Immortality and the sons of Elrond

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

True he did leave it out, but I do not think that his doing so necessarily means, at least in this case, that the Stewards were not related to Anárion. In Appendix A when we are given the rulers of the Dúnedain kingdoms in exile, the Stewards are clearly written with the Kings under Heirs of Anárion, as regards The Southern Line.

This probably has more to do with the Stewards acting with all the powers of the King rather than any ancestry.

Since when did the other nobles start choosing the Stewards who, "took office with the oath, 'to hold rod and rule in the name of the king, until he shall return.'" [App. A]

The nobles would have had to agree for the Stewards to keep ruling. The Civil Wars in both Arnor and Gondor are proof that the Numenoreans were not always prepared to follow the law.

I'm not sure I get what you mean here. What kind of politics is this? Generally if a Prince wanted to secure himself from rivals he'd destroy the families of all would be rivals. It is known that Pelendur the Steward, for instance "played the chief part" [App. A] in the rejection of Arvedui's claim to the crown and the installment of Eärnil with whom the other Dúnedain approved.

They all had a weak claim to rule as Peneldur made clear when he rejected Arvedui's claim thus not only stopping his clan from claiming the kingship but the other clans who also had a royal lineage but not through the male line.

I think you are confusing the timeline. Earnil's claim was certainly not weak. He was of the House of Anarion. The problem is that Arvedui had a stronger claim.

The political logic is that there are a few Houses with strong claims to the throne like the Prince of Dol Amroth and others. These Houses cannot agree on who should be king, so they agree to let the Steward continue ruling until the matter is resolved. A bit like the crisis Scotland had after the death of the Maid of Norway. They called upon Edward Longshanks to settle the matter.

It is said, "no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow;" [App. A] and that the Stewards were nearly as pure as the kings. If there were purer houses, and houses of greater nobility, would they not take the station of king? They, like the Stewards, in my opinion were not related to the kings through the male line. Those who may have been descendants through the male line were not pure enough as they, "taken wives not of Númenorean blood." [App. A]

The answer to that is NO. Just, because they were purer, more noble Houses with a better claim does not mean they would have been chosen for the throne. There was enough disagreement that none of the Great Houses like say Dol Amroth could get all the nobility to agree. Consequently it's easier to have a lesser House rule than have another kinslaying.

The reasoning being that the House of Stewards would never be powerful enough to claim the kingship. As things stand now we know that Dol Amroth at least would have seceded and possibly other areas too.

This is because the kings installed them as such and they became hereditary.

The king installed them us such, but it was never intended for them to rule for 1000 years with no king. Gondor Dol Amroth had become virtually independent at this time.

I imagine the other great Houses were content to keep the Stewards, because it was better than a Civil War.

I do not think so. Let's be honest, there were not many claimants anyway, but again, Pelendur made sure that no one in the female line could take the crown when he rejected Arvedui's claim. His argument was not that there was no one to be found in the female line who could take the throne, it was that in keeping with tradition in Gondor, only in the male line were kings taken. There were certainly people of the male line, but as we no they could not be selected because they were too mixed with lesser men.

I never said there were no other claimants, but there were few of them that met the criteria and after Earnur disappeared, there probably was none from the male line.

I think it's possible both were, and possibly all of the noble houses remaining in Gondor with him intermarriage was almost certain to happen.

Possible, but by no means a certainty. The Numenoreans would not have illegitimate children and had a very low birth rate. With the obsession some had about blood purity the royal family would possibly keep marrying back into each other. Numenor had a law forbidding the heir to the throne from marrying a non-descendant of Elros. Gondor may not have had a strict law, but I would imagine it would be the custom.

I do not get your 2 points here. Explain the 2nd one and also explain the first.

