Isildur: High King? Meneldir: Power-Hungry? |
Post Reply 
|
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||
 |
| |||
|
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Isildur: High King? Meneldir: Power-Hungry?
Continuing a discussion on my "Aragorn: Heir to Throne of Gondor...Or Not?" lens which EldarionKing kindly replied on, but for some reason the discussion part of that page is stuck.
On that page I was trying to get across the backstory to Aragorn's claim as succinctly and easily as possible, targeting my summary at beginners rather than advanced lore-folks who back every assertion with footnotes and direct quotes. Nonetheless, I'm trying to be accurate! Quote EldarionKing:
As for Arvedui's second claim, I alluded to it very compactly. I said that he'd married King Ondoher's daughter. As I see it, the Council's original rebuttal covered both his claim as heir of Elendil and his claim through his wife that his son would be the rightful heir of Gondor anyway. He challenged the latter, and they ignored him, but rightly or wrongly they'd already declared that inheritance could not come through female descendants. So basically I summed the whole legal wrangle up without mentioning Arvedui had tried and failed to get them to reconsider one point of their argument. You may not agree with my decision there, but there's method to my madness.  However, EldarionKing, your first point, that Isildur was High King and Meneldil was power-hungry, is definitely not a nuance I'd consiered. Going back to Unfinished Tales, I see what you're saying, but I've got a slightly different take on the same material, unless I've missed a quote/piece of evidence somewhere. Here's the two bits I've found. From the beginning of the "Disaster of the Gladden Fields" chapter: After the fall of Sauron, Isildur, the son and heir of Elendil, returned to Gondor. There he assumed the Elendilmir as King of Arnor, and proclaimed his sovereign lordship over all the Dúnedain in the North and in the South...He remained for a year in Gondor, restoring its order and defining its bounds...When I first reread this passage, I was confused! On the one hand, Isildur's acting as heir of Elendil and proclaiming sovereign lordship over all the Dúnedain in the North and South. On the other hand, he assumes the Elendilmir as King of Arnor and is returning to his own Realm, as if he's only king of Arnor. I think I'm being thrown off (pun intentional) by the unusual way in which Gondor/Arnor were set up by Elendil, with himself ruling in Arnor and both sons jointly in the south, a bit like the senior/junior tetrarchs during one period of the Roman Empire, where there were two "Augustus" status emperors and two "Caesars." Annnyway. So. Arnor is now Isildur's own realm because that's his new seat of power, not because Gondor is no longer his own realm? And when he declares himself King of Arnor, he just means, "Now I'm King of Arnor too, whereas before I and my brother were just kings of Gondor under Dad?" So basically, Isildur is now the High King of both realms, ruling from Arnor, with one sub-king ruling in Gondor instead of two -- otherwise the structure is the same as it was with Elendil, Isildur, and Anárion. Yes? Then we come to Meneldil, and here's where my take is a little different than yours. I found the footnote: Isildur had established Meneldil as King of Gondor. He was a man of courtesy, but farseeing, and he did not reveal his thoughts. He was in fact well-pleased by the departure of Isildur and his sons, and hoped that affairs in the North would keep them long occupied.I interpret that to mean Meneldil was glad to get Isildur and his cousins out of his hair, because he wanted to rule Gondor without their meddling and telling him what to do. But I don't see that as necessarily a sign of being power-hungry -- only a sign of frustration that he'd been a "spare heir" for so long, in the shadows of others, and then once he finally got his chance, he had his uncle breathing down his neck and treating him like an understudy. So I think it's a matter of interpretation whether you read Meneldil's pleasure at Isildur's departure as megalomania or feeling put-upon. The fact that he was specifically named as a "man of courtesy" (and his words of farewell to his uncle and cousins are most courteous) tends to make me see him as a good egg, on the whole. More importantly, unless I've missed another quote somewhere, I don't see any clear indication that Meneldil is pushing the idea that Isildur had ceded his rights to Gondor. I don't see any evidence of the "Isildur turned over Gondor to his brother's heirs and gave up his title to it" line of argument until the legal wrangle between Arvedui and the Council of Gondor. |
|||
 |
||||
Supporting Member
 |
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Hey, Tinw. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my reply. (BTW, about the discussion tool: you may have to be a member of Squidoo to use it, and I am not - too young
 .)
I believe that Isildur is High King of both Gondor and Arnor. For one, at the end of the primary account of "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, it is said: "So passed the first victim of the masterless Ring: Isildur, second King of all the Dúnedain, lord of Arnor and Gondor, and in that age of the World the last."
In the LOTR Appendices, Arvedui says to Gondor after his first (preposterous) claim is rejected "Elendil had two sons, of whom Isildur was the elder and the heir of his father. We have heard that the name of Elendil stands to this day at the head of the line of the Kings of Gondor, since he was accounted the high king of all lands of the Duendain. While Elendil still lived, the conjoint rule in the South was committed to his sons; but when Elendil fell, Isildur departed to take up the high kingship of his father, and committed the rule in the South in like mannerto the son of his brother. He did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor, nor intend that the realm of Elendil should be divided for ever." (my emphasis) Arvedui goes on to discuss the female descent argument (which can be summarized as "my wife should be ruler, so make me King!"). However, to the argument "Gondor made no answer."
I think the key issue in this is a principle we know today as suzerainty. In summary, suzerainty means that one state or region controls another state or region, especially in its foreign affairs, but gives it autonomy over its domestic affairs. This would explain the fact that Elendil was the sole King of the Dunedain, in a single realm, while Isildur and Anarion (and later Meneldil) had solely the rule of one part of that realm (which was seperated from the other part by the uninhabited region known as the Enedwaith). The only reason we hear about the Realms in Exile is because Meneldil, or his heirs, asserted that Gondor had independence. This is where the "giving up the title" argument comes in.
