|
I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.
Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to be a politician.
|