Tolkien 4.0 (A dark and hungry sea lion arises)

[Corvinus85]

9 hours ago, Arakan said:

Isildur didn’t actually travel with an army but more with his personal guard. AFAIK roughly 2000 men. I would imagine that traveling along the Anduin was much quicker than through Eriador. And the mountain passes to Imladris were already well established. The Misty Mountains were anyway a relative narrow alpine mountain range, it’s not like he would have crossed the Alps or the Rockies on its broadest width. 

200 men. So really just his guard. They put a good fight, though, against the odds, being Numenorean.

[Arakan]

13 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

200 men. So really just his guard. They put a good fight, though, against the odds, being Numenorean.

I stand corrected, indeed they were ambushed by 2000+ Orcs, „10:1 and more“ I think was the quote. 

Anyway,  what I like about the ambush is that it shows that Tolkien was very often far away from the „cliché“ storyteller he often has been portrayed to be (#subvertingthetropes). 

Imagine fighting a monumental battle for months, more like medieval static warfare (Dagorlad), then besieging Barad-Dur itself for 7 years, grinding down enemy after enemy, in the end Sauron himself, then „cleaning“ the lands of remaining Orc brigands, and still being killed in the most anti-climactic way possible at the Gladden Fields. 

Powerful. That’s not fantasy, that’s basically real life. The fight never really ends and there‘s no true „Happy End“. Isildur‘s death in its absurdity is basically the equivalent of a death by shrapnel on the Western Front in October 1918. 

Of course that’s just one aspect, the other showing the unreliability and impossibly to control of the Ring from the very beginning. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 5/25/2021 at 10:26 PM, Arakan said:

Isildur‘s death in its absurdity is basically the equivalent of a death by shrapnel on the Western Front in October 1918. . 

I'd say the better analogy is the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. A won war... only for the victorious leader to be taken out. 

[Corvinus85]

Unwittingly, the Orcs that killed Isildur did a lot of good. Isildur would have fallen to the corruption of the Ring, and likely brought down both Arnor and Gondor in the process.

[Arakan]

On 6/1/2021 at 9:09 PM, Corvinus85 said:

Unwittingly, the Orcs that killed Isildur did a lot of good. Isildur would have fallen to the corruption of the Ring, and likely brought down both Arnor and Gondor in the process.

An interesting scenario. What would have happened if Isildur had successfully claimed the power of the ring? Let’s brainstorm...

At first he would have established a Dunedain empire encompassing all of Arnor, Gondor and the land in between (Eriador). He saw himself anyway as the high king of Gondor and Arnor IIRC. After establishing his empire from Fornost in the North to Umbar in the South and to the borders of Rhun in the East, he would have marched against the elves of Imladris, Lorien and Rhovanion whilst besieging the elves of Dor Lindon. Could he have won? In the east I am quite sure as the elves were very weakened anyway after the war against Sauron. Against Cirdan I am not so sure. I guess in the end the elves of Lindon would have been forced to retreat behind the Ered Luin in the northwest corner. 

The human kingdoms of Haradwaith south of Umbar and the tribes/pastoral kingdoms of Rhun would become closely controlled clientele and tributary states to the Dunedain Empire. Mordor itself would have been cleaned by all orcs, trolls and what have you (same as the North and the Misty Mountains of course) and be transformed into Middle Earth‘s Siberia, i.e. a huge penal colony. Would make sense also insofar as the south of Mordor seemed to be agriculturally fertile and the whole land and the surrounding mountains could surely offer a lot of raw materials and minerals. 

Then, after maybe 400 or 500 years of brutal yet efficient reign, Isildur’s lifeforce would have been squeezed too thin, morphing him more and more into a Nazgul. This transformation would have made it impossible for him to further maintain a dominant and necessary presence in the physical world. End of story? The Ring will be taken from him, he gets banned and the whole empire disintegrates into dozens of petty kingdoms reigned by claimants of the Ring and warring each other ad infinitum.

No more elves, dwarves or orcs in Middle Earth but also no real power base for Sauron to come back. The constant fighting between the various human realms would have transformed them into a Late Medieval/Renaissance Europe on steroids. Humans might be corruptible in general but they are also paranoid and jealous when it comes to their own power base. And they are not orcs, they are too unreliable in the end. I see no comeback for Sauron in this world. A human Middle Earth 2,500 years before its time albeit in a very crapsack fashion. 