I based my statement about Meneldil on the quote you provide. I interpreted it to mean that Meneldil didn't want Isildur, Elendur, etc. to be interfering in Gondor. I could be mistaken though. However, regardless of which King (or Steward, as there was one ruling for a single year at one point) first put forth the notion of Gondor's independence, the notion had clearly caught on by the time that Ondoher died, as they simply ignored Arvedui's legitimate claim (though they took the time to respond to his ridiculous one). Gondor had a flimsy argument at this point though - there was still an heir of Meneldil. By Aragorn's time though, there were nor heirs of Meneldil left, so the domestic rule of Gondor had presumably reverted back to the High Kings, or heirs thereof. Aragorn was this heir, being descended in direct line from Isildur, and he was the heir who assumed the High Kingship - of Gondor and Arnor - the way it was meant to be.
I hope this clarifies my rather brief earlier response, I only had 1,000 characters to work with in my response
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
To whom it may concern: I also discussed (briefly) the same situation in the Movie's Forum thread Poor Faramir. I didn't go into as much detail as I did here though.
|
|||
|
||||
 |
| |||
|
Quote Reply
In general I agree with EldarionKing's interpretation of Meneldil, but I must confess that I see no reason why Tinw's alternate interpretation could not just as easily be correct. Although, for the 'breathing down his neck' rationale, remember that Isildur could always have counseled or instructed Meneldil via the palantiri, of which Meneldil was certainly aware. That, in my mind, reinforces the idea that Meneldil just wanted Isildur and his sons out of Gondor so that he could solidify his own rule, and effectively change the situation from a vassel realm to two allied states.
And this bit from Tinw sums up how I see the realms-in-exile structure:
I think that indeed. You referenced Isildur taking up the Elendilmir as King of Arnor - he did that because there was no crown of Arnor. Gondor used a crown, Arnor used (like Numenor before) a scepter, the Elendilmir was their equivalent of the monarch's diadem. So as the heir of Elendil, Isildur proclaims his sovereignty over all the Dúnedain, North and South. He's already King of Gondor, so lacking the scepter of Annuminas, Isildur uses the Elendilmir as a symbol for his formal assumption of power over the Dunedain of Arnor, which before he would have had only in terms of being the King's heir. And then I think the principle of suzerainty, as EldarionKing mentioned, takes over. Though I must say that I disagree with you say, EldarionKing, about Arvedui's claims. You say his claim based on marriage to Firiel was "preposterous" and "ridiculous", but why? The realms-in-exile most probably simply inherited - or retained, rather - the laws from Numenor. Maybe Arnor was newly populated with Dunedain, but remember that there were permanent settlements in Middle-earth before the fall of Numenor. People would in all likelihood have been rather dumbfounded had the laws of Numenor suddenly been thrown out or rewritten. So in that context, the assumption should have been that Arvedui's claim based on marriage was a valid one; the Council of Gondor overstepped its authority in rejecting Arvedui's claim. I think that Arvedui's claim based on descent from Elendil was a stronger claim, but his other argument was valid, and should have been accepted *shakes fist at Pelendur* |
|||
|
8853086421 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Turin, thank you for your thoughtful response.
About Arvedui's claim, Appendix A tells us that he first "claimed the crown of Gondor, as the direct descendant of Isildur, and as teh husband of Firiel, only surviving child of Ondoher. The claim was rejected." After the Council of Gondor's response, Arvedui replies with his argument about high kingship versus localized rule that I mentioned in my last post before saying that "Moreover, in Numenor of old the sceptre descended to the eldest child of the king, whether man or woman. It is true that the law has not been observed in the lands of exile ever troubled by war; but such was the law of our people, to which we now refer, seeing that the sons of Ondoher died childless."
To this claim (coupled with the part about high kingship, Gondor made no answer. From the second part of Arvedui's argument we learn several things - first that the Numenorean law had been ignored. Second, that the law said that the eldest child inherited the sceptre, or in Gondor's case, the crown. Thirdly, that Arvedui was only falling back on the law since Ondoher's sons were childless. This has two flaws. First, by the "ancient law" argument, Firiel is the heir of Ondoher. One could say that since the law was ignored Arvedui as her husband would rule, but if the law was ignored, why bring up Firiel at all? Second, while the sons of Ondoher died childless, he also had a cousing: Earnil II. Earnil was able to claim the crown, but by Aragorn's time there were no surviving descendants of past Kings of Gondor. While Arvedui's argument that Isildur "never relinquished his royalty in Gondor" is valid, his claim as the husband of Firiel is not. At least, that's how I see it.
In summary, I think that his claim based on descent was valid, though his claim based on marriage was not. In either event, the Council did overstep its authority, largely due to Pelendur.
 |
|||
|
||||
 |
| |||
|
Quote Reply
I interpret that to mean Meneldil was glad to get Isildur and his cousins out of his hair, because he wanted to rule Gondor without their meddling and telling him what to do.
I interpreted it to mean that Meneldil didn't want Isildur, Elendur, etc. to be interfering in Gondor.
Tinw and EldarionKing: I agree with both of you (you actually wrote more or less the same, but using different words). Meneldil was somehow relieved when his uncle set off. From that very moment he was the highest authority present in Gondor, because in the presence of Isildur he was but an heir of Anárion, and nothing more. When Isildur went North, Meneldil became the King for all in Gondor, even if he still had a High King in Annûminas above him. Does it mean he was power hungry? I think he felt mature enough and well prepared to assume the rule of Gondor (he was already 125) and finally he wanted to stand on his own feet (unlike Vardamir, heir of Elros). He wanted to have the power - but still within acceptable limits.
