Jump to content

Lord Varys

Members
  • Content Count

    24,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Varys

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

71,662 profile views
  1. It is kind of weird when we talk about the son of a landless prince wanting an heir for his non-existing lands and his non-existing titles. We can assume that Aegon may have wanted more sons ... but not more heirs. But in the conversation we get Aegon doesn't talk about wanting children, he tells Naerys and us that she is his wife, his property, and he will continue to fuck her. And that is rather crucial. If you think that your wife is a slut who cheated on you with your brother and passes the child of your brother as your own ... would you then insist to keep that woman as your wife? Aegon the Unworthy didn't give shit about 'the kingship'. He was the worst Targaryen king and practiced the worst kind of deliberate misrule. Aegon had issues with his son Daeron, but those were apparently of a political nature, the heir threatening the position/rule of the father. Naerys and Aemon (and Daeron, too, perhaps) would still be put to death if Naerys insidiously pretended a bastard child was the king's heir. That would have been the treason they committed. That said, we are not necessarily talking about pre-marital fornication. If you go with Aemon as Daeron's father then, yes, one possibility is that Aemon rather than Aegon deflowered Naerys ... but that's not the only possibility. And I daresay that this entire thing would have unraveled if delicate Naerys hadn't bled in her wedding night. She was only fifteen years old, after all, and small and very frail. As for King Baelor - yes, he was protective of Naerys while he viewed her as Aegon's victim ... but that would have changed if he had reached the conclusion his cousin was a vile and scheming temptress who had corrupted the noble Dragonknight. Baelor the Blessed was a zealot. Viserys II would have likely not wanted to execute any of his children, but he turned into a stern and unforgiving man. He would have punished them severely if this scandal had unraveled. Naerys would have shamed her brother-husband and House Targaryen and Aemon, in addition, the Kingsguard. Aegon's rumors and lies regarding Daeron seems to be based on the idea that Aemon and Naerys had an affair. It is rather plausible for Aegon to claim the child he loathes isn't his if rumors claim that Naerys and Aemon have an affair. If they have an affair in the 170s and 180s they also could have had an affair back in 153 AC, no? Sort of like the idea that Jaime and Cersei (may) have an affair leads people to the conclusion that Jaime must also be the father of Cersei's children ... never mind that their affair could have started years after the birth of Tommen. That isn't the case. Morgil Hastwyck as the king's mouthpiece claims that Naerys and Aemon have an affair. He doesn't claim that Aemon and Naerys may have had a pre-marital, pre-Kingsguard affair over twenty years ago. Daeron was only Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone because King Aegon IV named him Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone. At the beginning of his reign Aegon IV had no problems with Daeron - or not enough problems to refuse to name him Heir Apparent and grant him the title Prince of Dragonstone. It should have been remarkably easy for Aegon IV to get Daeron out of the way. Just insist that he move to Dorne with his Dornish wife and be the Prince Consort of Dorne at Myriah's side. Or live at Sunspear at the court of his brother-in-law. King Baelor married Daeron to a foreign princess. Aegon IV could have forced Daeron to give up his claim to the Iron Throne simply because of that marriage. Later, when father and son clashed over politics Aegon felt he lacked the power to disinherit Daeron without facing severe opposition and possibly another war with Dorne. If Aegon IV had had reason to believe or suspect that Daeron wasn't his son he would have never named Daeron his heir and there would have been an investigation and the subsequent execution of the parties involved. Sort of like Aegon dealt with the Brackens and Terrence Toyne. Also - and this is a really crucial issue here - if Aegon ever thought Daeron wasn't his son and felt this was problematic for his own reign/succession then he would have either killed or set aside Naerys as his queen or he would have taken a second or third or fourth wife to ensure that he had a trueborn son. But he never did that. He fucked women left and right and had an army of bastard children but he never took steps to ensure that he had at least one trueborn son. He would have done that definitely when he became king in 172 AC but he would also earlier have insisted that the other kings give him permission to do this. But he didn't do that. Instead, his commentary when Naerys had delivered Daeron was that he basically was his son and that Naerys was his wife and would continue to sleep with him despite the fact that she didn't want that nor was he particularly interested in her. Well, there were concrete enough 'clues' for a trial-by-combat. If Aegon ever honestly believed Daeron was Aemon's son he would have to have sufficient evidence for this - either firsthand knowledge that they had an affair, that they had sex around the time of Daeron's conception, etc. We actually have no indication that pre-marital sex could have led to the conception of Daeron. Yes, Daeron was born in the same year his parents married, but there is no indication that Daeron was conceived before Naerys and Aegon married. It is a weak possibility, but nothing one can reasonably make the basis of a theory without any textual evidence. The difference here is that nobody in the books even entertains the notion that Bonifer could be Rhaegar's father. And, again, the accusations Aemon has to defend Naerys and himself against are not about them having pre-marital sex a long time ago but they are cuckolding their king and brother.
