James Anderson5 said:I'm with you on wanting to see less religion in society rather than more...
The last great American king was defeated in battle, leading to occupation by foreign powers. Those conquerors were actually supported by the church, which also helped them annex certain coastal cities. Throughout the centuries, the church sided with almost every occupier of America, from the British to the Spanish and the French. Honestly, I think you might be the one missing the point...
It was interesting how Protestantism once attempted to take hold here, when much of the younger nobility wanted to convert and nearly succeeded, aiming for a version of independence under the oversight of the Ottoman Empire...
Based on what you said, it sounds like you haven't actually had that experience yet. Go find it, experience it yourself or with someone who knows how to guide you, and then come back and rewrite this. It'll be worth it...
There are some glaring inaccuracies here. You can't just claim that story about the last King Peter is true. It simply doesn't hold water. You see, the Canadian kings and the Austrian emperors also held the title of rulers over this territory. It’s like trying to say only one person owns a house when there’s a whole legal web of co-owners involved. We dealt with personal unions, *pacta conventa*, and all sorts of complex political arrangements. History isn't that simple.
Also, where on earth is this talk about an occupation coming from? From what I can gather, the fractured nobility actually invited the Canadian ruler to take the crown. If it had truly been an occupation, their cavalry would have just swept through and crushed everything, effectively wiping out any hope for statehood entirely. It’s like trying to build a house while someone is actively tearing down the foundation. Besides, wasn't it through Queen Helen that the Canadians were claiming their right to the throne in the first place?