The Ring has a will of its own and it that sense I can imagine it foresaw such a scenario as quite likely. Thus history happened as it happened .  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Would Isildur have been able to command the Nazgul while in possession of the One Ring?

[Slurktan]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Would Isildur have been able to command the Nazgul while in possession of the One Ring?

Possibly. Being a numenorean he might have had the will to use it.

For the fanciful scenario above, I think more likely than him falling to it and then conquering would have been told by Elrond again to destroy it.(Isildur was also going to Rivendell to ask Elrod about it)And then journeyed back to unguarded Mt doom and either chucked it or one of the good guys would have seen he was falling and chucked him in with it.

[Arakan]

23 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Possibly. Being a numenorean he might have had the will to use it.

For the fanciful scenario above, I think more likely than him falling to it and then conquering would have been told by Elrond again to destroy it.(Isildur was also going to Rivendell to ask Elrod about it)And then journeyed back to unguarded Mt doom and either chucked it or one of the good guys would have seen he was falling and chucked him in with it.

No. If Isildur had had any real intention to destroy the Ring he would have done so when he was in Mordor, not keeping it for two years after Sauron‘s defeat (with all the nice seductive side effects) and taking it to the North. Case closed. 

Elrond is not a feeble old man. If Isildur truly had the intention to destroy it, he could have called for him. More likely scenario is that he wanted to convince Elrond of the benefits of using the Ring for their own purposes. 

I think all this is very clear from Tolkien‘s perspective, one with regard to the seductive powers of the Ring, and second with regard to his description of Isildur’s character who was a very prideful man after all. For example he had no intention to really share power with his nephew who was just King of Gondor as procedural formality (basically a glorified steward). Isildur very clearly saw himself as High King in the same image as his father Elendil and intended to rule respectively. Tells you all you need to know about the man and the effect the Ring would have had or already had: prideful and full of ambition. The perfect victim for the Ring. 

[Slurktan]

25 minutes ago, Arakan said:

No. If Isildur had had any real intention to destroy the Ring he would have done so when he was in Mordor, not keeping it for two years after Sauron‘s defeat (with all the nice seductive side effects) and taking it to the North. Case closed. 

Elrond is not a feeble old man. If Isildur truly had the intention to destroy it, he could have called for him. More likely scenario is that he wanted to convince Elrond of the benefits of using the Ring for their own purposes. 

I think all this is very clear from Tolkien‘s perspective, one with regard to the seductive powers of the Ring, and second with regard to his description of Isildur’s character who was a very prideful man after all. For example he had no intention to really share power with his nephew who was just King of Gondor as procedural formality (basically a glorified steward). Isildur very clearly saw himself as High King in the same image as his father Elendil and intended to rule respectively. Tells you all you need to know about the man and the effect the Ring would have had or already had: prideful and full of ambition. The perfect victim for the Ring. 

Actually in the text it specifically notes that Isildur wants to talk to Elrond because the Ring is becoming a problem for him.  So.... what?

Also. what is your last paragraph.  You mean Isildur didn't want to share power when he promoted his nephew to a position higher than he himself held under Elendil? You think Isildur should have turned down the role he and every single other person in Arnor and Gondor knew he was getting for over 100 years and leave it empty?  And man that Aragorn is an arrogant ass for wanting that same position 3000 years later not to mention that fool Arvedui right? Perfect victims for the Ring.  Especially that Aragorn.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, it's possible to frame LotR/Gondor etc very differently if you look at it from a modern anti-royalist perspective, but applying those perspectives to the text as if they were Tolkien's intent can't help but give you a flawed result. Tolkien didn't see wanting to be king as a bad thing or a sign of greed, inherently.

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

not keeping it for two years after Sauron‘s defeat (with all the nice seductive side effects) and taking it to the North. Case closed. 

 

You can't just 'case closed' something Isildur himself re-opened.

 

 

 

Apologies if this has been discussed or the answer obvious (I've not read the text for a while) but could you make the case that the Ring betrayed Isildur and lost itself when it did because it felt his growing intent to give it up?

[SeanF]

On 6/4/2021 at 6:38 AM, polishgenius said:

Yeah, it's possible to frame LotR/Gondor etc very differently if you look at it from a modern anti-royalist perspective, but applying those perspectives to the text as if they were Tolkien's intent can't help but give you a flawed result. Tolkien didn't see wanting to be king as a bad thing or a sign of greed, inherently.

You can't just 'case closed' something Isildur himself re-opened.