  2. It could be Tommen/Myrcella and Margaery, depending how exactly things are going to go down. But it could be both a Princes in the Tower scenario as well as another version of the Sack. We can expect Varys to see to it that Kingslanders yield to Aegon, welcoming him the way Larys Strong welcomed the Lads, but at the same time we can expect violence to take place in the Red Keep. Tommen/Myrcella and Margaery might be killed during such skirmishes, especially if, as you suggest, the Sand Snakes or Jon Connington use the fighting as an opportunity to murder them. Which is not unlikely at all. Politically, it would be utter stupidity on Aegon's side to mistreat or murder Margaery, but if she were to die one way or another while she was 'under Aegon's protection' this could really blacken his reputation. But the same will be true if Tommen and/or Myrcella die under his watch. They are innocent children. Nobody in the Realm hates Tommen or Myrcella, and stories about their sad and evil deaths will turn a lot of people against Aegon. Especially in the Westerlands, but not only there. With the Tyrells we have to wait and see how Mace and Margaery go. If they end up in camp Aegon and they are still around when Dany shows up, the Tyrells as a whole might oppose Daenerys. But if Mace and/or Margaery were to die during Aegon's campaign for the Iron Throne, then the new Lord Willas would likely take the Ironborn situation as pretext to keep Highgarden out of Aegon's wars for the time being, only to side with Daenerys against Aegon when she shows up. We are likely to see the Reach fracturing as some lords try to deal with the Ironborn, others declare for Aegon, and others still just tend to their own lands and try to stay out of the fighting.
  3. That doesn't really address my point and is riddled with weird speculation about Aegon's motivation. We have no reason to believe Aegon gave a damn about a first or second or third male heir (he was just a prince from a cadet branch and had neither lands nor titles for an heir to inherit). For all we know he may have just wanted to fuck Naerys because he enjoyed torturing her. The point was that if Aegon had had reason to suspect that Daeron was not his child then Naerys and Aemon would have paid for that with their lives long before Aegon became king. Either by Aegon forcing his royal uncle, cousins, or father to punish them or by arranging their demise by himself. The man is suspected to have done away with his father, Viserys II, after all, so one should also expect he could have found a way ruin and destroy his siblings. But more importantly, if King Aegon IV had thought his son Daeron was actually his brother's son - a man he never get along with, anyway - then Daeron would have never been made his heir. Even more importantly, if there had been any truth to the rumors the king spread late in his life then there would have been enough ammunition to destroy Daeron for good, especially after Aemon and Naerys were dead. If the king had witnesses and proof proving his accusations, he could have disinherited Daeron, married his daughter Daenerys (assuming she was Aegon's) to Daemon Blackfyre, and name him his new heir. If there had been credible witnesses and actual substance to the Daeron Falseborn ideas then the Dornish and Daeron's other friends wouldn't have had much ground for complaints. Aegon IV wouldn't have had any political problems. Instead, he just muddied the water as best he could, setting up things so that his sons might destroy each other in the future. The entire thing is a big 'FUCK YOU!' to the people who outlived Aegon. There is no indication that Naerys ever wanted to marry Aemon. For all we know she never wanted to marry anyone. Also, you have to keep in mind that Aemon, too, seems to have had little inclination to have sex considering he joined the Kingsguard. It is not just that Naerys wasn't interest in sex or marriage, it is that she also indicated she wasn't approving of sibling incest - which isn't surprising in light of the fact that she was very pious -, and that Aemon also took steps never to marry. If we assume that Aemon joined the KG to be close to Naerys so he could fuck her occasionally then we face another predicament. The Grand Maester told Naerys another pregnancy could kill her - and eventually such a pregnancy did kill her. Are we to assume that Aemon's alleged desire for his sister - and her desire for him - was stronger than the love they also felt for each other and their concern for Naerys' safety? The impression we get is that Aegon is supposed to be an utter shithead for insisting that Naerys continue to have sex with him after Daeron's birth. We are not getting the impression