Just finished the Thirain/Scherrit arc in Lost Ark. Basically, Regent Scherrit murdered the rightful king and usurped the throne, and the rightful heir, Prince Thirain, is trying to get it back. And of course Regent Scheritt is a terrible ruler (an oppressive tyrant, literally sold his soul to demons for power, etc.) while Prince Thirain is noble and just. So we’re happy to help him regain his throne.
This is a wildly establishmentarian trope. Like, why is the usurper always a worse ruler than the bloodright heir? It’s not the 1600s, we can stop pretending that bloodline has anything to do with skill as a ruler. For instance, you could have a wise and canny usurper who brings prosperity to the kingdom, and an arrogant, callow heir who would bring ruin. There are all sorts of reasons the crown prince might be unfit to rule: maybe he’s brutish and cruel, or maybe he’s kind and well-intentioned but the dimmest bulb in the room. Maybe he fled the castle when the usurper’s men stormed it, and he’s been hiding in a woodland grotto ever since and knows nothing of how to govern a kingdom. But you don’t see this in fiction. There’s this culturally ingrained narrative of the birthright king also being the best king.
I guess if they want you to like the guy who takes over the throne, they call him a revolutionary, and if they don’t, they call him an usurper. But when the narrative centers the deposed guy’s son who was next in line for the throne, it’s conveniently the latter.
You must be signed in to post a comment!