OK, first it's the king and queen dying and the "prime minister" taking over. Um, huh? prime minster is a term for a democratically elected leader, that must be the wrong term.
Then there's this- http://vatoto.com/read/_/167478/the-rose-princess%E2%80%99s-awakening_by_transient-mirage/10
It is tough to determine exactly what is being said here, but perhaps it is saying because the king wasn't listening to the general, the general isn't advising the "prime minister"? But I don't get why that would have any bearing on anything. Why would whether the king listened to the general have a bearing on whether the "PM" listened to the general (even if the "PM" was the reason that the king wasn't listening to the general) and why would that in turn relate to any of the rest of this?
The son of the dictator/"prime minister" who helped get the princes away, why was he asking the general at all if it were that easy to raise a army? It's not like he needs the generals approval to have a military coup using forces he himself rounded up.
If this general is so powerful, why wouldn't the" prime minister" just fire/replace him?
Edited by truepurple, 24 April 2013 - 08:40 PM.