I shall not reply to Collvan Solwelume; his barbaric use of arms to
address a simple newspost speaks for itself. Nor shall I adress the
writings of Enero La'Saet, who seems to think that an insult and a
logical argument are one and the same. Instead, I shall speak of the
posts written by Ecclesiar Amnrisi for, unlike his peers, he has managed
to construct a coherent, if flawed, objection in defense of the New
Celestian rebellion.

The practice of passing rulership of a nation from parent to child dates
back to antiquity. In the days in which it was established, death was
much more final than it is in these enlightened times. If a ruler died,
they could not be taken to a nexus to be revived, nor could they be
raised using sacramental rituals. They most assuredly could not prepare
a defense, such as vitae or lichdom, to restore them directly after they
die. Such things were simply not yet discovered by mortals.

As a result, death once meant a otherwise perfectly fit ruler could not
rule and, necessarily, had to be replaced by a suitable successor. In
the modern age, this is not the case. Means of reversing death are found
in every nation and Vitae is sold in every marketplace. Almost everyone
has, at some point in their existence, been dead and subsequently
revived. It is clearly not something that should disqualify a person
from office or being a proper ruler, or else the entirety of the Star
Council and the Princess of Celest would need to be removed from their
respective positions and replaced with rank novices who have yet to die
on a hunting trip or military campaign.

It is my hope that the reader can discern the flaws with refusing to
allow those who have died and reversed their deaths to rule and come to
the correct conclusion about the truth of the Imperial succession and
come to serve the Empire and the Engine of Transformation, as is fitting
and proper.


Penned by my hand on the 8th of Avechary, in the year 205 CE.