[jeanjogr]

Indeed it was, however:

- Stewards ruled for 1000 years. I would wager that the idea that Kings would return and that stewards rule was a temporary thing was a purely ceremonial thing. We do not know (or at least I do not know - perhaps it is stated somewhere in the books) whether the people of Gondor would find a randomly found King more legitimate to rule them than the Stewards' line. Aragorn is a special case, since he had been running a long-con PR campaign well before the War of the Ring, and was acclaimed as a ruler because he was an effective commander in the great war - Dunedain heritage may not have been necessary.

- Right to rule some land because of one's birth is of course wrong. Aragorn pressing his legal (but immoral) right to rule because of his birth should not be praised, and should be seen for what it is: elites fighting to reclaim more power over the common folk.

[baud147258]

> whether the people of Gondor would find a randomly found King more legitimate to rule them than the Stewards' line

I think the legitimacy of the rule of Stewards' line was derived from the kings of Gondor, since they ruled in their name, while waiting for the return of a king. Even 1000 after, it was still called a kingdom. And then the heir of the line of the Stewards supported Aragorn, perhaps in part because he was the legitimate heir to the kingdom

> elites fighting to reclaim more power over the common folk.

considering the previous regime had all the trapping of a monarchy, I don't think the situation of the common folk would change in the regions directly ruled by Aragorn (and it would change nothing in the regions which are ruled by vassals of Aragorn, which make up most of Gondor, where Aragorn wouldn't have much say

[jeanjogr]

For the first point, I agree that _legally_ the Stewards rules depends on Gondor being a Kingdom without Kings. But legality and legitimacy are two different things. We can only speculate whether the people & the nobles of Gondor think the Kingdom part matter or if they would still think the Stewards ought to rule even if they did not put up with the Stewards waiting for the King charade.

Perhaps people think it's just ceremonial and the reason Stewards and their lines ought to rule is because they have done so for time immemorial (well, almost) and they've done a great job at it. A wannabe King arguing that _akshually_ they should be the ruler would be met with scorn - a random nobody bereft of any lordship that presses ancient and irrelevant legal rules.

Or perhaps the waiting-for-the-king part is essential, and people think that Stewards ought to rule because they've been appointed by the Kings and are doing a great job keeping the Kingdom ready for the return of any King.

I do not think we have much evidence whether it is the former or the latter. Aragorn - as a leader of the Great War, with the Steward dead and the heir of the Steward owing his life to him - has much more going for him than just being technically the heir. The fact that he is acclaimed does not tell us how important was being the legal heir vs. saving the kingdom vs. being installed by the Steward heir & Valar operatives. Perhaps a random noble from Gondor would have been able to claim the throne in the same conditions, à la Bonaparte. We do not know.

In the end, it's been 1000 years. Not many people support 1000-year-old claims. How many people care about the Byzantine Empire succession, or what the Capetians are up to?

For the second point, I poorly worded what I meant. What is painted as grand achievement and positive thing - the return of the King - is just one noble replacing another noble as the dictator, with a not so insignificant part of the story being about noble #1 campaign to depose noble #2. Hardly something to praise.