#arvedui critical

[anghraine]

I honestly find it irritating that Tolkien/Tolkien's narrators are repeatedly like ... well if Tar-Aldarion's rule about equal inheritance regardless of gender had come earlier, Silmariën would have been Ruling Queen! The Lords of Andúnië would have been the royal house all along!

It's especially annoying when it's coming from the Third Age, but really just an overall irritation. These narratives and narrators do not give a single fuck about Silmariën except as a transmitter of blood, birthright, and heirlooms to men. The "but Silmariën!" is not some stab at inheritance rights for women, it's just a pretext for the dynastic claims of men.

Besides, if royal women inherited on an equal basis beginning with Silmariën rather than with Tar-Ancalimë, it would prevent the line of the Lords of Andúnië from exclusively following male-line descent anyway—the ultimate heir wouldn't be Elendil, it'd be some random cousin (possibly a female cousin!) descended through other firstborn daughters along the line, even provided that the family tree would be at all recognizable after a historical change that drastic.

It's like Arvedui invoking Aldarion's law of gender-neutral primogeniture to justify claiming the throne of Gondor in place of his wife, the Gondorian princess Fíriel. Under Aldarion's law, either Fíriel herself or (if she were unwilling) her son would have succeeded King Ondoher, not Arvedui. Nobody in the dispute seems concerned with any right she might have; they only bring her up as a point of transmission between the rights of men. Ultimately she matters to the narrative because of the bloodline she passes on to the male-line male chieftains of the Northern Dúnedain culminating in Aragorn. Who knows what she was like or what she wanted?

Did Silmariën want to be Ruling Queen? Within the narrative we have, nobody cares.

[anghraine]

Speaking of my undying grudge against Arvedui:

What I really think should have happened (in a better but still possible world) upon the deaths of King Ondoher, Prince Artamir, and Prince Faramir of Gondor:

The Council of Gondor, led by the Steward Pelendur, starts deliberations as to how the succession's going to work.

In Arthedain, someone (or some people) manages to talk Arvedui down. His father (the actual heir of Isildur) isn't prepared to attempt a long-shot claim to the crown of Gondor. And since Númenórean succession law followed strict gender-blind primogeniture*, under the old traditions Princess Fíriel would be the heir of Anárion, not her husband. She claims the throne.

In this better world, Pelendur et al actually give her fair consideration. Tradition matters a lot in Gondor. Númenor matters a lot. They don't want a foreign king, but Fíriel is Gondorian. And historically, bypassing royal princesses has not worked out for their people (most obviously with Tar-Míriel, in a subtler way with Princess Silmariën).

But while they don't want a Pharazôn situation, they also don't want a Herucalmo situation or Gondor being subordinate to Arthedain. They accept Princess Fíriel's claim with a number of stipulations that include her return to Minas Anor and strictly limiting the consort's authority.

After various negotiations, an agreement is reached. Fíriel becomes Gondor's first ruling queen and her son Aranarth succeeds her as heir of Anárion (though he is likely known to history by a regnal Quenya name).

The decision to defer to Númenórean law in Gondor would have far-reaching effects, including on the later succession. In my ideal version, the precedent is not understood as "daughters can inherit if there are no sons available" but as "the eldest living child inherits regardless of gender," as happened in Númenor (this is why Tar-Telperiën inherited despite having a brother).

The crowns of both Gondor and Arthedain would eventually fall to Aranarth, son of Fíriel and Arvedui, more or less uniting the kingdoms. I suspect the preservation of Arthedain would be a greater priority for Gondor in this scenario and it would actually be saved (I think the prophecy of Malbeth the Seer suggests that the salvation of Arthedain was possible, though these are not the specific circumstances he saw).

But canonically, Arthedain and Arnor follow strict male-line descent as much as (canon) Gondor (it's a huge deal to the Northern Dúnedain that their kings and chieftains are all heirs in an unbroken male line). If Gondor adopted the Númenórean system while Arthedain stuck to the patrilineal one, the kingdoms would be split apart the first time that the firstborn child of an heir of Fíriel and Arvedui was a girl (rule of Gondor going to the firstborn and rule of Arthedain going to her eldest brother). But it may be that Arthedain's traditions also changed in the AU, in which case it wouldn't be an issue.

