On knight/royal pairings

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

From the way the Seth/Eirika supports go, one might assume that marriages between royalty and their knights are forbidden in Magvel.  The way the entire Ismaire/Carlyle fiasco plays out lends this some support, and a good deal of fanfic and meta uses this assumption as a springboard in any event.

On examination, though, is it really the case?  Consider the counter-evidence.

1) Seth/Eirika paired ending.  "[They] were wed, with the blessings of Ephraim and all the Knights of Renais.  The tale... became a beloved romance in Renais."  Sounds like nobody objects, then.

2) Joshua and his ladies.  Both the ending with Natasha (his "perfect companion") and the one with Marisa indicate no hint of turmoil, and you might imagine that the citizens of Jehanna would be a wee bit leery of unconventional relationships.  Apparently not.

3) Innes/Vanessa.  All of it.  Not to mention their paired ending also states they "lived happily with the blessing of all around them."  And while Joshua might be pegged as a renegade royal who does things his own way, I don't recall any indication that Innes is a particularly oddball Prince of Frelia.  If anything, he's presented as the opposite, a royal heir who strives to fulfill the common expectation of what the role requires.  He's got no problem at all hooking up with one of his knights (even if we assume he doesn't marry her) and apparently no one else is bothered by it, either. 

In fact, the royal marriage that does cause public outcry is the union of Ephraim and L'Arachel, which "throws Rausten into turmoil" for whatever reason.  Interesting.  

World-building in Magvel being what it is, we know next to nothing about the marriages of any of the senior representatives of the royal houses. We don't know if Fado, Vigarde, and Hayden married nobles/clerics from their own courts, or foreigners, or perhaps members of their own retinue of knights[*].  As the game doesn't mention any of the royal heirs being closely related, it's not too likely that Fado married Hayden's sister (for example), but that's still within the realm of possibility.

But, aside from the situation of Carlyle and Ismaire-- a unique situation of a ruling queen with a dead husband and a missing son-- there's not really hard evidence that matches between royalty and commoners are forbidden.  In Ismaire's case, a second marriage could potentially result in a "king" of Jehanna whose progeny could break the line of descent from Jehanna's unnamed founder, so Carlyle's situation is especially problematic.  He's got more against him than just being a commoner, even if we assume (again) that second marriages are even allowed in Magvel.  As crimsonmorgans pointed out, they might not be.  We don't have positive evidence for second marriages being acceptable.
 
At any rate, while the marriage of Eliwood to either Fiora or Lyn in FE7 is stated to cause conflicts/uproar, we don't see anyone in Magvel throwing fits over Joshua bringing home a cleric from Grado, or even over Eirika going off to nowhere land to live with some dude in the mountains.  The only thing the public won't take, apparently, is L'Arachel Princess of Light taking the Restoration King as her husband.  (Again, interesting.)

So, what's up with all the objections raised in the Eirika/Seth supports?  Well, it could be a couple of things.  There could be a double standard for acceptable behavior in princes and acceptable behavior in princesses.  There might be a different standard of conduct in Renais, the nation with no female knights or generals, compared to Frelia.  Or the whole dynamic could say more about Seth and Eirika, their personalities and self-perceptions and fears, than about Renais in particular or Magvel in general.  Note the vast difference in tone between Eirika's supports with Seth and her supports with Forde.

I tend to think Seth's objections are coming from more of a personal level.  The way Eirika made him feel during their escape rattled his self-perception and some of his own core assumptions re: duty and social roles, and I don't think that can be underestimated.  He wasn't expecting that.  From the way he speaks of it in their A-support, it got to him deeply.  And if the great knight of Renais can feel that way for his princess, what else might be he capable of that he doesn't even know or expect?  Over the course of the war, Seth sees more than enough of the damage caused by obsessive love; he wouldn't want to even think about risking Eirika and everything else he values.  The cost, as seen in the antics of Orson, Carlyle, and Lyon, would simply be too great.  And Eirika, at least in the course of their conversation, does echo the objections as Seth defines them.

And then she marries him anyway.  Hmm...

* A fair possibility for Hayden, in any event, especially as royal women serve as Pegasus Knights.  

Comments

[raphiael]

I'm not sure Seth's other supports back that up. When Natasha brings up her vows, he's the one to protest with The Power Of Love, after all -

Seth: ... I'm sorry. I'm-- I'll be more direct. Sister Natasha... When this war is over would you...come live with me?
Natasha: Oh! But, Seth... I'm a cleric. I'm sworn never to...
Seth: I know you're a cleric. You've given your life over to a divine calling. But would the Everlasting not smile upon the love shared by its creations?

That. . . doesn't speak to a conservative man who thinks everyone should stay in their place, to me.

[crimsonmorgan.livejournal.com]

But royalty and clerics are not on the same level. I mean, it seems that there is no real taboo on nuns or monks deciding to marry (celibacy and staying single seems to be completely optional).

And the connection with royalty definitely would have a different standing with a knight. While royalty do not only stand above them, they also serve them directly. Clergy seems to be more on the same social level as knights. They often enough serve royalty as well. So it's not surprising that Seth would view those relationships as different.

[raphiael]

Er. . . but Natasha brought up a taboo, right there, in what I quoted. And she has serious hesitation in her supports with Joshua, as well. I'd say holy vows are probably at least as important as a knight's.

But Seth doesn't find it at all problematic if there's mutual love involved. So,. I think saying Seth holds true to social convention more than other characters doesn't really match up to what he does.

[crimsonmorgan.livejournal.com]

Eh, to me it reads more like she opted to take those vows of celibacy. I mean, if it weren't possible to "unvow" them, why would Seth continue? If it were impossible, him "pressuring" her would be worth nothing. I think the seriousness of the holy vows and the knightly vows heavily depend on the person who took them.

