Graham: A figurehead?

[TheReturnofDMD]

Hi

I've been reading history lately, especially the era when the power of the British kings began to decline...and it made me wonder. Does Graham, as Daventry's king, have absolute power? We've never gotten to see Graham actually being king, except in the novels and in MOE for a split second. We know he has a Prime Minister (Gerwain) and a seneschal and that he has a ''parliament'' composed of the Lords and Ladies.
He seems to be a popular and respected ruler; however....How much power does he actually wield? I'm sure things such as his going off on adventures, many times suddenly without leaving any royal word of his departure, have weakened his leadership and creditability over the years.
For example, who is actually running things in Daventry while Graham is away at the Land of the Green Isles in TSL? Surely, some sort of overthrow could develop in his abscence?

[Petra Rocks]

Baggins! Your expertise is called for. 

  I don't really know except to say that depend a King can be pretty powerful and still have a Parliment of sorts.  I wouldn't call a Parliment of sorts a real barrier to absolute monarchy either, though Deloria might be better in that area.  And all kings had some sort of seneschal or advisor. Overthrows could develop in the King's absence, for example King John bumping King Richard. On the other hand they could not, I don't recall anyone moving against King Philip when he went on the 3rd  crusade. That could be my memory I suppose.

[Boogeyman]

And don't forget that Graham himself nearly got overthrown in KQ2VGA.


Also, at the beggining of MOE, we see Graham authorize the construction of a new grain silo. Now, if he were just a figurehead, would he have been able to do that?

[Deloria]

Contrary to the timeline, I actually think of KQ being set more in the early seventienth century (partially because of the Daventry crest ) but I'd say Graham had some power, he could probably intervene in parliament, repeal tests acts, etc. IIRC there were few examples of him actually having power (at least in the games). More like, he depended on his subjects serving him out of loyalty than anything else. In the games, he seemed like more of an average constitutional monarch. But then, I haven't read all of the novels so I have very little idea if there were any examples of him having particular power in them.

Of course, it's also an option that his power was almost absolute but he refused to make good use of it, opting for a more constitutional way.

[Yonkey]

Daventry will never be overthrown, unless the player decides to kill Graham off, of course.

[Petra Rocks]

  Since the games I played seemed to be more concerned with the actual game that showing all the workings of Daventry's government for some odd reason.  I don't have much to work with when guessing how Graham dealt with Parliment, or if he had one at all. I am curious though.  I should note though, that in the Middle Ages and Eastern Europe, the real check on a King's power was not a Parliment but the nobles. The degree of power the nobles had was usually inversly proportional to the amount of power the king had. So if anyone recalls anything about nobles of Daventry it might be helpful. 

Daventry will never be overthrown, unless the player decides to kill Graham off, of course.

Not expecting a coup here, this is King's Quest not Crusader Kings.   

[Yonkey]

In every King's Quest game, Graham never had absolute power.  If he did, there wouldn't be any point in playing the game.   Parliament and politics were mostly left out of the games because they were irrelevant to the storyline.  Although, the villains and every obstacle in Graham's way seemed to have a large degree of power, resulting in either his death or an obstacle of some sort which he had to solve.  If these problems were never solved, none of us would have been able to complete the series.

[Deloria]

Every villain was a mage (apart from Abdul, who had Shamir), that might have had something to do with their varying degrees of power.

[Petra Rocks]

Yes, but now we are talking about magical power, not political power. 

[Deloria]

Which started here and really doesn't say why Graham shouldn't have absolute or nearly absolute political power as far as human power goes.

Although, the villains and every obstacle in Graham's way seemed to have a large degree of power, resulting in either his death or an obstacle of some sort which he had to solve.  If these problems were never solved, none of us would have been able to complete the series.

[Petra Rocks]

Indeed it did. *Steers on-topic* 

  Anyway, the game does not AFAIK tell us enough to determine the exact realationship between Graham and his subjects. Of course I didn't play most of them, but the ones I did play concern themselves not at all with such mundane matters.  So, I really can't say. The magcial ablities of Graham's enemies has little bearing on the subject.   

[Deloria]

In one of the novels, it says Valanice ruled as Regent whilst Graham was ill, IIRC there are also a few mentions of the government system.

One thing I did noticed was that there's not a lot of awe surrounding the royal family, meaning that Graham's power almost certainly isn't absolute.

*will dig up the novel she has later when she's done spamming*

[Petra Rocks]

meaning that Graham's power almost certainly isn't absolute.