This would also mean that the privileging of male-line-only descendants would be way less of a thing, at least in the royal house. The heirship would pass through oldest surviving children regardless of whether they were male or not, so even if the world was still similar enough that the same people even exist by the end of the Third Age, male-line-only heirs would not have seniority in this AU. The heir of Anárion and Isildur by the time of the War of the Ring could easily be ... like, Halbarad.

(Obviously there are all sorts of other consequences, too! But those are the ones that entertain me the most.)

---

*To be more specific, Númenórean succession law followed strict gender-blind primogeniture after the (relatively) early king Tar-Aldarion. Aldarion instituted the change to allow his daughter Ancalimë to inherit and (for whatever reason) to give elder children preference over younger ones without regard to gender. Thus, as mentioned above, Tar-Telperiën received the scepter rather than her younger brother Isilmo. Tolkien noted that if Tar-Aldarion's law had been followed from the beginning, the lords of Andúnië would have been the royal family, since their foremother, Princess Silmariën, was the firstborn.

[anghraine]

firinnish replied to this post [a poll about headcanons for the in-story reasons that the Stewards were not in Gondor's line of succession despite being descendants of Elendil]:

for practical reasons. Gondor's late kings were BAD KINGS. That is a vital part of the text. There is even a part of the history where a 100% legitimate claimant comes along and Gondor is just like "nah". These are people who hold kings to a high fucking standard because they want their noble fantasy kings of old back & don't want to risk another shitty king It is explicit in the text that Aragorn is the rightful heir to everything, like, five ways from Sunday, but he does NOT just stroll in and be like "what's up yall take orders from me now". He first wins a battle for Gondor, goes among them as a stranger with healing hands (fulfilling a prophecy/legend), and rides to battle against Sauron before he dares actually assert that these people should ACCEPT HIM AS ABSOLUTE DICTATOR. His lineage isn't the thing that matters [...]

You left a ... lot of replies on my poll, so for the convenience of my dash, I'm putting the rest of your response below my reply, in italics, so people can see it and/or respond if they want.

I disagree at some level with almost everything you said. I'm not going to go into exhaustive detail about every point of disagreement, but Arvedui is very much not a 100% legitimate claimant in my view.

His argument that his wife Fíriel's birthright would make him king of Gondor under Númenórean law is simply false (Fíriel herself would have been ruling queen under Númenórean law and Arvedui no more than her consort; the only men who ruled Númenor through the birthrights of their wives were usurpers of those wives and/or of their children). The claim of the heirs of Isildur is debatable, in-story—the characters cannot know Isildur's intentions when "he forsook the South Kingdom", as The Silmarillion describes it—but Arvedui was not even heir of Isildur at the time that he made the claim. His father was still alive; Arvedui made the claim at the time he did simply because his wife's father and brothers had just died and he saw the chance (if a low chance) to seize power in Gondor.

Gondor's late kings made significant mistakes (as did many of the kings in Arnor and Arthedain) but were not, IMO, as bad as you're representing them. Eärnil especially seems to have been quite a solid character. In any case, I'm unsure what this, or your personal willingness to accept Aragorn over Denethor as absolute dictator has to do with my poll. I do prefer Denethor to Aragorn in general and think the Stewards historically have been better rulers than the kings of either Arnor/Arthedain or Gondor, so we're basically at "I would kneel to Aragorn and not Denethor" "well I wouldn't", which leads nowhere. But again, I actually don't know what Aragorn has to do with my post.

I also don't know why you're quoting movie Boromir in the course of lecturing me about Tolkien. This is all just kind of puzzling on my end.