Those who like conspiracy theories may from read the description of Meneldil from UT (He was a man of courtesy, but farseeing, and he did not reveal his thoughts. He was in fact well-pleased by the departure of Isildur and his sons, and hoped that affairs in the North would keep them long occupied.) that it was Meneldil who arranged the attack on Isildur's company on the Gladden Fields
 I think the future problems with recognition of supremacy and heirlooms had its source in two things:
1. Elendil, Isildur and Anárion set up their kingdoms as if they were to live forever. The model of Elendil being the sovereign of both realms and his sons ruling in Gondor only was very good for those three (I. and A. would never have any problems with accepting Dad's authority), but not for their heirs. Isildur tried to set the things right after the deaths of Elendil and Anárion. He was the last who could have done so - because Meneldil could never challenge Isildur's authority over him. But this model (Isildur being High King of both realms with permanent residence in Arnor with Meneldil as King of Gondor under his authority) has never been implemented.
2. Relation between Meneldil and Valandil. Those cousins might have never met (which is rather unlikely) but most probably they hadn't met prior to the death of Isildur. According to HoMe XII, Valandil was born in 3430. It was confirmed by Elrond (in FotR, The Council of Elrond) that at that time Valandil was but a child. Moreover, he became the High King in TA 10, not immediately after his father's death. All of that gave a huge supremacy to Meneldil (said to be the last Man born in Númenor) over his young cousin. Between TA 2 and 10 Meneldil had eight years to strengthen his power in Gondor as a fully independent ruler. When the interregnum in Arnor ended Valandil faced the situation of being very young and inexperienced ruler of a weaker kingdom with only nominal title of High King. Their palantír conversation between them would have sounded like:
Meneldil: Congrats, dude. Finally on your own.
Valandil: It's a great feeling to be High King.
Meneldil: Oh yeah. I bet so.
Valandil: You know it means that I'm above you?
Meneldil: And so what?
In fact, Valandil was left with his title only. After division of Arnor even the title was no more used.
And about Arvedui's claims:
I think that his claim based on descent was valid, though his claim based on marriage was not. In either event, the Council did overstep its authority, largely due to Pelendur.
I do and don't agree with you, EldarionKing. Claim based on being Fíriel's husband wasn't valid indeed. Succession laws of Númenor weren't consistently applied and in the realms in exile there were no cases of women inheriting the throne, so after two millennia it would be considered a customary law that the succession of the throne was through male line only.
And I don't agree with you when it comes to Arvedui's claim based on descent. The throne of Gondor was given to Meneldil. There were descendants of Meneldil, and Arvedui wasn't among them. It would be somehow strange if the council chose Arvedui, king of falling Arnor (and a stranger to Gondor) to be king of Gondor while the line of Meneldil wasn't yet extinct. After 2050 (year of death of Eärnur) possible claim of Aranarth (who lived until 2106) would be justified. But Aranarth didn't even try to rebuild Arnor, so he probably didn't have any ambition to become king of Gondor, too. I'm pretty sure that his claim would be rejected in Gondor as well (he was just a chieftain of Dúnedain) - but in such case the Council would indeed overstep its authority.
|
|||
|
halfirian sage
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Excellent post klemenko. I like your points about the system under Elendil being unsustainable. As Isildur was the eldest son of Elendil, he was the rightful High King. Meneldil inherited only his father's position as "co-ruler" of Gondor. I don't think that Isildur and Anarion were Kings, and I don't think Meneldil was meant to be King. UT twice uses the word "rule" to describe them (first I. and A., second M.). Regardless of terminology though, the ruler(s) of Gondor ranked beneath the High King, who was also the direct ruler of Arnor.
While I don't think that the Meneldil conspiracy theory holds any weight (and it doesn't seem like you do either), I agree with your "palantir conversation". As Isildur and his elder sons all died, Meneldil could probably throw his age and place of birth around to gain influence over Valandil. Many of the people of Gondor probably didn't want to be ruled by a far distant "High King" either. As Valandil came to the throne barely an adult, and Meneldil had (as you pointed out) several years of status quo to back himself up with, Valandil had little he could do.
You're probably right about Arvedui's second claim being a little iffy. I actually mentioend earlier that Aragorn's claim was stronger since there were no heirs of Meneldil left. Arvedui, or rather his father, could have claimed authority in Gondor, but they had too few resources to pursue their claim after they were refused. Earnil also seemed to be a fairly distant relative to the royal house. Appendix A tells us that he "claimed" the crown, rather than having been given it, so I can see why Arvedui thought he had a good chance of being able to claim the crown.
I think that the system established under Elessar (Aragorn) was much better than the one under Elendil, or the one Isildur tried to establish. Elessar was High King of all the Dunedain, like Isildur, as well as direct ruler of both Arnor and Gondor. The rule of Gondor apparently reverted back to the House of Isildur after Earnur II's death.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Hmmmm. I think we're all talking shades of interpretation but basically on the same page. Let me ponder how to reword my simplified guide to this whole mess and -- hey! -- add a link to this thread "for more information"!
