The Commoner King/Queen Motif

[3113]

Writing topic here. I'd like to discuss the pros/cons of the motif of the commoner who learns they're heir to the throne. Now this doesn't just have to literally be squire who pulls the sword from the stone (meaning the magic something decided he ought to be king); it can also be the boy who lives under the stairs who finds out he's a magician, the orphan who learns he's the long-lost son of famous parents, the beggar who is the distant cousin and only living heir to a fortune, etc.

The obvious appeal of this motif is: (1) It fulfills that fantasy that we're special and people shouldn't treat us badly because maybe we're really the long lost king/queen. (2) It goes along with that desire in us for our rulers to be folk like us. People who've worked hard like us, who enjoy fast food like us, who understand us, rather than snobby elites who never had to work a day in their lives. (3) It is a "win the lottery" story and we all want to win the lottery.

Those are the benefits that a reader gets from the story. But what about a writer? What are the benefits and detriments of going for "long-lost" heirs to the throne stories? I want to discuss the problems with it as well as the usefulness of it.

I'd also like to distinguish it from the Horatio Alger myth where if one works hard and saves up ones pennies, one can become a millionaire or president. The long-lost king/queen motif says that so long as you've worked hard at anything--milking cows, scrubbing floors--you get to rule the land. Not that you get the rule the land because you've worked hard at learning how to rule the land. So in this motif, the poor kid gets a scholarship from a secret benefactor just because he's a good kid, not because he's super talented and won the coveted scholarship on merit. Harry Potter, after all, doesn't get to go to magic school because he's worked hard to be a good magician.

What do you think of this creaky old (but still very popular) story idea? Where the common farm boy/girl, out of sheer luck and happenstance, learns that he is the long-lost ___________ (fill in the blank).

 

[oggbashan]

In England at least, the heir to the throne is one known to the Court and Parliament. If the heir is unsuitable, the next in line would be chosen.

An unknown heir is implausible if not impossible.

There have been pretenders to the throne, who claimed to be legitimate heirs, but becoming King/Queen depends on the support of armed forces and the consent of Parliament.

Harold, killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, became King by acclamation of the people (and the nobility who were far more important). Although Duke William of Normandy among others had a claim to the throne of England, what really mattered was that Harold was the acceptable heir.

For most of her childhood Queen Elizabeth 1 was not considered as a potential heir and was even declared to be a bastard, not the daughter of Henry VIII. Her accession was unexpected until shortly before she became Queen.

Parliament can and has offered the throne to unlikely heirs such as William and Mary - because they were Protestant and a Catholic King was unwelcome.

Unknown heirs to the throne are the stuff of fairy tales, but if you want to write a fairy tale, or to consider 'What if?' then why not? The closest real life unknown heir was actually William, Duke of Normandy, who openly admitted that he was a bastard son of the previous Duke. William became Duke because there was no better candidate.

 

[3113]

What do you think as a writer of fiction, not a historian?

Unknown heirs to the throne are the stuff of fairy tales

Gosh. Is it? I had no idea. Oh...wait. Yes, I did, as I mentioned Harry Potter

Fascinating as all this history is, Ogg, it has nothing to do with the question because the question is about ("Helloooo!") a fictional/fairytale motif. And remember what I said, it doesn't *literally* have to refer to the long lost heir to the throne. It can also refer to stories where some commoner inherits a fortune or some other title (French Marquis? German Baron?) from some distant, unknown cousin. And I think you'll find that THAT is probable and maybe even has happened.

It is, however, the motif we're discussing here, not it's probability or historical reality. As a writer, not a historian, what do you think of this motif in any fiction, fairytales included?

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, I use that motif. Most recently, one of my pen name authors, Dirk Hessian, used it as the center of two books, Prophecy of Noto and Labryinth.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Terry Pratchett has ironically alluded to this motif, among others, in his Witches of Lancre arc. He maintains that stories tell people, not the other way around. Tolkien also mentions the idea when Bilbo talks about the uncommon luck of youngest sons. It's a wish fulfillment dream that helped the down-trodden commoners get through life in a world dominated by rapacious warlords and grasping merchants. "Ability is irrelevant, my child, only luck matters and there is no accounting for luck. It probably won't happen to you . . . but it might!"

A more modern example might be Charlotte's Web. Wilbur is totally useless. Even bright third graders realize this and complain that all he does is cry and faint but everybody takes care of him. It's luck, not worth, that's important. And we all know about The Lady. She's the goddess that you never name because if she hears you, she'll leave. She's the one-in-a-million chance but as Conan the Barbarian snarls, she's all the others, too.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Ogg, perhaps that is why so much historical fiction uses everything from dukes to barons in this theme, and ignores the king. Regency romances are full of this.

