Romanos I Lekapenos was technically a usurper to the ERE throne, but he never made a move against Constantine VII of the Macedonian dynasty. However, when his eldest and most talented son, Christopher, died unexpectedly in 931 AD, Romanos placed Constantine VII ahead of his younger sons, Stephen, Constantine and Theophylact (who was later made Patriarch). This led to his overthrow by Stephen and Constantine in 944, and their overthrow by partisans of the Macedonian dynasty.
This leads me to my three questions:
1. Why didn't Stephen and Constantine move sooner?
2. Why, in the 24 years of Romanos' rule, didn't Constantine VII try to claim the throne for himself?
2. If Christopher Lekapenos was all that was holding together Romanos' initial plans for the succession, if he doesn't die, could he have held onto power once Romanos died, or would he have fallen to the intrigues of his brothers and/or the people of Constantinople?
This leads me to my three questions:
1. Why didn't Stephen and Constantine move sooner?
2. Why, in the 24 years of Romanos' rule, didn't Constantine VII try to claim the throne for himself?
2. If Christopher Lekapenos was all that was holding together Romanos' initial plans for the succession, if he doesn't die, could he have held onto power once Romanos died, or would he have fallen to the intrigues of his brothers and/or the people of Constantinople?