 Also I'll take that Duel module off the page since it doesn't seem to be working right. Meh. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Good point Tinw. Thanks for starting this thread, I'd actually wanted to reply to your articles on the old site (istad.org/tolkien) before I even knew who wrote them, but couldn't find a way too. Thanks again. |
|||
|
||||
 |
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Brilliant posts, everyone. Was the Scepter of Andunie ever wielded by a woman? - Not all the Lords of Andunie are named, but all that are named are men. So, perhaps the line of Andunie always lived according to old patrilineal laws, thus introducing these old laws into all the Dunedain Kingdoms in exile. In this case, trying to apply to the New Law of Aldarion was a bit pointless.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
My 2 cents: A very inportant thing would be to know whether the Lords of Andunie (Elendil's ancestors) had ever adopted the New Law of Tar-Aldarion. |
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Edelor - interesting question. Arvedui seams to imply that the law was not followed only in Middle-earth, the lands ever at risk of war. However, LOTR Appendix A only states that "it was then made the law of the royal house that the eldest child of the King, whether man or woman, should recieve the sceptre." (my emphasis) In UT - "Aldarion and Erendis" where a different version of the law was presented it is still implied that is applied only to the royal house, of whom the Lords of Andunie were not part. It would seem that the descendants of Silmarien (the eldest child of an early King before the change in the law) never applied the new law, as in Middle-earth - where they became the new royal house - it was disregarded.
Furthermore, even if the law had been applied, then Firiel should have become Ruling Queen of Gondor, rather than Arvedui becoming King. Pointless indeed!
 |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Tinw, I was just checking out your Middle-earth Names page, and decided to check in on the Aragorn one. I think your revisions are good, except for one thing:
Actually, the Council of Gondor ignored Arvedui's claim with respect to the "High Kingship" aspect of it, so that path was still open to Aragorn since the last heir of Meneldil (Earnur II) died out.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Hm. Actually, I think I still disagree with you there. I feel like their one reply to Arvedui denies the high kingship concept's validity, even if they didn't use the term "High King."
I think our disagreement comes from the fact that I see their first reply as having rejected both Arvedui's claims, rightly or wrongly, so they simply didn't bother to reply when he attempted to continue the conversation. At any rate. I definitely need to put a link to this thread, as a footnote/credit!  |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
"Ignored" will probably give a better sense of the text to any of the uninitiated who (hopefully will) stumble across your page. I hope that my repeated comments don't send the message that I think your material is bad though, I think that all of your pages are excellent.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Hmm, did you just edit your post Tinw, because it seems to have changed since I looked at it a few minutes ago.
The reasoning behind my claim was that Arvedui's first claim was "as the direct descendant of Isildur, and as the husband of Firiel, only survivng child of Ondoher." The Council replies that "the crown and royalty of Gondor belongs solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anarion, to whom Isildur relinquished this realm." I think Arvedui's oft-quoted response to that was more of a clarification than a continuation, as Gondor had, imo, misunderstood the nature of Isildur's "relinquishment".
But disagreement and intelligent debate is what Lore is all about!
 |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Oops. Shhh.
 Sorry. I should be more careful.At any rate. After poking at the wording various ways and finding none that could summarize the whole mess in less than a few sentences, I've solved the problem by simplifying still further. My target audience is non loremasters for whom every extra sentence and paragraph may be eroding their attention (in fact, many will hit the back button as it is). So my revision covers the issue by not fully covering it: It was hard enough for Aragorn the Ranger to prove he was the bona-fide heir of Arvedui, whose kingdom had been destroyed a thousand years earlier. Elrond could confirm his identity, having remained an ally to the Heirs of Isildur during their centuries of obscurity, but even his word might not be enough. Even though Gondor's line had died out, Denethor could point to the Council's ruling -- valid or not -- to deny Aragorn the kingship. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Keeping in mind you goal of not confusing your audience, that is probably the best way. There was a pro-Independence faction in Gondor in Arvedui's time, and the Stewards (who "hardened their hearts" against the thought of a King returning, according to Appendix A) seem to have carried on this tradition all the way down to Denethor, and possibly Boromir. For the more lore-oriented viewer, I think your idea of linking to this thread as a reference is a good one, as numerous insightful remarks have been made here. |
|||
|
||||
 |
| |||
|
Quote Reply
A very interesting topic. Let me simply applaud a great discussion all around; really, there have been too many good points made to single out each one, but I have enjoyed everyone's posts. As far as the big picture goes I agree that Arvedui's claim through Firiel makes no sense, since, as EK shrewdly points out, that would make Firiel ruler of Gondor and not Arvedui. I'm not sure what kind of person Meneldil is, but I would refrain from labelling him as power-hungry. I also agree in principle that Arvedui's claim to the High Kingship as a direct descendant of Elendil should justly have been recognized - at the time. I don't agree, however, that Aragorn is entitled to make a similar claim so many years later. (so what do you think of that! After (and let me add 'not before') having reviewed the history, I have to defend King Earnil's line as the rightful rulers of both Arnor and Gondor. I say that both kingdoms had effectively perished and the lines of each must be reckoned anew. Earnil saved Gondor from virtual extinction and claimed kingship when there were no others left to do so. I think his claim there is as just as anyone else's or moreso. He was both 'of the royal house' (Appendix A of RK) and unanimously accepted by all the Dunedain in Gondor. (Ibid.) I say the Southern Line begins again with Earnil.
It is at that moment that Arvedui makes his claim of lordship over Gondor, and as I have written previously, I believe that to be a valid claim in principle. I think, however, that this is a moot point. A king that cannot defend his kingdom is no king at all, and Arvedui could no more save his own kingdom than he could save Gondor. Gondor was saved by Earnil. Arnor was conquered by Angmar. Only subsequently does Gondor reconquer that land from the Witchking, and thus, I would argue that Earnil's claim to the Kingship of Arnor is as valid as that of any of the lost line of Elendil, who were unable to defend either Gondor or Arnor in practice. In essence, I feel forced to conclude that the authority of the line of Elendil had passed completely. I don't think that Earnil's descendants were under any obligation to return power to the heirs of Elendil.
