Wait. . .what?

Ezar made Aral Regent to prevent him from turning the Empire into a democracy.

Yes, I know Cordelia views Aral as more conservative than he thinks he is, but let's review what people think who a) are not from a radically different society and b) have actually known the guy for more than two weeks.

Padma doesn't just say that Aral was more progressive than his father, but that he was "getting... um... strange" and that once you loosened him up "he'd be declaiming revolution in iambic pentameter"*

While Piotr tries to reassure Vordarian that "[his] son will not betray his class" (betray how?), he also straight up says that "he's picked up some damned peculiar radical notions" and doesn't contest Cordelia's description of him as "a revolutionary", merely stating that Aral doesn't view himself that way... but that he'll end up "riding a tiger" if he doesn't commit one way or the other.**

Evon Vorhalas tells his brother that there's nothing secret about Aral's progressivism and "some of the senior Vor officers are scared to death of him"-- not the enlisted men or the ministry lackeys like the one he killed. The other Vor.

And of course Vordarian's coup was partially motivated by the fear of what Aral would do as Regent.

But what did Ezar think?

Ezar lays out everything that makes Aral right for the Regency, against several counter-suggestions of Aral's: rank, age, service, popularity***, being "ruthless enough to hold near-absolute power... and honest enough to hand over that power" to Gregor in the end. We usually read that as "honest enough to hand over that power instead of keeping it for himself", but what if it means "honest enough to keep that power invested in the Emperor", instead of doing something else with it? After all, Ezar points out that Aral genuinely doesn't want to be emperor. Honesty is not required.

Aral doesn't want to be Emperor-- but he leaps at the chance to be Regent and then Prime Minister. "It's the chance of a lifetime. Yes, I want it... I think I could turn down almost any other offer without a blink." He says he wants "to find some way of pulling the best men, from every class and language group and party... make the government... with ability promoted regardless of background"

He suggests both elevating a commoner to Regent and abolishing the Vor class to Ezar's face. And Ezar's response is to comment that Aral always gives him his true opinion. Ezar clearly knows about Aral's political views and does not consider them disqualifying-- indeed, if he wanted someone conservative in the role, he had a number of choices-- but just as clearly he wants his grandson (and no other) to follow him as Emperor.

But Ezar's arguments hinge not on what Aral wants, on what he could accomplish, or any other inducements, but on a) his being the best man for the job, b) his earnest desire to avoid the campstool (by safeguarding it for someone else) and c) an emotional appeal to his honor, that the Regent would be "whatever individual can be persuaded to stand by [Gregor and Kareen] in their hour of need".

Aral says the dire 'what-if' is the same thing Ezar used to send him to Escobar-- but just like Escobar, the argument works. Aral accepts the duty, on his honor.

And the oath he takes as Regent clearly means more than just ensuring Barrayar's, or Gregor's, wellbeing. Aral takes it as a commitment to the form of government as well. Aral himself says, of becoming Regent and constitutional parties, "That is just the sort of thing I will be sworn, on my honor, to prevent. It would not fulfill the spirit of my oath to hand over to Prince Gregor an emperorship gutted of power."

Ezar chained Aral to Gregor and the campstool with his sense of duty, forcing him to find a balance between his progressive ideals and Barrayar's traditional government and power structure-- a struggle that defines the political conflicts in the Imperium for the rest of the series.

*Miles doesn't get it all from his mom lol

**Miles does indeed describe him as the "unshakeable tiger-rider" of Barrayaran politics in TVG.

I was at Anthrocon helping to vend this weekend, and one of my fav downtime activities was chilling at the university library. but I happened to leave my little art journal there >_____<

and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE

ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)

PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS

"ELIZABETH" YOU CRY, "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT'S MONDAY"

Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.

Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

Part of the reason we don't see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!

In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of... well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren't as common in Europe.

WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.

CANDLES.

Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.

Humans LOVE bright colors, it's NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.

(If ever you have the opportunity to visit the Stencil House at the Shelburne Museum in Vermont (pictured above at 3, 4, and 5), I highly recommend.)

And that's before you get into American painted murals:

HELLO you are asking questions that literature and poetry THROUGHOUT the middle ages has asked, and it is from this questioning that we derive things like the Codes of Chivalry (which is not "how to treat a noble lady really nice" but is actually "how to be an ethical person when you're rich and you own a horse" and includes such things as "don't run people over with your horse")

In fact I daresay you already know instinctively just from cultural osmosis what a good boss -- a good liege lord -- is and does based on the tropes that have survived to the current day and the kinds of things that get Hugely Praised in things like legends of King Arthur.

A good boss (liege lord) is:

Merciful. He is not having his peasants killed for things like poaching rabbits during a famine. In fact, he is working to mitigate famine. During times of individual hardship, he might negotiate with a peasant for a payment plan on their annual rent.

Patient. He is not impulsive, he does not lose his temper.

Prudent. He makes choices that are thoughtful, considered, conservative (in the sense of not needlessly risky--he's not investing his entire fortune in having everyone plant an unproven crop). He is making sure local infrastructure like roads and public buildings are maintained and kept in good nick.

