This criminal conspiracy in my humble opinion answers a burning question: the banker has the money and the king borrows it, so the king gets indebted to the banker; but the king has the power, so why does not the king one fine day just kindly tell the banker, “You know what? I just ruled that my debt to you is history, magically cleared out of existence, and so will you if you ever mind to object.”? The credits of the banker, if not his neck as well, in order to survive, they must have a back−up providing suitable support. What back−up powerful enough to successfully stand its ground against the king and his rule there could be to support the banker?
The society, the king’s subjects in debt to a banker who threatened them to demand his credits back, if that banker were being plainly wiped out by the king, would they support him? Who would they side with, the king or the banker?
Or maybe some other king, maybe another king in debt with the banker as well? How would the other king respond when demanded by the banker to back him up against the debt clearing from first king by the threat of his own debt toward the banker? Who would the other king side, the banker or the first king?
Or mercenaries, perhaps? Let aside the feasibility due to the cost, and the liability to be overthrown by the impolite mercenaries, would kings allow him to build up a military force comparable to theirs, and if so, wouldn’t the circumstance be noticed in history, no matter how “history” is the “truth” written by winners?
When someone has force, is it better to have it as an ally or as an adversary?
Their plan is simple: one, the king wallet and his country’s wallet are now two quite separate entities; two, the king sees that the country squanders as much as possible, three, the squandered money is borrowed by the country and loaned by the banker, indebting citizens, not the king, to the banker and, four, it ends up as profit in the wallets of the king and the banker, now partners at the root of such shady dealings.