Ponniyin Selvan Varalaatru Peravai

Evidence 4 :
It is quite interesting to note that Mathuranthaka either had no
issues or had some issues who could not come to power. T.V.S.
Pandarathar talks about certain 'Mathuranthaka" who was working as a
temple supervisor in Rajaraja's times and says that he was the son
of Uttama chola. I'm not sure whether his claim was based on any
evidences or not. Remember that even Rajendra had the name
madhuranthaka before he became a king.
Arumizhi was recognised as the heir apparent during uttama's time.
If uttama had children, they should have come to power either during
his own life time or after Rajaraja. But surprisingly, we find that
issues of Utttama chola are not even tracable very clearly - leave
alone the issue of coming to power.
It is difficult to accept that theory that Uttama did'nt have any
children - considering the fact that he had many wives - unless....
(You know what I mean :-))
Taking TVS theory that he had a son, why was he not given a very
high position or recognized in Rajaraja's times ? What happened to
the generations that followd ? At a much later date, we find that a
completely new breed of cholas (chalukya - cholas) were allowed to
regin the kingdom after athi rajendra. It is quite surprising that
the issues of Uttama chola could not make a headway into the royal
frontiers at all.
It somehow seems that the whole generation was disregarded - in
terms of power - since Rajaraja. Why did the generation did not
revolt ? After all, going by the chola practice - the crown belongs
to the generation of uttama more than arumozhi.
Was it true that Rajaraja and Rajendra completely overshadowed the
other branch by their sheer valour ? Or was it a deliberate attempt
to sideline the generation of Uttama who committed a henious crime
to sieze the throne ?