The Illegitimacy of Aragorn’s Claim to the Throne

This may or may not be blasphemy to Lord of the Rings enthusiasts, but Austin Gilkeson wrote an opinion piece that declares Aragorn does not have a legitimate right to rule Gondor.  

Aragorn’s claim to Gondor’s throne rests entirely on his being descended — after 3,000 years — from Valandil and Isildur, who were kings of Arnor. The closest real-world parallel to this would be an Italian man claiming descent from Romulus showing up in Ankara and claiming to be King of Turkey, because Romulus was supposedly descended from Prince Aeneas of Troy. Imagine if you found out your ancestor, thirty-seven generations prior, was the brother of an Egyptian pharaoh. Do you know what that would make you, in terms of Egyptian political succession? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

He goes into detail about Aragorn’s ancestors and how they weren’t fit to rule anything. Then again, Aragorn did command the combined army that retook Gondor. During most of our real world history, that was enough to lay claim to rule. Not that successful warlords necessarily made good rulers, but neither does a bloodline. While I won’t argue the point past that, you might want to, along with hundreds of other commenters at The Toast.

(Image credit: J. Longo)