Jump to content

FE4 Plot Question


quasimopho13
 Share

Recommended Posts

Azmur (Valhalla's king) stated that Alvis will take the throne until Alvis has a child to succeed Azmur. Wasn't Azmur's point to keep Heim's bloodline as the ruling family via Alvis's marriage to Deidre? If that's the case, shouldn't Julia have ruled Valhalla instead of Julius since she carries the Heim bloodline?

Edited by quasimopho13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for one thing, considering that Deidre was not made the successor of Azmur in the first place and that Azmur specified a "son", I think it's probably save to say that Barhara usually doesn't accept female rulers.

Another issue is that the characters don't necessarily know which blood the children inherited since their is no guarantee that the markings will appear at an early age. They can appear at any point during their lifetime.

We also don't really know if there is a rule for the child with the holy blood to become the ruler in the first place but the fact that the ruling family of Augustria lost the holy blood over the generations while the cousins over at Nodion inherited the Major Holy blood while staying servant, implies that there probably isn't a rule.

Of course, as far as we know Julia might actually have been the next in line. I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Julius was in line before Julia, especially with the game trying to conceal her identity until the end of the game.

Edited by BrightBow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The son was definitely favored. There's also the bit where Julius goes a bit mad and tries to take out Julia when they were young and Levin takes care of her in exile ever since. With Seliph being first born of Dierdre anyway Julia never ever had a chance to be the inheritor of Valhalla unless you made use of the jealousy system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm guessing the reason Alvis couldn't keep ruling after having a son was that his son was born in Valhalla and Alvis wasn't? Otherwise, it seems weird that Azmur would make Alvis give up the throne upon having a child since nobility typically rules till death right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm guessing the reason Alvis couldn't keep ruling after having a son was that his son was born in Valhalla and Alvis wasn't? Otherwise, it seems weird that Azmur would make Alvis give up the throne upon having a child since nobility typically rules till death right?

Early FE games really don't go for child rulers like you see with, say, Sanaki. Arvis was supposed to basically be warming the throne until Julius-- the rightful heir as far as the anti-Sigurd people knew-- came of age. Seliph's existence was one monkey wrench in the plan and Julius being Satan was another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...