On 03Jul2023 1852, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml
list) wrote:
> Maybe not to you but it sure seems like the official line shows that
> a large number of folks enthusiastically supported Dulinor's twisted
>  rationale. I would've thought most would think, "Legal? Hell no,
> it's cold blooded murder!"! But, apparently, not in the 3I, where m
> pretty soon, everyone seems to have wanted to get in on the game.

If you look at the list of Emperors, a damned good number of them were
assassinated or died in 'accidents'. What makes Dulinor's effort stand
out is that 1) he wasn't a close member of the Imperial family and in
line of succession, 2) there was no major crisis at the time (unlike the
trigger for Plankwell's coup and the 'Barracks Emperors'), and 3) he was
a coward and fled after the deed rather than fight it out to either hold
the throne or die trying.

But, the act of assassination wasn't what made his move unusual. Given
the differences, especially that he did it in a time of relative peace
and fled to a power-base, it's not unreasonable that everything then
fell apart.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>