u/CHAtPATaA

Isn't Pandu more like a steward, than a king? Dhritarashtra was the elder brother and had the claim to the throne, but being blind, for the time being, the throne was ruled by Pandu. But with Pandu's passing and Dhritarashtra's son's coming of age, shouldn't the throne go back to the Kaurava line?

The Pandava line had the throne only when Dhritarastra couldn't be king, but with Duryodhana present, the throne should have gone back to him and not the Pandavas. I am speaking strictly on the claims to the throne, and not the deeds or actions done by the characters.

Also, wasn't the fetus or meat or whatever from which the Kauravas took birth still a result of Dhritarashtra and Gandhari, whereas the Pandavas' birth was the result of Kunti and someone else, not Pandu. So, wasn't Duryodhana's claim much stronger, speaking from a genealogical standpoint?

I was reading Ajaya by Anand Neelkantan, and it is said that Duryodhana's real name was Suyodhana.

The 'Dur' of Duryodhana was just a derogatory and slanderous prefix which meant 'One who is unable to wield arms or weapons', which was used by the Pandavas. If so, did those on Duryodhana's side refer to him as Suyodhana? Has everyone gone wrong with this?