You're thinking too First World. The son of the king -- in his mind -- deserves to be the king because his father was king. Thus, #5 "I want my family's power back."

Nobles are just people. Pampered, entitled, extremely powerful people, but people nonetheless. Just because someone was born into the aristocracy doesn't mean they give a single toss about that. Half of them real world aristocracy, developed, developing, or third world, are trust fund kids that just want to get high, "lineage" be damned.

Whether this character 1. wants to be king 2. Feels like he deserves to be king 3. has the drive to see it through, or 4. has the social/economic capital to attempt a coup, are all dependent on the character and setting, not things to be taken for granted because he's deposed royalty. Assuming those things all hold true by default, is, ironically, first world thinking.

You're still thinking waaaayyy too First World.

Bruh, my family literally grew up with actual members of royalty from third world countries. Aristocrats are individuals, rooted in context. Using stock archetypes creates stale, unimaginative characters. A protagonist who wants to "reclaim the throne just because" is a trite premise thats been done a million times, and a character that will be flat, hard to relate to, generic, and boring.

And stating that people outside the "first world" mindlessly cling to hereditary power is foolish, culturally biased and ungrounded in fact. Its a crude stereotype that you'll never be able to support with data.

Yes, poor writers "Us(e) stock archetypes creates stale, unimaginative characters." Good writers use those archetypes as jump starts, because they don't have to explain base motivations to the reader. They then have more time to make the characters more rounded.

"And stating that people outside the "first world" mindlessly cling to hereditary power is foolish..." Look no further than how hard James fought to get his crown back. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England And up until Queen Elizabeth I, every time a king of England died without a male heir, there was a furious battle amongst every nobleman with even a shred of a hint of claim to the throne.

@ronjohn The key difference is that you're describing a stereotype. You've assumed that people in this position would tend towards attempts to reclaim it, and have excluded possibilities rooted in plot or personality as "too first world." If you're going to continue this assertion, you need to actually support it with something other than a caricature. Of the thousands of deposed nobles throughout history, what percentage of them have actively sought to regain their position? If this is such a given, you should be able to show this happens in the majority of similar, real world, scenarios.

Were I a historian with the time and resources to read up on every kingdom and tribal chieftan across the world since... well, since the beginning of humanity, and tally up all the deposed rulers and their descendants who fought to get their kingdoms back, you'd get your list. Were I even a historian of England (the Anglo-Saxon through the Tudors, who came to the throne via the "multiple claimants fighting for the crown" War of the Roses) with the time to work up that list, you'd get it in a month or two.

Cool story. Funny, that you can't get close to backing up your claim, but in five minutes I found that the majority of Japanese rulers abdicated the throne. "In Japanese history, abdication was used very often, and in fact occurred more often than death on the throne." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication The fact of the matter is that, then, as now, orientation towards rule is contextual. There is zero guarantee that someone from a deposed lineage would be particularly disposed towards reclaiming it. That depends on the world and characters. Which is my entire point.

#1 Who did the Japanese rulers abdicate to? #2 How old were they when they abdicated?

In essence, not only do you, admittedly, not have the evidence for your claim, what evidence we do have shows that mortal struggles for rule are far from a given. Your problem isn't assuming that some aristocrats would seek power just because. There are many who would. Your problem is establishing that as a baseline and dismissing other possibilities out of hand.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

"Let us continue this discussion in chat." To no useful end, since neither is going to convince the other.

Pessimistic. Find some evidence, and you might convince people. But a random assertion that folks outside the "first world" think a certain way gets no traction with me. Our art deserves better than stereotypes being used as cheap motivation.

All of these four answers are in-story plot answers to the question, not worldbuilding answers. They focus on potential details of the world that might happen to be true, not on any systemic force that would be generally true across any world experiencing this kind of crisis.

@SRM If they "focus on potential details of the world", that is a what makes them "worldbuilding answers".

@SRM a perfect example is (2). The systemic force you're looking for is the fact that the revolution was violent, and violent revolutions always have detractors. That is a reality which holds generally true across any context experiencing this crisis. Its systemic, not particular. That being said, whether its a better fit in this instance depends on how the OP built their world.

"Too First World"... What does Capitalism have to do with anything? We're talking Politics, not Economics. As for you "Until Queen Elizabeth I" bit: Cartimandua(AD 43 – c. 69), Boudica(AD 60), Queen Matilda(1141), Queen Magaret(1286 -1290)