You must log in or register to comment.
He changed his mind though…
…after three arrows convinced him of his error.
He just needed to be pointed in the right direction.
It only took three solid points to convince him.
He went from a narrow point of view to a view of arrow points.
…he got better.
Says the elf with the bow…
“I don’t know what you mean. It was the orcs that did it. Those ones with the gold spilling out of their pockets.”
Boromir also happened to be CEO of GondorHealth
“Where was Gondorhealth when the deductibles rose?”
Busy raising the deductible?
Kind of explains why they always look in such bad shape.
Doesn’t he also not want to be king? Like thats how he starts off in the movie (I may be wrong please correct me if so)
Book Aragorn didn’t really struggle with that but I thought it was a good choice in the movie to hammer home his worthiness.
“Gondor has no king; Gondor needs no king!”
gets shot
Yeah, I think Aragorn was initially somewhat reluctant to become king.
Film, yes.
Book, hell no. He will go out of his way to tell you he will be king and that he knows his rightful place is on the throne.
“Hey, Tolkien, why is it that the only republic in your setting needs a King?”
In the absence of a king, the stewards had the same power and authority as the kings and the position was hereditary. The stewards were effectively just a dynasty in the kingdom. Aragorn’s ascension to the throne didn’t really impact the way Gondor functioned.
The real republic is actually The Shire, which is consistently depicted as the best place on Middle-earth and the only place that regularly produces people capable of resisting the One Ring.
Fair enough, but that existence is allowed because the Rangers of the North, last reserve of the blood of Numenor and the Kingdom of Arnor, shelter it.
It also gets absorbed as a territory of Gondor/Arnor when man briefly reaches the heights it used to have before declining again.
I think you might argue that this is Tolkien expressing his concept of whatever the hell “anarcho-monarchism” is supposed to be, which is apparently the chosen militants of God sheltering pastoral British villages from reality without even taxing them for the privilege.
I’d also like to introduce you to the innately British concept of the “monarchical republic”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic
You’ll note that Elizabeth I is listed as a potential example of this idea, though I tend to agree the concept doesn’t match the historical reality and it would take becoming a constitutional monarchy to resolve the inherently oxymoronic nature of the systems.
The stewards were a line of kings in all but name.