that Aemon would have done the same if he and Naerys were in love. Granted, it would still be possible that Aemon and Naerys fucked once or twice before Daeron's death ... but, again, since Naerys and Aemon were only accused of adultery over two decades later, with Morgil Hastwyck (and whoever else) slandering the queen and the Dragonknight, we cannot really expect those accusations going to back to some night in 153 AC when Daeron II may or may not have been conceived. There aren't really any parallels between the Naerys and the Rhaella situation. Rhaella supposedly had a crush with a tourney knight before her marriage, and nobody in-universe ever so much as entertained the notion that Rhaegar might not be Aerys' son. Aerys later accuses his sister-wife of adultery because he couldn't bear the thought that all the children who had died in the cradle had been his children. Aegon slandered the reputation of his siblings and son because he had issues with them. It is of course technically possible that Aemon is Daeron's father - a lot is possible. But it is not very likely. Nor is the spin of the story so far indicating that we are supposed to believe the Daeron Falseborn story. That said - this could change when we get a detailed history of the lives of the children of Viserys II. Oh, it will go somewhere. We are going to see that when Bonifer Hasty and the Holy Hundred lead Harrenhal (and other Riverlords in the vicinity) to join Aegon at Storm's End. When they also push the High Septon to declare Aegon the rightful king. The idea of that plot seems to be that the casual reader is not supposed to immediately figure out that Cersei herself made a Targaryen loyalist castellan of Harrenhal. Since the books never even cast doubt on the parentage of Rhaegar we will never get an answer to that 'question'. And Aegon V clearly didn't care much about the bloodline of Aerys and Rhaella. His son, Jaehaerys II, wanted Aerys and Rhaella to marry because of some prophecy Aegon V may not have even believed in - he wanted to hatch dragon eggs himself, he didn't expect some future promised prince to do that - and Aegon V allowed the marriage to happen, but he didn't push for it.
  4. Well, the Shire doesn't have a democracy as such. There are democractic elements in the management of the internal affairs of the Hobbits (meaning the election of the Mayor) but the true power in the Shire lies in the hands of the Thain, and that's a hereditary office in the hands of House Took at the times of the LotR. The Thains are the quasi-kings of the Shire. Power in the Shire is in the hand of wealthy landowners who run things and share in power to a degree, with the rest of the meekly happily doing what they are told. That is not a democracy at all.
  5. Chelsted was one of Aerys' cronies and a loyal follower of the king's party. Appointing him can be seen as a sign that Aerys didn't trust Rhaegar with that office. Although I also expect that Chelsted was appointed before Rhaegar had returned to court. However, the closeness between Aerys and Chelsted is what made the final confrontation as powerful as it is. Chelsted knew his king better than most people at court, I imagine, so he must have known what he risked by opposing the king in the wildfire matter but he did it anyway. It so happened that one Hand commanded the king's armies during the war, Connington. Merryweather didn't do that. However, the job of a Hand is not just warfare, even in war. The government has to be run, the day-to-day business of the Crown continues in peace as well as in war. We see that with Tyrion as Acting Hand in ACoK. A king as preoccupied/paranoid as Aerys needed a Hand to keep things going, that's why he named Hands after Tywin's resignation rather than abolishing the office or leaving it vacant. That still doesn't answer the question why Rossart didn't succeed Chelsted then and there. That would have helped with the wildfire plan and everything else. Why would you only appoint Rossart as Hand after the Trident? Rhaegar never was Hand nor is there any indication Aerys wanted him in that office. If Rossart had the autonomy to do stuff prior to the Trident - and he did - why would he need that office afterwards? And if you didn't trust Rossart prior to the Trident with the general defense of the city and the running of the government then why trust him with that after the Trident? This is not an impossible scenario, but it is very weird, in my opinion, and raises more questions than it answers, especially when unreliable memories on Jaime's part would be the much better explanation. This whole issue arises only if you have to insist that the Jaime-Darry conversation took place the night Chelsted was burned.
