I don't really know a lot about power would transition from a conquered ruler to the conqueror, but assuming that the king of the conquered nation survived the war, what would be done with him? Would he be put to the sword as a general course? Be allowed to live out his life in exhile? Considering how closely related certain rulers tended to be, both in terms of blood, and their status amongst the commoners, would he be allowed to retain some measure of power under the new king?
Follow-up question, what would typically happen to their known relatives?
Follow-up question on a similar concept that bleeds into 19thc:
I was introduced to the story of Duleep Singh through last year's Assassin's Creed Syndicate and did some rudimentary reading about him afterwards. Indian history is not a subject I am familiar with at all, but as I understand it, he was made Maharajah of the Sikh empire very young (with his mother regent) and was deposed by the English by the age of ten, and after that seems to have been a lavishly well treated political hostage –– isolated, exiled, kept from his mother, kept from contact with others, converted to Christianity. Along those lines, was it common for the English to so thoroughly attempt to "convert" a deposed leader? Is that kind of action unique to his age, or the ages of other young leaders? (Does he even count as a leader, if he was ruling only under a regent and was disconnected from his culture so young?) Was there any sort of historical precedent for this kind of behavior, or is it unique to colonial takeovers?
Similarly, what do the "common people" of these nations think of their former ruler? If he's not allowed to even speak to his people, is there some sort of image of compliance being fed to the public, or does he vanish from the public's perception almost entirely? What's the consequence of said former ruler's attempts to circumvent this –– is he ever at any actual risk if he went too far?