Fear vs. Consent: Power, Rulership, and Legitimacy in Our Vicious Oaths
The Thematic Claim: Legitimacy Is Earned, Not Inherited or Imposed
In Our Vicious Oaths, N.E. Davenport interrogates the foundations of legitimate rule by contrasting governance built on fear, coercion, and conquest with governance built on consent, partnership, and earned loyalty. The novel's central claim is that power secured through terror alone is fragile and ultimately illegitimate, while rule that incorporates genuine partnership—even when imperfect—offers a more sustainable foundation. Yet the narrative refuses a clean binary: even the most consensual arrangements are negotiated under threat of violence, and even the most brutal rulers claim legitimacy through prophecy, law, and tradition. The story asks not merely who holds power, but why anyone should obey them—and whether obedience given under duress can ever be called consent.
Coercion as the Default: Rishaud and Sylas
The novel opens by establishing coercion as the baseline of fae politics. In Chapter One, Kadeesha Mercier returns from a raid with severed heads, hoping to prove her worth and escape her arranged marriage to Rishaud Timmu. Her father, King Sylas, burns the heads and rebukes her for the mess, refusing to cancel the betrothal. The scene establishes that in the Aether Court, a daughter's military prowess counts for nothing against the political calculus of alliance-building.
The marriage negotiations dramatize the transactional nature of this power. Rishaud arrives with his retinue; all kneel. Sylas and Rishaud negotiate the contract—trade concessions, reduced tribute, military protection, a quadrupled dowry—while Kadeesha sits silently between them. She contemplates violence but restrains herself, knowing that any attack on Rishaud would bring retribution on her people. Her silence is not consent; it is the calculated suppression of resistance under threat.
Rishaud's legitimacy rests on conquest and the prophecy that Kadeesha will bear a son who will inherit a united Nimani. The prophecy serves as ideological cover for what is essentially a dynastic takeover. Kadeesha's own father participates in this subjugation, treating her as a bargaining chip. The novel thus establishes that the legitimacy of the Six Kingdoms is built on coercion dressed in tradition.
Malachi's Fear-Based Consolidation
Malachizrien Diamundis offers a different but related model of rule. In Chapter Eleven, he sits on the throne during his cousin Cassius's challenge, taking stock of which nobles listen too eagerly to his claims. He notes which lord primes rarely attend court but showed up for the challenge—a telltale sign of disloyalty. His response is to threaten execution for any lord prime who is unfaithful to the crown.
Malachi's consolidation of power in Chapter Twenty-Seven is brutal. He expands inquisitions, executes treasonous lord primes, and has their successors behead them in front of the assembly. He uses Court Law to legitimize these executions, noting that intra-bloodline offenses can be handled within the bloodline. The ceremony of naming new lord primes is meant to establish the foundation of the relationship between monarch and primes.
Yet the novel complicates Malachi's brutality. He has learned from Nychelle that rewarding loyalty is as mighty a tool as fear for a monarch to wield. He names Isiadora Diamundis as duke prime, offering her honor and position. He assesses whether the new assembly can be a collective force that bolsters his rule rather than nuisances he keeps in check. Malachi's rule is not purely terror-based; it incorporates reward and loyalty-building.
Still, the fear is never far beneath the surface. In Chapter Fifteen, when Kadeesha asks how Malachi is certain people will come before him, he answers that he is their king and has previously demonstrated the consequences of making him hunt anyone down. Kadeesha finally understands what Malachi being king means. His legitimacy is rooted in demonstrated violence.
The Partnership Alternative
The novel's most direct articulation of consent-based rule comes in Chapter Thirty-Seven, when Malachi offers Kadeesha a different future. He proposes that after killing Rishaud, she could truly rule beside him as the high queen of the Seven Kingdoms, and truly bear and raise their heir together. He points out that he could have killed her but hasn't, offering his inaction as proof of earnestness.
Kadeesha's response is telling. She asks what ruling together as true equals would look like, given that they don't always see eye to eye about his sometimes-brutal ways. The question cuts to the heart of the theme: can a ruler who governs through brutality offer genuine partnership? Or is the offer itself another form of manipulation?