The rest of the replies:

His lineage is what makes HIM certain that that is his destiny & causes people around him to react to him but they are also reacting to the obvious training/care/investment that has been made in him by people like FUCKING ELROND, his NOT SIGNIFICANT foster father, and to his deeds. any time he claims his lineage Tolkien writes about how he almost shines with confidence and the glory of the old days. He is the myth of a good king reawakened

You could be a completely legit ancestor of the most legit proven heritage & the people of Gondor could STILL JUST SAY NO. Heck Boromir reacts like that at first - "Gondor doesn't need a king". The people do not WANT a shitty king with a famous dad, they want to believe again, they want to be made to hope again, they want someone who inspires them to believe in the IDEA of a king again. Otherwise they could literally just say no lol

And this ties in a vitally important way into Tolkien's politics. Man was a monarchist and an anarchist at the same time. You can't put him in either box. The hereditary kingship in Tolkien's politics is only acceptable BECAUSE it is the freely chosen will of the people to be ruled by an absolute dictator who, for the most part, leaves them alone. The king gets his hereditary power from familiarity & belonging, just as much as from tradition

*not insignificant. Elrond is very significant

It really hinges on this idea that a good king can exist - like, a good family can raise some good kids and everyone in the area will be happy to accept them as the new rulers because they've known that family for generations and they know they're a good family and they are happy with the way things are and don't want to rock the boat & they really believe in these ideals of nobility and loyalty. That's part of the fantasy. The idea that that can work if you're good.

The return of the king isn't "the return of the guy with the right genes", it's "the return of the guy who can make us believe again in the idea that a good king can work, that the world can be as noble and loyal as it was in the elder days of myth and glory, that we could swear loyalty to someone who is absolutely worth it"

You cannot extricate the inability of the Stewards to be Kings from the decline of Gondor's self-image, the crumbling ruins of Tolkien's world, the rising threat of Mordor and the end of the Third Age. The stewards cannot be kings because Gondor cannot be a kingdom. Aragorn can be King because he is the man that made Gondor a Kingdom again. He freaking REUNITED THE KINGDOM AND USHERED IN THE AGE OF MEN.

I'd kneel before Aragorn. I'd fucking walk away if Denethor asked me to kneel before him. It has nothing to do with these strict legalistic ideas of who inherited what and much more to do with who actually has power. Same as in the real world - people got overthrown all the time by others who could command more troops/money. But in Tolkien's world it's about who deserves it more, rather than about who has money/force, and that's the fantasy he is selling us

The part of this fantasy that is deeply problematic is that Tolkien just doesn't really reflect on his ideas about how coming from a noble lineage and a good family makes you better, more deserving, or more honourable. It's a natural idea to him, and it isn't to us and that's why it's harder to understand. He thinks goodness is heritable, like height or intelligence or sporting ability is heritable, because he can't disconnect those things

To him, "Aragorn is descended from xyz" is saying the same things as "well Aragorn just deserves the crown more because he's a better person". Aragorn inherited more strength, grace, wisdom etc. And the modern world does NOT like talking about the idea that any of those things could be heritable because, well, that's usually used to defend racism and horrible inexcusable shit

But I think you CANNOT engage with Tolkien without grappling with that (except on a very shallow level)

I may have written too much in the replies but I got carried away. Sorry I like over analysing Aragorn

If Tolkien was ever actually asked "do you believe some races are better than others" he would have told you to fuck off. He was vehemently against the Nazis. But then he writes this book in which elves are very clearly better than orcs. ie. you cannot simplify him to a liberal icon or to an evil racist. He's fucking complicated. I think on some level he WANTS there to be this fantasy world in which race is that simple but he understands that in the real world it isn't

In Tolkien's head, it's NEITHER "Aragorn was entitled to the kingship due to his descent and didn't need to do good deeds" NOR "Aragorn earned the kingship thru good deeds and his lineage didn't matter". He proved his heritage through good deeds because only someone who INHERITED tons of awesome qualities would be able to do the stuff Aragorn did

The modern reader simply does not consider the idea that awesomeness is heritable so we don't engage with the idea that you could prove you're descended from kings simply by being really really awesome

He uses the ideas of the blood of old kings running strong in some people and being weaker in others to talk about the amount of awesomeness you inherited. The technical legality of the stewards' family tree does not matter. The stewards did not inherit enough awesomeness and are therefore insufficiently awesome to defeat Mordor and restore the kingdom

