Was it legit?

[Boromir88]

Now, I hope I have you wondering what the heck this title means. Well, to start with a clue, I'm questioning whether Isildur's line had a legitimate claim to the throne of Gondor. But, surprisingly, not whether Arvedui had a legitimate claim, but whether Aragorn's claim was legit.

As we see Arvedui's claim was rejected. He claimed to be the heir of Isildur, and that Isildur had not intended Gondor and Arnor to be split forever. The Council (along with Pelendur) disagrees and declares that only male heirs of Anarion can claim the throne of Gondor. With this being "declared" I wonder if Aragorn's claim is legitimate, or whether he was able to get the throne of Gondor because of the political vaccuum and the struggle Gondor was in.

As we see in the Silmarillion, Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age...

For [Isildur] forsook the South Kingdom for her purposed to take up his father's realm in Eriador

Forsook means to renounce, or give up something you hold dear.

I think Arvedui was right in saying that Isildur had not intended both kingdoms to be split. He was going to take up the high kingship of his father, and he placed Meneldil as ruler of Gondor until that time. However, is Isildur able to take up this claim? Does he not get ambushed and killed before he was able to? (For I don't know if Letters which I have not read sort of expands on this) If that's the case, then Isildur's line does not have a claim to the throne. And that the Council, finding a loophole, declares that since Isildur "renounced" his rule in Gondor, Arvedui has no claim.

So, now I ask why is Aragorn able to claim the throne? If supposedly he has no claim. Is it because there's a difference that Aragorn claims to be Elendil's heir, therefor wishing taking up the claim of high kingship and ruling both kingdoms? Or, is it the timely fashion that Aragorn decides to make his claim.

He arrives on Pelennor and is seen by Gondor as their "saviour." Also, the political vaccuum that's created with Denethor's death, Gandalf temporarily taking command, then Imrahil, and then Faramir, with this political strife does it make Aragorn's claim to the throne easier for him? Does he have a claim or is it his timely arrival...or possibly both? Something, I've kind of been wondering about.

[Eonwe]

If that's the case, then Isildur's line does not have a claim to the throne.

I see no reason why Valandil shouldn't receive the High Kingship like his father would have.

In Appendix A, we find Arvedui's argument:

But when Elendil fell, Isildur departed to take up the high kingship of his fatehr, and committed the rule in the Sourth in like manner to the son of his brother. He did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor, nor inted that the realm of Elendil should be divided for ever.

It never says (here at least) why Arvedui's claim of the High Kingship is regected in Gondor. But it does say:

The claim was rejected. In this Pelendur, the Steward of the King Ondoher, played a chief part.

This suggests to me that there was some shady dealing going on. I think that Arvedui's claim is valid. And Aragorn's would certainly be valid, because the line of the King dies out completely, so he would be the closest with the highest claim to the throne.

[Kuruharan]

I guess it all depends on how binding one considers precedent to be. If you think precedent is most important, then Aragorn's claim was probably illegitimate.

However, I think we can safely infer that Tolkien's view was that Aragorn was the legitimate heir and that the Gondorians made a mistake in refusing Arvedui. On the other hand, I think it is also hard to deny that the power vacuum had something to do with Gondor's willingness to accept Aragorn.

As a slight aside, I'm not too sure that Arvedui would have been such a great king even had he been accepted. That may have played a role in why Gondor rejected him.

For more on that click here.

[Formendacil]

I agree with all that Kuruharan said, but to add...

In my opinion, the fact that Pelendur and the Council of Gondor rejected Arvedui's claim does not mean that it was therefore not legit. Gondor was ruled by the laws of Numenor, laws under which the eldest child (or son, depending on the reading) inherited from his father, and so on down the line.

Gondor was founded by both Isildur and Anarion. Ergo, their descendents should each have been able to claim it's kingship. By rights, Gondor should have had two kings.

Of course, Arnor threw a bit of a monkeywrench into things by the fact that Isildur stood to inherit from Elendil there- and the fact that Elendil was acknowledged as High King of the Numenoreans in Exile- a fact that included the Kingdom of Gondor, and was acknowledged by its citizens.

Therefore, the claim of the Line of Isildur as the Overlords of the Realms in Exile (including the Kingship of Gondor) was perfectly correct under the Numenorean laws of succession. And after the termination of the Line of Anarion, they had a right to return to the direct Kingship of both kingdom- a right they had never clearly forfeited in the first place.