Earnur, of course, passed his power on to the stewards, and eventually it came into the hands of Faramir. I would argue that Faramir had every right to retain power for himself (even though I hate to find myself agreeing with Denethor). That belief, of course, only makes Faramir's act of handing the Kingdom over to Aragorn that much more praiseworthy.
I want also to add that when Aragorn assumes the crown, Faramir asks the people of Gondor if they accept him as the King. Perhaps this is more than just a procedural gesture? What do you think? Perhaps the true substantiation of Aragorn's claim comes only from the people's overwhelmingly positive response.
|
|||
|
||||
)|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Bookwyrm, please don't be offended, but I disagree with you on almost all of your points. Let me break it down.
About Earnil: You say that Earnil's line were the rightful rulers of both Gondor and Arnor. Reading that, I went
 !? The royal line was not "reckoned anew" from Earnil, he was allowed to become King because he was already part of the royal house, as you point out. He was a descendant of Meneldil. If it weren't for that, he could not have become king.About a King who can't protect his Kingdom: You say that such a King is not a King. I disagree with this. Arvedui could not defend his Kingdom because it was small and weakened from centuries of war. It wasn't his fault. Even if it was though, he was still the valid King. Failure to defend the Kingdom succesfully (since it's not as if Arvedui didn't even try) does not mean that one is not a King.
Earnil and Arnor: You think that Earnil's claim to Arnor is valid. I ask - what claim? Earnil never tried to claim Kingship over Arnor, he was lucky to recieve the throne of Gondor. Gondor never reconquered Arnor either, they sent an army that aided the remnant of Arnor and a number of elves in defeating the Witch-king before he could use Angmar to conquer more, but it was not reconquered. The descendants of Arvedui remained the Lords of the Dunedain of the North. I really have no idea where you got the idea that Earnil was King of Arnor, as he never even went there (his son Earnur having been the one who led the army of Gondor in battle).
The heirs of Elendil: You think that the House of Earnil had succeeded the House of Elendil. For one, Earnil was a descendant of Elendil, through Meneldil. He came to the Kingship of Gondor as the heir of Meneldil, and had practically nothing to with Arnor. I do not know where you got the notion that the heirs of Elendil had been disenfranchised.
The Stewards: You say that Earnur "of course, passed his power on to the stewards." I think that you need to re-read Appendix A. Earnur did not pass on anything, he died because he was stupid enough to ride to Minas Morgul with a miniscule guard to fight the Witch-king. The Stewards ruled as vice-regents (UT, Cirion and Eorl, The Tradition of Isildur), and their "oath of office" included the words until the King returns (Appendix A). Faramir, as the son of the late Ruling Steward of Gondor after the War of the Ring, had no legal right to withhold the rule of Gondor from Aragorn, who is the heir of Elendil, founder of the Realms in Exile, and listed as first King of both (Appendix A).
The people: I think that this is, as you put it, a procedural gesture. Aragorn didn't need any substantiation aside from his heritage to take the throne of either Kingdom.
In conclusion, I think that you have mis-read or misunderstood the relevant text. Please don't take offence to this, but as I have demonstrated in earlier posts, Aragorn had a valid claim to the High Kingship, even if Arvedui did not. If you think I have misinterpreted your post, or would like to clarify your positions, I would welcome your further opinions.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
There is an important common feature of Eärnil and Aragorn: they were both not only descendants of Elendil, but also victorious commanders before they ascended to the throne of Gondor. I have no theory about what would have happened if they had not been victorious military leaders but just claimants who happen to have right ancestors. Anyway, I think their successes in saving Gondor somehow supported their claims and made their coming to power easier.
|
|||
|
halfirian sage
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
klemenko, I agree that Earnil's and Aragorn's military successes made their claims more convincing to many people in Gondor, and smoothed the road to their coming to power.
However, I don't think they would have been allowed to become King if they were not descendants of Elendil. Gondor was not a country that one could rule simply by being a strongman.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Gondor was not a country that one could rule simply by being a strongman. I fully agree with you EK. It was somehow confirmed by Denethor's answer given to Boromir: 'How many hundreds of years needs it to make a steward a king, if the king returns not? ' he asked. 'Few years, maybe, in other places of less royalty," my father answered. "In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice.' (TTT, The Window to the West) Only heirs of Elendil could claim the throne, this is out of question. And I wonder what if they were not successful in the battle - for example: that was someone else who won the war (Denethor, Boromir, Faramir, Imrahil - whoever) and then Aragorn appeared out of the blue with his claims. Would he still be invited to become the King? |
|||
|
halfirian sage
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Your last question is quite interesting. Appendix A tells us that many common people hoped, or at least thought, that a King returned, though the Ruling Stewards "hardened their hearts" against the notion. If Gondor and Rohan had somehow managed to pull of a victory at the Pelennor and somehow managed to defeat Sauron (assuming that the Ringbearer's Quest was still on) then I think that the status of Aragorn's claim would depend on the opinions of the person in charge. There would probably some resentment - at least from the "pro-Independence" faction against someone coming and claiming the throne after the dirty work was done. If Denethor were still alive, sane, and Steward, I think that Aragorn's claim would have been rejected. If Denethor was dead, I think Faramir still would have given the Kingdom to Aragorn, as he had no right to be Ruling Steward after the King returned. Imrahil of Dol Amroth might support such a claim as well; he considered Aragorn his leige lord from the moment he met him, though Aragorn had proved already proved his worth in battle by then.That's my two cents on this "counterfactual".
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
I think that I have understood the history clearly, EK, but please
allow that I may weigh the various claims differently than yourself. My own
inclinations may be overly democratic, but the legitimacy of Aragorn's
claim is also questioned by characters within the story, as Klemenko points out.