It is not a simple or a coherent ideology either. Compare how Tolkien's hobbits are "small unimportant people who can become heroes" yet we do NOT see small unimportant Men becoming kings. It's like a special exemption is carved out for hobbits, for a modern "anyone can achieve anything" philosophy, and the rest of the world runs on the older rules of "you can't rise above your destined station"

It's very comparable to works in the 90s which were trying to be feminist by showing a super awesome badass female heroine…. yet every background character beyond Token Badass Woman was still running on the old rules of "men are default characters, women only exist to be wives or damsels in distress" because they had not actually gotten to the point of questioning that underlying background ideology yet

like the half elves. He's trying to be a progressive person by being like "oh biracial characters exist and are awesome" but everyone ELSE in his world still fits neatly into the boxes of "you're either x or y". We have heroic half elves. We do not have masses of half dwarf quarter orc quarter elf characters chilling in diverse multiracial cities.

someday people will see us this way btw. at least I hope so. they will see our bravest progressive statements as the stumbling half steps towards truths that have become obvious to them, while in the background of our stories they can still see our limiting old ideologies showing through. I am not yelling at Tolkien I have so much empathy for this man who tried so hard in such a darker world

[anghraine]

One of the funnier things from the Quora Tolkien digests is that, for whatever reasons, I get a lot of answers that are very fixated on Aragorn's descent from Lúthien and will reference Legolas's quote about the line of Lúthien never failing as if Aragorn's accomplishments were entirely attributable to his ancestry and nobody in the houses of Elros or Isildur or Anárion ever failed at anything or were just kind of shitty.

It feels almost unsporting to point out Pharazôn failing so hard he got his kingdom eternally sunk into the sea, so I'll settle for Arvedui of Arthedain, who definitely failed at several things that contributed to his death. There's Eärnur of Gondor, who rode into Minas Morgul to demand single combat with a being prophesied to never be killed by a man and was never seen again. There's the super racist Castamir who kickstarted (and ultimately lost) the Gondorian civil war that devastated Osgiliath.

Oh, and for the "just kind of shitty" contingent, there's Ar-Gimilzôr, an oppressor who forced his wife to marry him despite her unwillingness, along with Herucalmo, who ruled through the authority of his wife Tar-Vanimeldë and upon her death, seized the throne from his own son. Tar-Ancalimë's husband Hallacar (who tried to outmaneuver her with dubious success at best) sucked too, along with her cousin Soronto (who tried to either supplant her as heir or succeed her and achieved neither).

Descent from Elros grants stature and abilities of varying kinds to his descendants. It does not grant success or virtue, though.

[anghraine]

I know the Tolkien vs GRRM comparisons are often very unfair from the Tolkien fandom side—a lot of the takes on GRRM are grounded in GOT rather than ASOIAF, while some of GRRM’s takes on LOTR are grounded in real issues worth discussing and he just has a flair for picking bad examples of them.

...buuut even so, I am genuinely ????? when some ASOIAF fans go on about the lack of political struggles in Middle-earth. LOTR may not take place during, say, Gondor’s civil war over rival claims to the throne, but things like that still happened and affect the present in LOTR.

I mean, the legacy of the Gondorian civil war is a significant part of the reason that the Ruling Stewardship exists at all come LOTR, and that civil war is actually a largely separate issue from the attempts of the house of Isildur to claim the throne. Isildur’s son Valandil wasn’t in a position to press the High Kingship; his descendant Arvedui made the Isildurioni claim on Gondor in dubious circumstances and was rejected by the Gondorian elites in favour of a popular general of royal blood. Aragorn basically has to be both claimants—the great warrior of royal ancestry who leads Gondorian armies to victory (like Eärnil) and the heir of one of the royal lines (like Arvedui).

I’m a Gondor stan, so that’s the first example that leaps to mind (and there are more political entanglements and strains than those wrt Gondor specifically). But there’s also ... uhhh the entire Silmarillion and everything Númenor chooses to be etc. Middle-earth isn’t Westeros, but it is by no means devoid of politics in ways that directly impact the course of LOTR.

