Lord Kasavin wrote:On another note, anyone want to hazard a guess as to what a Regency is? Yes, obviously its there for the pun. However, its apparently not ruled by royalty. Historically, a Regent was an individual who ruled when the actual monarch was still to young to effectively rule and were suppose to step aside when the monarch reached maturity. How that translates in a world where heirs are popped fully formed... I'm still debating.
Historicaly, a Regent was often a member of the royal family, and sometimes the heir (e.g. the British Regency period
when George III was mentally incapacitated and his son and heir (the future George IV) ruled as Prince-Regent).
That suggests that a "Regency" in this context may be a city or group of cities managed by an heir who has not split off into a separate side but is generally allowed to run things without much interference from the ruler.
There is a bit of a flaw in that theory... with those parameters, Jetstone could be considered a Regency... It's been established that the King of Jetstone is extremely Hands off, letting the chief warlord to make much of the decisions without his interference... I think it would be pretty unlikely that Ossomer would take the time to make the distinction that Hyatt was technically a Regency if in fact Jetstone was as well... Though it is possible that the distinction is made between "unwilling" and "incapable" perhaps jetstone isn't a regency because the King is technically able to do whatever he wants with his side whenever he wants to, he just chooses to let the chief warlord run things, but if he was unable to perform the duties of a ruler than the person who was filling those duties would be considered a Regent... but if the person who was filling those duties was, in fact, a born Prince and a Royal heir, why make the distinction?
Another possibility is that some circumstances may cause a ruler to become incapacitated (the spell backlash that hit Wanda shows that there are some things that don't just go away when units heal at the start of the turn), and the heir assumes the ruler's duties.
With the little information we have at the moment this seems much more likely... though it seemed like Ossomer was looking down his nose at Hyatt with his thoughts... that may just be speculation or reading too far into things. I would think that a royalty obsessed faction wouldn't disapprove of a Prince Chief Warlord ruling a kingdom for an otherwise incapable ruler. if that ruler had been croaked instead of incapacitated, that "Prince-Regent" would have become King, and be of legitimately Royal blood... So why make the distinction? (except to get a chuckle with a pun...)
Perhaps the difference is between a "Popped" Heir and an Heir Designate? I could see a faction like Jetstone making a differentiation between an heir by "titanic Mandate" (that is being popped, or "born" as an Heir, like Ansom, Ossomer, Tramennis, and Jillian. And being made an "heir Designate" such as Caesar or Stanley-as-chief-warlord... the former being "barely a Royal" the latter being nothing more than common infantry...
It's a very minor differentiation.. but Ceaser was ordered as a Warlord when he was popped, Jillian, Ansom, Ossomer, and Tramennis were ordered as heirs... heirs seem to be considered "children" of the current ruler, therefore a member of the Royal bloodline, and Designated Heirs are not members of the Royal Bloodline (at least not directly).
So is it possible that a "regency" would be a kingdom being ruled by someone who is not a born heir or "child" of the former ruler? For example, (not saying these examples are likely, or even possible, just using them as examples) had Ossomer gone through with his threat and "spun the conquered Haggar off into a new side with Ossomer himself as king" (or if Ansom had captured GK and spun that off into his new side) Wouldn't that new side be considered legitimately Royal? With a Ruler as a direct descendant of a Royal Family i don't think either example would considered a Regency of Jetstone, even if they were allied... OTOH if Caesar has spun off Faq into a new side maybe that would be considered a Regency of TV since he wasn't born a prince? Or if a completely non-Royal chief Warlord (ala Stanley) was nominally running a side?
Although, this is what I think makes the most sense at this particular point:
Maybe the Ruler was incapacitated as Steve suggests and there was not a popped heir, just a non-royal chief warlord and an heir in production. Say the "Prince" was croaked in battle, on the next turn the ruler Designated his highest ranked Warlord as "heir designate" to prevent the side from going barbarian if the ruler was croaked, and on the same turn ordered a new Heir to be popped. Then on some subsequent turn after the new heir had been ordered, but before they were popped, the ruler was in fact croaked or incapacitated, making the non-royal Heir-Designate chief warlord the new ruler by default, meanwhile, there is a Royal heir who is a "child" of the former Royal ruler "in production" perhaps this is the Erfworld equavilancy of childhood/infancy/in the womb, there is technically a Royal heir in existence, because he/she has been ordered, but he/she is unable to Rule, so there is a non-royal regent ruling in the interim until the heir officially pops, and the current Regent plans to step aside once the new heir is popped, such intentions would be in line with Ossomer's "but committed to preserving Royal supremacy" comment...
or maybe we're just reading too far into a pun...