It was like she was reciting a lesson, or she was some kind of brainwashed propaganda machine for Minitrue.
As I’ve never read 1984, this made little sense to me, but I think I got the gist of it.
Well, since this isn't the actual story, I can actually
explain now. You're not the first person to ask about Minitrue--one of my betas did too.
Minitrue is short for "The Ministry of Truth," which in Orwell's world is actually in charge of spreading propaganda (lies). There is also Miniluv, or "The Ministry of Love," which is in charge of hate (the main character gets tortured in the Ministry of Love), and Miniplen, or "The Ministry of Plenty," which is in charge of the food and often makes people go hungry for no reason.
I always took it from the show that Clark was the blood heir to the monarchy and Zara was the ruler consort, especially since he seemed to more take command aboard the ship than she did. It’s interesting to see a different take on it.
I had originally intended to write it that way, but then the part about having to get married didn't make sense. After all, there's usually nothing "wrong" with an unmarried king, at least until he's reigned for too long without an heir, right? Whereas, unmarried queens are anywhere from asked to commanded to marry before they can rule--Queen Elizabeth of England being an exception, I think. (British FoLCs, please correct me if I'm wrong!)
Just curious - why her 31st birthday?
Honestly, because I wanted to make the situation seem a little more urgent--but not too much more. I figure Zara is a year or two younger than Clark, which would put her at about 29 or 30. Plus, it gives her an excuse to have ruled alone before then--because she wasn't required to have a consort.
Then again, women are usually told that it's dangerous to have children after the age of forty (or they were the last time I heard about it--which was before my brother was born 13 years ago, I think), so I figured it would be a "down to the wire"-type thing.
If a female Kryptonian ruler had not married before the first year of her third decade was over (less than ten years before forty), and therefore not yet produced any legitimate heirs, they would be required to marry post-haste, to get with the baby-making. Does that make sense?