[anghraine]

I just remembered the other thing I was going to say on my Arvedui and Pelendur post earlier today.

It’s sometimes presumed that Aragorn’s claim to the throne of Gondor is interchangeable with Arvedui’s, but this isn’t true. Arvedui pretended or believed that Númenor allowing women and their children to inherit somehow gave him a claim to the throne of Gondor as Princess Fíriel’s husband. He was wrong. Under Númenórean law, he would be a usurper had he succeeded, either of Fíriel or of their son Aranarth. But Aragorn is Aranarth’s heir, so had he chosen to claim the throne through Fíriel, the claim on that side would not be nearly so groundless.

However, Aragorn doesn’t actually try to make that claim. He firmly identifies himself as the heir of Isildur and claims the throne of Gondor as heir of Valandil -> Isildur -> Elendil, evading the entire prickly issue of royal inheritance through the female line (something that neither Arnor/Arthedain nor Gondor ever permitted, though the Stewards managed it by not claiming royalty).

On top of that, though, the rejection by Pelendur and the Council of Gondor is so sweeping that I suspect they would have rejected any argument that Arvedui made. This is veering into headcanon, but I think their overriding concern—above misogyny, above whatever Isildur may or may not have intended—was the subordination of Gondor’s interests to Arthedain’s. And Pelendur was a descendant of Anárion (according to POME and NOME) through some line that couldn’t claim the throne—likely through a female line. He excluded himself and his own descendants from the succession forever to keep the house of Isildur out of Gondor.

Something that’s interesting about Aragorn in the book, though, is that he’s ... pretty damn enthusiastic about becoming King of Gondor for its own sake. Like, yes, he restores Arnor and reunites the kingdoms and all, but I think it’s clear that Gondor is not subordinated to Arnor in his rule or mind. If anything, the end of “The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen” indicates that Aragorn’s rule was centered on Minas Anor to the end of his very long life.

So while the heirs of Isildur were eventually able to take power in Gondor, it makes sense that Aragorn—the victorious captain who was willing to jeopardize himself for Gondor and who clearly loves and values it for its own sake, and who is much more straightforward and honest about his claim—was a lot more palatable to Gondorians than Arvedui would have ever been. And it certainly didn’t turn out in the way that I think Pelendur and the Council might have feared.

[anghraine]

Arvedui’s claim to the throne through his marriage to Princess Fíriel is interesting for a couple of reasons.

He makes a separate claim as heir of Isildur (though his father was alive at the time...), which is its own matter. But his additional argument that, under the laws of Númenor, his marriage to Fíriel gives him some claim to the throne of Gondor is frankly either duplicitous or ignorant. The laws of Númenor, after Tar-Aldarion, allowed women to rule in their own right. The only men to rule Númenor via the birth/lineage of their wives were usurpers.

Under Númenórean law, Fíriel’s status as daughter and only living child of the King of Gondor would make her the rightful ruler, not Arvedui. If she’s dead by then, her claim would pass to her eldest child (regardless of gender), not Arvedui.

I think his attempt to bullshit his way into the kingship is somewhat obscured by the fact that, while the Council of Gondor rejects this claim, they do not reject it for being wrong (though it is). Rather, the Council’s argument is that Númenórean law has not been applied in either Gondor or Arnor/Arthedain at any point (this seems to be true) and that they do not consider women to have any place in the succession (i.e., not only can women not claim the throne, but men cannot claim the throne through women because something something war). So they don’t cover themselves in glory, either.

I suspect the real issue is that the Council (and, it’s implied, the Dúnedain of Gondor in general) didn’t want Gondor to be ruled by Arthedain. Arthedain was an ally, yes, and one with which they had kinship, but also by that point had been a separate country with its own interests and priorities for a long time, and was also considerably weaker than Gondor. The Council could have made a narrower and fairer ruling dismissing Arvedui’s particular claim because of its misrepresentations, but that would open the door for Aranarth to claim the throne, which as far as they were likely concerned, would lead to exactly the same thing.