It can be done well; a good chunk of the show Downton Abbey centers around what happens when the heir is lost (in the sinking of the Titanic, in that case), and an unknown relative inherits the entailment. The writers of that show, however, managed to include numerous secondary plot lines, ranging from gender imbalances and roles to some classic upstairs/downstairs servant stories to the tension surrounding the separation of the entailment from the money.

3113, I would add a fourth reason: people don't like reading about people who have it all, perhaps because readers always interpret them as spoiled silver-spoon offspring. Who wants to read about a good little boy who knows from day one he will be king/marquis/a rich landowner, behaves himself throughout his entire youthful existence, never wants for anything, marries a perfectly acceptable mate, and has a long if somewhat staid existence?

You can write about the person who is born to lead, but these stories always have a hero who rejects his destiny and wanders the world until he finds himself/has some sort of epiphany/wins an epic battle (see: Aragon). Or who marries someone unacceptable (see: Cinderella). Or he has a mid-life crisis, or his parents never loved him, or his parents died early and he went to live with evil relatives, etc.

As happens whenever these cliches come up, I find I admire writers who are able to take a well-used approach and make it fresh.

 

[3113]

Yes, I use that motif. Most recently, one of my pen name authors, Dirk Hessian, used it as the center of two books, Prophecy of Noto and Labryinth.

Okay. You use it. But why do you use it? As a writer, what benefits does it offer for the story you're creating?

 

[sr71plt]

Okay. You use it. But why do you use it? As a writer, what benefits does it offer for the story you're creating?

Uh, because it's a natural motif that resonates with readers?

Writers are prone to not realize that readers like to read in comfort zones of the familiar as much as they like to be surprised.

This is why in my mysteries I often don't try to trick the reader. I let them figure out who did it but, perhaps, not why--or that there's another element of the story that is more significant than the mystery. They like to feel that they're clever enough to figure it out. My "mystery" part then becomes some other element of the story.

Such motifs become classics because they resonate with readers. I see no reason not to take advantage of that.

 

[3113]

I would add a fourth reason: people don't like reading about people who have it all, perhaps because readers always interpret them as spoiled silver-spoon offspring.

And yet everyone wants to read up on Prince William and know his story, don't they? The one who is "to the manor born" can be equally fascinating. Shakespeare did a pretty good job with Prince Hal, and there are certainly fairytales where the hero on a quest is a prince not a commoner.

So it's not out of the realm of possibility for us writers to use the kid who grows up in a castle and knows that one day he'll take over the family business from dad. Readers are not totally averse to that. Yet writers tend to go for the commoner and often go to extremes on that score. If the writer goes total fantasy-fairytale with this motif, then the long lost heir is often a farm boy--he's not even middle class. There must be something in the literal rag-to-riches that we, as writers, find useful. But I also wonder if it doesn't, equally cause problems for writer and story that we tend to ignore.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

And yet everyone wants to read up on Prince William and know his story, don't they? The one who is "to the manor born" can be equally fascinating. Shakespeare did a pretty good job with Prince Hal, and there are certainly fairytales where the hero on a quest is a prince not a commoner.

Perhaps. But how much of that is really "rooting for" him versus some sort of schadenfreude anticipation? Besides, he definitely has the tragic parental death/messed up extended family thing going for him, which I included as exceptions.

Or you can be J.K. Rowling and mix all of these.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've been reading Diana Wynne Jones who did lovely versions of this motif, and also lovely subversions of it.

In"Howl's Moving Castle," Sophie has a stepmother and two stepsisters. She expects to be the cinderella, and does everything she can to help her stepsisters be successful and beautiful and loved-- but in fact, they move ahead because of their own innate qualities, as does Sophie-- and the stepmother loves all three girls enormously and will do anything she can for them even when she could be helping herself. She moves ahead once the three girls are settled.

Sophie also is upset that she's the eldest, since everyone knows that it's the youngest child that has the adventures... until she runs afoul of the Witch of the wastelands (IIR) and suddenly becomes the eldest in a much more literal way.

It's a lovely, lovely read.

I for one have zero interest in Prince William and family. I much prefer stories about people who rise or descend in station, and their struggles to remake themselves accordingly...

 

[TxRad]

I've done two "I won the lottery" stories. Both were similar but different as the main characters were similar but different. Yeah, what if, plays a big part in both. What if you got all that money and what would the consequences be? Both the pro ones and the cons. All of which are good food for thought and plot lines.

The readers seem to like both but I'm going to have to come up with something completely different if i use the same "motif" again.

 

[3113]

Perhaps. But how much of that is really "rooting for" him versus some sort of schadenfreude anticipation?

Good question, and you might be very right there.

Besides, he definitely has the tragic parental death/messed up extended family thing going for him, which I included as exceptions.

