Talk:The Royal Heir, Book 1/@comment-36277500-20190807150620/@comment-36277500-20190807165754

I agree with your vision in the last part. But the writer seems to know nothing about monarchy then... I know what you mean, why the author does such plot twists, but he/she just reveals their lack of knowledge. So I wouldn't rather call it "wise"...

Kings are said to rule everything except their own hearts and bodies... For ages and centuries, kings and queens made political alliances by their marriages. They didn't have to be happy, they should just had to be impeccable, even if there was no love...

I hope you recall Princess Diana? It was classic case of "traditional" royal marriage. Prince Charles never loved her, but he wasn't allowed to marry his true love, because her ex-husband still lived. Queen Elizabeth II forced him to marry Diana instead. It ended with both sides cheating on each other, and they eventually divorced. Earlier something similar happened to Prince Andrew. And many times, when royal family members try to follow their hearts, it often ends with a big scandal and (nearly as often) with hereditary problems... If the prince/princess isn't behaving according to some (very high!) atandards, they may forget about succession (that's why people speculate that Queen will make her grandson William her successor instead of her son Charles).

The author is inconsequent. In the very first book, young prince has a bachelor party, because he "has to marry someone in the end of ball season". It was a duty, not a choice. There were nothing about "love". And later we have bachelor king, because he want to be single if he don't have MC as his queen...

Once there were kings in my country: dynastic and eligible. In Medieval Ages, there were subsequently two dynasties. Later, kings became eligible. Only that second option leaves a king or queen a possibility to be single - and even then it's seen as bad PR, because "if a king has no wife (queen has no husband), there must be something wrong with him/her". The same goes for presidents - they ought to be married and family men/women, because people see them as "traditional and stable".

But Cordonia has a dynasty, so there's even not an option to be single. It's not allowed. Dynastic king/queen is obliged to continue the dynasty. I mean: marry a noblewoman/nobleman of immaculate past and family, and have children from their blood and bone. Not to be "godfather". If the royal couple is unable to have their own children, the next in the line of throne are siblings, nephews, cousins... Example: if Katie from RoE had married Leo, her children might be considered as potential heirs by Liam if he had no children of his own - because they would be biologically related.

Sorry for such long elaboration. I'm just disappointed with Pixelberry's several last books (played only for diamonds).