Tolkien suggests that one figure had an outsized role in all this: Pelendur, Steward of Gondor. As Steward, he would have been the chief of the Council, and acting ruler of Gondor between Ondoher’s death and the succession of the new king. But an interesting twist is that both Peoples of Middle-earth and Nature of Middle-earth suggest/state that Húrin of Emyn Arnen, the direct forefather of the Stewards, was a descendant of Anárion without being of the “line” of Anárion—which, in all likelihood, means that Pelendur himself was also descended from Anárion through a woman, and that the call he made wrt Fíriel applied to his own family as well and ensured that they could never claim the throne of Gondor.

I’m unsure what my takeaway from this is—just that I think it’s really interesting and more complicated than it’s sometimes treated.

[anghraine]

I’ve thought about Arvedui’s claim to the throne of Gondor a ... lot over the years, but to this day, I’m not quite sure what Tolkien was doing with it.

The claim as heir of Isildur is one thing: either Isildur forsook Gondor dynastically or didn’t. It’s debatable but the question is clear.

The claim through Fíriel, though, is strange. Both Gondor and Arnor/Arthedain have operated under strict male-line inheritance for their entire existences. Arvedui uses the law of Númenor, which allowed women to inherit independently, as a precedent to argue that the custom should be overturned (good) and therefore he should receive the crown as Fíriel’s husband (wait, what?). 

Númenórean law is unambiguous on this point. Whatever else Tar-Aldarion may have been, his law made daughters fully equal heirs in their own right. Tar-Ancalimë was the ruler of Númenor (and not her husband Hallacar—God forbid). Tar-Telperiën was ruler, rather than her younger brother Isilmo. Tar-Vanimeldë’s husband did rule through her and then claimed the throne through his marriage to her—and he was counted a usurper. The same but worse happened with the rightful queen Tar-Míriel and the usurper Ar-Pharazôn. 

Like. Arvedui is basically arguing that what happened with Vanimeldë/Alcarin and Míriel was not only acceptable but the way things worked in Númenor generally, and how they should work in Gondor.

?????????

[anghraine]

Aragorn is very much more like Eärnil than Arvedui 2k21

[anghraine]

Hills I will die on:

Fíriel’s claim to the throne of Gondor and Arvedui’s claim to the throne of Gondor are not the same!

Arvedui tries to claim the throne for himself through Fíriel, under the pretense argument that that’s how it worked in Númenor. But in Númenor, Fíriel would be Ruling Queen, and Arvedui her consort, not the other way around. The only men who claimed to be king through their wives’ birthrights were usurpers. And Fíriel never claimed the Gondorian throne in her own right.

Arvedui also claims the throne as heir of Isildur (sort of—iirc his father was actually alive at the time?). This is the sole claim that Arvedui and Fíriel’s descendant Aragorn makes later, which perhaps suggests that he sees it as more legitimate or at least more persuasive. Regardless, it’s a separate matter from Fíriel’s rights, and I think the lines between the two distinct claims that Arvedui makes get blurred a lot.

[anghraine]

tbh Arvedui would annoy me vastly less if he’d accepted that Fíriel was the rightful ruler of Gondor, not him

[anghraine]

I was re-reading an old LOTR post that quoted Aragorn's line from the book:

"Little do I resemble the figures of Elendil and Isildur as they stand carven in their majesty in the halls of Denethor. I am but the heir of Isildur, not Isildur himself."

Some things that immediately jumped to mind:

1) It turns out that Aragorn actually does look quite a lot like Elendil and Isildur, but it's only noticeable when a) he cleans up or b) he's coming into his own on a more ... spiritual yet practical level, I guess.

Significantly, when Pippin is later struck by Denethor's very Númenórean appearance in ROTK, he specifically associates it with how much Denethor's specific features resemble Aragorn's. The Appendix reiterates this; as Thorongil, Aragorn looked like Denethor's "nearest kin."

I don't think this response is completely false humility, though, because Aragorn doesn't really look like that in the specific scene where he disclaims the resemblance, and probably hasn't for a long time (and he's talking to Boromir, who does seem to be considered remarkably beautiful even by Tolkien standards). But I also doubt it's coincidence that Aragorn specifically mentions Denethor and their common ancestor, Elendil, in his response.

