Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
If I recall my rusty history correctly, Charles I was raised to believe that he had a divine right to rule and genuinely believed this to be the case. He simply could not conceive of things any differently. The whole basis of his defence at his trial was that Parliament had no right to challenge his authority, deriving as it did from God. Indeed, it probably sealed his fate - I seem to recall that it would have been possible for him to avoid the executioner's axe had he renounced his right to the throne. His arrogance therefore (if it may be called that) was driven by an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule.
But didn't Aragorn too have an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule? Admittedly, he saw it as important to assume the throne with the will of the people. But what if he had not had popular support? What if Denethor (or even Boromir) had survived and opposed his coronation? It has, I think, been mooted in the past that civil war within Gondor might have been the outcome (as had happened in the past).
|
You're far more sympathetic to Charles I than I am.
There is of course a long history of Kings taking that kind of line and meeting their makers as a result. I think we can still call it arrogance taken from our modern perspective, as we don't necessarily excuse slave traders in the past of ignorance.
And you're more harsh on Aragorn than I am! I think Aragorn did indeed have a conviction that he had the right to rule, but certainly after the near miss 'diplomatic incident' (as it might be called today) at Meduseld he knew about holding back. If he had still got poular support and one of the brothers had held onto Gondor he would have used diplomatic means to win them over, but even had he
not had popular support, I doubt he would have gone 'steaming in'.