Of Earnil's ascension to power Tolkien writes: 'The crown was claimed by Earnil, the victorious Captain; and it was granted to him with the approval of all the Dunedain of Gondor, since he was of the Royal House.' (RK, Appendices) Earnil was a descendant of Meneldir, true, but it is not recorded that he was the closest in line to the throne after Ondoher's death, and I find it unlikely. He was not Ondoher's cousin, actually. He was the grandson of Ondoher's father's cousin. Tolkien's phrasing suggests to me that Earnil's victory provided his principle claim to the crown. That is my perception, and it is for this reason that I say that the Southern Line began anew with Earnil. Others will disagree, but that is only a statement of my view of the matter. To me it seems that Earnil claimed the kingship rather than inherited it. In any case Earnil is the King of Gondor when the North Kingdom falls, and that is why I feel that the heirs of Elendil have become disenfranchised. It is King Earnil who sends aid to Arnor (yes, under command of his son, Earnur, but Earnil is King). Unfortunately, as Tolkien writes: 'Too late. Before Earnur reaches the havens of Lindon, the Witch-king had conquered Arthedain and Arvedui had perished.' (Ibid.) The North Kingdom had ended. It was not rescued by Earnur. I do not say that Earnil claimed kingship of Arnor, only that after having re-taken the land from Angmar, Gondor had as much right to claim that land as anyone. The Chieftans of the Dunedain were not Arnor. I understand your point that Isildur's lineage lived on and with it survived the claim to the rule of Gondor, but I don't feel that this is the only relevant consideration. Elendil's descendants ultimately derive their authority from his, and Elendil's claim to a kingdom in Middle-earth does not comes from his lineage. It comes ultimately from the consent of the people he claimed lordship over and is supported by his ability to protect those people and the lands of the kingdom he claimed. Things change. Gondor eventually became the stronger realm, and indeed the only Realm in Exile. By Arvedui's time, Arnor could no longer protect Gondor or even itself. Gondor saved itself without aid from Arvedui, while Arnor perished. I think that there is a strong argument to be made that, like it or not, when Arnor fell Gondor had achieved independence. If that is the case, then to the line of Earnur alone, in whose name Mardil ruled, were the Stewards charged with returning the rule of Gondor. I do feel as if Faramir had a legitimate basis for refusing a claim based solely on descent from Isildur. He, of course, does not do so, but then Aragorn's claim is supported by more than just descent. For one thing, he is imbued with a divine spark as evidenced by his healing hands. For another, Aragorn is now the victorious Captain of the war, but what if he weren't? You take the words right out of my mouth, Klemenko. I have serious doubts whether his claim would be accepted under the circumstances you have put forward. People would ask: Where have you been hiding, High King, while Sauron was trying to destroy us? The validity of his lineage would be no less then, but history also
maintains a persistent counterargument. To wit: 'That was then; this is
now.' That is why I feel that the validity of Aragorn's claim is ultimately dependent on the reverence of Faramir and the people of Gondor for the line of Elendil and their willingness to accept him as King. Ten thousand years might not suffice to invalidate Aragorn's royalty, but then again it might, if the people simply fail to recognize that royalty. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Bookwyrm - Actually, Earnil was Ondoher's cousin, if rather distant. There's more to "cousin" than just "first cousin". Also, I think that Earnil probably was the closest relative surviving, as the Kings of Gondor did not have many children (Appendix A, I, iv). It's entirely possible, even probably, that there were no intervening relations. Even though there is a chance that there were, you didn't show a quote that suggests this in any way. Regardless, Earnil claimed the Kingship, not the Kingdom. There is a difference here. He claimed the Kingship, as well as Arvedui. Earnil's claim was judged more valid, but there is nothing suggesting that any lines were reckoned anew.
Also, you did say Earnil claimed Arnor. This is an exact quote (copied and pasted) from your post yesterday:
I do agree that Arnor was ended though. Arvedui's son recognized that, as he did not take the title of "High King" or even "King". However, Aragorn, the sixteenth Chieftain, claimed the title "Lord of the Dunedain" (Appendix A, I, v), though he may have only been refering to those in the North.
If there is something we agree on, it is that your inclinations as to Aragorn are "overly democratic". Ideas such as governmental authority deriving from the consent of the governed are relatively recent in the real world, and had little or nor relevance in Middle-earth. Elendil was the ruler of his realm because he was the leader of the Faithful (an informal position), and - I think - because he was the son of the last Lord of Andunie. The Lords of Andunie were descended from the daughter of an early King of Numenor (Silmarien, daughter of Tar-Elendil, the fourth King). The Kings of Numenor were descended from Elros, who was the ruler of of Numenor by the will of the Valar. More or less modern ideas such as "the consent of the people he claimed lordship over" being the source of power are irrelevant. Likewise irrelevant are claims that the Lord (government) must protect their people to remain legitimate. (I know you didn't phrase it that way, but that's how I interpret it. If I'm wrong let me know.
) Elendil's heirs were the rulers of Gondor and Arnor, period. You have provided anachronisms, not textual arguments, to the contrary.While real world history may state "That was then; this is now", there's no indication that Middle-earth did. As I mentioned earlier, some of the people of Gondor maintained the belief that the King would return even after centuries. I don't think that many people would not recognize that royalty, though of course many of the Stewards would have.
Please stop supporting your case with speculation and anachronisms. Despite Tolkien's "conceit" that Middle-earth is our world in a fictional past, there is no reason to draw equal signs between Middle-earth and the real world where no evidence exists. Please use quotes from Tolkien's works to support your case.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
I think that there is a strong argument to be made that, like it or not, when Arnor fell Gondor had achieved independence.