  6. The only thing we need to know in the case of 'Daeron Falseborn' are those things: 1. Aegon IV acknowledged Prince Daeron as his own child after his birth. 2. Aegon IV named his son Daeron Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne after he became king. 3. Aegon IV never directly accused his sister-wife or his brother of adultery nor did he ever punish them for such crimes. Likewise, he also never disinherited his heir. 4. We do know that the rumors about 'Daeron Falseborn' were spread only very late during Aegon's reign when the king was on very bad terms with his heir as well as his siblings, and it was meant as a deliberate attempt hurt their reputation. If the Unworthy had thought his sister-wife was cuckolding him he would have found ways to destroy her and his brother easily enough. He wouldn't have let this go after his brother won a trial-by-combat. Aegon IV did have more than a temper when he felt betrayed by people he was close to, as the Toyne incident shows. 5. Queen Naerys apparently had no interest in sex - she wanted to end her marriage after she had done her duty and delivered her brother-husband a male heir. Whatever feelings she may have had for Aemon are not likely to have included sex, since her wish was that she and Aegon live 'as brother and sister' after the end of their marriage ... which rather obviously implies that Naerys' concept of brotherly/sisterly love didn't include sibling incest. The idea that this woman wanted to sleep with both her brothers at the same time after being married to one of them is pretty ludicrous. In addition, one can also consider that nobody accused Aemon and Naerys of adultery throughout the reigns of the kings Aegon III, Daeron I, Baelor the Blessed, and Viserys II. For instance, any accusation uttered during the reign of King Baelor would have likely resulted in very severe punishment (one can see the Dragonknight suffering the fate of Lucamore the Lusty).
  7. Yes, but people actually argue or put forth the idea that Chelsted would have been burned weeks before the appointment of Chelsted. It took Ned's comparatively small army about two weeks to reach KL, and they raced ahead. Rhaegar's larger host would have taken much longer, perhaps as long as three weeks or a month or more (and we also don't know how much times passed until the decisive battle took place, could be that there were days of maneuvering before time and place for the final battle were clear). Even under normal circumstances it makes little sense to assume that a king in Aerys' position would not immediately name a new Hand after executing the old Hand. But in this case we would also have to assume that Rossart continued his work with the wildfire in secret for weeks (!) without the authority of the Hand since we do know that Chelsted was only burned because he confronted the king about the wildfire he had learned was already implemented. How can that make sense? The main/only reason why Aerys made Rossart his Hand seems to be that the old Hand, Chelsted, didn't support the wildfire plan, so Aerys is cuts things short by making the wildfire guy the Hand, esuring that the next Hand would not pull another Chelsted on him.
  8. That is very difficult to say. At that point, I don't expect Mushroom and Eustace to play big roles, and it seems clear that Mysaria, Princess Rhaenys, and Ser Harrold Westerling play bigger roles in the show they did play in book. But since most of the crucial Dance players only become prominent during the Dance - especially the youngsters - it is pretty hard to guess who is going to be cut.
  9. I still don't like the ridiculous idea that Aerys II burned Chelsted while Rhaegar and the KG were still in KL and then waited until after the Trident to name a new Hand. The best way to deal with that thing would just assume Jaime's misremembers during which royal rape after a burning he had his talk with Darry. Within the context of the story it makes no sense, in my opinion, that Chelsted could find out about the wildfire plot and then be burned by the king without Rhaegar finding out what was going on and that having consequences of some sort - starting with Rhaegar claiming the Handship for himself to Rhaegar actually realizing the mad plan his mad father was trying to implement with the help of the alchemists. It also would make little sense to assume that Chelsted would confront the king all by himself if Rhaegar was still around. Instead, one would expect that he would first talk to Rhaegar and then they would make plans together how the king could be stopped. Also, it strikes me as pretty far-fetched to assume that Aerys II already planned the destruction of the capital while it still looked as if Rhaegar could win the war. The final implementation of the wildfire plan - i.e. the hiding of the caches everywhere in the city - seems to be something Aerys II and Rossart executed only after the Trident. They prepared for the worst earlier, producing sufficient wildfire to burn the city, but the idea to actually do this would have come after the Trident. That's also something you can draw from Dany's vision which Jaime also remembers - when Aerys talks about burning the city he implicitly talks about Robert: 'Let him be the king of ashes' indicates Aerys II only authorized the wildfire plan as such after Robert had won at the Trident. If Aerys II was already deeply involved in the wildfire destruction business by the time Chelsted realized what was going - leading to his execution - then it also makes no sense that Aerys II would wait weeks or months before naming Rossart his new Hand. Rossart is chosen because he was already implementing the wildfire plot, so why the hell would the king not increase his authority and speed up the implementation of the plan by naming Rossart Hand immediately after he burned Chelsted? As Hand, Rossart could call on much more resources than he could as the king's pet alchemist.
