He rules over an entire continent. He absolutely isn’t king of nothing. I agree that Tolkien is the only true anarcho monarchist and managed to keep that contradiction as part of his work. But Aragorn did the stuff kings are expected to do and his kingdom was the most extensive in a few thousand years with many thriving communities. I made a big post about it elsewhere in the thread, but while the world is ‘diminished’ from the pov of the powerful in lotr its generally a reflection of their own powers having been diminished because it was dispersed into the upkeep of the land, the defense against sauron and that ‘energy’ is still present within the world. The world is more and the people within it lesser the further you go in the Tolkien legendarium and itd because aside from Men, making an influence in the world requires some commitment of your own essence.
I mean, for the first part of the story he was king of jerking off in the woods with a broken sword. You are right that that is how he ended up at the end of the book but to my knowledge he is no less of a king when was strider than when he was sitting on the throne.
Oh I get what youre saying now. I misread your initial post. You meant as strider he was king of nothing and is still king. Gotcha. I thought you were just calling him that and like middle earth was basically a nothing kingdom post lotr
I still don’t think I get where youre coming from in regards to Aragorn. Could you explain in your own words? I’ve got some guesses but they all fall kinda flat
King is a job title right? LotR implies that when Aragon was just foraging in the woods living in the woods he was still a king. The anarcho monarchies is that his relationship to a kingdom does not dictate his status
Okay that’s what I thought you meant on a second read but was wrong on the first. Its maybe even elss anarcho monarchies than wanting an anarchists monarch
Tolkin is the only true anarcho monarchist I know about. Like, strider is the king of nothing but he is still a king.
He rules over an entire continent. He absolutely isn’t king of nothing. I agree that Tolkien is the only true anarcho monarchist and managed to keep that contradiction as part of his work. But Aragorn did the stuff kings are expected to do and his kingdom was the most extensive in a few thousand years with many thriving communities. I made a big post about it elsewhere in the thread, but while the world is ‘diminished’ from the pov of the powerful in lotr its generally a reflection of their own powers having been diminished because it was dispersed into the upkeep of the land, the defense against sauron and that ‘energy’ is still present within the world. The world is more and the people within it lesser the further you go in the Tolkien legendarium and itd because aside from Men, making an influence in the world requires some commitment of your own essence.
I mean, for the first part of the story he was king of jerking off in the woods with a broken sword. You are right that that is how he ended up at the end of the book but to my knowledge he is no less of a king when was strider than when he was sitting on the throne.
Oh I get what youre saying now. I misread your initial post. You meant as strider he was king of nothing and is still king. Gotcha. I thought you were just calling him that and like middle earth was basically a nothing kingdom post lotr
Yeah, that encapsulates the anarcho monarchist vibes perfectly you know
I still don’t think I get where youre coming from in regards to Aragorn. Could you explain in your own words? I’ve got some guesses but they all fall kinda flat
King is a job title right? LotR implies that when Aragon was just foraging in the woods living in the woods he was still a king. The anarcho monarchies is that his relationship to a kingdom does not dictate his status
Okay that’s what I thought you meant on a second read but was wrong on the first. Its maybe even elss anarcho monarchies than wanting an anarchists monarch