Talk: King Arthur I of Lovia

Could I be queen, pleeeaaaasssseeeee =D Cléo

Image

Are you referring to this gentleman here. Great, I love it. Naranja! --Lars Washington 12:40, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Line of Succession

I believe the Line of Succession to the Lovian Throne should include all Arthur I's biological descendents. Having him as a direct ancestor in either male or female line should be a criteria for anyone to be included in the Line of Succession, first and foremost. Agreed? The Master's Voice 21:00, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

No. Because of Arthur III's illegitimate sons, it makes it unrealistic that Dimitri got the thrones. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:01, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, he didn't just get it, there was controversy right from the beginning. For some reason, the King favoured his nephew though. Perhaps it was his old age, perhaps it was dementia that made him change his mind? Somehow during his last years he began grooming his nephew as his successor. Still, Dimitri is not the direct son of a King, only the grandson of a King. The King's sons are descendent in male-line from an actual King. It's a strong claim. The Master's Voice 21:04, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop making up new people for the past, leave the history the same. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:05, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, why should it be decided that they should become the heirs? Also, I believe the runner of those sons didn't want to be part of the royal family, even though he's inactive now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

@Marcus: Sure. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, we are not making new people up. It was Horton who created an adopted step-son of Lucy I. So I wrote here we should only allow biological descendents of Arthur I, not the adopted ones. The Master's Voice 21:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I see but let's just make sure we correct thing and not at all alter what dimi had set up here. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:10, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

If Arthur III doesn't recognize his sons as legitimate, they shouldn't be considered his heirs. The issue would have also been resolved before 2007 or 2009. I'm good with Alexander as heir apparent. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:12, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

He did recognize them. Okay... on topic :

Heirs

Instead of making them the heirs we could just include them, below the King's sibling(s). That would make the family bigger yet allow the King's brother to take over the throne in case of his death or abdication without issue. His brother, not his nephews. The King has a younger brother, see. The Master's Voice 21:13, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have nephews though. This is what has been going on before, and it is good. The illegitimate sons are not in the line of succession, but are recognized as part of the royal family. They also have the title "Hon." —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I say we include them. They are, after all, the King's nephews too. They will be lower then the King brother Alexander, though. Alexander is the one who takes over if his brother leaves, he is the heir apparant (the chance of Arthur's sons taking the throne is very small this way - only if all other heirs die childless - including the baby niece born January) they will jump in and fill the gap. Their children will, because they'll be dead by then most likely. The Master's Voice 21:20, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Ancestors

Can't we (Lovian government) make a list of ancestors of this King Arthur I of Lovia? Somewhere in his ancestors box is the name "Denys" appearing. That Stéphanie Denys could be a daughter of this guy, isn't it? Wabba The I (talk) 16:23, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to make the list of ancestors a bit longer, my dear Wabba, by all means go ahead. You have my fullest support. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 16:31, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I will make a really long list! :) Wabba The I (talk) 16:34, February 9, 2014 (UTC)