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?