Apologies if this has been discussed or the answer obvious (I've not read the text for a while) but could you make the case that the Ring betrayed Isildur and lost itself when it did because it felt his growing intent to give it up?

Indeed not.  Aragorn's reasons for fighting Sauron were not reasons of pure altruism (I should add that having self-interested motives as well as altruistic ones does not detract from the rightness of fighting Sauron).  He wanted the throne of Gondor, and he wanted to marry Arwen. And, the narrative portrays Aragorn's desire to be king as entirely right and just - after all, it is the will of God that he should be king, and who can quarrel with that?

[polishgenius]

58 minutes ago, SeanF said:

after all, it is the will of God that he should be king, and who can quarrel with that?

I'm not sure I've ever read Aragorn's claim as 'divine right' inspired, though obviously it comes from real-world traditions in that genre, but it's definitely a strong case of bloodline exceptionalism.

It is an odd tension in LotR that on the one hand a large part of the point of the story focusing on the Hobbits- and Sam's inclusion and importance specifically- is that nobility and heroism are not based on noble birth but on the other hand he fully does lean into that exceptionalism with Aragorn. But then at the time he was writing, and even moreso in the traditions of the much older works he was doing a 'modern version' of, having an objectively 'superior' (in terms of strength/life/etcetc) bloodline but making that person a side character in favour of the Hobbits was a fairly strong subversion so eh. Later imitators have undone that subversion by making the unknown boy from the backwoods who becomes the big hero and the lost heir to the throne the same person (Star Wars is to blame for a lot of this even though Star Wars itself didn't really actually do it). So in some ways LotR is still ahead of the curve. And hell, bloodline exceptionalism is still a massive part of even superhero stories (Black Panther and Aquaman I am looking at you), because storytelling culture has not completely followed the general shift in public perspective.

 

So Tolkien doesn't lag in that sense that much.

Edited June 5, 2021 by polishgenius

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I'm not sure I've ever read Aragorn's claim as 'divine right' inspired, though obviously it comes from real-world traditions in that genre, but it's definitely a strong case of bloodline exceptionalism.

It is an odd tension in LotR that on the one hand a large part of the point of the story focusing on the Hobbits- and Sam's inclusion and importance specifically- is that nobility and heroism are not based on noble birth but on the other hand he fully does lean into that exceptionalism with Aragorn. But then at the time he was writing, and even moreso in the traditions of the much older works he was doing a 'modern version' of, having an objectively 'superior' (in terms of strength/life/etcetc) bloodline but making that person a side character in favour of the Hobbits was a fairly strong subversion so eh. Later imitators have undone that subversion by making the unknown boy from the backwoods who becomes the big hero and the lost heir to the throne the same person (Star Wars is to blame for a lot of this even though Star Wars itself didn't really actually do it). So in some ways LotR is still ahead of the curve. And hell, bloodline exceptionalism is still a massive part of even superhero stories (Black Panther and Aquaman I am looking at you), because storytelling culture has not completely followed the general shift in public perspective.

 

So Tolkien doesn't lag in that sense that much.

Oh yes, he has an eagle of Manwe proclaiming his kingship, on Easter Day, no less.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Oh yes, he has an eagle of Manwe proclaiming his kingship, on Easter Day, no less.

Aragorn's kingship is both based on the divine right of kings - which is expressed by having an eagle of Manwe proclaim him king (the real fun thing there is the line 'your king will be among you all the days of your life' - meaning you cannot even hope to outlive that particular king) and by having an Angel of the Lord crown him king - as well as by exceptionalism based on 'magical blood' - which is expressed by his long life and his magical healing powers.

My brother recently listened to the LotR audiobook and one of the things he noticed how often Aragorn talks about his royal ancestry and stuff. It is his magical blood - which goes back to Thingol and Melian and Tuor and Idril - that makes him special. It is his ancestry which makes him this great man who basically has no equal. In a sense, Aragorn is closer to Gandalf than the lesser people he hangs out with. The Hobbits do whatever heroics they can ... but the greatest deeds they are capable of pale in comparison to the great things Aragorn could pull off.

The fact that basically only Frodo can carry the Ring to Mordor doesn't really undermine the concept of kingship in the novel. The Ring is a problem because it symbolizes or embodies usurped power, power nobody should wield (but evil guys still can wield because the god in that story failed to make it so that the evil guys create magical instruments of mass domination). Aragorn's powers are those of the just and rightful king and they are as sacrosanct and holy as they could possibly be.

