History of Faneria

Royal Era (1398-1906)

Constitutional Crisis of 1903

=Republican Era (1906-present day)

International Canal Crisis

a 'vicar' is a kind of viceroy administrator of what end up being the provinces (originally the inherited territories), streamlining national administration somewhat but also decentralizing power as the kingdom grew

1364: Prince Ruaridh Màrtainn of Mhartainnvail inherits the titles of Connsmonan, Cheatharnaich, and Itheachan from an uncle and father killed in a hunting accident/skirmish/'highway robbery'; Initially a chance conglomeration of a few choice titles under a particularly lucky/skilled prince, who didn't particularly like the idea of having his territories not being contiguous; basically fumbled/scraped his way into a position where his only son could actually enforce a tentative claim to kingship

1398: the Kingdom of the Fhainn proper is founded by Rih (King) Rethys Màrtainn, who immediately begins eating up smaller independent cities and minor noble holdings along with one or two serious wars against challengers to his claim of kingship, one of which he was by all rights assumed to be the loser against a coalition but won due to organizational and cavalry reforms, dumb luck in maneuvering, and catching enemy orders - 'perfect storm'

Ethnically, there is tension especially at the time between Slavs in the north and fringes of the western coast and Gaels in the south, which also plays in to resistance as the slavs were previously dominant due to having open access to the seas and the new state was not in any way slavic or pluralist

1471: last major challenger to the throne in southern regions kneels, a few weaker principalities in the north remain but get swallowed up through marriage or outright invasion by 1500

1519-1545: First Princes' War: 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

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

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"

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

And to note, the previous culture across both major ethnicities was very much family-focused, organicist, and morally absolutist, which should heavily clash with a wave of actualism, mathematicism, and maybe even finitism (the idea of a non-omnipitent God) creating a philosophical rift between the gentry and the growing educated middle class