or, perhaps... In the current story, Edric lied about Nathan's death (even though the lad escaped), just so that there wouldn't be any holes in the story. But maybe Edric didn't lie about it; he made the true report to England that some dissenters had escaped with the son, and so there's a bounty on the head of Nathan's adoptive parents, if not himself as well. That would again explain why Nathan is insistent that his true identity never be discovered, because his adoptive parents would probably face arrest and death. Since by remaining in New Britain they already face the risk of arrest and death, and that risk comes true in the book, if this weren't something with a volume already in print I would say it was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but as it is I recommend leaving this point as is.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/