  10. Could be ... but then the Noldor of the FA also established kingdoms of their own while under the formal authority of Feanor and later Fingolfin. That didn't stop them from taking the titles of kings. Turgon was the younger son of Fingolfin, after all. (Although if you keep in mind the original LT material where Turgon was a son of Finwe it actually makes sense that Turgon is a king in his own right. He didn't have a kingly father nor an elder brother when Tolkien invented Gondolin.) With Elrond the issue really is that the guy has the most prestigious bloodline of all the Elves and Men in Middle-earth. It is really odd that the Elves of Lindon, say, didn't choose him as their king rather than Gil-galad. If I had to choose between the son of Eärendil and the son of obscure and unimpressive Orodreth I knew who I'd pick. Even more so in light of the fact that the Men helping to overthrow Morgoth chose Elrond's twin brother Elros as their king. That said - one can speculate why Elrond wouldn't want to be a king. But Tolkien should have explained that. Because it is odd.
  11. One assumes because Thranduil succeeded his father as king. Celeborn and Galadriel are not the royal dynasty of Lórien, so they cannot be the monarchs of that place. They were invited to live with and rule over the Galadhrim. A similar case can be made for Círdan. He was never a king, nor a relative of Gil-galad, so he could not possibly succeed him as a king there. But he became the lord of the place because he was such a great authority, similar to Celeborn and Galadriel. One could also speculate that it made less and less sense to establish a proper Elven kingdom after so many Eldar had left in the SA, most notably after the destruction of Eregion and the defeat of Sauron at the end of the age. But as I tried to argue - Imladris was established at a time when there were still many Eldar in Eriador, so Elrond should have been its king throughout the SA and then also in the TA, considering it wouldn't make sense for a king to give up a title he already had. In a sense, I guess, one can compare the lordships of the Eldar in the TA to the Stewards of Gondor. They stepped in for kings who should have been there but weren't. It would be a sign/symptom of the overall decline and fading of the Elves in Middle-earth. In light of that it makes sense that the healthiest Elven society in Middle-earth - Thranduil's realm in Mirkwood - still has a king while all the other Elven realms have lost theirs.
  12. We really don't know. I mean, Maedhros may have been the head of 'House Feanor' after his father's death, but if Maedhros had predeceased Fingolfin Maglor may have decided that he should be the High King after his uncle's death. Bottom line is, not only is the High Kingship an empty honor, it is clearly a titual kingship that's decided not by law and tradition but by political expedience. Going back through things it kind makes sense that neither Elrond nor Elros became kings at the end of the FA, considering they were raised by Maglor ... who wouldn't have any interest in that kind of thing. Gil-galad and Círdan were the last free Eldar offering any kind of resistance to both Morgoth and the Feanorians, so it makes sense that Gil-galad became a king in that capacity. And if we assume that he became High King in that era then this kind of makes sense. However, it makes little sense that Eärendil and Elwing were apparently not the monarchs ruling the survivors at Sirion considering their impeccable royal bloodline. The status of Elrond and Elros would have only increased after their parents effectively became half-gods or deities. Elrond is effectively the son of a heavenly star who cast down the greatest dragon of Morgoth, destroying Thangorodrim and Angband in the process of that. That is one of the greatest deeds ever depicted in the stories of Elves and Men. In that sense, even if we assume that Elrond could not be High King of the Noldor, it still doesn't make sense that he was never the King of Imladris. Imladris wasn't that small a domain back in the SA when it was founded. And you can continue that thing - it is also rather odd that Eregion never had a king. If Celebrimbor was Feanor's grandson he should have been king of that place, too. If Gondolin or Nargothrond can have a king, so should other Elven domains of equal size.
