I never comment but I am here to defend the politics of this series. While it might seem dumb to us nowadays as it's obvious to us that the people are the ones keeping the monarch in power and that the monarch/aristocrats should've known to atleast placate the commoners.
It was actually the norm/common sense of the past that the commoners are essentially property of the ruling class (Serfdom etc) due to a myriad of justifications (birth right / divine rule, etc). So the fact that many of the aristocrats in this story just CAN'T FATHOM that maybe commoners should have a say in governance is completely realistic.
Here's is a famous instance of this case, King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland tried for Tyranny, Treason and Murder by the English High Court of Justice. The whole defense of King Charles I was essentially boiled down to: "What lawful authority has brought me here (to be tried)". And King Charles was 100% right, the law is derived from the King, and the king is the nation. So there is no legal way to charge the king for a crime, especially not the commoners. Even if you believe that King Charles is an evil bastard, there is still no legal way for him to be charged with any crimes.
https://youtu.be/EDJwRUrK5ew
https://youtu.be/OPDpj59kkgk
Do some extrapolation from the political climate of 15th century England and it would be completely logical for the aristocrats to think the way they do.
And also taxes in a pre-modern society isn't just cash, it also included grains, artisan goods, etc so it is quite a catchall term.
last edited at Jan 1, 2022 3:59AM