True. Most of the Irish kingdoms did have a reasonable degree of establishment/legitimacy though, and like most lines of monarchs there were some he genuinely cared about defending and protecting their people and others who were power-hungry dicks.

I don't think it would work that way; the Presidency is a job you hold for 4-8 years, and then don't hold any more. Not to mention that there's never really been a strong cultural belief that the power of the Presidency resides in the blood or that the position holds any mystical significance. A President is just an ordinary politician.

Part of the mystical significance of monarchy comes from the long connection between the royal family, the land, and the people. The idea that swords must be used by royalty stems from the belief in the Sacred King, which has been around for a long time in one form or another and seems pretty universally widespread.

I expect that you could probably fudge it a bit when it came to definitions of monarchy. At the very least, I would think that the rulers of independent principalities, duchies, etc. would also be qualified to use a sword. Possibly any ruler who had a hereditary system in place.

Vaguely disturbing thought of the day; if being a descendent of the head of any hereditary state with a quasi-mystical set of beliefs centered around the ruler would qualify for using a sword, that would mean Kim Jong-Il would be qualified to become a Knight of the Cross.

 

He's qualified by blood, but based on his actions as ruler he likely wouldn't be able to actually wield one. It takes more than blood to pick up a Sword. You also need to be a "good" person.

 

I'm still waiting for somebody to be related to King Solomon.

And I'd have to agree with a certain amount of clergy positioning being important to the idea of a King (or their heir) who would wield one of the three swords. This isn't a problem for most notable Kings though. One of the surest ways to keep/take control of a people is to put yourself at their head of their beliefs.

And I personally like the flair of the Swords being tied to a bloodline. It's all very metaphorical. The Nails from the Cross, bloodied on Christ himself, a king among men for his worshipers, and now the blood of another such king is what grants one the ability to effectively defend the innocent with the sword. Besides, there were enough Kings in the past that there's a damn good chance of a relation being in most people's past. I mean, I've got a bit of the old Russian Tsar in me.

And if Butcher wants somebody to take up a sword, he's the author, he gets to say who has whom in their family tree.

 

Don't interrupt my stream of thought with your "facts" and "logic" when I want to see a crazy North Korean dictator swinging around Excalibur.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

You may be waiting for Solomon's heir, but I'm waiting for Bush's. If there is a president with royal blood, it must be Goerge W. Bush.

 

Say David, and it's not going to happen unless Butcher plans on the Messiah being a Wielder. Basically the Jewish "myth" or "belief" is that the Messiah is a descendant of David. Unless Dresden pulls a fast one and says "I'm God" it's too late for that sort of massive reveal.

Dude, don't hurt yourself trolling too hard and ineptly.

 

Not sure what trolling is sense I have been to this website. I can understand that some of my original posts could be taken that way becauase people disagreed pretty heavily, but complete sarcasm can hardly be taken as trolling.

I was just trying to point out the family ties between presidents, because Lincoln was already mentioned and because I agreed with the fact that presidents didn't have the royalty aspect going for them.

---------- Post automerged at 05:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 AM ----------

What are you trying to say Oliver? Exile didn't say Dresden was going to wield a sword. The whole point of the swords so far is that they are passed to decendants of kings or the faithful.

I guess I don't understand how you're correlating Dresden giving the sword to a decendants of Solomon, and him being the Messiah.

 

Unless that turns out to be bullshit in the Dresdenverse. Not all myths can be true.

Would a descendant of Ghengis Khan be Sword-worthy? I know there are quite a few of them around.

Also, if the Carpenters are descended from Charlemagne, they're related to Christopher Lee... albeit very distantly. And that's pretty cool.

 

Wait ... does that mean Christopher Lee has the hereditary qualifications to be a Knight of the Cross? :awesome

And thus, the trifecta of "crazy random suggestions for Knights of the Cross that were recently mentioned on DLP" was completed. Maybe it's the fact that I've gotten about two hours of sleep in the last two days, but a Crack Fic about Kim Jong-Il, Pinkie Pie, and Christopher Lee running around as the three Knights of the Cross sounds like it would be the most insane yet potentially awesome thing ever.

 

Very true, but when has Butcher put a lot of credence in Jewish tradition over Christian.

 

To be fair, a lot of Christian tradition is Jewish in origin. The Old Testament and the Jewish Masoretic Text overlap in a lot of ways. Plus, Jim hasn't exactly been faithful to the Bible in his stories, what with free will being the ultimate source of conflict between Heaven and Hell, rather than any type of moral understanding.

 

True. However you'd think he still follows a mostly Christian view of the White god. His mortal knights are given swords with the nails of crucifixion wrought into them. Now I know Christ was a prophet in Jewish tradition but still... Almost all of his undertones in the books lean more Christian in there telling.

I've never perused Jewish writings, as I've always be told they are pretty much the Old Testament (though I've never really read through that either) and looking back that's pretty foolish of me. But still the 30 silver pieces given to Judas to betray Jesus is New Testament, and that is what creates the Swords greatest Antagonist, the Denarians.

Clearly, Jim only really uses pieces of mythology that he can shape and use to his advantage as a writer, and if he finds something from any religious tradition that he thinks would work in the stories and just be an awesome monster/plot/magical whatnot, then he will use it. I only think that he will stick more to the Christian line because it is what he knows.

 

Or, you know, he could be aiming for an epic conflict of Good versus Evil and Chrisitianity lends itself pretty well to that. Besides, it's not like he hasn't gone for other sources as well; the Fae, the Red Court, White Court Succubi/Incubi, Odin, the Erlking. None of those have Christian origins yet they still play a huge role in the series.

You guys just need to relax and enjoy a good story, no matter the religious connotations. Just remember It's Not Real.

 

XD I was pointing out an entertaining plot hole, but apparently it's srs bsns, was pointing out something I thought was entertaining is all

 

*CoughLastParagraphOfMyLastPostCough* I agree completely. And I do like the idea of Dresden paralleling the story of Merlin. That would be a nice tie-in.

Side question- does the power of a wizard grow through experience, like building muscle? Or does it only evolve to a point while the wizard matures? I only ask because from the Dresden RPG you can keep the power level on a steady rise, but in the books it sounded like a wizard's power (self contained power, not power from other sources or foci) is finite.

 

Raw power is finite, at least as long as you don't tap outside sources, but experience and skill keep going up as the Wizard matures. There's a reason the White Council is a gerontocracy, after all.