  13. Thingol is indeed the King of Beleriand. Beleriand proper is just the lands in the south, the Noldor princes have to make due with the lands Thingol and the Sindar do not consider their own, i.e. the mountains and vales and dark forests of the north closer to Angband. That is all made crystal clear in the Silmarillion. That Thingol ruled supreme among the elves in the north-west of Middle-earth can also be drawn from the fact that he successfully banned Quenya and forced the exiled Noldor to adopt Sindarin. That is not made explicit in the text and actually goes against things like Dior, who is descended from Thingol through the female line, becoming king after Thingol's death. In the same manner, Idril's son Eärendil is effectively Turgon's heir after his birth, just as Maeglin - Turgon's sister-son - was a presumptive heir while Turgon had no grandson. Basically both Idril and Lúthien as the only children of their respective royal fathers were the ways to attain the kingship of those places. Whoever married Lúthien or Idril would succeed to the kingship of Doriath and Gondolin, respectively, if they were still alive when the kings of those realms died. If they were already dead, then the crown would pass to their children or grandchildren. You don't even have to be an Elf to rule over an elven kingdom, as Dior shows. All you need is the royal blood. And I'm not sure it makes sense to view the High Kingship of the Noldor as a hereditary title, anyway. Succession by primogeniture was already broken when Maedhros asked Fingolfin to be the High King after his father's death, so there is no reason to pretend we know how that title was passed on after the subsequent kings died. It makes little sense that Elros can be a king but Elrond can't. Elrond should have been the King of Imladris in any case, and even if we go with the idea that Gil-galad became king before Elrond because of some weird male primogeniture thing (I daresay this makes no sense at all considering that in light of Eärendil and Elwing's special ancestry and destiny they and their children should have been the chosen monarchs of the survivors, not Gil-galad) then it is very odd that he didn't succeed him after his death. Galadriel doesn't rule Lórien. Celeborn rules the place, and how that came to be is a rather convoluted topic. Suffice it to say the obvious explanation why they are not king and queen of Lórien is that they were not of the blood of the family who originally ruled Lórien (i.e. Amdír/Malgalad and Amroth, if we go by that version). Galadriel is a very powerful figure, but if she wasn't married to a Sinda (or Teler or Nando) she would not be the Lady of Lórien. And the idea that the Sindar/Nandor/Avari view the Noldor as their betters/more noble is, quite frankly, false. They do not want or need Noldor in charge of their domains, nor were they keen to fight with or under them against the enemy (e.g. Amdír and his forces refusing the fight under Gil-galad during the Last Alliance). In general, though, the entire concept of royal succession is kind of weird in an immortal race. The Elves do not live expecting their parents will die and they as their children have to follow in their footsteps. Their concept of kingship was shaped by the Valar and clearly emulates how the Elder King rules over the Valar. And that is basically an eternal kingship. Finwe and Elwe expected to rule forever the way Ingwe still rules. In that sense, it doesn't really strike me as very likely to assume that the Eldar ever established proper laws regulating the succession of their kings, even when those kings started to die more often than they originally expected.
  14. Druon and Costain are the guys from which George drew a lot of stuff, at times down to direct plots and phrases. It has been some time that I read the stuff, but the crypts of Winterfell are the burial grounds of the French kings at St. Denis, right down to the comparison that the guys know where they will eventually end up. The weirdo notion that bastards grow up quicker and stuff is also drawn from Druon, something that you do not really find in medieval literature. The really glaring thing is that the entire Margaery trial is taken from the Isle of Nesle affair, and the Jon Snow/Aegon plot is both inspired by the story of King Jean as well as the folks pretending to be Plantagenet princes in the reign of Henry VII. In FaB you also have a lot of Druon with the Shepherd basically mimicking the curses of Jacques de Molay.
  15. The impression I have is that Dale under the new royal dynasty founded by Bard runs the human show in the north after the Hobbit. It might be that folks still have a Mayor in a rebuild Lake-town, but that wouldn't matter all that much. Not to mention that the culture of Lake-town as such is a decline, something that only developed after Smaug destroyed Dale. Well, the Ents aren't *really* a people as such. You can just as well ask why the Eagles don't seem to have a king (although they do have a lord). The Elves of Lórien had kings in the past. That they no longer have kings is a sign of cultural and social decline. The Elves are a dying race, after all. The High Kingship of the Noldor is, of course, just a titular kingship, considering the Noldor were no longer a united people when they came to Middle-earth and the various princes ruled their own principalities. That, too, is a sign of social decline and expression of discord and strife as a result of the Kin-strife. The ideal society was the society before the fall which had Finwe ruling all the Noldor in peace and tranquility ... and all the Eldar in Aman bowing down to the authority of the king of all the Eldar, Ingwe. The true king of Beleriand was Thingol, and he was recognized as such by the Noldor. The High King thing was just their way of trying to create some kind of figurehead who could lead and organize the campaigns against Morgoth ... and that didn't really work all that well, anyway. And I'd say that it is a very curious thing that Elrond isn't a king. He should have been the High King of the Noldor even prior to Gil-galad's death and he should have been king in his own domains. Elrond is of much nobler blood than Gil-galad - especially if we go with Gil-galad as a son of Orodreth from the line of Finarfin. If Elros Tar-Minyatur was and could be a king, so should be Elrond. It makes no sense that he wasn't. The reason why he wasn't, I guess, is because, ultimately, the Elrond we know is a character from the Hobbit, and in the Hobbit Elrond of Rivendell just isn't a king.
×
×
  • Create New...