First of all, these two statements are mutually incompatible.
Second of all, they're both false.
Sorry, terminology mixup.
"Luria" does not exist as an entity capable of holding claim. It's a very loose geographical/cultural/historical reference and descriptor. "Luria" can't hold a claim any more than "Democracy" can hold a claim or "Puerto Rican-ness" can hold a claim. That's what I mean by "does not exist," i.e. "does not exist as a an agent capable of holding a claim."
On D'Hara: D'Hara is definitely a Lurian realm. A majority of their nobles are Lurian in origin for one thing. They're just the most factionalist faction of Luria.
I didn't say they were an illegal realm. I said they were illegally occupying Lurian territory.
Fair enough: except it's not legally Lurian territory under any definition of legal other than "Alanna asserts it is illegal."
There has been a Lurian Empire of one form or another for most of the time since the founding of Shadovar.
Norman England did not inherit the claims on Denmark that Saxon England held. Later England did not inherit the Norman claims on Normandy (at least not directly, only via separate marriages, by which means they also got Aquitaine). "a Lurian Empire," in order to hold onto claims, would need to be THE Lurian Empire. Or else at least be recognized as such by other legal agents, namely, other realms. I doubt you'll find many realms willing to legally recognize Luria Nova as synonymous with the Lurian Empire as synonymous with the Askileon-based ceremonial Pianian Empire as synonymous with older times when Pian en Luries was the whole area. Maybe if you trick some realms, but nobody will do it if they realize what they're saying. That would be like saying Madinan rulers who show up, or their kids, or their third cousins thrice removed's designated heirs elevated adventurer's best friend, could claim Golden Farrow.
The fact that there was sporadically an empire that got maybe some recognition (but probably not) as such by legitimacy-conferring agents and it happened to be culturally Lurian does not mean that they inherited claim. China has tried to claim ownership to several territories based on Ming and Qing dynasty claims: and every time they've tried this, it's been greeted with the legal equivalent of giggles. Same as when Malaysia tried to cite claim to Pedra Brance based on a sultanate from the 1500's. Just because there's a legal state YOU see as the inheritor doesn't mean it IS if everyone ELSE involved in those contracts didn't also think so: and where multiple states are concerned, that means both parties must agree.
Until her disappearance and the usurpation of the Lurian throne by Koli Bedwyr, Alanna was the Empress of that Empire. In the time since then, things have gotten slightly more murky, but there's a reasonable claim to be made (IMNSHO) that Alanna never officially lost the position of Empress—and that her selection as Imperial Chancellor during the formation of...I forget, maybe the Third Empire? legitimizes her claim to all that she oversaw during that time.
Third Empire. Case closed. Not the same. Is Alanna currently Queen of Pian en Luries/Empress of Pian en Luries? Was she ever not that? My thought is the answers are no and yes, respectively. If either of my expected answers are correct, she lost claim. You can't just drop off and pick up claims to lands. Also, the fact that she was selected as Chancellor weakens her claim if anything: the Empress of Pian en Luries should not allow herself to be made Chancellor of the empire of which she is Empress. If she was actually Empress, she would be recognized as such. The fact that she was not selected as such proves that these were non-contiguous entities with different legal bases, thus do not automatically inherit institutional claims (again, it's different for personal claims, like Solari's claim to Solaria, but ya'll have suggsested these are institutional, not personal, claims).
Luria is not any one realm. A realm can be founded by a Lurian, and not be Lurian. (And vice versa, at least in theory.) Luria is a culture and an Empire. In order for a realm to truly be Lurian, it must have a clear chain of fealty to the Lurian Crown—which is, at present, held by Queen Alice Arundel, the first Monarch since the usurpation that Alanna really recognizes as legitimate.
Neat idea, but not true. Again, let's be clear. I'm not saying that Alanna can't assert that this is true. But it's a misrepresentation of history, and totally at odds with any definition of legal claim ever used anywhere. Other monarcsh besides Alice have governed, and have done so with recognition by Luria's lords, and have asserted legal rights, and have exercised them, and have been recognized legally by the only people who can confer legitimacy in a pre-social contract era: other rulers. Alanna may regard Fulco (wasn't he before Alice? I forget) as having been a pretender, but Alanna can't be blamed, because she's a befuddled old lady Fulco was clearly legitimate, clearly exercised sovereignty, and, actually, he also asserted Lurian claim on D'Haran lands. So again: there HAVE been legitimate Lurian monarchs (in every sense of the word legitimate) not recognized as such as Alanna. The only way to refute that is to suggest that legitimacy is merely synonymous with Alanna's approval. Perhaps Luria believes that. My feeling is that isn't the case, however. If so, awesome: ya'll go for it, that's a neat RP story to tell. But, again, it's eccentric and atypical, and not at all remotely like what anyone would mean when they talk about legitimate claims.
Nonsense is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. Particularly when you're talking about legalities: they only ever make sense in the context of a given legal framework. Attempting to link them to any other legal framework, real or imagined, in order to either prove or disprove their legitimacy, is far more nonsensical.
No, it's not nonsensical to assess what is asserted as a legitimate claim by the only generally accepted standards of legitimacy. You can assert other sources of legitimacy. But ACTUAL legitimacy is merely a measure of what OTHER people will accept. Maybe BM generally has very different ideas of legitimacy: but international law in RL is not informed by super weird unintuitive things. It's basically intuitive. And actually, IMNSHO, BM is a great case study in international relations theory demonstrating that international law basically develops naturally.
That much I can confirm. I'm not sure exactly who first made the claim IC, though. When it was first brought up, I was pleasantly surprised at its inventiveness and coherence. I'd basically forgotten about Shadovar.
The story I heard is that Bedwyr saw starvation in D'Hara, and invented an NPC grandmother in an estate in Raviel, claiming she was high Shadovarian gentry forced into poverty by Katayanna's usurpations. She died of starvation in one of D'hara's periodic famines, and conferred all former Shadovarian claims to Bedwyr, and thence to whoever is representing the Bedwyr household.
My understanding is based on IC things I've been told, so could be erroneous. But I loved the idea of fabricating a starved NPC grandmother as a source for what's now become, in Dwilight time, a decade-long feud.
PS- I really like arguing about claims law.