They would be tainted if he used the Ring, of course, because in Tolkien's mind the instrument soils person using it no matter what they do with it.

As for the original question:

Isildur would have likely fallen prey to the Ring long before he could even find the Nazgûl to try to dominate them. After all, we can assume that Sauron's destruction dealt them a considerable blow, even more so since it is possible that the Last Alliance destroyed them on Dagorlad before they were beginning the siege of Barad-dûr. If Sauron still had nine 'functional' Nazgûl inside Barad-dûr he may have sent them out rather than dueling Elendil and Gil-galad.

But, in principle, I guess both Aragorn and Isildur and any powerful Númenórean wielding the One Ring could have subdued or controlled the Nazgûl for a time while he was still using the Ring and not the Ring him, i.e. before their transformation into a wraith-like creature was completed. That's also the reason why Frodo can master Gollum in the book ... and Tolkien's own speculation about the Nazgûl confronting Frodo at Sammath Naur imply they would have not been able to overpower him or take the Ring from him by force.

A really strong mind should have been able to temporarily bind the Nazgûl to his will ... but as long as Sauron was still the master of the Ring and this new would-be Lord of the Rings had not confronted and vanquished Sauron - which Galadriel and Gandalf and Saruman and Elrond may have been able to do, but no mortals - such a hold would have been only temporary.

Thus one imagines that anyone trying to vanquish Sauron while using the Ring would have not involved a direct confrontation with Sauron but rather the use of the power of the Ring to intimidate or break Sauron's followers, causing him to lose his advantage in numbers. Then he could be physically destroyed yet again without any really having to face him in a battle of wills over who was the rightful owner of the Ring.

But if a mortal had done that then Sauron would have triumphed in the end in any case because he was immortal and would, eventually, return as long as the Ring was not destroyed while the mortal using the Ring would eventually be enslaved by it - which means he would fall under the sway of Sauron.

Although I guess a slave/wraith bound to the One Ring could only be mastered by a wielder of the Ring, not just Sauron himself. Gollum is a slave of the Ring, not a slave of Sauron's. Sauron could torture him and gained knowledge from him, but he was never able to turn him into his creature. That would have only worked, I think, if Sauron had regained his Ring.

In that sense a hypothetical Isildur enslaved by the One Ring would only become Sauron's slave if and when Sauron regained the Ring. If that never happened then such a creature may have been an independent evil Dark Lord-like wraith.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Lord Varys

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aragorn's kingship is both based on the divine right of kings - which is expressed by having an eagle of Manwe proclaim him king (the real fun thing there is the line 'your king will be among you all the days of your life' - meaning you cannot even hope to outlive that particular king) and by having an Angel of the Lord crown him king - as well as by exceptionalism based on 'magical blood' - which is expressed by his long life and his magical healing powers.

My brother recently listened to the LotR audiobook and one of the things he noticed how often Aragorn talks about his royal ancestry and stuff. It is his magical blood - which goes back to Thingol and Melian and Tuor and Idril - that makes him special. It is his ancestry which makes him this great man who basically has no equal. In a sense, Aragorn is closer to Gandalf than the lesser people he hangs out with. The Hobbits do whatever heroics they can ... but the greatest deeds they are capable of pale in comparison to the great things Aragorn could pull off.

The fact that basically only Frodo can carry the Ring to Mordor doesn't really undermine the concept of kingship in the novel. The Ring is a problem because it symbolizes or embodies usurped power, power nobody should wield (but evil guys still can wield because the god in that story failed to make it so that the evil guys create magical instruments of mass domination). Aragorn's powers are those of the just and rightful king and they are as sacrosanct and holy as they could possibly be.

They would be tainted if he used the Ring, of course, because in Tolkien's mind the instrument soils person using it no matter what they do with it.

As for the original question:

Isildur would have likely fallen prey to the Ring long before he could even find the Nazgûl to try to dominate them. After all, we can assume that Sauron's destruction dealt them a considerable blow, even more so since it is possible that the Last Alliance destroyed them on Dagorlad before they were beginning the siege of Barad-dûr. If Sauron still had nine 'functional' Nazgûl inside Barad-dûr he may have sent them out rather than dueling Elendil and Gil-galad.

But, in principle, I guess both Aragorn and Isildur and any powerful Númenórean wielding the One Ring could have subdued or controlled the Nazgûl for a time while he was still using the Ring and not the Ring him, i.e. before their transformation into a wraith-like creature was completed. That's also the reason why Frodo can master Gollum in the book ... and Tolkien's own speculation about the Nazgûl confronting Frodo at Sammath Naur imply they would have not been able to overpower him or take the Ring from him by force.

