Entry tags:
Heirs and Graces
Plots involving the restoration of a True Heir and the concomitant dislodging of a usurper are staples of high fantasy and historical romance. It's usually a given in such stories that the usurper is evil, and that the heir is a good egg. But of course there's no reason why either of these should be the case. True, the usurper is by definition guilty of usurpation, but in other respects they might be a capable, fair-minded ruler and have many private virtues, and they may even have had plausible reasons for usurping in the first place - for example if the previous ruler was a tyrant. As for the heir, it's likely enough that a life spent brooding on what has been taken away from them will have warped their moral sense to an extent. Resentment and desire for revenge are likely to be the hallmarks of any realistically rendered usurpee. But you wouldn't guess that from the literature. And even in history, the vindictiveness of returning kings (e.g. Charles II) tends to get relatively overlooked, perhaps because historians too are seduced by the romance of it all.
Shakespeare has quite a few usurper/usurpee pairings: Macbeth and Malcolm, Frederick and Duke Senior, Claudius and Hamlet, Antonio and Prospero, Richard III and Edward V, Bolingbroke and Richard II. Richard II comes closest to challenging the stereotypes, with Richard and Bolingbroke both having their fair share of faults and virtues, and a relationship best summed up as "It's complicated". Hamlet, as I've frequently maintained, gives us Shakespeare's greatest villain in its title character, which is an interesting variation, and Malcolm at least conducts a thought experiment with Macduff in which he asks whether he would still be worth supporting if his character were worse than Macbeth's - the conclusion being that he would not. But that contingency remains in the realm of the hypothetical.
But it's not to Shakespeare that we should be looking for a serious interrogation of this topos. It's to the republican writers of fantasy and romance, surely? And particularly to those writers who like inverting fantasy cliches for fun. But here's where my lack of reading (and possibly memory) shows up. Where are the stories in which an evil True Heir attempts to take back the throne from a good usurper? I don't think Diana Wynne Jones ever attempted this kind of inversion, exactly - did Terry Pratchett? Did anyone? And if not, why not?
Shakespeare has quite a few usurper/usurpee pairings: Macbeth and Malcolm, Frederick and Duke Senior, Claudius and Hamlet, Antonio and Prospero, Richard III and Edward V, Bolingbroke and Richard II. Richard II comes closest to challenging the stereotypes, with Richard and Bolingbroke both having their fair share of faults and virtues, and a relationship best summed up as "It's complicated". Hamlet, as I've frequently maintained, gives us Shakespeare's greatest villain in its title character, which is an interesting variation, and Malcolm at least conducts a thought experiment with Macduff in which he asks whether he would still be worth supporting if his character were worse than Macbeth's - the conclusion being that he would not. But that contingency remains in the realm of the hypothetical.
But it's not to Shakespeare that we should be looking for a serious interrogation of this topos. It's to the republican writers of fantasy and romance, surely? And particularly to those writers who like inverting fantasy cliches for fun. But here's where my lack of reading (and possibly memory) shows up. Where are the stories in which an evil True Heir attempts to take back the throne from a good usurper? I don't think Diana Wynne Jones ever attempted this kind of inversion, exactly - did Terry Pratchett? Did anyone? And if not, why not?
no subject
I wrote a short for Farah's Glorifying Terrorism anthology which suggested that this standard plot of true heir and evil ururper was glorifying terrorism.
no subject
That seems a very reasonable argument.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And de Musset's LORENZACCIO becomes totally corrupted by the effort of living at the usurper's court.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It does seem like I've read another one somewhere, but can't think of what it is off the top of my head.
no subject
Monarchy is full of such double binds, alas!
no subject
There is also a True Heir, though at one point when she's raising her army to take back her ancestral homeland she says the common people have been waiting for her, and her advisor explains that the 'common people' really don't give a crap about the historical dynasty, they want low taxes and a decent harvest.
Well, I say 'a' true heir. There may be half a dozen of them. Who knows.
no subject
Phil and Kaja Foglio's Girl Genius (2001–) has actually been running a variation of this theme. The protagonist Agatha is the last known direct descendant of the Heterodynes, a powerful family of mad scientists who ruled (and transformed, and experimented on) much of Europa over the centuries; with the exception of Agatha's father and brother, the heroic "Heterodyne Boys," they were all pretty much supervillains. Baron Klaus Wulfenbach is the frequently questioned tyrant of present-day Europa—a political situation he forcibly welded together out of the horrific chaos of the last civil war—and views Agatha from the start as a threat to that fragile peace, meaning he's been various flavors of antagonist no matter what's going on in the rest of the plot; he is also a sympathetic character who hates administration, misses doing research, loves his son, and is genuinely entertained by all the popular representations of himself as either a brutal despot or an ineffectual buffoon. And in fact, albeit partly due to factors beyond her control, Agatha's reclamation of her heritage has plunged Europa back into war and threatens to destabilize the rest of the globe when she gets there. The comic has been in a slump for the last couple of years as far as I'm concerned, which makes me very sad, but I retain a deep fondness for the main characters and their world and the Agatha-Baron dynamic was a huge part of what hooked me early.
[edit] Derp: Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy. Chief Minister Cabbarus is a bona fide evil usurper whose overthrow is a victory, but the happy ending of the last book is the abolition of the monarchy, because the lost heir Mickle recognizes that she's not a better alternative and neither is the system she represents. That's still an outlier in fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
no subject
no subject
It is! I fully recommend you read it; I just feel I have to warn that I feel like we're in a filler arc right now and we've been here for some time.
Is perhaps the only way for her to stay alive?
The latter, primarily—as the lost heir of the Heterodynes, she is of interest to every power player in Europa (and most of the wannabes, too). If she wants not to be a pawn (or a corpse), her only alternative is to take power.
no subject
"I would have given them a republic...."
no subject
Back to serious fantasy, in _Saint Camber_ the official hereditary king is a front for the real person/s in charge. Very cruel to the king; with all that illusion power, Camber should have done the impersonation himself and left the real king in his monastery.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject