Aragorn´s legitimacy

In sight of the lack of new threads in LOTR forum, i´m throwing some ideas i´ve been thinking on lately. The topic is clear: what is the true base for Aragorn´s legitimacy to Gondor´s crown and what does it mean.

Denethor hadn´t fallen in folly he wouldn´t admit Aragorn easily. He names him as this Ranger of the North. Is it only the pride of Denethor what leads him to reject the king-candidate? I don´t think so. It´s more than his pride. Arnor would be only a word in the recondite memory of Gondor´s people. Arthedain is nearer, but it was a very little kingdom, almost insignificant, and besides it had also disappeared... In Denethor words: a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity.

I think those were reasonable points to reject a eventual candidate of that dinasty. The Steward of Gondor had ruled the city and the kingdom as great lords and had kept much of its splendour in very adverse circumstances.

You may remember how even before the falling of Arthedain king Arvedui was rejected when he tried to unify the sceptre and the crown. I find that episode very interesting, because the basis of Arvedui´s claim were almost the same of Aragorn´s. He argued that Elendil was the head of Gondor´s kings´ dinasty though he committed the sothern realm to his sons keeping the High Kingdom from the North. Isildur did the same: he took the High Kingdom without relinquishing the crown, but committing the government of Gondor to his bro. The second point of the claim –being Arvedui the husband of the death king´s daughter- was refered to king´s daughters right to be heirs of the crown. Both arguments were rejected on legal basis by the Steward of Gondor. Daughters had no right to the crown neither in Gondor nor in Arnor, and the hereditary line didn´t pass any more through Isildur´s line since Anarion was succeeded by his son. I think the “committed but not relinquished� argument is a bit artificial. If it were true, Isildur should have committed Gondor to his son and not to Anarion.

I think that Gondor´s reply was well founded. The kinship with Isildur´s line was too far to be considered in a succeeding affaire in Arvedui´s time. Hence, in Aragorn´s time, the kinship was even more remote. However, Aragorn had another support: he was the last of Elendil´s line. Arvedui couldn´t say that, because in his times there were other members of the Royal Family in Gondor. It seems that Anarion´s line (even through daughters´ line) had been completely extinguished. That was a score for Aragorn, but was that enough to win the match? I don´t think so: it all would depend on who should reply his claim. His genealogic basis weren´t definitive. Had he had definitive genealogic basis, one of his sires since the rise of the Stewards should have claim to be the rightful heir of Gondor´s crown.

Then, why Aragorn did retake Arvedui´s claim? What have changed? I think that only the fulfillment of the prophecies could be considered as the answer to this question. Elrond had foretold that the sword will be reforged only when Isildur´s Bane will have appeared, and there was a general belief that tied the reforging of the sword with the return of the King. We can see that in Bilbo´s rhyme: the crownless again shall be king.

The arriving of Aragorn to Minas Tirith is marked with many prophetic signs: the paths of the death and the fulfillment of their oath; the trailing-plant crown over the head of king´s statue; the recognizing of the King´s healing hands and the needing of athelas...

It is the fulfillment of the prophecies what makes Aragorn´s claim inquestionable. My question now is what is Tolkien saying with his emphasys in the prophecies? IMHO he´s saying that the King´s legitimacy doesn´t come from a worldly source (be it dinastic or by people´s election), it comes from a divine source. The prophecies point to an overwhelming power beyond the mankind´s understanding; they´re a metaphor of the divine power.

Well, too tired to go on... |I Any thoughts, comments, attacks?

WOW.

That is the longest message I have ever seen on an ezboard.


: : :

That´s because you haven´t seen many Hernalt´s posts

Or freefall's (on the basher board).

Quaff Down Gin can do some pretty long ones in the Palantir forum too.

Geez, and now you're making the shortest posts instead of comments on Fat's!!

Let's not dabble in delusions of mediocrity!

(Don't worry Fat Middle. We're trying to find a doctor to answer your post.)

Do you mean it was a sick <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT="xo"> post?

No, FM - timely and articulate question. It'll take a historian like Martinez to give some feedback on the technicality of Aragorn accomplishing the previously unfavorable. I'm not big on post-Numenorean kings, and I sure as hell don't believe in the divine right of kings. Right, MacTusken?

You probably have all the data that might be on Steven Geard's site:
www.ozemail.com.au/~sdgeard/hccnum.html

We have to remember that Ken Starr wasn't around back then

Well, hm. "It'll take a historian like Martinez...." Thanks, Hernalt.

We just went through this in the news groups a week or two ago. I had to concede that Aragorn had inherited the RIGHT to rule both Arnor and Gondor. However, I don't think Aragorn could have asserted the right merely by showing up and announcing he was there to restore the House of Elendil to Gondor.

Aragorn's rights as the Heir of Elendil and the Heir of Isildur were not exactly identical. Isildur was the only king to rule both Arnor and Gondor directly (although there is some evidence that Elendil may have been involved in Gondor -- such as his conferring the title of "prince" upon Imrahil's ancestors). When Isildur died his lordship over the Dunedain of the North and of the South did not exactly die with him, but it sort of passed into a state of limbo. There were High Kings after Isildur but these kings appear to have little if any actual authority over Gondor, and when the sons of Earendur divided Arnor between them, the High Kingship was effectively ended forever (Aragorn did not become High King, but simply King of the Reunited Realm).

When Arvedui claimed the throne of Gondor he presented his claim as the Heir of Isildur first. The Council of Gondor (led then by the Steward Pelendur) rejected his claim, and that rejection effectively LEGALLY barred Isildur's line from reasserting their royalty in Gondor. But Arvedui responded by asserting his right as the Heir of Elendil, and this time the Council of Gondor made no response, effectively leaving open the issue of whether a northern Heir of Elendil could claim the throne.

The crown was then given to Earnil, the victorious captain who had led Gondor's armies in war and saved the kingdom. He was a male line descendant of Anarion but there is some question of whether he was the most senior male line descendant in his time. Tolkien seems to imply there were other members of the House of Anarion who were not as pure of blood as Earnil and his son Earnur.

It has been argued (though not convincingly in my opinion) that the royalty of Gondor persisted with the House of Anarion until that House was no more. By the time of the War of the Ring, it seems clear that there were no more descendants of Anarion (of the male line, at least) in Gondor. Hence, the argument goes, the royalty of Gondor reverted to the House of Isildur. But the Isildurians had been rejected by the Council of Gondor, so by Gondorian law they could not be kings. And yet the kingship belonged rightfully only to the House of Elendil. This is why the Stewards never took the kingship upon themselves. Tolkien says that some people still remembered the northern line and hoped that a king would come from it some day, so the Stewards could not have been anything more than usurpers if they had tried to take the throne for themselves.

Now, my feeling on the issue is that no matter what Aragorn's rights were, Gondor would not have accepted someone who hadn't led her armies in war. Earnil II had established that precedent. i.e., the status of being a victorious captain was sufficient to elevate his claim above all others.

Aragorn's appearance was foretold, by Malbeth at least. The ancient Seer had foreseen that an Heir of Isildur would return to command the Oathbreakers who had been cursed by Isildur. And the portents Fat Middle listed are legitimate. A definite sign of the return of Gondor's royalty was in the air, so to speak. But the choice to accept the king was still Gondor's.

When Aragorn's identity was made known to Boromir in Rivendell, Aragorn asked him if Gondor wished for the House of Elendil to return. Aragorn was later on careful to present himself as Elendil's Heir to the Rohirrim, and though he had to march through Gondor as the Heir of Isildur (to command the Dead), he displayed the "tokens of Elendil's house" (according to Eomer) in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

It has been pointed out that both Faramir and Imrahil acknowledged Aragorn as their rightful king after the battle. Of course, Imrahil knew by this time that Denethor was dead and that Aragorn had led a Gondorian army in battle. Aragorn would have satisfied all the previous criteria for claimants to the throne, except coming from the House of Anarion (Aragorn's descent from Firiel, daughter of King Ondoher, didn't qualify him for the kingship). Faramir awoke from a nightmarish coma or sleep induced by the Black Breath and immediately hailed Aragorn as king, though he knew nothing of how the battle had gone or his father's death.

In response to the point about Faramir, I note that the narrative says "a light of knowledge and love was kindled in his eyes". Faramir had already heard of Aragorn from Frodo, and he had had plenty of time to ponder all the signs. Sauron's war was going to be the final assault against Gondor -- who could understand this better than Faramir, who had been monitoring the passage of Gondor's enemies through Ithilien? If the House of Elendil was going to make a return, now was the time. And he seems to have been given a gift of knowledge and understanding (by Iluvatar or the Valar, it doesn't really matter).

I think Faramir's declaration was intuitive, and if he had made it while his father was alive it would have placed him squarely in defiance of his father.

The political situation in Gondor would have become tense, and Aragorn acknowledged this before he entered Minas Tirith. That was why he had his banner furled and he declared himself to be simply a captain of the Rangers of the North. Later, when Imrahil learned that Faramir was become Steward (from Gandalf, in front of the Houses of Healing), he asked who should rule the City, and if they shouldn't send for Aragorn. Once again Aragorn declined to assert his right, and he suggested that Imrahil should rule the City. Aragorn's stated purpose was to avoid strife among Sauron's enemies.

