Script Politics

So we’ve been meaning to post something like this for a while, but this is the official notice:

We’re closing up shop.

Both Mod M and I are just too busy to answer you’re questions (we’ve literally been too busy to write this post). We’re really sorry to have to abandon the questions left in the ask box -we really were trying to get through them all before we closed, but it has just proved impossible.

The archive will stay up, and we might be able to come back to this blog in the future, but for now we must bid you farewell.

Hi there!

This question required quite a bit of research on my part. My conclusion is that every scenario was a bit different. It appears that kings managed both domestic and foreign affairs from the battle front as needed. Minor things were most likely allocated to someone to act as a regent, but major issues were still brought to the attention of the king. Often times, when it was the norm for kings to fight in battle, queens were not in positions of substantial political influence. That is to say, a sovereign queen was not really typical. However, let’s say that the queen was able to be a sovereign monarch. If the queen (or anyone for that matter) were to take control of domestic affairs while the king was away, I would assume everything would be binding, but if the king wanted to, he could amend or undo anything he disagreed with.

Hi there!

It is totally realistic for the world to be a mess politically. To be fair, politics are pretty messy in our world today even though we do have advanced communication and transportation technologies. Immigration would not be extremely high because of the transportation difficulties but still would exist. The way that immigration’s viewed in that world is most likely quite different than how it is viewed today. Cultural norms would determine how readily immigrants would be accepted into the community. Trade would most likely be predominantly bilateral; existing between two countries without the involvement of others. Transportation would potentially limit what kinds of goods may be traded.

Hi there!

It really depends. By running away, the older sibling would be abandoning their kingdom in its time of need and may then be considered a traitor to the kingdom, thus making the younger sibling the successor. Even if the older sibling was not considered a traitor once they returned, them running away may be considered an act of them abdicating their throne, which would also make the younger sibling the successor despite the elder’s return.

On the flip side, the elder could argue that he was not abdicating or denouncing the kingdom, but rather was just taking a quick trip and had full intentions of returning. In this case, it may become a bit of a popularity contest. If the elder has more support, they may be able to get the throne back. If the younger has more support, they may get to keep it. If there is a somewhat similar preference between the two, this may start a battle or war between the two as they fight for the throne.

Hello!

Unless otherwise specified, she would become the princess-regent immediately, as she is the next in line for secession (depending, as always, on your system of succession, country, time period etc.). After enough time passes, the missing family members would be assumed dead and treated as such. The amount of time until they are considered dead would vary from country to country. Once the queen and the older heirs are assumed dead, the princess-regent would become queen.  

Hi everybody! 

Mod M here. I didn’t want to do this, but after the past week or so I realized I just am not going to be able to devote enough time to this blog. I want to make sure everyone gets the best answers possible and not something hastily thrown together, so I am going to be putting the blog on hiatus until August 20th. 

I will also be closing the ask box. We have a lot of asks to work on and we would like to prevent them from accumulating further. I really appreciate the questions you guys send us! As always, thank you so much! 

Hello!

Yes, I suppose it is technically possible, but it is really not recommended for such an influential and important person to be without a bodyguard in public. It would be extremely dangerous, especially in modern times, because someone may be targeted without ever seeing their attacker thanks to firearms. It is also pretty hard to escape media attention. I suppose it could be done, but would probably require planning before hand in order to escape being tracked. Keep in mind that many modern technological devices are able to be tracked quite easily, thus tipping someone off to the location of an individual.

Hi there,

I am assuming you are referring to the United States. If you are not, please correct me!

The process for a bill being passed may vary from state to state. A bill is considered ‘passed’ once the governor signs it into law. If the governor refuses to sign, it is considered vetoed. Some states, like New York and California, have time limits where if the governor doesn’t sign in X days, the bill is considered vetoed.

Here is the general way state bills are passed. Keep in mind there is variance between states - this is just a general guideline:

A member of the state legislature writes the bill. Ideas for a bill may come from a citizen, but an elected official has to actually author the bill.

The bill is read to the state legislature.

The bill is then assigned to a policy committee. The members of this committee will determine if they want to go forward with the bill. People and organizations may testify for or against the bill while it is in committee.

If the bill requires funding, it may have to move to a fiscal committee for approval (again, depends on the state).

Bill is then read again for the state legislature. It is voted on by the members. Most states (with the exception of Nebraska) have bicameral legislatures. If it is passed in the lower house, it then moves to the upper house to be read and voted on again.

If the bill passes both bodies it moves to the governor.

The governor then either signs the bill, enacting it into law or vetoes it.

At any point, changes may be made to the bill.

Hi there!

This sounds like a potential masterpost idea! I know you specified European, but what time period are you wanting us to look at?

Whatever he wants it to be.

If your novel is a fantasy, you can construct your monarchy so that the role of the king fits the needs of the story. He may be super involved in the day-to-day happenings of the kingdom or he may be completely removed.

Hi there! 

‘Your Majesty’ is used for the reigning monarch, as well as their spouse. Kings and queens would be referred to as ‘your majesty,’ whereas other members of the royal family would be referred to as ‘your highness.’ Dukes and duchesses would be referred to as ‘your grace.’ 

Thank you, @silentsnowdrop, and everyone else who mentioned in the replies that they would like to see this! 

I promise it is coming! I’m very excited to do it and thrilled y’all are looking forward to it as well!  

Also, thank you all for your support! I know we may not be the fastest repliers, but we really appreciate y’all sticking with us and continuing to send us questions. 

But really though - wars and battles can be started for any reason. Historically, reasons have ranged anywhere from ideological differences, territorial disputes, or resources distribution to a dead pig, a stolen bucket, or a chopped-off ear.

This ask did inspire me to consider beginning a series on some of the more ridiculous reasons wars, battles, and armed conflicts that have occurred. If this is something y’all want to see more of, let us know! Especially if you have any particular one you’d like us to cover.

Hello! This would vary person-to-person depending on their relationship with the prince, the formality of the occasion, and his personal preference. A lower servant would use terms such as ‘your highness’ and ‘sir/sire’. Someone closer to him, such as a tutor or particularly close servant, might use more familiar names with him, such as his given name or a pet name in private settings. In formal and public settings, it would be more appropriate for them to call him sir, sire, or your highness.

Hi there! 

This really depends on what you mean by taking the throne. Typically, if the son is a young child, he would become king, but he would not ‘take the throne’ per say. There would be another person (typically a close family member or high ranking official) to act as a regent for the child until he came of age. If the son is an older child/young adult/adult then he immediately becomes king; however, there is sometimes a mourning period after the late monarch's death before the coronation occurs. The mourning period would vary from country to country, but anywhere from a few months to a year seems to be fairly typical.