"Also to be Prince of Ithilien, the greatest noble after Dol Amroth in the revived Númenórean state of Gondor, soon to be of imperial power and prestige, was not a 'market-garden job' as you term it. Until much had been done by the restored King, the P. of Ithilien would be the resident march-warden of Gondor, in its main eastward outpost - and also would have many duties in rehabilitating the lost territory, and clearing it of outlaws and orc-remnants, not to speak of the dreadful vale of Minas Ithil (Morgul). I did not, naturally, go into details about the way in which Aragorn, as King of Gondor, would govern the realm. But it was clear that there was much fighting, and in the early years of A.'s reign expeditions against enemies in the East. The chief commanders, under the King, would be Faramir and Imrahil; and one of these would normally be a military commander at home in the King's absence. A Númenórean king was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that Faramir, who remained by inheritance the Steward (or representative of the King during his absence abroad, or sickness, or between his death and the accession of his heir) would [be] the chief counsellor." [Letter 244, pp. 323-4]

1. The first point is simple. At the time the House of Hurin were raised to Stewards they were still not one of the Great Families. It's only after Aragorn returns that he raises them above all other nobility except the Prince of Dol Amroth. A House with close ties to Anarion would definitely be one of the Great Houses. Just look at the power the Lords of Andunie had.

2. When a group of powerful Houses are all competing for rule, they sometimes let a less powerful House/person rule as a compromise. Usually, because they don't feel the person will ever be a threat (this is part of the reason Hitler was able to come to power).

Say for Instance the Lord of Dol Amroth and the Lord of Calenardhon (fictional Lord) had the two strongest claims through the female line. Both are powerful and important families. The Prince of Dol Amroth does not agree on the Lord of Calenardhon and vice versa. To keep the peace they decide on letting the Steward keep ruling, safe in the knowledge that his claim and power base is too weak to take the throne.

This is a possible reason for why Denethor was bitter that in Gondor the House of Stewards could never take the throne even after a 1000 years.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

This probably has more to do with the Stewards acting with all the powers of the King rather than any ancestry.

I think it has to do with both, being both rulers and descendants, just as it holds with all the kings mentioned on the list.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The nobles would have had to agree for the Stewards to keep ruling. The Civil Wars in both Arnor and Gondor are proof that the Numenoreans were not always prepared to follow the law.

If this is your argument then in like manner clearly they would also have to agree among themselves to keep the Kings as Kings. Therefore I think this is a moot point you're making.

In any case, heredity principalities, such as that which the Kings and the Stewards are borne into, are easier to hold onto since the state is accustomed to the family of its rulers. Gondor's Civil War was due to a thing they were unaccustomed to, a King not marrying a Dúnedain woman. Even back in Númenor it started to become a practice among the Kings to marry women of the line of Elros, "to these provisions Tar-Aldarion added that the King's Heir should not wed save in the Line of Elros, and that any who did so should cease to be eligible for the Heirship." [UT; Aldarion and Erendis, p.218]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I think you are confusing the timeline.

Howso? This happened between 1944-1945 of the 3rd Age.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Earnil's claim was certainly not weak. He was of the House of Anarion.

Certainly it was not weak. He was of course descended in the male line from Anarion.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The problem is that Arvedui had a stronger claim.

Not according to the South Kingdom who believed that the "The crown and royalty of Gondor belongs solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anárion, to whom Isildur RELINQUISHED this realm. In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the sons only;" [RotK, Appendix A]

In Gondor they were of the belief that the Kings of Arnor, Isildur's heirs no longer had any claim to the throne of Gondor having relinquished the the realm. Arvedui argued that this was not so and that Isildur did not, "intend that the realm of Elendil should be divided forever."

This was echoed by Denethor many years later, "I am a Steward of the House of Anárion. I will not step down to be the dotard chamberlain of an upstart. Even were his claim proved to me, still he comes but of the line of Isildur. I will not bow to such a one, last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity." [RotK, ch. 7, p. 142] Here Denethor makes it clear that even if Aragorn proved he was an heir of the kings, his line was of Isildur and not Anárion. As was stated before, ""The crown and royalty of Gondor belongs solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anárion, to whom Isildur RELINQUISHED this realm." [RotK, Appendix A]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The political logic is that there are a few Houses with strong claims to the throne like the Prince of Dol Amroth and others.

I would say that there were NO Houses with any claim to the throne of Gondor because "In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the sons only;" and it is clear that those whose heritage could be reckoned through the son could not be King as they had "taken wives not of Númenorean blood." [App. A] Thus there was "no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow;". The rest, the Stewards and other Nobles, were at best only descendants through the female line which gave them no legitimacy.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

These Houses cannot agree on who should be king, so they agree to let the Steward continue ruling until the matter is resolved.

