In the fatherland, there sits what used to be a cathedral. Within the ruins there sits a cellar door under some stones. It leads to the plague catacombs. Each of the bodies, skeletons, and rats down there are able to kill you, even in death. Or, at the very least, infect you and let you kill your fellow man. However, at the end of one of the halls sits a room with a heavily rusted metal bar door. Behind this sits a skeleton in the long ruined robes of a noble. Any place that looks like it had writing has been stricken, with one exception.

"Here he sits, may he never be remembered."

Well, it worked. The disgraced prince's name is forgotten. His lineage is disgraced. Even his crimes don't linger in the minds of the descendants of the inflicted. Who was this man? What had he done in life to deserve a fate worse than death? The death of his legacy.

Rumors and speculation are abound. Some ideas are just a bit more solid then others.

One popular among the citizens of Oakshire, which sits just next to that ruined cathedral, is that he was the Butcher of the Forest. The Butcher was a man in the twelve hundreds that reportedly killed over two hundred travelers in the woods around the cathedral. A warlord led a mob one day and burned down the woods until they found and slaughtered him. The town's people believe that the disgraced prince was actually the Butcher, and when his father found out, he threw this stain on his royal line into the infected catacombs and struck his name from everything he could.

Small problems with this theory include that the bones are reportedly a hundred years younger then the reported death of the Butcher. Also, these same bones showed signs of osteoporosis. Someone suffering from those conditions couldn't have possibly killed even a dozen people without at least showing signs of breaking, much less into the triple digits. It's practically a story told around a campfire at this point.

On the broader spectrum there are two popular theories among historians.

First sits the theory that the prince was the "Prince of Pestilence" mentioned in a few small letters between members of the court and a brief mention in one book by some monk. Who was the prince?Basically, in history that bringer of disease went on a pilgrimage to the holy city. He went despite the plague surrounding the land of our lord. He went with his entourage and returned with no incident. Well, almost no incident. His personal servant had fallen to the disease. That was about it though. The prince returned home for a few days, saying he felt enlightened, before traveling to other courts. Well, that servant should have been a sign. The prince was a carrier, yet he was immune to the symptoms. It took about three years for this prince to be discovered. After this all mentions of him are gone save a letter, a court official reminding the clergymen to make sure the cathedral was sealed off to prevent the plague's escape.

Historians who believe this theory have stated they believe that this prince was locked away in the catacombs to die with those he unintentionally killed and had his true name stricken from the records. This is supported by the position of the skeleton, which wasn't laid down. Instead it was crouched in a corner, hunched over. Also remains the fact that this disease was spread around the time that the prince died.

There are a few problems with this idea though. First is the fact that "Prince of Pestilence" was probably just a title, not the birthright. If this is the case, then that can't be the disgraced prince. Also remains the fact that there is no confirmation if the spreader of this disease was even caught. Some evidence points to the fact they may have actually been a monk who left for the unknown lands, still not knowing what he carried. Also, the few writings mentioning the bringer of disease contradict each other quite heavily on some points. Only the court royal's letter supports the locked away theory, but barely even when extended. After all, it could simply just be an order to assure another outbreak wouldn't occur.

Second theory states that the disgraced prince was the Prince Herbain, mentioned in the works of Father Anrico. In his collection of stories God's Forgotten, which was controversial at the time for talking about the dampened or fallen, tells the short story of Herbain. Herbain is said to have had an affair with his sister for several years before their father's uncle discovered them. The uncle reported them to the king, who ordered them both punished for their crimes. No one knows where the sister was sent, but the brother was sent to "the land of the dead." "Land of the dead," like catacombs. As well as the extremely taboo act for this royal family.

Again, a few issues though. These include the fact that the setting of this story is far outside of the fatherland. So far out, that not only one but several catacombs and mass graveyards are closer. Why use one not only so far away, but also infected with plague corpses? Also, once again, it is disputed that the body of that prince is a different unknown skeleton. One actually closer to where the story supposedly happened.

So yes, those are the current thoughts about the disgraced prince. We may never know why he sits within those dark catacombs. It will remain as the enigma it is, no clear answers. Just like the second skeleton that was on a noose in there. Oh? I forgot to mention that? How have historians missed that? Simple really.

I stole that one.

Call me what you want, but some secrets are best left buried in the past. The sooner you can accept that the sooner we can all move on. Besides, no one wants to remember the tale of the disgraced prince. Not anymore.