Multiple emporers in a reign, revisited

Mon Mar 13 12:53:42 PST 2006

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Scott Schultz wrote:

> You bring up some good points and I certainly consider them as plausible as
> any other interpretations.

Dang, how can I rant if you're going to take a moderate view?

> All you can prove is that "Every example we are aware of is an example
> of a single Emperor."

Ok, how about this then: assume all reigns (Tecklas aside, as you point
out that's hard to understand generally - well, as a stab, the Orb migh
consider itself to belong to the office, not the person, so there's no
question of multiple Emperors [Presidents?  Prime Ministers?], and I'm
probably not even ready to concede multiple PMs anyway) have been single
Emperor, but we don't know a priori what the Orb's, or rather the Cycle's,
view of the matter is; and maybe Paarfi was correctly translated in just
being careful to remind readers that there's no reason but small-sample
experience to assert as fact that one reign = one Emperor, while Aliera
et al. with their strong interest in regime change weren't being careful.

I'd be willing to sign on to a cautious view of that sort.