Tolkien and the Salic Law

Seeking knowledge in, of, and about Middle-earth.
Post Reply
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Tolkien and the Salic Law

Post by solicitr »

The move in Paliament to amend the Act of Succession led me to reflect on royal inheritance in Tolkien's various cultures, especially whcih may have applied some version of the Salic Law: in terram salicam mulieres ne succedant, "no woman shall succeed in Salic lands."

Númenor: Númenor is easy and hard. Hard because Tolkien never worked out to his own satisfaction what the amended law of succession really said; easy because in any version it provided for Ruling Queens, of which there were four. And of course Ar-Pharazôn had no right to the throne at all, but claimed it as spouse of his royal wife, with whom he ruled jointly like William & Mary.

Rohan: Rohan unquestionably did not apply the full-blown Salic Law as it was interpreted in France and Germany, which held not only that women could not succeed, but could not even pass the succession to a male. (France and England warred for over a century on this point- who says legal quibbles aren't a big deal? :D ).

Whereas in Rohan we have two clear cases of Kings inheriting through the female line: Frealaf (Helm's successor) and Éomer were their predecessors' sister-sons. What we don't know is whether the warrior Rohirrim would have permitted a Ruling Queen. Unfortunately Tolkien doesn't provide enough data: although we know Théoden's sister Theodwyn was dead by 3019, he does not tell us whether Helm's daughter and sister predeceased him or not, and therefore whether they were passed over in favor of the male heir.

(Although Théoden designated Éomer as his heir (twice) before he died, the impression I get is that he was just putting the succession beyond doubt, even though it was already assumed).

Arnor: Insufficient data. The male Line of Isildur was unbroken, father to son, for three millennia (whoa!)

Gondor: In Gondor, however, I think there is evidence for the Salic Law, a break with the law of Númenor. It isn't merely that Gondor happened never to have a ruling Queen; but that in the one case where we know the situation arose, the woman was passed over. This was Firiel daughter of Ondoher. In the succession crisis of 1944, we know that Gondor rejected Arvedui's claims in right of his wife and of his own descent from Elendil; but note, also, that Firiel as the only surviving child of the late King should have been Queen in her own right, regardless of her husband's ambitions, unless she were debarred by gender.

There are additional hints in the history of Gondor: for instance, we know that the House of the Stewards was of royal blood- yet had no cognizable claim on the throne. How could that be, unless the royal descent was on the distaff side? And in the crises of 1944 and 2002, the problem was not that there were no royal descendants, but none with a valid claim: again, I suggest, because they descended from Anárion in the female line.
Last edited by solicitr on Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46098
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Very interesting, soli. I confess this is a subject that I have not given much thought to before, although it clearly was an issue for Tolkien.
Although Théoden designated Éomer as his heir (twice) before he died, the impression I get is that he was just putting the succession beyond doubt, even though it was already assumed
On what do you base that impression? I've never had such an impression, and always assumed that Théoden was naming a successor precisely because it was in question. But again, I've not really given the subject much thought before.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Part Deux:

The Elves: It strikes me as a bit odd that Fëanor and Fingolfin would have been arguing as to which was their father's heir- a concept one would think was meaningless to immortals living in the Deathless Lands. But of course, Finwë's family started dropping like flies soon thereafter, making succession to the "High Kingship" a live issue.

This High Kingship as far as I can tell really only applied to the Exiles. Finarfin was set by the Valar to rule the remnant who stayed behind. Obviously this meant, at first and briefly, Fëanor, and Fingolfin followed him however grudgingly but didn't reach Beleriand until after his death. But it really only became an undisputed title when Maedhros waived all claim on behalf of himself and his brothers.

However, after Fingolfin falls things start to get murkier. It doesn't help that Tolkien never got the family tree in the younger generations worked out to his satisfaction. If we take as 'official' the later genealogy which makes Orodreth Finrod's nephew rather than his brother, we again have a female (Galadriel) being passed over. Indeed, Galadriel never claimed to be a Queen, even as the last survivor of Finwë's house.

While we have the bold declaration that Fingon became High King, it's noteworthy that Orodreth does not feel bound to commit Nargothrond to the Nirnaeth, and Maedhros behaves rather more like an ally than a subject (perhaps he regarded his waiver as applying to Fingolfin, personally). Turgon turns up, but of course nobody asked him to; and he's Fingon's frickin' brother.

After Fingon's death the High Kingship was a pretty meaningless title, but for what it's worth we're told it went to Turgon.

I think it's possible to argue that among the Noldor, being indefinitely longeval, they didn't think of succession as being a matter of direct lineage, but rather "The eldest surviving (male) member of the House of Finwë." This really makes more sense- and also explains why Turgon would be his brother's heir no matter whose son Gil-Galad was. And it would really explain why Gil-Galad became High King on Turgon's death, even though Turgon's lineal heir was Eärendil (acknowledged as ruler of the Havens, and his descent was definitely in the female line). In fact, inheritance through (rather than to) a female seems to have been fine among the Elves: Maeglin thought to become Turgon's heir by marrying Idril; and Dior succeeded in right of his mother Lúthien.
Last edited by solicitr on Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
River
bioalchemist
Posts: 13431
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:08 am
Location: the dry land

Re: Tolkien and the Salic Law

Post by River »

The way I've always read the Akallabêth, Pharazon claimed the throne illegaly. His wife was supposed to be the Ruling Queen. Pharazon took the scepter only because he had an army to back him up. As such he was a symbol of how Númenor was falling from grace. The lust for power that led him to steal his throne also made him vulnerable to Sauron.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Quote:
Although Théoden designated Éomer as his heir (twice) before he died, the impression I get is that he was just putting the succession beyond doubt, even though it was already assumed



