Jerry Friedman raises an interesting point.

The Index to PF says that Colonel Gusev, Duke of Rahl, is “still spry” and that Oleg was “Duke of Rahl” so they appear to have had the same title at the same time.

It wouldn’t be possible for both father and son to have the same title at the same time in the English system of titles of honour, but I couldn’t say what the position might be elsewhere - I think Russian titles might well be different in this respect and perhaps that is an explanation.

Barrie Akin

From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf Of Jerry Friedman
Sent: 10 April 2013 23:50
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] QUERY - In PF, why doesn't Charles II become King on Alfin's death?

Very interesting. I'd never noticed how odd the succession was in western European terms.

Is there an explanation for how Oleg could be Duke of Rahl while his father, Col. Gusev, the first Duke, was still alive?

Jerry Friedman

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Fet, Victor <fet@marshall.edu> wrote:

One does not need a special Zemblan law of succession – for instance, an old (“Petrine”) Russian law would suffice.

There, Peter I “the Great” abolished male-line primogeniture allowing each reigning emperor or empress to designate his or her successor.

Still under this law, Catherine II “the Great” in 1762 succeeded her husband Peter III after his murder (which she facilitated), and reigned until her death in 1796, only then succeeded by their son Paul I who was then 42 years old. (Paul's reign lasted for only five years, until he was in his turn assassinated by conspirators.)

It was Paul who changed this old law of succession to male-line primogeniture in 1797, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Laws

Victor Fet

From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf Of NABOKV-L, English
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:09 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: [NABOKV-L] QUERY - In PF, why doesn't Charles II become King on Alfin's death?

Barrie Akin writes:

I can't recall seeing anything on this small point of detail - and it may of course be insignificant, but...

Charles Xavier is born on July 5 1915.

Alfin the Vague dies in January 1919.

So why doesn't Charles become king at that time, rather than on Blenda's death? The text suggests that he does not. For example, see the index entries for Blenda and Charles II. Blenda appears to be queen in her own right. The only similar situation I can think of is the joint monarchy of William III and Mary II of England. On William's death Mary continued as queen in her own right, but that was a joint monarchy created in the aftermath of the English revolution of 1688.

Unless VN has created a special Zemblan law of succession for PF, you would surely expect Charles to have succeeded his father as heir apparent, albeit with a regency, on his father's death - the regency presumably enduring until Charles came of age.

But there is a reason why there can't have been a regency on Alfin's death, as Blenda appears to be Queen in her own right and in any event Charles becomes 21 on 5 July 1936, which would terminate the regency - assuming that he came of age at 21. There is no mention of any of this in PF itself.

This may all be rather footling and of no significance, but if anyone can shed light on it, I'd be grateful.