14,586
edits
Kingdom of the Fhainn: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{wip}} | {{wip}} | ||
{{Infobox former country | {{Infobox former country | ||
| native_name = ''Rihachd Fhainnlannachaeran'' | | native_name = ''Rihachd Fhainnlannachaeran'' | ||
| Line 81: | Line 80: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
The '''Kingdom of the Fhainn''' was a country located in northern [[Levantia]] on the northern coast of the [[Vandarch Sea]]. It was at various points an elective, absolute, and constitutional monarchy, and was a powerful challenger to the [[Holy Levantine Empire]]'s expansion into [[Ultmar]] as well as an expansionist state in its own right. After a series of financial, military, political, and cultural disasters in the late 1800s, it was destroyed in a [[Fhainnin Civil War|civil war]] in 1909. | |||
{{Template:Kingdom of Fhainnlannachaeran}} | {{Template:Kingdom of Fhainnlannachaeran}} | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
''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'' | ''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 Cledwyn business'' | |||
''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'' | ''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'' | ||