Royal Vicariates of Fhainnlannachaeran

The Vicariates of Fhainnlannachaeran were administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Fhainnlannachaeran, based largely on the old borders of the princedoms and free cities of pre-Royal Fhainnin homelands. Each was ruled by a Vicar; nominally a prince within his own lands, each reported to the King with various levels of loyalty depending on time, distance, and the individual kings and Vicars as well as local political considerations. The power of the Vicariates waxed and waned dramatically over the course of their existences, and several were folded into each other or created from whole cloth over the centuries.

=Organization and Role=

Notable Vicars
=History=

First Princes' War
Main Article: First Prince's War

1519-1545: First Princes' War: vicars end up victorious after a few kings (Caerls Màrtainn, Bronwyn Màrtainn, Rhys Wydd-Màrtainn) worth of fighting, and for their victory they end up with the authority to elect the King similar to the HLE's collegial electorate

the king who lost the war though continues on until 1557 and then he dies and his son presses hereditary claim, and while the vicars do elect him they say "shit let's not make a habit of this" he reigns and the same thing happens on his (Cledwyn Wydd-Màrtainn) death maybe 1570 or so except the vicars refuse and the second vicarial(?) war begins

Second Prince's War
Main Article: Second Prince's War

1571-1583: Second Prince's War:  this second one is very bloody and just an overall mess, whole dynastic noble local families are wiped out, at least one king (Conan Wydd-Màrtainn, Ruaridh Sutharlan, Banrih (Queen) Cailean Suthar-Màrtainn) of fhanrrenenoit4hlwtf is killed in battle; it ends in a brokered peace; the king's election will continue, but the vicars will also be elected by local nobles, and since so many local families died, the right to appoint new local nobility reverts to the King (Donan Sutharlan-Màrtainn), who begins to solely grant lifetime peerages, i.e., no hereditary succession for the local holdings. typically he will continue to appoint from one family, but they now remain local to the crown - while the king could appoint hereditary nobility, none do because that's a stupid move, and so the local nobles (appointed by the king) begin electing as vicar basically anyone the king wants to keep their power in the family - this allows titles to be sold by the crown, too

Royal Era Proper
this system continues until the 1690s when the kings (Sean Suthar-Màrtainn) begin to realize hey, we can just buy off the still remaining hereditary local lords

External conflicts and relative stability here

by 1760 or so something like, i don't know,  87% of eligible nobility voting for the vicar have been appointed by the king (Cywir Suthar-Màrtainn). so what you have in place is kind of a centralist monarchy with a nominal election system that is really just trading favors with prominent families

so the Vicariate, once a powerful institution, is basically a succession rubber stamp by that 1760 date - essentially reduced from local princes to appointed governors

This is all about on track with what I'm thinking, as by 1775 there should be no more direct ties between officers and their noble status, at least in terms of laws banning commoners or reserving positions. in practice most officers will still be educated nobles

in the 1850s or so there should be a pretty large reform movement saying yes, the monarchy is great, but we should expand who can vote for the vicar besides local royal appointees - every property owning male, perhaps. which obviously every royalist says no to, but this idea of a "Liberal Vicariate" basically becomes a major political fixation and for a couple years it's "yes, but what if the vicariate also had power to do X", "yes, but what if they could also do Y, have oversight of Z, etc" - The main rub being nobody could agree on exactly how to work out what the vicars or a theoretical representative government (at the time still a fringe movement) would work in particular, as you'd have constitutional monarchists mixing with radicals and even a few revanchist wanting the old vicar's crown electorate back, but the liberal vicariate idea remains the "respectable" liberal opposition idea

the 1860s and 70s saw a dramatic rise in lower class and middle class movements. i don't know if you're familiar with how the french revolution went down ca 1787/1788, but convening the estates general was viewed as a panacea, a solution to all problems, but consequently meant different things to different people

As you'd have constitutional monarchists mixing with radicals and even a few revanchist wanting the old vicar's crown electorate back. here the liberal vicariate is that idea, and a lot of self interested rich locals could say "what if we just made it like how it was in the 1500s"

Fhainnin Civil War and End of the Vicariates
1906, one of the reformist factions finally managed to blow up the king (Ruaridh Sutharlan) and a couple key throne supporters at once, which kicked off a civil war between socialist, monarchist, and republican factions

with the republicans and socialist allying and said socialists immediately getting shanked in the back

maybe the direct reason for the bombing of the king in 1906 is

after a year and a half of major tumult, riots, etc, he finally decides to concede but only on the original point of landed male suffrage for the vicars

and when the vicars get together and say "we would like to also have authority over X, Y, and Z"

he says no

which is the breaking point for most radicals