Travis Long & his lack of recognition

munroburton wrote:

wrlee1966 wrote:and I find it interesting that now that Prince Richard is dead that the heir should be princess Sophia. But if you look in House of steel you will see Edward dies in 1544 And his heir is his sister Elizabeth not Sophia. So the end of ACTA ended in 1543. So we should find out in the next book about this. I hope RFC remembered his continuity.

It's been noticed before. Princess Sophia almost certainly dies young.

Some people have suspicions about Elizabeth II Winton. A lot of people around her have died prematurely - not just the four royals ahead of her in the succession, but also her first husband. In a hunting accident.

Wonder if one of her middle names is Cersei.

In ACTA, Sophia and Roger II have at least the same death year. The worlds wonder if there was a tragic accident? Or a convenient one arranged by Axelrod. Or even more conveniently by a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer. Which resulted in all (most) of his associates being ... disfavored by the Crown. Perhaps up to the point of a few acts of attainder.

wrlee1966 wrote:and I find it interesting that now that Prince Richard is dead that the heir should be princess Sophia. But if you look in House of steel you will see Edward dies in 1544 And his heir is his sister Elizabeth not Sophia. So the end of ACTA ended in 1543. So we should find out in the next book about this. I hope RFC remembered his continuity.

munroburton wrote:It's been noticed before. Princess Sophia almost certainly dies young.

Some people have suspicions about Elizabeth II Winton. A lot of people around her have died prematurely - not just the four royals ahead of her in the succession, but also her first husband. In a hunting accident.

Wonder if one of her middle names is Cersei.

Fox2! wrote:In ACTA, Sophia and Roger II have at least the same death year. The worlds wonder if there was a tragic accident? Or a convenient one arranged by Axelrod. Or even more conveniently by a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer. Which resulted in all (most) of his associates being ... disfavored by the Crown. Perhaps up to the point of a few acts of attainder.

This is where we hit Spoiler Alert! status.
Call to Vengeance holds the answer.
And Fox2 is correct... partially.

Having read A Call to Vengeance and especially the last part I think I can say that my initial question was answered & that they were justified in withholding public recognition.
Furthermore, as the text points out Carlton Locatelli knew that it was unfair as he recognised Travis Long as one of the best officers in the Royal Manticoran Navy & he felt especially frustrated in being forced into a position where he had to withhold it; (AND that he had been looking for ways around it but had not managed to find any yet).
It also shows Carlton Locatelli in a different light both in this scene & also earlier when he told King Edward that the suggestion had come from Travis Long whom he described as;
'...He has a history of coming up with outside-the-lines ideas that pay off.'
Clearly he recognised Travis's qualities and abilities and was prepared to acknowledge it in a situation where it would not rub off onto his brother.