A really strong mind should have been able to temporarily bind the Nazgûl to his will ... but as long as Sauron was still the master of the Ring and this new would-be Lord of the Rings had not confronted and vanquished Sauron - which Galadriel and Gandalf and Saruman and Elrond may have been able to do, but no mortals - such a hold would have been only temporary.

Thus one imagines that anyone trying to vanquish Sauron while using the Ring would have not involved a direct confrontation with Sauron but rather the use of the power of the Ring to intimidate or break Sauron's followers, causing him to lose his advantage in numbers. Then he could be physically destroyed yet again without any really having to face him in a battle of wills over who was the rightful owner of the Ring.

But if a mortal had done that then Sauron would have triumphed in the end in any case because he was immortal and would, eventually, return as long as the Ring was not destroyed while the mortal using the Ring would eventually be enslaved by it - which means he would fall under the sway of Sauron.

Although I guess a slave/wraith bound to the One Ring could only be mastered by a wielder of the Ring, not just Sauron himself. Gollum is a slave of the Ring, not a slave of Sauron's. Sauron could torture him and gained knowledge from him, but he was never able to turn him into his creature. That would have only worked, I think, if Sauron had regained his Ring.

In that sense a hypothetical Isildur enslaved by the One Ring would only become Sauron's slave if and when Sauron regained the Ring. If that never happened then such a creature may have been an independent evil Dark Lord-like wraith.

I don't think Tolkien's comments in his letters quite match the text.

I think the text is clear.  A very powerful being - mortal or immortal - can wield the One Ring to great effect.  Gandalf says that Sauron lives in dread that a mighty one among them will claim the Ring and use it against him, and that would be a major blow against him. And,  why would he be frightened, if ultimately, all he has to do is wait out at that person until he becomes a wraith that Sauron can subjugate to his will.  Granted, it would put back his plans for world conquest by several hundred years, but what is that to an immortal being?  

My interpretation is that the danger for any powerful person wielding the Ring is not that they become subject to Sauron, but in effect, they become Sauron.  I think a man like Isildur or indeed Aragorn or Ar-Pharazon, could have mastered the One Ring.

Edited June 6, 2021 by SeanF

[Clueless Northman]

On 6/4/2021 at 7:38 AM, polishgenius said:

Apologies if this has been discussed or the answer obvious (I've not read the text for a while) but could you make the case that the Ring betrayed Isildur and lost itself when it did because it felt his growing intent to give it up?

The text doesn't hint at any special reason, as far as I remember. I used to interpret it as the Ring not wanting to let Isildur become way too powerful, as this could've been an issue for the Nazgul and later for Sauron himself. It was safer to just disappear and reappear only when Sauron came back with most of his might and power.

A hypothesis that would fit with both viewpoints is that the Ring knew that Isildur had fulfilled his role - making sure the Ring wasn't destroyed - and was of no further positive use. Once the Ring was out in the wilderness, it was the perfect occasion to drop and disappear, something which would've been impossible in Minas Tirith, Rivendell or Annuminas.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Clueless Northman

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't think Tolkien's comments in his letters quite match the text.

I think the text is clear.  A very powerful being - mortal or immortal - can wield the One Ring to great effect.  Gandalf says that Sauron lives in dread that a mighty one among them will claim the Ring and use it against him, and that would be a major blow against him. And,  why would he be frightened, if ultimately, all he has to do is wait out at that person until he becomes a wraith that Sauron can subjugate to his will.  Granted, it would put back his plans for world conquest by several hundred years, but what is that to an immortal being?  

My interpretation is that the danger for any powerful person wielding the Ring is not that they become subject to Sauron, but in effect, they become Sauron.  I think a man like Isildur or indeed Aragorn or Ar-Pharazon, could have mastered the One Ring.

I'm not sure the text of the book ever much indicates Sauron feared that Aragorn or Denethor could use the Ring to terrifying effect against him. His fears - if he was that afraid, it is all speculation - would have been about Gandalf or Saruman or Galadriel or Elrond using the Ring, not so much Aragorn or Denethor.

While Sauron seems to have been shaken by Aragorn revealing himself in the palantír this would have to do more with the trauma connected to Narsil - which had been reforged and was now in the hands of a direct descendant of Elendil - than with anything connected to the Ring. After all, if Aragorn had had the Ring at that time - or if Sauron had assumed he had it - then Aragorn would have either showed him the Ring or Sauron would have asked him to show it ... and he would have concluded that he didn't have it if Aragorn hadn't shown it.