The novel doesn't resolve this tension. Kadeesha's internal monologue reveals her uncertainty. She considers killing Malachi and ruling alone, leveraging the prophecy to force the vassal kings to accept a woman on the throne. But she also recognizes the possibility that he might be genuine. The pregnancy complicates everything: she carries his child, and Yashira warns that killing Malachi would force Kadeesha to become the ruthless, savage tyrant needed to protect the child.
Complexity and Contradiction
The novel refuses to present fear and consent as clean opposites. Several contradictions complicate the theme.
First, Kadeesha herself is willing to use violence. She brings severed heads to her father as proof of worth. She contemplates killing Rishaud and later considers killing Malachi. Her objection is not to violence per se but to being on the receiving end of coercion. The novel suggests that the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rule is not the absence of violence but the presence of agency.
Second, Malachi's offer of partnership is made from a position of overwhelming power. He can afford to offer equality because he holds all the cards. Yashira articulates this dynamic in Chapter Thirty-Three: anyone with influence or power among the fae courts is a playing piece on a war board. The choice is not between being a piece and being free, but between being a queen who is shifted around and becoming the game master yourself.
Third, the prophecy functions as both a legitimizing and delegitimizing force. Rishaud uses it to justify his claim on Kadeesha. Malachi's enemies use a different prophecy against him. Lord Omundiah, in Chapter Twenty-Seven, argues that the prophecy cannot be trusted because the clerics who delivered it may have been corrupted by Rishaud. The novel thus questions whether divine or prophetic sanction can ever ground legitimate rule, or whether it is always a tool of the powerful.
Symbols of Power
The novel's symbols reinforce this thematic complexity. Crowns appear throughout as contested objects—who wears them, who challenges for them, who kneels before them. The kongamatos, invisible mounts used for surveillance and attack, represent the military power that underlies all political authority. The markings of the Hyperion warrior class signal how hierarchy is inscribed on bodies. These symbols suggest that legitimacy is not abstract but material, enforced through visible and invisible means.
Study Questions
1. How does the novel contrast Rishaud's and Malachi's approaches to rulership?
Rishaud's legitimacy rests on conquest, prophecy, and the subjugation of other dominions. He forces the southern kings to kneel and treats Kadeesha as a bargaining chip. Malachi's rule is also fear-based—he executes disloyal lord primes and threatens decapitation—but he also learns from Nychelle that rewarding loyalty is as powerful as fear. He offers positions to loyal primes and, crucially, offers Kadeesha genuine partnership. The contrast suggests that while both rulers use violence, Malachi's willingness to incorporate consent and reward distinguishes his approach.
2. What does Kadeesha's silence during the marriage negotiations reveal about power?
Kadeesha's silence is not passive acceptance but calculated restraint. She contemplates violence but suppresses it because any attack on Rishaud would bring retribution on her people. Her silence reveals that power operates through threat as much as through action—the knowledge of consequences is what keeps her in place. It also shows that consent cannot exist under coercion; her silence is the absence of consent, not its presence.
3. How does Yashira's advice complicate the theme of consent-based rule?
Yashira tells Kadeesha that everyone with power is a playing piece on a war board, and the only real choice is to become the game master. This complicates the idea of consent-based rule by suggesting that partnership is always a strategic arrangement, not a moral ideal. Yashira also warns that if Kadeesha kills Malachi, she would have to become a brutal tyrant to protect her child—implying that legitimate rule may require violence, not its absence.
4. What role does the prophecy play in legitimizing or delegitimizing rule?
The prophecy that Kadeesha will bear a son who inherits a united Nimani is used by Rishaud to justify his marriage claim. Malachi's enemies use a different prophecy against him. Lord Omundiah argues that the clerics who delivered the prophecy may have been corrupted by Rishaud, suggesting that prophetic sanction is always suspect. The novel thus questions whether divine or prophetic claims can ground legitimate rule, or whether they are always tools of the powerful.
5. Does Malachi's offer of partnership represent genuine change or a strategic move?
The novel leaves this ambiguous. Malachi points to his inaction—he could have killed Kadeesha but didn't—as proof of earnestness. He offers her co-rulership and co-parenting. But the offer is made from a position of overwhelming power, and Kadeesha herself questions whether true equals is possible given his brutal ways. The ambiguity is deliberate: the novel suggests that legitimacy is not a fixed state but an ongoing negotiation, and that even genuine offers of partnership are shaped by the power dynamics in which they are made.