By the time the Army of the West had set out and was marching through Ithilien Imrahil had heard Faramir's declaration and the situation in Minas Tirith was more secure and orderly. So he had the heralds proclaim the coming of the King Elessar, effectively ending all doubt about Aragorn's status. But by then many of Gondor's people had already "thrown in" with Aragorn by marching under his standard. He had arrived in Gondor as the unacknowledged king de jure (by right) and was now the de facto king, but he didn't yet rule Gondor (Faramir was still the Ruling Steward). Aragorn was proclaimed King of Gondor (given the throne) after the final battle with Sauron.

Had Denethor lived I think he would have been expected by many to step down. But there is the question of whether the Army of the West would or should have marched at all if Denethor had lived. Tolkien originally did not have Denethor kill himself during the battle, and the confrontation between the Ruling Steward and Aragorn after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields strikes me as being very unlike the way Tolkien finally chose to portray Aragorn. In "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" Elrond told Aragorn he would have to earn the Sceptre of Annuminas. I think by extension he had to earn the Crown of Gondor. Both were his by right, but they were being held in trust for an Heir of Elendil who would prove himself worthy.


So, that more-or-less summarizes what came out of the news group discussion. My own position on the matter was changed by that discussion, and this is how I see things now.


BTW -- I've been rather busy lately, and Xenite.Org is moving to a new Web-hosting ISP, so that is why I haven't been around much.

Oh, boy. Do I have to read that?

Thanks Michael, there´s a lot to digest in your response.

I think you add a very interesting point i forgot. I was focused only in dynasty and prophecies. Since i thought that, having Aragorn some dinastic rights those weren´t conclusive, prophecies (ie. divine plan) should be the true basis of his legitimacy. But you had shown how prophecies weren´t either conclussive (that´s within nature of prophecies, i think). He had the right to the crown from both sources, prophetic and dynastic, but he had to proof his worth by his own deeds.

Aragorn deeds are the true basis of his legitimacy. He had a destiny, but he had to achieve it.

ElanorI think those are the main lines of the thread, so you don´t need to read it all.

Ok, FM - were you going somewhere jesus christish with that double authentication? The Ace Carpenter had a biologic heredity through his mom and a prophetic heredity through his """dad""" Joe.

uuh, no, i wasn´t thinking on that. But now that you said it, i think that it is true that the evangelists (Mathew & Luke) tried to show Jesus as a rightful heir of David´s house and that (especially Mathew, whose evangelion is mostly addressed to the jewish) show how Jesus had accomplished the OT prophecies.

However i don´t think we can parallel the problem of Aragorn legitimacy with that. Aragorn had to prove his legitimacy in order to gain the crown and fulfill his destiny; he needed to convince Gondor´s people. He was the rightful heir, but he wasn´t the King yet.

But Jesus had no need to proof he was the messiah in order to be it. You can believe it or not, but that doesn´t touch a bit his condition of messiah: he didn´t look for a public recognition.

My point was more related to the legitimacy of the authority and the law. I think that Tolkien believed that the worldly autorithy/law should be a mirror of the divine authority: when worldly law separates itself from divine law it loses its authority though it may retain its power (note the difference authority-power). I think you can see this leit-motif from the exile of Valinor to the corruption of the Men´s kingdoms of Numenor, Arnor and... the return of the King.

A bit clearer now?

Right. The best model for power without authority would be Morgoth, Sauron and Feanor.

Saruman too. This is an interesting discussion as everbody (including myself here) usually just assumes that Aragorn had the right to become the King. It's one of those things that you just accept without thinking the way the story is written.

Well Heck! now, Findy, you have me wondering if there's some Anakin parallels to Aragorn. Anakin heard straight from the Jedi Council that he was "The Chosen One", and it's been debated up and down on the JC whether or not this knowledge inflated his self-esteem of inflated his estimate of his own helpfulness. Admittedly, he was appraised of his "Divine Authority" at a much younger age than the 'aged' young man Aragorn.

I wouldn't know. I have not watched any of the starwars movies. Maybe (if the weather does not improve) I will over spring break.

[Snowdog]

This is a great discussion! Thanks fat middle & Martinez for your articulate discussion of this.

Wasn't Arvedui's claim to the throne of Gondor made in part because he was married to FÃ*riel, the last surviving child of King Ondoher?

And a side question here... Why were there no Queens in Arnor & Gondor when there were Queens in Numenor?