They let the Steward continue to rule imo because it was his duty to do so in the absence of any King. Sure they could oust him, just as they could, if they wanted, have ousted any king. If the Stewards were only raised by the nobles and in power by their design he'd have difficulty in maintaining himself because they think of themselves as their equals and the Stewards would not be able to manage them to their liking. Regardless, whether King or Steward, rulers of the Kingdom in both cases, "the Stewards exercised all the power of the kings" [Appendix A] the nobles would either bind themselves to their fortunes or not, giving more thought to themselves.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The answer to that is NO.

Agreed for reasons stated above.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Just, because they were purer, more noble Houses with a better claim does not mean they would have been chosen for the throne.

I say none of them had legitimate claims.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Consequently it's easier to have a lesser House rule than have another kinslaying.

They were just keeping with tradition in this as they did in trying to find an heir. There was none who were legitimate and the Stewards were the legitimate ones "to hold the rod and rule in the name of the king, until he shall return." [Rotk, Appendix A]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The reasoning being that the House of Stewards would never be powerful enough to claim the kingship.

None of the Houses could.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

As things stand now we know that Dol Amroth at least would have seceded and possibly other areas too.

Unlikely seeing as there were no legitimate heirs among any of the noble houses and it seems none were willing to break with tradition.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The king installed them us such, but it was never intended for them to rule for 1000 years with no king.

Certainly that was not the intention, for the Kings to die off, but they did give certain powers to the Stewards which were exercised in accordance with the situation they found themselves in.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I never said there were no other claimants, but there were few of them that met the criteria and after Earnur disappeared, there probably was none from the male line.

I didn't say you did. They can't at the same time meet the criteria and also not be of the male line. Again, imo none of them had any real legitimate claim to the throne. I don't care if Dol Amroth for instance was thrice as noble as the Stewards they would still not be able to claim it if like you say, "after Earnur disappeared, there probably was none from the male line".

However, unlike you I'm a bit more certain that there actually were those from the male line, but they were mixed and not eligible due to their mingling with lesser women, "no male descendants of the royal line, among those whose blood was little mixed, could be found." [PoM-E, ch. 7]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Possible, but by no means a certainty. The Numenoreans would not have illegitimate children and had a very low birth rate. With the obsession some had about blood purity the royal family would possibly keep marrying back into each other. Numenor had a law forbidding the heir to the throne from marrying a non-descendant of Elros. Gondor may not have had a strict law, but I would imagine it would be the custom.

True, but also the Kings did have daughters and they could marry other not in line for the throne, their children would not be eligible in any case. I think they did marry other nobles in Gondor like the Stewards, etc.

You say "Gondor may not have had a strict law" but you mentioned earlier the Civil War. Do you not realize the Civil War occurred because this rule was broken? So I would say I think they took it seriously as it came to war when it was breached.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

A House with close ties to Anarion would definitely be one of the Great Houses. Just look at the power the Lords of Andunie had.

Good point.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

2. When a group of powerful Houses are all competing for rule, they sometimes let a less powerful House/person rule as a compromise. Usually, because they don't feel the person will ever be a threat (this is part of the reason Hitler was able to come to power).

I disagree that this was their line of thought.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Say for Instance the Lord of Dol Amroth and the Lord of Calenardhon (fictional Lord) had the two strongest claims through the female line.

This means nothing to me. The Prince of Dol Amroth's mother could have been the sister of Eärnur and I would still tell you such a claim was not legitimate according to Gondor.

"The crown and royalty of Gondor belongs solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anárion, to whom Isildur RELINQUISHED this realm. In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the SONS ONLY;" [RotK, Appendix A]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Both are powerful and important families.

Still they would make baseless claims. Just 100 years earlier they had kept up the practice that "In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the SONS ONLY;". I do not think that they would start trying to make the same argument as Arvedui which the lords of Gondor found baseless.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The Prince of Dol Amroth does not agree on the Lord of Calenardhon and vice versa.

I think they would all agree that neither was worthy. Perhaps there would be some who would try to make this claim based on their descent through the female line and possibly take up Arvedui's argument about how in Númenor there were 3 Queens, but in the end none would make a case, "whose claim all would allow;" [App. A]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

To keep the peace they decide on letting the Steward keep ruling, safe in the knowledge that his claim and power base is too weak to take the throne.

I say the same holds for all of them, and that the Stewards were doing their duty in any case.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

This is a possible reason for why Denethor was bitter that in Gondor the House of Stewards could never take the throne even after a 1000 years.

None other in Gondor could either imo.