The laws of Numenor were such that Arvedui, as Heir of Isildur, should have become King of Gondor as well as of Arnor. Pelendur and the Council did not, in my opinion, have the authority to change the laws of succession. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently wrote in The Horse and His Boy:

'But, Father, couldn't you make whichever you like to be the next King?"

"No. The King's under the law, for it's the law makes him a king. Hast no more power to start away from thy crown than any sentry from his post.'

I would say that same idea applies to the Gondorian throne as it does to Lewis' Archenlandish throne- if not moreso.

It was, perhaps, permissible for Pelendur and the Council to put forward Earnil as the Heir of Anarion, and a distinctly seperate Heir for the Southern Line. As I said earlier, both founding kings had the right to be represented on the throne, and the heritage of Firiel would be easily lost in the patrilineal descent of Arvedui's house.

Therefore, I am willing to see Earnil and Earnur as legitimate Kings of Gondor, while still championing the Line of Isildur as having a completely legitimate claim to Gondor's throne- and to the High Kingship of the Kingdoms in Exile as a whole (thus making them Overlords of Gondor).

[Boromir88]

This suggests to me that there was some shady dealing going on. I think that Arvedui's claim is valid. And Aragorn's would certainly be valid, because the line of the King dies out completely, so he would be the closest with the highest claim to the throne.~Eonwe

I definitely think one side was twisting things around...

The Council of Gondor answered: "The crown and royalty of Gondor belong solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anarion, to whom Isildur relinquished this realm. In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the sons only; and we have not heard that the law is otherwise in Arnor."

Arvedui: "He did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor, nor intend that the realm of Elendil should be divided for ever."

(bolding mine)
So one side said he did relinquish his throne, the other side says he didn't, obviously one is lying. Though I would think of all people the Council and Pelendur were the ones lying in the Silmarillion...

For [Isildur] forsook the South Kingdom for he purposed to take up his father's realm in Eriador.

Forsook meaning to give up, or renounce. So, what did Isildur "renounce" well the South Kingdom, Gondor, his royalty.

I do agree with Arvedui that Isildur did not mean for the two kingdoms to be divided, I actually think he probably was going to take up the High Kingship of his father. However, does he ever get to do this? As we know he's ambushed and killed. If not then the Council appears to have made the right decision in Arvedui's claim.

We also must recognize the difference between Arvedui and Aragorn's claim. Arvedui claimed to be Isildur's heir, and the Council says, aint gonna work because Isildur gave up his reign here. Aragorn claims to be Elendil's heir, taking up the high kingship and reuniniting the two Kingdoms. Which, is I think the big difference between Aragorn's claim and Arvedui's claim.

But, I have to wonder, along with Kuru, was it more of Aragorn's "claim," or the fact of his timely arrival on Pelennor, saving Gondor, and the political vaccuum in Gondor that caused him to get the crown?

Pelendur and the Council did not, in my opinion, have the authority to change the laws of succession.~Formendacil

Well, they did have the power, clearly as we see in Arvedui's case. Did they "technically" have the power, I don't know. But, clearly that's what they did, and I think it was Kransha who did a thread similar talking about Arvedui's claim, the Stewards seemed to have the power whether they willingly backed down to the claimed King or not. My understanding was, if Faramir hadn't been such a good guy and did the right thing in letting Aragorn take the crown, he could have told Aragorn no.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well, they did have the power, clearly as we see in Arvedui's case. Did they "technically" have the power, I don't know. But, clearly that's what they did, and I think it was Kransha who did a thread similar talking about Arvedui's claim, the Stewards seemed to have the power whether they willingly backed down to the claimed King or not. My understanding was, if Faramir hadn't been such a good guy and did the right thing in letting Aragorn take the crown, he could have told Aragorn no.

Okay, Pelendur (and, for the same reasons, Faramir) had the POWER to refuse Arvedui (and Aragorn). They had the power in the sense that if they said no, there really wasn't a way Arvedui or Aragorn would likely be able to forcibly change that- the Steward being the highest authority in Gondor without a King.

My point is that they didn't have the legitimate authority to do so. To change the laws of succession would be an abuse of their power- something that LEGALLY they could not do. While, in actual fact, they could prevent someone from taking the throne, it was not within their "constitutional rights" to prevent the legitimate heir from inheriting.