Well, but I don't think those should be exceptions if we're discussing this motif. I mean, both the commoner-with-the-birthmark and the prince get the throne the same way, right? Luck. They happen to be the heir to the throne. So the difference between writing a story with one rather than the other is simply the status of our heir in society, not whether our heir had a tragic life or not.

What I'm saying is, I think we can agree that no reader wants to read a story of, as you said, the guy who has it all, gets it all, "the end." That goes for the farm lad who is happy on the farm and marries his sweetheart and has domestic bliss as much as it is for the good prince. The issue here is that readers and writers seem to preferring the farm lad getting the crown compared to the prince. Both have story possibilities; so why go for the farm lad? Or, as with Downton Abbey, why not a middle-class lawyer? (which I think worked very well).

It's not an all or nothing question. I'm not asking why they don't want the has-it-all prince vs. the has-nothing farmboy, that's obvious. But for us writers, who have the choice to really create as interesting princes as we do farmboys, why pick the farmboy? Excepting the obvious--sr7's "it resonates with readers"--are there any writerly advantages? And what about the disadvantages? Are there any?

I much prefer stories about people who rise or descend in station, and their struggles to remake themselves accordingly...

But that's Horatio Alger, which I'm excluding (talking about exclusions ). It's a no brainer, I think, that the boy raised in a log cabin who goes through all sorts of trial and tribulations, educating himself, fighting against the odds to finally wear the stovepipe hat is a great story. But the squire who pulls the sword from the stone and gets the crown just because some magical item pointed him out...what is so good about that? Like I said, Harry Potter doesn't do anything. One day, Hagridd shows up and says, "You're a wizard, you've got lots of money, you're famous, and you're going to a special school."

Yet writers and readers do like such stories. Advantages? Disadvantages?

 

[Stella_Omega]

... But that's Horatio Alger, which I'm excluding (talking about exclusions )....

No, not the Horatio Alger story.

My interest in the sudden change story is what happens right after the change. The one where someone suddenly becomes King or suddenly becomes powerless and then has to figure out how to behave and get along.

In romance, it's the one who suddenly becomes loved. In my erotica stories, it's the one who never thought they were desirable, and suddenly finds themself with a Perfect (or not) lover.

As a matter of fact, that's a common theme in your erotica stories, 3113. In fact, sudden good fortune--sexually, romantically, socially-- is probably a defining motif in every fiction genre.

 

[oggbashan]

Quote from Ernest Bramah's Kai Lung books:

“It is a mark of insincerity of purpose to spend one's time in looking for the sacred Emperor in the low-class tea shops."

One example of obscurity to fame is the identification of the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quote from Ernest Bramah's Kai Lung books:

“It is a mark of insincerity of purpose to spend one's time in looking for the sacred Emperor in the low-class tea shops."

One example of obscurity to fame is the identification of the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.

I adore Bramah, and I confess- I only learned about him from Dorothy Sayer's habit of having her characters quote him.

But real life examples aren't the topic sweets, we're talking about the literary motif.

 

[talismania]

I guess I like it because it's interesting to me. How the child who was not raised to be a ruler/privileged aristocrat handle the news? If a boy was raised to think he would never be more than a pigkeeper suddenly learns he's expected to be a king, he's facing quite an education, not to mention all sorts of problems. Kings usually have people who want to do them in. Or the kid is expected to enter an arranged marriage (good for the kingdom) and she probably won't think a lot of him. Etc. The goose girl who finds out she's a princess might be a princess, but she's also a laughingstock, unequipped for her new role. That's fun territory to explore.

I think a person who undergoes an abrupt change in social class (up or down) is like Alice in Wonderland, or being dropped into a completely alien society. The world can turn into a mad, confusing place. There's lots of fun stuff in that for writer to explore.

 

[Weird Harold]

The issue here is that readers and writers seem to preferring the farm lad getting the crown compared to the prince. Both have story possibilities; so why go for the farm lad?

The Farm boy/street urchin becoming King/Prince or the King/Prince becoming a farm boy/street urchin -- either direction works -- because of contrast and conflict. Someone born to wealth and privelege doesn't contrast to the setting of the Rich and Priveleged, but they provide a wealth of contrast and conflict in any other setting.

The contrast also provides the author with a means of commentary on the setting he drops his contrasting viewpoint into -- or the setting he drew the contrasting character from or both.

One element a successful story needs is Conflict -- some obstacle or impediment to overcome -- or so say conventional literary educators.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I want to know why we still obsess, if that's the right word (it probably isn't) over the Fortuna aspect of it. I may just have to read Howl's Moving Castle though I find that Stella's synopsis of it makes me irritated at Sophie. She falls for the story and expects it to run her life? Granny Weatherwax would be furious.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I want to know why we still obsess, if that's the right word (it probably isn't) over the Fortuna aspect of it. I may just have to read Howl's Moving Castle though I find that Stella's synopsis of it makes me irritated at Sophie. She falls for the story and expects it to run her life? Granny Weatherwax would be furious.