Gentle. He doesn't haul off and slap a servant or a tenant for breaking a dish or making a mistake. He doesn't abuse animals, his wife or children, or his employees. He doesn't rape the servants.

Generous (both in money and in spirit). He is not extorting the peasants for an amount of rent that is beyond their means, he is not raising taxes every year to cover his own lavish lifestyle. He is paying his servants a living wage (or, if wages are low, he's giving them room/board/clothing to make up the difference). If someone in a tenant's family dies, the lord is sending a gift of condolence, or helping to pay for the funeral, or possibly even ATTENDING the funeral and speaking a few kind words about the deceased, ESPECIALLY if they were a really upstanding and important member of the community. If one of his tenants is gravely sick, the lord is sending a basket of food or paying for a doctor. He is giving charitably (generally this will be, like, a bequest to the church so that they can run a hospital or an orphanage or a school for the local village children).

Pious. This classically means "goes to church, submits with humility to God" but to me this quality is subtextually standing in for "maintaining an ongoing sense of Perspective that HE'S not god, that there are higher powers he is Accountable to, that he too can be Judged, etc, so that he doesn't end up going on a weird fucked up power trip"

Humble. One of the most admiring things you hear about a lord doing in literature and epic poetry is, "He ate off of wooden plates while his followers ate off of gold and silver." Humility isn't about being meek, it's just about not thinking so much of yourself that you turn your nose up and sneer at what "lesser" people do. In other words: Don't be a fucking diva. If your carriage gets stuck in the mud, climb out and help everybody else push, you're not gonna die from getting mud on your shoes.

Condescending. This word has changed wildly in meaning/tone over the last couple centuries -- it's now a rude thing to do (because we've done away with legal social hierarchies, so someone acting like they're lowering themselves to your level IS insulting), but in older times, a high-ranking person "condescending" to a servant was worthy of praise and admiration: it means they were setting aside rank and privilege to speak to them with the easygoing, friendly respect and compassion they'd give a peer. This is things like... Treats those beneath him with courtesy and respect (ie: listens soberly and attentively when one of his servants or tenants comes to complain about a problem). Having a sense of humor and kindness about it when the lord and a servant both come around a corner at the same time and run into each other and the servant gets knocked to the ground and starts babbling apologies--the condescending (positive) lord helps them to their feet with his own hands and cracks a joke to show them that it's ok (as opposed to just walking off without a word or insulting/scolding them). This is also things like trusting a farmer, woodcutter, or artisan to speak with expertise about their own livelihood and taking their advice into consideration if they tell the lord that one of his ideas won't work.

Good boundaries. The ethical liege lord knows that it's normal for the staff to probably be softly bitching about him in private (even with a really good boss, we all grumble from time to time). He's not eavesdropping on them, he's not going into the staff areas where they should reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy, etc.

Righteous and protective of "the weak". The "weak" here doesn't necessarily mean physically weak, this is often used in the sense of someone politically or socially weak, aka The Marginalized -- the poor, the disabled, women, children, the elderly, etc. If a lord sees someone like this being mistreated or abused, he's supposed to step in and put a stop to that.

Committed to reciprocity. In a highly hierarchical system like feudalism, every person (from the lowest peasant all the way up to the crown prince) legally OWES their liege lord certain things (taxes, labor, service, loyalty, etc). A good liege remembers and takes very seriously the idea that this should be a balanced and reciprocal relationship -- in other words, he owes something BACK. Feudalism is modeled very strongly on the family system: If children owe their parents obedience and service, then parents owe their children care and protection. This still applies when the "child" is a farmer and the "parent" is a local baron. Or when the "child" is a duke and the "parent" is the king.

Basically, we get so caught up in the aesthetics of nobility that we forget that it literally is a managerial position that comes with responsibilities that were... very similar back in the day to the same ones we have now. Humans have not changed all that much. At the end of the day, a really good boss in the 1400s versus in one from the 2020s displays most of the same qualities of personality, even if the details of execution are different.

The next question is, of course, "well, but this theoretical liege lord is HIGHLY idealized -- how often did that actually HAPPEN? Wasn't it more likely that everyone was exploited all the time?" and to that I say: Well, maybe. But again, I don't think humans have changed all that much. Just like the bosses of today, there's a SPECTRUM: A really really good boss is rare and precious and one that you tell stories about for years after you've left that job, but a truly, genuinely, homicidally nightmarish boss is also pretty rare. Most bosses are sort of meh -- they have their good moments, they have their shitty moments, but they're tolerable and you can get along with them well enough to do your job, and then you roll your eyes at them behind their back. Generally, humans don't take outright exploitation lying down. Being a bad boss in the historical period is how you get peasant uprisings and revolts, and you know that to be true because your parents raised you with that knowledge, so unless you are very stupid or inbred or an egomaniac, there is literal personal incentive to at minimum be a Tolerable liege lord. And that means hitting at least SOME of the above bullet points.

TL;DR: In the words of Honore de Balzac, "Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"