IMHO Gondor has never been subject to Arnor. The real High Kings: Elendil and Isildur were monarchs of both kingdoms until Isildur decided that Meneldil will be the King (not viceroy, governor or steward) of Gondor. The fact that the HK resided in Annûminas did not mean the supremacy of Arnor over Gondor. They could be considered as equal parts of one realm under Elendil or a personal union of two realms. And here what Arvedui wrote was right:
We have heard that the name of Elendil stands to this day at the head of the line of the Kings of Gondor, since he was accounted the high king of all the lands of the Dúnedain. While Elendil still lived, the conjoint rule in the South was committed to his sons; but when Elendil fell, Isildur departed to take up the high kingship of his father, and committed the rule in the South in like manner to the son of his brother. He did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor, nor intend that the realm of Elendil should be divided for ever. (Apppendix A) The HK could dwell in Gondor as well and nominate a king in Arnor as well. Anyway, with Isildur's death the union broke apart.
Therefore, from 2 TE (or rather 10 TE) until 861 TE there was actual independence of Gondor and nominal supremacy of Arnor, whose kings bore the title of the HK. Their suzerainty over Gondor was only nominal, similar to that of the Holy Roman Emperors over various parts of Germany until 1806. After death of Eärendur and division of Arnor there were no High Kings anymore and Gondor's de facto independence from the Kings of Arnor became independence de iure as well.
Anyway, there is an interesting essay by Michael Martinez on those issues: http://www.merp.com/essays/MichaelMartinez/politicsjustpolitics and here: http://www.merp.com/essays/MichaelMartinez/michaelmartinezsuite101essay120
Elendil was the ruler of his realm because he was the leader of the Faithful (an informal position), and - I think - because he was the son of the last Lord of Andunie. The Lords of Andunie were descended from the daughter of an early King of Numenor (Silmarien, daughter of Tar-Elendil, the fourth King).
EK, I think Elendil's descent from the line of Elros wasn't really meaningful there. It was the royal house who brought Númenor to the fatal end. Elendil was accepted as a king only because he was the leader of the Faithful - those who, as it turned out, were right. And here 'democratic' legitimacy has ended. Once he became the king, he was sovereign and his decendants had the right to the throne by virtue of descent - not popular acceptance.
And I agree with your remarks about anachronisms.
|
|||
|
halfirian sage
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
klemenko - I am away from my books (at school) right now, so I apologize for the lack of exact quotes. However, I am unclear as to where you found that Isildur made Meneldil the independent King of Gondor. In an earlier post I elaborated on the difference between rule and Kingship. Regardless of semantics, I think that the principle of suzerainty, which I mentioned in my first post in this thread, is the principle that came in to effect. Using the quote in your last post: "Isildur did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor" (my emphasis). I don't think that Isildur divided the Kingdoms into "equal parts" in the sense that he and Meneldil were coeval. At the end of "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" in UT, it is said that Isildur was High King, and earlier in that text it said that (and here I've copied the text from an earlier post):
I agree that Gondor had de facto independence since the death of Isildur, but I don't know that it was de iure. There were no High Kings after Earendur, but the Kings of Arthedain claimed rule over all of Arnor after the death of the royal lines of Rhudaur and Cardolan. I don't have the exact quote, but it can be found in Appendix A, I, iii, I think. During the period that there were no High Kings it could be said that the position of "Lord of all the Dunedain in the North and the South" was vacant, but the heirs of Isildur eventually reclaimed that title, imo.
I agree that the position of leader of the Faithful was probably what gave Elendil the Kingship of the Exiles, but I also think that part of the reason that his family were the leaders was because they were the Lords of Andunie, and were accorded a great deal of respect, IIRC, second only to the royal house. While he may have needed some level of initial acceptance, he was already the leader of the Exiles when they reached Middle-earth.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
I am unclear as to where you found that Isildur made Meneldil the independent King of Gondor
EK: I meant that he made him a king. And the title of king has much more meaning than just a ruler. I didn't mean he was a fully independent king - he still had a HK above him. Anyway, a king is a king even if subject to some higher king above him.
but the Kings of Arthedain claimed rule over all of Arnor after the death of the royal lines of Rhudaur and Cardolan
And over nothing but Arnor. They did not reclaim the title of HK. Even Arvedui did not claim to be High King - he claimed the throne of Gondor by virtue of inheritance (his own or his wife's).
When it comes to Elendil and the role of his descent in his rule in the realms in exile, I think the logical sequence was as follows:
descent from Silmarien => more important position among ruling class => leadership of the Faithful (there were no higher placed among the Faithful than the lords of Andunië) => rule over all Númenorean survivors in ME (save the black ones)
Therefore I think Númenoreans of ME chose Elendil as their leader because he was the chief of the Faithful at home, not because he was kinsman of Ar-Pharazôn.
|
|||
|
halfirian sage
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
klemenko - perhaps the issue of "king" versus "ruler" is more one of semantics, as we both agree that Isildur as High King was above Meneldil. Your point about the Kings of Arthedain is valid, as is you point about Arvedui's claim. I think, as I have said before, that Aragorn's claim to Gondor was more valid than Arvedui's because there were no heirs of Meneldil left at the end of the Third Age.
That's essentially how I feel, as I stated in my last post. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
I would only be repeating myself to respond to most of your points, EK. I will say, however that it is not anacronistic to observe that all rulers are answerable to those that they rule. That is the reality underlying every form of government past and present. When Arvedui, for example, claimed himself King of Gondor, Gondor told him that he wasn't, and so in fact he wasn't. Whether his claim was right of wrong it could only be made effective by the consent of the people he hoped to govern. Also, when judging whether such a rejection by the people is right or wrong, one should not fail to consider the fact that people cannot forever be bound to the choices of their ancestors.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Bookwyrm - at the risk of repeating myself, I will respond to the points you make in your latest post.