Diana Wynne Jones wrote young adult and upper-grade children's books. Sophie is a child who grows up.

 

[3113]

I guess I like it because it's interesting to me. How the child who was not raised to be a ruler/privileged aristocrat handle the news? If a boy was raised to think he would never be more than a pigkeeper suddenly learns he's expected to be a king, he's facing quite an education, not to mention all sorts of problems....I think a person who undergoes an abrupt change in social class (up or down) is like Alice in Wonderland, or being dropped into a completely alien society. The world can turn into a mad, confusing place. There's lots of fun stuff in that for writer to explore.

That seems to be Stella's point and it's a good one. Stories are certainly about "the day the universe" changed and in some cases the bigger the change the better.

The Farm boy/street urchin becoming King/Prince or the King/Prince becoming a farm boy/street urchin -- either direction works -- because of contrast and conflict. Someone born to wealth and privelege doesn't contrast to the setting of the Rich and Priveleged, but they provide a wealth of contrast and conflict in any other setting.

Another good point, in tune with what tailsmania said. Yes, a good contrast opens the door for plenty of fun writing.

But what about the disadvantages? Is there a downside for the writer in picking such an extreme change and contrast?

As a matter of fact, that's a common theme in your erotica stories, 3113. In fact, sudden good fortune--sexually, romantically, socially-- is probably a defining motif in every fiction genre.

Oh, Touché! But then again, I've never had any story where a guy is milking the cows and a girl shows up saying, "Hello, I'm the girl of your dreams. I'm glad I've finally found you. Let's marry."

Okay, so sudden good fortune, like sudden bad fortune, is the way we write stories. We toss these things in front of characters and see how they deal. But surely there are disadvantages to the very extreme "good luck" device of making the one true heir to the throne a pig farmer? Especially as compared to say, a short story about a pig farmer having the good luck of getting laid and finding a woman who wants to help him smoke hams?

 

[sr71plt]

Why are you pushing for innate disadvantages of using the motif? It's neutral. A good story isn't controlled by the center motif; it's controlled by what the writer does with it.

 

[3113]

Why are you pushing for innate disadvantages of using the motif?

I'm asking, dear sr7, because so far everyone's pointed out only the advantages to this sudden change/contrast. I'm wondering if there are only advantages to it, or if there are stumbling blocks as well. If there's not, that's fine. If there are, I'd like to know what most people think they are.

And while the concept itself might be neutral, writers can say, "I've done this and I found it gave me these problems," or, as Tailsmania did, "I've done this and it offered me these particular advantages," as when she listed how many fun opportunities the idea offered.

If you've found it neither good nor bad, but neutral, then I'll take that as your answer to both sides of my question. Thank you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That seems to be Stella's point and it's a good one. Stories are certainly about "the day the universe" changed and in some cases the bigger the change the better.


Another good point, in tune with what tailsmania said. Yes, a good contrast opens the door for plenty of fun writing.

But what about the disadvantages? Is there a downside for the writer in picking such an extreme change and contrast?


Oh, Touché! But then again, I've never had any story where a guy is milking the cows and a girl shows up saying, "Hello, I'm the girl of your dreams. I'm glad I've finally found you. Let's marry."

Are you kidding? I've written it! And so have most romance writers one way or another.

Okay, so sudden good fortune, like sudden bad fortune, is the way we write stories. We toss these things in front of characters and see how they deal. But surely there are disadvantages to the very extreme "good luck" device of making the one true heir to the throne a pig farmer? Especially as compared to say, a short story about a pig farmer having the good luck of getting laid and finding a woman who wants to help him smoke hams?

Well, aside from the "it's been done" aspect... And it certainly has been done and done and done.

And perhaps in this particular iteration of "Otemporaomores" there's some sincere resentment on the part of the ex-middle-class who have watched their ships not quite come in.
You might want to spend some time making sure he catches the audience's sympathies first, else some readers might want to throw the book at a wall out of envy for the hero's extreme good fortune.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm asking, dear sr7, because so far everyone's pointed out only the advantages to this sudden change/contrast. I'm wondering if there are only advantages to it, or if there are stumbling blocks as well. If there's not, that's fine. If there are, I'd like to know what most people think they are.

And while the concept itself might be neutral, writers can say, "I've done this and I found it gave me these problems," or, as Tailsmania did, "I've done this and it offered me these particular advantages," as when she listed how many fun opportunities the idea offered.

If you've found it neither good nor bad, but neutral, then I'll take that as your answer to both sides of my question. Thank you.

Oh, OK, I'll go back to actually writing.