Also, Seth can hold to some social conventions more than others, can't he? This special set of values regarding the treatment of royalty and his image as a knight are especially important to him, which was probably drilled into him from his birth. He is a knight before anything else. Marrying a nun (or priestess? I can't remember) wouldn't particularly change his self-image and his reputation. Marrying the princess? Probably not compatible with his view of what a knight is.

[raphiael]

Mm, I don't know. It doesn't really make sense to me that Seth would cling to a social issue that no other knight (including two knights from families who have been in service to Renais -- Forde and Franz's father was a loyal knight) in Renais cares about, according to their ending, and then totally disregard Natasha's vows. Especially when the other underling/royal couples in the game have absolutely no qualms about it.

It just doesn't fit together in the least, to me, and ends up feeling like piling oppression onto a pairing when there's honestly no need for it. The personal explanation fits a lot better than there being some kind of concrete social taboo that every other character conveniently breaks.

[crimsonmorgan.livejournal.com]

But are Franz and Forde from a long line of knights? It seems like Seth seems to be something like the "old money" of the knights, while Franz&Forde might be "new money". So to speak. That said, if their father/family has different values than Seth´s, of course they would turn out different. And maybe Franz&Forde´s family are much more liberal (I mean, just compare Forde and Seth. While both are loyal, they go very differently about it). Well, I do think it makes sense that some are more progressive than others. Some people cling to traditions that are outdated.

I definitely agree that it's no general taboo anymore. So many things prove that those taboo were done away with (maybe not too long ago, if some people still cling to it, but at least a few generations). It's definitely Seth´s personal values that get in the way.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

It seems like Seth seems to be something like the "old money" of the knights, while Franz&Forde might be "new money".

Could be, but that seems to be a bit too much going into headcanon for my liking, at least when it comes to evaluating the actual game text (as opposed to writing a 'fic). It's piling one assumption (a traditional devaluation of holy women and their vows as opposed to princesses and their virtue) on top of another (his background makes Seth a deeply conservative man) on top of another assumption (re: Forde and Franz) and I think that's where we get into trouble.

And after looking over the Seth/Natasha supports, which I hadn't read in yonks, I'm not seeing the "deeply conservative knight" in them, either.

Besides, the traditional virtuous knight would go to great lengths to defend the chastity of a holy woman. If we're going to be evaluating knightly behavior in FE based on standard Western tradition (something I don't necessarily think we should do, though it's done quite often in meta), then Seth is stepping very outside the ideal in his Natasha supports.

Which might actually be the point, IF that sort of white-knight is what IS was aiming for.

[crimsonmorgan.livejournal.com]

That understandable.

However, I don't see why believing that Seth might have different value standards/rules for one group of people than for another seems to meet such opposition. I mean, if we put it into more modern words, Fado/Eirika/Ephraim are his boss. Natasha is, well, a co-worker. So he wouldn't treat her the same as E&E.

Is it so unbelievable that he would held more conservative values in one area of his life and more liberal in another? (Especially since Natasha is the only priest who brings up celibacy and as far as we know it might be a Grado-only thing while the other countries have done away with it)

[raphiael]

Personally, I'm not sure that's a stance I'd want to saddle on Seth. Saying he's "conservative" for his own values, but not about Natasha's, doesn't that really say "my vows are important, but yours aren't because I don't care about them?" It's pretty clear Natasha's vows are a huge concern for her, after all, and if you cling to Seth wanting to keep knightly code no matter what and being okay with other things going by the wayside. . .

. . . well, it kind of comes out with him becoming an inconsiderate dick who doesn't care about his partners' wishes more than the game suggests, IMO.

[crimsonmorgan.livejournal.com]

In general, I find it pretty normal that one holds oneself to a different set of morales, but that's neither here nor there.

And idk if her vows are such a huge concern. They come up there for the first time and if Seth grew up with a completely different view on holy vows, then yeah, this was a misunderstanding and he assumed wrongly. That said, I do think that it is true that Seth cares more about his own views and values than those of his partner. After all, Eirika didn't seem to see much of a problem with being close to him until he said something. So yes, I believe his values make a big part of his self-image and he needs a kick to the head some time to see that he is wrong. (Which I believe he learns between his Eirika A support and the end. Not sure about his ending with Natasha, though)

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Is it so unbelievable that he would held more conservative values in one area of his life and more liberal in another?

Mm. You could make it work in a 'fic, but it seems like a pretty elaborate explanation relying on a lot of assumptions, not least what's "liberal" and "conservative" across Magvel, and the more complicated an explanation gets, I think the less likely it is that the game writers intended any such thing.

Whereas the interpretation darkunlimited suggested below, a simple attempt to evade heartbreak because their situation is just that dangerous, is a lot more elegant and satisfying from a dramatic sense.

I mean, basically these are all game characters with a couple of key traits and maybe a few extra nuances, so after a certain point deep analysis of them as people breaks down. And then I find myself asking the question, "Well, what was Character X intended to represent"? Is Seth intended to be taken at face value as a "perfect" specimen of knighthood, or is he a person with very human impulses who's been saddled with this mythical reputation, and who even struggles with it a bit?

I find the latter more appealing and dramatically satisfying, FWIW. I can definitely relate to that version of Seth.

[crimsonmorgan.livejournal.com]

I was actually wondering if I was already putting much more thought into it than the developers.

And after thinking more about it (during the ride on the bus. Riding the bus is very good for meta-ing), I think that an relatively easy explanation would be that both Seth and Natasha used their vows as some sort of excuse and protection. Starting a relationship with your "boss" is something Seth doesn't seem to think as right and proper so he hides behind his vows. And Natasha isn't wholly comfortable with starting a relationship with someone from Renais, and the general at that.

That said, I like both theories :P