First, it is anachronistic to insert claim that "all rulers are answerable to those that they rule." Furthermore, this has not always been the case, as you assert. In many periods of human history governments have been absolute, and the people have no power to say otherwise. In fact, this is still the case in many countries today. I am trying not to be rude, but it is absurd to suggest that relatively modern democratic ideals are universally applicable. They are not. A cursory knowledge of history, or current events, will tell you that much. I highly doubt that you do not realize this, though I am at a loss as to why you persist in this claim.
Second, Arvedui's claim to Gondor was rejected not by the people, but by the Council of Gondor, counseled by the Steward (a high-ranking government official who, HoMe XII tells us, was of royal origin). The Council presumably consisted of nobility, as the Council in Numenor did. "The people" had nothing to do with it.
In conclusion, I do not see any support - textually, logically, or historically - for your argument. I truly don't understand your reasoning.
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Narvi, the Council of Gondor acted on behalf of all the people of Gondor and exactly in accordance with their own feelings on the matter. They might have acted differently, but they did not in this case. Nevertheless, the power of any Council or King lies in the loyalty of the people who support it, and had the Council acted against the will of the people, it might not have been without consequence. You insist on labeling the idea that all rulers are answerable to those that they rule as a democratic ideal and so an anachronism, but it is a much older and much greater idea. Democracies are only an evolution of government that came from the recognition of the idea. Governments, however, even monarchies, are not formed only to provide power to the rulers. The idea that "people have no power to say otherwise" is purely theoretical, and I am only trying to introduce into this discussion a recognition of the practical. People always have the power to say otherwise, and in a society where free elections do not exist, rebellion is simply the natural and (I believe) legitimate recourse of a people who feel their needs are not being met by their government. The possibility of rebellion is the ever present means by which Kings are continually held accountable to their subjects. That is the reality of history, a reality as present in Tolkien's history as our own.
Klemenko, thanks for the links to Michael Martinez's essays. Good reading, that. You bring to light a point that I had previously overlooked, the passing of the High Kingship of Arnor long previous to Arvedui's reign. I had always believed that the decline of Arnor would eventually imply the loss of the High Kingship, but I had completely overlooked the fact that Tolkien had actually put a fine point on the matter. Earendur was the last High King. I think I will have to change my view slightly then, and say that Arvedui had no claim to the Kingship of Gondor - unless there was some legitimacy to his claim through his wife, Firiel, but with that I do not agree. I do not agree with Michael Martinez's idea that the High Kingship could be put in abeyance until some later time. The High Kingship brings with it not just privilege but responsibility, and those responsibilities having being lain aside, I don't think that the privilege can later be taken up. All of the reading suddenly brought to my attention another detail I have overlooked, however, the fact that Aranarth, son of Firiel, grandson of Ondoher, does have a claim to the Kingship of Gondor. He is a more direct descendant from Ondoher than Earnil II. No? I am not sure what to make of the long term implication of that yet, since Gondor chose Earnil II as king, but it does confuse the matter even more. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Bookwyrm (in case your wondering, I switched back to my old name), the Council of Gondor was not a legislature. They were not elected. The Council was almost certainly beneath the King, and only made a decision because there was no King at the time.
I understand your point that in a society without free elections rebellion is a natural course. (I also agree as to its legitimacy, but that's beside the point.) However, there have been many societies, past and present, where people are controlled through force. Rebellions may have occured, but they were squashed. Look at the Eastern bloc. The status quo was maintained through force, and only after that force was withdrawn (by Gorbachev) did the Eastern bloc crumble. Rebellion is certainly a reality of history, but you also say that it is:
Perhaps I have overlooked something, but I can't recall a single popular uprising overthrowing a King in Middle-earth. One uprising that springs to mind was the Kin-strife in Gondor, but it was called that for a reason - the rightful King and the Usurper were kin. I think that klemenko addresses the issue of popular consent best:
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
| |||
|
Quote Reply
Apologies for the double post, but on review of this thread there is another point that I would like to make. As has been said, the High Kingship was "laid down", so to speak. The last person to be called "High King" was Earendur, but Isildur was the last to have authority over both Arnor and Gondor. This is a valid point. However, I do not think that it invalidates Aragorn's claim, or necessitates popular acceptance (regardless of whether or not it is out of place in Middle-earth). I said in my first post in this thread:
I still think that the Realms in Exile were originally the Realm in Exile (even if they weren't called that) because Elendil was the High King of both. He commanded the northern part himself, and his sons co-ruled the southern part under the principle of suzerainty. This was not, as has been pointed out, a sustainable arrangement. Therefore, Isildur decided that his line would take the position Elendil previously had since they were elder, and decided that his nephew Meneldil could take the position he and Isildur previously had.
The division of the Realm into Realms, whether or not it was right and proper, did occur. I do not dispute this. I also think that Arvedui's claim was not valid, after discussion in this thread. Aragorn however, was the only heir of Elendil for all intents and purposes. The line of Anarion had died out, and he was the direct descendant of Isildur. Therefore, he had every right to assume the throne of both Kingdoms. By doing so he brought them back together, as is reflected in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" that "the Heir of Isildur was crowned King of Gondor and Arnor" (my emphasis).
I do not think that Aranarth, son of Arvedui and Firiel, had a valid claim to Gondor while Earnil or Earnur were still on the throne. This is because they, as the heirs of Anarion, were the rulers of Gondor under the divided system. After Earnur's death though, the descendants of Arvedui had a decent case, and eventually Aragorn made it.
|
|||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 1.969 seconds.