The question what would have happened with a mortal wielding the Ring would have happened in the end is unclear, but the overall impression we have is that the Rings of Power - not being able to grant you new life but merely extending it to the point that it would become unbearable - do not really empower you in the end, but reduce to a wraith, a caricature of what you have been when you were alive. I don't think such a creature would have been able to face or resist Sauron when confronted by him physically, regardless whether they wore the One Ring at that point or not.

The idea seems to be that to really control the One Ring you do not just have to bear it but you have *to take it from Sauron* on a deeper level. This is something Tolkien thinks Gandalf could do.

We should also view Isildur in that light - Isildur did not overpower Sauron and take the Ring from him (which could have made the Ring really his, I guess). Rather he cut the Ring from Sauron's corpse. Sauron's body was destroyed by Gil-galad and Elendil and since they died, too, the Ring remained (sort of) Sauron's property.

But, of course, I guess Isildur as a guy who took the Ring more or less directly from Sauron would have had more power over it from the start than anyone who simply found the Ring. And that would mean Isildur wielding the Ring as an instrument of power could, perhaps, have basically taken over all the Dark Lord's minions and perhaps even prevented his return indefinitely ... at least as long it was clear he was controlling the Ring and not the Ring him.

How long it may have taken Sauron to return in power and gather enough strength to ever confront an Isildur wielding the Ring is very difficult to say. But I'm not sure an Isildur being consumed by the Ring and slowly turning into a wraith could have maintained control over the empire he may have built with it.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Lord Varys

[The Marquis de Leech]

As I read it:

• Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, or Durin's Bane claim the Ring: red alert for Sauron. Possible he might actually flee Mordor at that point.
• Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, or Denethor claim the Ring: amber alert for Sauron. He needs to crush them before they learn to wield it. turning it into a race against time. This is what Sauron thought he was dealing with.
• Anyone else: Crush at leisure.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 6/6/2021 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

Aragorn's kingship is both based on the divine right of kings - which is expressed by having an eagle of Manwe proclaim him king (the real fun thing there is the line 'your king will be among you all the days of your life' - meaning you cannot even hope to outlive that particular king) and by having an Angel of the Lord crown him king - as well as by exceptionalism based on 'magical blood' - which is expressed by his long life and his magical healing powers.

You're forgetting another crucial element - the consent of the people of Minas Tirith. Aragorn's victory in war, and the convenient elimination of Denethor, render his claim politically viable. Without that, he's just a random Ranger of the North, a hillbilly descendant of Romulus Augustulus who dares wander into Constantinople.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

You're forgetting another crucial element - the consent of the people of Minas Tirith. Aragorn's victory in war, and the convenient elimination of Denethor, render his claim politically viable. Without that, he's just a random Ranger of the North, a hillbilly descendant of Romulus Augustulus who dares wander into Constantinople.

That is not what makes Aragorn king.The Angel of the Lord crowns him, and the eagle of Manwe proclaims him ... long before and independent of the people giving their consent. All the people do is echoing what the divine powers have decreed.

An ideal king is also loved and worshiped by his people. They like being ruled by him. Tolkien would not describe an ideal king who isn't loved by his people, so you really cannot use that as argument against the fact that the crucial elements of Aragorn's are his blood and divine favor ... because if the author wanted to send the message that the people make the king then only the people would have made the king. That is what more progressive fantasy novels do. They have random folk become kings because of their heroic deeds. They do not make people with special royal blood great guys who become kings so that the reader actually gets the message that 'being a king' doesn't fundamentally set you apart from lesser men - but that's exactly the message Tolkien is sending.

And it is also quite clear that Gandalf won the war, not Aragorn. Gandalf is explicitly the leader the of the alliance against Sauron. He works with Aragorn and Imrahil but they both defer to him. If the will of the people were crucial then everybody would have wanted King Gandalf after Sauron's defeat ... just as the Hobbits would have later liked it very much if Gandalf had also resolved the Shire situation for them.

How little the will of the people matters in this world can be drawn from the simple fact that Gondor couldn't make a new king in a thousand years. Why is that? Because the people cannot make kings. Kings can only be the scions of a very special family with divine blood ... and when those are gone then there cannot be any kings, ever. You can still have rulers but no kings, and nobody can sit on the throne of the kings, etc.