: If it says "reclaim his throne" it obviously
: means that he had it before Balor took it. Any
: argument on that point? No.
yes. it dosn't mean that balor took it i just meant that he wasn't king after Covenant was sacked.
he was an exiled king. so he reclaims his throne in Covenant after the war, and becomes king again
:
If he had his throne before Balor took it, he was King
: before Balor took it. Princes don't have thrones.
Alric was a king to young to govern before the war.
so thats why mauric the prince regent ruled instead.
:
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.
he didn't have his throne and he didn't have anything to govern during the war exept an army, so maybe he dosn't want to be one of the exiles always caliming to be king ( king Constantine of greece)
: 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