(It's possible that Elendil and Isildur themselves didn't look quite as majestic as their statues, but eh, it's actually a big deal that Aragorn and Denethor are so similar to each other and them, so I'm inclined to think the statues are accurate.)

2) The specific way he ties Denethor in is by referring to the throne room/hall, complete with majestic statues of the kings, as "the halls of Denethor" rather than one of the various other names it goes by. This could be strategic, since he's trying to dial down the tension in that moment; he goes out of his way to acknowledge the authority of Boromir's father and family to his face, when pretty much everyone else has acted like he's just some guy. It might also be a concession that right now, they are Denethor's halls.

It's also interesting because, when Aragorn later tries to exclude himself from Rohan's laws based on his royal stature, Háma sharply responds, "This is the house of Théoden, not of Aragorn, even were he King of Gondor in the seat of Denethor.”

Of course, the literal seat of Denethor, the chair of the Stewards, is pointedly not the royal throne, but lbr that's Númenórean sophistry that the Rohirrim don't care about. But I do think there's something interesting in the way that specific physical objects of the hall—the chair, the throne, the statues—are linked to Denethor and Aragorn and their own interrelationship.

3) Aragorn is extremely careful here and often elsewhere to not link himself to Anárion, though he is also descended from him and the tie to Anárion formed a critical part of the original formal claim made by Arvedui (though IMO Arvedui did pretty significantly misrepresent its significance under Númenórean law and tradition).

Aragorn's choice may be because of the failure of the original claim and to avoid getting caught up in legal minutia when both he and Denethor are descendants of Anárion outside the direct male line. And his ultimate presentation to Gondor as claimant makes zero mention of Anárion or Fíriel. So here's one of the first instances of that careful downplaying of the tie to Anárion.

4) Not to make literally everything about my gripes with the Jackson movies, but this is a very clear example of something the movies do a lot, which apparently was one of Christopher Tolkien's main causes of frustration—taking lines (esp dialogue) from the original novel and moving them to different characters or contexts to serve some different purpose that changes their meaning, sometimes radically.

That is very definitely the case here. Even though the full quote above, in its original context, would make zero sense for movie Aragorn, the bolded part does make it into the movies, but in a context which completely reverses its meaning.

In the book, the point of "I am but the heir of Isildur, not Isildur himself" is that Aragorn is freely acknowledging that he knows he doesn't have the spectacular majesty that Isildur did and he is only Isildur's heir. In the films, the line shifts to Arwen IIRC, and is re-contextualized as comfort for Aragorn that he isn't doomed to being a morally weak fuck-up like movie Isildur just because he's descended from him.

And honestly, while re-purposing Tolkien's lines doesn't always bother me, re-purposing them to mean exactly the opposite from the original does rub me the wrong way, ngl, esp given how difficult it's been to even talk about Isildur for the last ... uhh 20 years without everything being reduced to some movie!Isildur meme that makes zero sense for Tolkien's characters.

[anghraine]

Some Halbrand<-->Aragorn thoughts (spoilers for S1 of ROP):

One of the reasons that I like the Halbrand approach to Sauron, even though (or in some ways because) it was predictable, is because I don't think there was that much of an attempt at a twist. I think the point was something else.

I mean, it's a twist for the characters, sure. And I don't think it was striking some super subversive blow at monarchism as such. But there does seem a basic implicit criticism or at least potential concern over certain royalist narratives embedded into the reveal.

Halbrand is a foil for Galadriel and the Noldor, yes, but he's clearly framed as a sketchy (and it turns out, very much worse than sketchy!) version of Aragorn as well. It's not subtle. The whole choice to have Sauron pass himself off as a dispossessed human king who has Seen Some Shit (but not remotely near what actual Sauron has seen and done) rather than a Vanya or whatnot is absolutely rooted in the Aragorn narrative.

Moreover, I would say it's especially rooted in the pop culture/movie Aragorn narrative that supercharges the "kingship by birthright" element of original Aragorn's arc, while simultaneously framing him as reluctant and effectively needing to rise to the occasion/mature before he's ready to take up his rightful mantle.

