He knows that there's an evil roaming the land, revived from of old. He also knows that he's been taken for a warlock because he can fight it.
Meanwhile, intrigue abounds. The king might not have the right to the throne, after what that evil revealed. Unfortunately, neither do most of his heirs, by the same rule -- if enforced. Of course, from their point of view, just because you dethrone him for it doesn't mean you have to heed it after. (From his point of view, at least the conflict keeps them from hunting for him too intensively. He knew they wouldn't help anyway.)
Now, the question is, how much of this do I show from other points of view, and how much do I have filter through to him second hand? Both would be legitimate writing techniques, though they would produce different stories. In one it's the hero's story, and the politics and battles are the backdrop to his struggles. In the other it's a grand sweeping tale -- more or less -- of the country and those who would ruin it and the one who would save it.
And the first one requires juggling gossip and talebearers, and the other requires juggling points of view.