My, has an old thread been dug up here.... and I see myself prominently quoted. It's difficult to defend one's position after a year and more of not thinking on it, but I wish to quibble in my defence over the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mänwe
Originally posted by Formendacil
Quote:
|
“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.”
|
Therefore I cannot agree with what you say here Formendacil.
“…and after the days of Pelendur the Stewardship became hereditary as a kingship, from father to son or nearest kin.” – (Appendix A, The Stewards)
Kingship was ever passed to the eldest, by their own laws there would only ever be one ruling King of all the land. Regardless of how many founded it, as the eldest, responsibility would be Isuldur’s. Therefore I am in complete agreement with Boromir88 that Isuldur did not mean to split the Kingdom’s. |
There were two thrones in Osgiliath: one for Isildur, and one for Anárion. There were twin cities flanking the great capital: Minas Ithil for Isildur and Minas Anor for Anárion.
I agree that Isildur never intended to split the two kingdoms, but I do not think that it follows, necessarily, that Gondor was not intended originally to have two kings. Possibly, the junior king was always intended to be the younger brother or kinsman of the senior king (through whom the lineage descended). Possibly the line of Anárion only retained the throne through the unhappy chance of the Gladden Fields.
It is even possible that Gondor was only intended to have one king.
However, there is evidence that Gondor was intended to be ruled under two kings, not unlike how the Roman Empires (West and East) under Diocletian were ruled each by a senior emperor, the Augustus, and a junior emperor, the Caesar. I'm not sure I'd call it likely. But possible. And not to be summarily ruled out.