If it says "reclaim his throne" it obviously means that he had it before Balor took it. Any argument on that point? No.
If he had his throne before Balor took it, he was King before Balor took it. Princes don't have thrones.
If he had his throne before Balor took it, that means he was a king while he was fighting in Rhi-Anon, which comes after Balor's sacking of both Covenant AND Madrigal.
Balor did not take his kinghood away from him by sacking his city and taking his throne. Therefore, while he was fighting Balor, he was a King. Plain and simple. We are not talking about a point in time, we are talking about every moment in time after Balor's taking of his throne. From that span and perhaps before it, until his death, he is King according to that text.
The other text says that during the time he was fighting, he was not king. It says this in black and white.
This is just a MINOR contradiction I was noting, not attempting to argue. It could be that the villager that relates the first text is misinformed.
There's really nothing to argue here, they flat-out contradict each other if you make some simple logical connections. Why are we even debating this? I was pointing out a logical inconsistency.
-Ares™
P.S. I'm assuming here that the throne is not a metaphor for something else, like his birthright or his city. I think that's a pretty safe bet.
P.P.S. If you really want to reach, I suppose you could say he reclaimed his throne "for the light" or "for his family." However, because it says "reclaimed HIS throne" it means he owned the throne beforehand - if his father owned the throne and then Balor owned it, it was NEVER "his." I find this argument to be technically justifiable, but self-supporting and unconvincing.
P.P.P.S. You can also say it was his "by right" but then you're back at the question of how he could reclaim what is his by right if he nver had it in the first place. In otherwords, you can't explain both the words "his" and "reclaim" in the same argument, at least not any way I see.
-Ares
