Consent means voluntary allowance of what is planned or done by another. It
does not mean active support. It does mean the absense of resistance.

Its not a question of overturning a regent. Its a matter of lots of
"nusiance" random events, esp rebellion and bandits, and those which suggest
a discontented peasantry. While no single difficulty is a real problem,
they add up and weaken the regent. Consider how in Shakespear (very period)
unable or illegitimate kings (Richard II, Henry IV, Richard III) have alot
of bad luck, and their throne seems shaky. Henry IV was an able man, and
his usupation replaced an obviously inferior king (Richard II). But
Hentry's throne was never seccure (lots of diversionary random events
draining away his resouerces). Henry V, though decended from a usurper, was
himself legitimate and very able, hence good fortune was his hallmark. And
so on.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

- -----Original Message-----
From: Whalejudge@aol.com
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - peasent uprising [was --I recant (sort of)]


>I disagree with the notion BR deals with governments based on consent. The
>rule of a BR regent is based on blooded power--consent and support of the
>peasantry is useful but not necessary. Ghoere's peasantry lack the power
to
>take the land away from the Baron. While they might very well support a
new
>ruler, a regent does not need their consent.
>************************************************* **************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>