Where Blue comes to a conclusion that will be mostly ignored
Though to be fair, putting this down during the voting period probably isn't doing me any favors.
So, I've been doing some thinking about what hereditary means in this quest, and I've sort of boiled down our power towards three areas. Then managed to get completely off the track and went down a controversial rabbit hole I was trying to avoid.
Rulers: How many people are in power.
Legitimacy: Why a person is in power.
Passing On: How someone is determined to be put into power.
Our current ruler group is of interest, but not importance to our situation. It's one person, supported by a group of people doing their best to help them rule. In theory, at least. Again, not important to the discussion.
How power is passed on is important, but not what I want to focus on. To note, here it is an election for the next person to rule. Possibly a bit complex, and in many instances people, even the ruling oligarchs, may not know who they're really voting for because distances are so great. Of note, and of some importance, but...
Our legitimacy is borderline non-existent.
"Why is someone the king?"
"Because he was elected."
"I didn't elect him!"
The fundamental problem we are having here is that we our using modern sensibilities to treat the law as if it is it's own entity, separate from the king. That's not what it is, though. The law is seen as an extension of the King's word, part of his will. The king is above the law. There exists no method of trying a king. In order to get to this ideal we take as natural, it would likely take several libraries, a lot of time, and the kicking off of a large scale scholar movement. Something certainly interesting, but it would likely take a great number of social reforms to actually create this concept.
Another possibility would be a meritocracy of some sort, but we will likely need a much better education system before we attempt to pull that off. I'd say it is closer than a flat out 'rule of the law' type of situation though.
The third possibility I can think of, is the one we have the easiest access too. Divine Right. That is, 'he's king because the gods said so.'
Now, this can come in many forms, either through some convoluted ritual, perhaps some very primitive form of meritocracy, and of course the simple 'he's king because of his bloodline.'
Each one has its pros and cons, much of it would depend on how involved we want to get our mysticism cast, though. Our last choice would have had them very involved. Hereditary is very much one of the most fire and forget forms, for better or worse, and would really just need a ritual done for each king to show that they've been properly blessed from the spirits.
Considering this thread's... insistence on complete practicality and keeping religion away from stuff, I expect that last idea to be poorly received, but I feel we're going to be in for some serious hardships if we aim for one of the more advanced ones when we are clearly not socially advanced enough to handle them yet, and unlikely to be so in the near future.
Oh, as to why this is important?
Why should the north listen to us? If they constantly get marginalized, their only interests are gone, and if they get enough strength to stand on their own, they will! One of the biggest things that is likely making the north think they can do this is the Stallion Tribes having their own martial score. Now, if we take that away there will still be local martial scores in various areas, so it's not a complete solution, but if we can afford the wealth pulling the martial out of the Stallions and putting it into a mercenary group that we just park in Valleyhome for three turns would likely help for awhile. It will ultimately be a stalling tactic, though.
Edit: Oh, and palace might help, depending on if and how it increases our legitimacy. Not too sure there though.
