This version of events has become the most widely accepted, since all other reports are even less satisfactory. That Fausta and Crispus could have plotted treason against Constantine is rejected by most historians, as they would have nothing to gain considering their positions as his favourites. In any case, such a case would not have been tried by a local court as Crispus' case clearly was. Another view suggests that Constantine killed Crispus because as a supposedly illegitimate son, he would cause a crisis in the order of succession to the throne. However, Constantine had kept him at his side for twenty years without any such decision. Constantine also had the authority to appoint his younger, legitimate sons as his heirs. Some reports claimed that Constantine was envious of the success of his son and afraid of him. This seems improbable, given that Constantine had twenty years of experience as emperor while Crispus was still a young "caesar". Similarly, there seems to be no evidence that Crispus had any ambitions to harm or displace his father.