Maybe. But the Nabatean kings can no parliment or such insitutions can the Roman authors remarked on how little ceremony he was treated with. On a similar note coniderable ceremony goes with the Monatchs of England in modern times, so I'm not sure that is a measure of power. Though in fairness the Nabatean kings were not absolute Louis the XIV style, so that example may be a little weak. 

[Deloria]

The fact that the English monarchy of today is treated with such respect could mainly be tradition in all fairness. They're been doing such since the time of John of Gaunt. But now this is getting off-topic too.

What I meant with my last statement was that Graham seems to be treated with incredibly little ceremony (apart from Cedric, who actually addresses him by title and style and then is told to stop, by Graham himself ).

[Petra Rocks]

 American egalitarianism strikes again.  Anyhow, my point was that Kings treated with little ceremony, like Graham, do not alway lack real power or vise versa.

[TheReturnofDMD]

Well, in the novels they have a ritual that whenever Graham approaches the Great Hall, an aide is to shout "The King of Daventry approaches the Great Hall" and herald Graham's arrival, and Oswald, his sensechal, always addresses Graham as a superior, as "Your Highness" or "Your Majesty" or even "Sire", As do the other castle staff and members of the kingdom. Graham is the head of state and the head of the government it seems, and he is able to act also as Judge when he wants to.  I re-read the novels. Graham's power IS absolute, but he doesn't like the formalities. It sort of embarasses him, it seems. He prefers to identify with the common man.
But, at the end of the day, had Graham truly been greedy, he'd always remind people of how powerful he was. He doesn't. It doesn't make him a figurehead, for he is the true ruler of Daventry, it just makes him a kind king.

[Deloria]

*sob* No one believes in the anointed ones and divine right anymore.

[Delling]

...had Graham truly been greedy, he'd always remind people of how powerful he was. He doesn't. It doesn't make him a figurehead, for he is the true ruler of Daventry, it just makes him a kind king.

First, I'd like to thank you for employing the subjunctive mood... 

Then, I'd like to bring up the issue that with the shield and chest, many of the natural concerns that might necessitate a hard handed rule do not exist for Daventry. There should be practically no need to tax the people or the land and there should be no cause to raise a standing army for the public defense (though an army remains necessary, the shield definitely reduces concerns for such things as practice and even maintenance... though prudence would dictate at least regular practice and the upkeep of good equipment...). Likewise, with such a sturdy defense, it would be likely that other nations would rather be on Daventry's good side so to speak. The conclusion being that Graham and the royal family can afford to be somewhat lax in the strictness of their rule and any domineering attitude, therefore, perhaps the first natural victim of such laxity would be any general regard for such ceremony and pretention.

In the end, the power they hold seems rather the responsibility of being the keepers of the sources of Daventry's prosperity and watching their own backs. For the latter, it certainly serves their interests best to be nice, and in the case of the former, any would-be uprising would probably point out that the position seems little more than a sinecure (especially with so few known attempts at stealing the treasures of the land).

(I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if their position's seeming nature as a sinecure makes the royal family mere figureheads or if the responsibilities of the position actually make them something more...)

[Petra Rocks]

Code Select Expand

He prefers to identify with the common man.

An obvious sign of American culture, that.  Actually, several Roman authors recorded similar things about the Nabatean kings.


Actually, Delling does raise good points. Without the need to tax or raise an army the 'king' could be more a custodian or gaurd of the treasures than a potentate in the normal sense. As far as watching their backs though, most rulers with dubious legitamacy go all-out on the ceremony, not drop it.  They want to produce as remote and god-like an image as possible (the tricks of certian byzantine rulers come to mind).  If the King acts like a normal person normal people may start wondering why they are taking orders from him. 

Just my 2 cents

  As a semi-off topic side note most countries in the Middle Ages did not have standing armies. They simply called out the knights and other vassels, traditionally for a period of 40 days, to fight. Or hired mercs for a certian period of time, depending on the contract.

[Delling]

  As a semi-off topic side note most countries in the Middle Ages did not have standing armies. They simply called out the knights and other vassels, traditionally for a period of 40 days, to fight. Or hired mercs for a certian period of time, depending on the contract.

I really didn't mean standing armies in the modern day sense... rather that Daventry wouldn't need to have as many people to call together into an army since they had the shield.

Also, I meant watching their backs more as in not making enemies particularly native enemies who might usurp the treasures. My conclusion was specifically that the other people wouldn't want the custodial responsibilities especially if there seems to be little contrast between the royals and the common people except for added responsibilities of guarding the treasures.