Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    That's... not what queen regent means. Queen regent is a regent who also happens to be a queen. As in, separately from the regent part. Typically either a queen that's a regent to her husband, the king or a queen that's regent to her child that succeeded said kingly husband of hers. King regent would be analogous though I can't think of any examples due to how widespread male dynastic preference (if not exclusivity) has been. By this metric any and all regent that rules outside of an interregnum situation would have been king or queen regent. Which wasn't exactly the case.
    King Regent was a common term multiple periods in history when "warrior kings" campaigned for extended periods. It was especially popular during the crusades when the kings would leave their kingdom for extended periods and leave their cousin/uncle/brother in charge.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardenaso View Post
    to be fair if the some ruling body wants us to be nothing more than mere live baits for the enemy I'd also rather join the enemy

    #AlteraciHumanForTheHorde
    Well it was said only wc2 itself that they joined the horde, but many people tend ignore lore which was only in wc2. Tides of darkness nor chronicles 2 never say they joined the horde just that they made a deal with them alterac allows horde to move their troops unharrased true their territory to lordaeron and alterac will be spared.

    Sounds more like Alterac offers military acceses and conditions for it would be leave alterac alone.

    But yeah overall normal double standards with valeera and alterac both.

  3. #163
    The Lightbringer Ardenaso's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    3,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Terongor View Post
    Well it was said only wc2 itself that they joined the horde, but many people tend ignore lore which was only in wc2. Tides of darkness nor chronicles 2 never say they joined the horde just that they made a deal with them alterac allows horde to move their troops unharrased true their territory to lordaeron and alterac will be spared.

    Sounds more like Alterac offers military acceses and conditions for it would be leave alterac alone.

    But yeah overall normal double standards with valeera and alterac both.
    that's weird, literally in WC2 the Alteraci and the Horde were fighting the Alliance side by side

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also, the point is still there, they still didn't want to be live baits for the Horde it's a bit justifiable rather than the Horde ransacking them Karabor style

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardenaso View Post
    that's weird, literally in WC2 the Alteraci and the Horde were fighting the Alliance side by side

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also, the point is still there, they still didn't want to be live baits for the Horde it's a bit justifiable rather than the Horde ransacking them Karabor style
    Yeah I know wc2 is my favorite rts but its more lore changing than anything else.

    Yeah and as they were equal member of the alliance it makes no sense for alterac to sacrifice itself to protect lordaeron as alliance armies only seemed to care horde attack Quel'thalas or hinterlands but when alterac was in danger they were left to stand alone.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post

    Regency more than implies a monarchy. And it isn't a separate government form.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithbane View Post
    regent has one definition really.
    Sorry, Latin nerd here. While "regent" has the same root as "rex", it merely means "one who is ruling, governing". It is often used to specify one who rules in stead of a monarch who is invalid, absent or not of age yet, I'll give you that, but the word itself does not imply a monarchy. Unless of course, you specify "King Regent", a regent subbing for the king
    It is likely due to this connotation that the term isn't used for modern heads of states, but the word root has found its way into modern democratic usage, e.g. German "regieren" (to govern) / "Regierung" (government)
    Wikipedia lists some other historic uses of the term that didn't imply a monarchy.
    But your duty to Azeroth is not yet complete. More is demanded of you... a price the living cannot pay.

  6. #166
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathanyel View Post
    Sorry, Latin nerd here. While "regent" has the same root as "rex", it merely means "one who is ruling, governing". It is often used to specify one who rules in stead of a monarch who is invalid, absent or not of age yet, I'll give you that, but the word itself does not imply a monarchy. Unless of course, you specify "King Regent", a regent subbing for the king
    It is likely due to this connotation that the term isn't used for modern heads of states, but the word root has found its way into modern democratic usage, e.g. German "regieren" (to govern) / "Regierung" (government)
    Wikipedia lists some other historic uses of the term that didn't imply a monarchy.
    That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't really apply to Bob, who was appointed by the ruling king's legitimate successor. Later, Bob had to take the reins of the government once Kael went a little too high on fel !@#$, aka disability (and later, death) of the sovereign. He's as much of a "vanilla" regent as it can get, ala Denethor's lineage in LotR.

    Edit: not in their respective stories, of course, but about the source of their legitimity as regents.
    Last edited by Soon-TM; 2020-02-18 at 03:37 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Minikin View Post
    Dunno if iam misunderstanding your post but I was being sarcastic I am not part of that compendium of sylvanas fans or saurfang haters. As for the whole treachery thing. tRAiToR has become the new call sign of some posters..... fiercely gaining competitive popularity as the phrase "stuck at YET another crossroads"
    Saurfang sucks. That's a fact. The new crossroads thing will make you realize how blizzard regardless of muh honor will write the faction. Be prepared for a rude awakening.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathanyel View Post
    Sorry, Latin nerd here. While "regent" has the same root as "rex", it merely means "one who is ruling, governing". It is often used to specify one who rules in stead of a monarch who is invalid, absent or not of age yet, I'll give you that, but the word itself does not imply a monarchy. Unless of course, you specify "King Regent", a regent subbing for the king
    It is likely due to this connotation that the term isn't used for modern heads of states, but the word root has found its way into modern democratic usage, e.g. German "regieren" (to govern) / "Regierung" (government)
    Wikipedia lists some other historic uses of the term that didn't imply a monarchy.
    And the only alternative use mentioned by wikipedia that has anything to do with ruling a country and forms of government is the case of Dutch East Indies where regents were governors of the Dutch colonies. For some reason I'm noticing a significant lack of Dutch Republics on Azeroth. Even that aside, those regents were still local princes. I.e. monarchs.

    If we went by etymology of words, when earlier on in the thread queens were talked about that would mean we were talking about wives. Because etymology is a rather irrelevant tool in most cases. Context is a much more practical one. Because when someone says that Quel'Thalas, a fantasy state in a fantasy universe, is not a monarchy because it has a regent, the answer to the "Well, what is it then?" question isn't exactly "a state ruled by a type of French teachers".

    Besides I quite clearly said regency in what you quoted, not regent. Wiki provides alternative uses for the latter.
    Last edited by Mehrunes; 2020-02-18 at 06:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    Does the CIA pay you for your bullshit or are you just bootlicking in your free time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm quite tired of people who dislike something/disagree with something while attacking/insulting anyone that disagrees. Its as if at some point, people forgot how opinions work.

  9. #169
    I know it has no direct relevance to the question of this topic, I just wanted to oppose the statements that "regents" were always appointed by or in stead of a king.
    But your duty to Azeroth is not yet complete. More is demanded of you... a price the living cannot pay.

  10. #170
    The Lightbringer Ardenaso's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    3,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Terongor View Post
    Yeah I know wc2 is my favorite rts but its more lore changing than anything else.

    Yeah and as they were equal member of the alliance it makes no sense for alterac to sacrifice itself to protect lordaeron as alliance armies only seemed to care horde attack Quel'thalas or hinterlands but when alterac was in danger they were left to stand alone.
    didn't realize we were actually on the same boat. my bad

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by faithbane View Post
    King Regent was a common term multiple periods in history when "warrior kings" campaigned for extended periods. It was especially popular during the crusades when the kings would leave their kingdom for extended periods and leave their cousin/uncle/brother in charge.
    Which may all be the same person with the mess that royal families were.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •