Manually changing realm name

[vonGenf]

Close. The city of Donghaiwei seceded from Morek to form Xinhai. Later when Xinhai had expanded and recovered all the territory that the pld Morek had, and more, Tom granted their request and manually changed their name to Morek Empire. He would not let them use the prior name verbatim, having them make a small change.

Also, this was done months after the original Morek went down. I agree it should not be made quickly, and ping-ponging is to be avoided.

I would also add the the custom titles are perfect for this. His Majesty Leopold Arrakis, the King of Niselur, Ruler of Iashalur.

[dustole]

After Donghaiwei and Springdale seceded from Morek it was left with just Nifelhold.  Someone sacked Nifelhold, I think it was Summerdale.  While their army was attacking Allison showed up and joined in on the looting.  I RP'ed looting the realm seals and a banner or two. 

Before any of this even happened I had e-mailed Tom to ask him if this would be acceptable.  He said if there was good RP reason for it he would do it, but not the exact same name.  It was months later before we actually changed the name.  When I looted the seals and banners of Old Morek I wasn't the ruler of Xinhai.  I didn't change the name until later when I became ruler.  When I wrote to Tom about the name change he told me no.  I had to dig through my e-mails and send him the copy of his original e-mail telling me he would do it.  Then I had to say "pretty, pretty please"   

[Vellos]

I dislike doing realm changes.

You didn't refound Niselur. You could have: you could have seceded with Gaston, fought a war, conquered Iashalur, and had Niselur. You didn't. You chose to rebel and take control of Iashalur.

I very much like the idea of making a custom title, "King of Niselur, King of [Realm Name]"

Claim to be King of a United Monarchy, or claim to be king of multiple domains. Acquire copious titles. Go read the full titles of Medieval monarchs for more examples.

[Arrakis]

There was an option where such secession was possible, but it didn't happen. Duke of Gaston, who didn't support Leopold, joined the loyalists and then lost all his titles when the rebellion was done. If he had remained neutral he would get a chance to either realign to Astrum, or make some sort of an arrangement with myself where he'd get to keep Iashalur and I could've seceded Darfix and recreated Niselur which would give us a nice little civil war.

Going the way you suggest (with secession and stuff) didn't really make sense to Leopold. At all. I would've done it if IC events played out differently but they haven't. I doubt it would make sense to any real medieval noble either. Why would a King try to break up his realm and then conquer it back again, when already all of his Kingdom answers to him? In real life, the King would just rename his land the way he wants it, however, we are limited by game mechanics in BM, which is why I plead to Tom to see whether he'd be willing to do it. Pretty pretty please :D

[egamma]

I like the title change thing--why not simply change your title?

[Penchant]

I like the title change thing--why not simply change your title?

He can't. He can change it from king to supreme chancellor to whatever, but he can't change what it is of. It will always state of Iashalur. I support the name change, but I agree there should be some signs of stability before allowing it to prevent the ping-ponging. I also agree it shouldn't be the exact name. There have been recreations of realms in the past, but never did they use the exact name (That I know of anyways).

[Indirik]

If you win the rebellion, you're the ruler, so you can't secede.

Also, I think one of Tom's objection to name changes is that names are important. You don't just up and change the name of a country. If you can find adequate historical precedence, then that may help convince him. I know we've had this discussion on the forums before. I don't think anyone ever really did come up with good examples of countries just up and changing their names. (I could be wrong, though.)

[Penchant]

If you win the rebellion, you're the ruler, so you can't secede.

Also, I think one of Tom's objection to name changes is that names are important. You don't just up and change the name of a country. If you can find adequate historical precedence, then that may help convince him. I know we've had this discussion on the forums before. I don't think anyone ever really did come up with good examples of countries just up and changing their names. (I could be wrong, though.)

I have even better history to base it off, BM history. He did it once when it was stable and their was roleplay reason to do so, why not allow it now after there are clear signs of stability?

[Indirik]

I didn't say I didn't agree it could be done, with good enough basis, and certain conditions. But it depends on whether or not Tom thinks it's good. Historical basis will help your arguments.

[Penchant]

I didn't say I didn't agree it could be done, with good enough basis, and certain conditions. But it depends on whether or not Tom thinks it's good. Historical basis will help your arguments.

I know, its more of a general statement to those opposing it, but I guess its not very clearly implied that way.

[Draco Tanos]

Niselu(r)ric King of Iashalur

[Psyche]

Assassin's Guild also became Assassins, in BM.

As for name changed in real medieval times, it did happen..  Like when the Kingdom of the Franks divided, and West Francia became know as the Kingdom of France during the Capetian Dynasty.  Or, for the best example would be the Holy Roman Empire, in either incarnation.  In fact, the HRE named such because of the lands it possessed and the declaration that they we're a continuation of the Western Roman Empire.

Given some stability over time, some penalties for name changes, since it's not like he's conquered so much more land and forming a new empire, I don't see it as too far fetched to see his kingdom name being changed to reference his past kingdom.  Heck, Otto I took the name of Charlemagne's HRE when he felt like it, just like Charlemagne more or less did when he declared himself such after the western empire.
Let him have have his old cake, but give him some belly ache to let him and others know that it doesn't digest well.

[Geronus]

There is ample historical reason for this name change. I should know. I was involved in it from the beginning.

When the original Niselur (which was indeed founded by Boreal Arrakis) collapsed, Rowan Geronus prevailed upon Turin (Boreal having committed suicide or some such) and several other high profile refugees from Niselur to come to Astrum instead of Morek or Corsanctum. In return for joining Astrum and helping it expand (not to mention fight off monsters), Rowan promised to grant them the Duchy of Gaston from which to recreate Niselur and reclaim holy Darfix. Most of the refugees thus ended up settling in Astrum. However, the bargain I made with them was explicit - it was always about refounding Niselur and reclaiming Darfix in the name of Sanguis Astroism. The Niselurians called themselves the Exiles. They remained a distinct faction within Astrum for RL years. Eventually we did expand into Gaston and Turin was named Duke. I convinced him to stay part of Astrum until such a time as his Duchy was well populated and he had built up a respectable level of infrastructure. Turin was patient enough to agree to this common sense proposal.

Gaston eventually did secede, though later than planned thanks to the war with Averoth. Turin chose to name it Iashalur, but again, it was explicitly meant to be the second coming of old Niselur. It was not its own project; it was always tied to the history of the Kingdom that came before it. I think that renaming it to Niselur would be perfectly fitting. I have a feeling even Turin would accept it, since that's exactly what he worked toward for so many years.

Of course Rowan would not approve at all of what Leopold is doing now, as it's him who's the interloper and usurper at this point (after all he never lifted a finger to make Iashalur happen, nor did he endure the long exile), but that's another matter. I'd say that as long as the politics are given time to settle and it's clear that Leopold ends up being widely accepted as the King, the name change could be made with plenty and more historical RP reasons for doing so.

[Indirik]

I definitely agree that there is IG RP that would be more than adequate to support the change.

[Lorgan]

Niselu(r)ric King of Iashalur

I think we all know the correct term is Niselurian.