That's not an explanation, that's an excuse. A king giving a gift would give it directly, because to do otherwise would hurt his standing and would give a huge amount of power and influance to the noble he tasked to his job.Loran already explained it clearly. She is a kid and doesnt have the skills to handle the finances. The king assumed he had given the reward to someone who can be trusted to manage it but it looks like that person cant be trusted at all.
No one can intercept the messenger of a king... Even a high ranking noble could not, because he if did it would be the same as insulting the king or trying to steal the king's autority.Missing the point here. The king cannot micromanage everything. He may have sent a messenger as you said but unless that messenger is someone of a standing that can be compared to a royal, the lord of the land can intercept it and the messenger cannot do anything about it and the king would only get a notice that the money was given to the lord of the land and king wouldn't bat an eye about it because as I said, he cannot micromanage everything.
Wish ALL chapters end like this...That's a perfect way to end the chapter, no words needed
This cant happen. The kings cant give a reward he himself promised by ordering someone else to give his money.After some thinking... I think the whole affair went differently. No money was actually send, because it would be too much hassle. Instead, the local lord was ordered to allocate a portion of revenue earmarked for the crown to support the orphanage.
Righteous duty.MC soon going on a killing spree
You are too fixated on the reward/gift, but that's not what is happening.This cant happen. The kings cant give a reward he himself promised by ordering someone else to give his money.
There's no parallel with president and mayor, because the money the president and mayor use are the money of the country, which is the money of the people.
A king has his own tresury, and a noble also has his own different tresury. A king take taxes from the noble to run the country and do things with his own money.
A king who own someone a gift would not and can not ask a noble to give the reward. Not only would this undermine his own autority and his honor, but it would literaly put him in the debt of said noble.
It make no sense at all.
There's no hassle, kings were doing this all the time. Even Louis XIV who was renowed around the world and had people comming from everywhere to see him gave the gift by himself or by sending his personal men.
Doing this not only bolster his popularity, but even helped him reduce the authority of nobles.
Yeah, this make sense. If this is the king's territory he'll have someone manage it.while the real owner is the king. In such case the local lord will be king's man, rather than a political entity of its own.