(Despite the movies sacrificing numerous other characters to prop up Aragorn's personal nobility, they lean hard into the idea that Aragorn is the rightful king by inheritance, where I think book Aragorn's uber-kingliness forms a contrast to the more recent heirs of Isildur and even more distant ones like Arvedui. Arvedui was a literal king, but he failed where Aragorn succeeds. And Aragorn ultimately succeeds by following the path of Arvedui's Anárioni rival Eärnil, where he has a debatable claim in terms of legal precedent, but gains popular and elite support through his actions. Anyway.)

The more uncharitable response to Halbrand as shadow-Aragorn is that it's a largely failed attempt at obfuscation. And maybe! But I think there's at least some intrinsic interest in questioning the popular Aragorn narrative given the revelation that ROP's ersatz Aragorn figure is, you know, Sauron.

And I know I'm biased, as a diehard fan of the Stewards who has reservations about both the book and movie restoration-of-the-monarchy narratives. People sometimes point out that the Stewards are also functionally hereditary monarchs, and that's true, and the emphasis on ancestry being important even if it doesn't automatically confer political power is very much a thing with the Stewards, too.

But for me, it's not that I can't buy into X Dynasty is Special for Reasons in the context of a fantasy story. But it feels like it requires a much higher level of royalist buy-in to think that the normative practice of a state should be changed after nearly 1000 years of stable, non-expansionist rule by one(1) dynasty, and the governing head of state replaced by some other guy who doesn't even live there. This should happen because Other Guy Who Doesn't Live There is a) a popular war hero and b) descended in a senior male line from the founder of the multi-millennia-old state (whom the current leader is also a descendant of, incidentally, but not via patrilineal primogeniture, so it doesn't count).

The story is structured so that the rule of the Stewards—which, again, was extremely competent for 969 years—falls apart for reasons only distantly connected with Aragorn when Denethor snaps in the last few days of the war. So, while I think Tolkien is actually pretty sympathetic to Denethor as an individual while being clear about his flaws—structurally, Denethor has to be taken out of the narrative for Aragorn's arc to resolve (since Denethor wouldn't give way to him voluntarily). And it has to happen in such a way that Faramir, earlier established as doubtful about Aragorn, will surrender the rule of Gondor and leave the home city he loves and nearly died to defend without us feeling bad about it.

And you can see why Tolkien (and even more Jackson) wouldn't want us to reach the resolution of Aragorn's long arc/rise and be thinking "huh, so are there Stewardist holdouts who are displeased about this or...?" But while the story is structured to essentially de-legitimize the Stewards' rule at the (veryyyy) end and railroad the last of the house into being happy about it, it's hard to think of a reason why people as capable as Denethor or Faramir should be replaced by Aragorn, except if you buy into the glamour of royalty more than concrete personal qualities.

Yes, Aragorn is a cool, talented guy who was instrumental in a military triumph that will mean Gondorian survival and prosperity, and who has worked steadily for that end for a long time, and I do respect that and his abilities. But Théoden and Éomer were also instrumental and nobody thinks Éomer should be king of Gondor now, you know?

(And Théoden had as much Númenórean ancestry as King Eldacar did! Eldacar was clearly framed as the legitimate ruler vs his pureblooded rivals. Also, Théoden has that ancestry through a very powerful Gondorian house with kinship to Elendil, so it's not just a matter of having a set amount of Númenórean/Elendil's blood or whatever, which would be gross enough but unsurprising. Instead, it's because of patrilineality and primogeniture and such rationales that are frankly not very mystical when you think about them.)

So. It's hard to get away from the nostalgic royalist narrative with Aragorn, however much I do find him compelling and even frequently likable, and even though I think the book's royalist arc is far more complex and nuanced than in the movies and in fandom takes on it.

Consequently, ROP turning that on its head with Halbrand and having it go DISASTROUSLY AWRY is on a personal, subjective level really satisfying. So I'm okay with it for multiple reasons, but a big one is lizard brain vindication.