On what do you base that impression? I've never had such an impression, and always assumed that Théoden was naming a successor precisely because it was in question.
Well, it's an impression. I suppose because there's nobody else: Éomer is the last male member of the House of Eorl. Even if the Rohirrim were really Anglo-Saxon and had a qualifiedly elected kingship (the witan, if the king's eldest son was a child or a real stinker, could choose some other member of the royal family, like Alfred the Great)- what were their options? Naturally the council-election idea is militated against by Théoden's act of appointing his heir.
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

The way I've always read the Akallabêth, Pharazon claimed the throne illegaly
Oh, sure it was a coup. In fact the marriage itself was incestuous and thus illegal. There's no evidence that the previous Queens' consorts ever claimed the Sceptre.
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

In many cultures (Scotland, for one) the line of the kingship has been matrilineal - the King's sister's son is his heir. Éomer was Théoden's nephew. I thought, years ago, that poor old Theodred had to buy the ranch, the king's "natural" heir would have been his sister-son/nephew/Éomer, anyway. It's always the nephew, in fairy tales. Pretty much.


The current little fuss over the British royals is silly, but it's the sort of thing they love over there. The real sticker in the bill is that it is meant to remove the bar keeping any Roman Catholic from the line of succession. That's going to be tougher to get passed than any change in the rule about gender.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
MithLuin
Fëanoriondil
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm

Post by MithLuin »

I have also wondered about the succession of High Kingship among the Noldor, especially in the context of Gil-galad's paternity (which I will do my best to leave out of this thread). I agree that there is no indication that male primo geniture (or whatever the term for 'oldest son takes all' is) would be in practice amongst the elves. They are immortal, so there is no need for them to view generations the way we do - a son or a brother is just as good as an heir, with no question of them getting old or feeble on you. (Ie, we all think Castro is silly for appointing his brother as his heir, simply because his brother won't survive him by very long....) Not sure how they feel about Queens....

Granted, this doesn't mean that is how it worked, but I have thought for some time that it would be dangerous to assume that it automatically would be a father-to-son thing. Maedhros never had children, but he had plenty of younger brothers to serve as heirs, if needed (of course, he outlived most of them, but anyway).

The whole concept of having an heir would have had to have developed in the time before the elves came to Valinor - in Valinor, there was no death, and thus no inheritence (at least until the Darkening of the Trees). So, while they were at Cuivenen, or on the journey - something like that. Once it was developed, it obviously stuck, because Fëanor and Fingolfin (both born in Valinor) were hung up on it. But if it predates the split of the Noldor from the Sindar, you would expect them to have similar rules, wouldn't you?

After the death of Finwë, Fëanor was tentatively acknowledged as his heir; Fingolfin had sworn "you will lead and I will follow," but no one claimed a crown. Thus, after Fëanor's death, it is not entirely clear to me whether Maedhros and Fingolfin are choosing Finwë's heir or Fëanor's heir. If they do not acknowledge that the shoes of the High King were ever filled, then Maedhros can acknowledge Fingolgin as the eldest surviving son of Finwë - a male primogeniture thing. If they are choosing Fëanor's heir, then choosing his half-brother over his eldest son sets a precedent for giving preference to the older generation. Certainly, in choosing Fingolfin's heirs, the crown will never pass back to the Feanoreans.

But this whole thing gets very messy, eventually, and I have never been able to sort it all out satisfactorily. Celebrimbor repudiated his father Curufin, but still ends up leader of Hollin. Elrond is obviously subordinate to him, even though he is Maglor's foster son. And how come Dior is Thingol's Heir, but Eärendil isn't Turgon's? Identical circumstances, but the High Kingship doesn't follow the same path as the crown of Doriath. And then, where does Gil-galad fit in and what makes him High King? Very confusing. While there are tentative explanations, I try to shy away from definitive statements about inheritance in the case of the High of the Noldor. It was never clear to me why it would be Gil-galad after Turgon, nor why Gil-galad himself would have no heir.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46098
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

We'll have to see if we can track down dna to participate in this discussion, eh Mith? ;)
Elrond is obviously subordinate to him, even though he is Maglor's foster son.
Not to mention the fact that Maglor himself is presumably still around somewhere, since Tolkien explicitly stated that Elrond was with Maglor when most of the rest of the Elves left Middle-earth at the end of the First Age (although Christopher changed that to say that it was Gil-galad that Elrond was with), and unlike Maedhros is never described as dying. But I guess one could argue that as the last remaining member of the "Dispossessed" he still would not be eligible to be High King.

I have long wondered about Maglor and what he was doing during the long years of the Second and Third Ages, and whether he ever ended up returning West, and if not whatever happened to him. But that, perhaps, should be the subject of a separate thread.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Well, here is the Annal for Year 7:
Therefore when the council came to the choosing of one to be the overlord of the Exiles and the head of all their princes, the choice of all save few fell on Fingolfin.
So it was, at least to an extent, elective- although of course an 'overlord of the Exiles' was a measure brought on by an unprecedented situation.

But then Maidros' (Maedhros') words to the new High King:
"If there lay no grievance between us, lord, still the choice would come rightly to thee, the eldest here of the House of Finwë, and not the least wise."
Which implies that Fingolfin as the eldest Finwean in Beleriand was the "rightful" as well as elective High King. (I note that after Fingolfin there's no hint of another election).

The situation in Doriath is simpler: Thingol had no descendants but Dior. His half-elven staus appears not to have been a problem.

Gil-galad's situation is interesting- he's both the eldest and also the only fully Noldorin male of the royal House left, discounting the 'dispossessed' Feanorians. It appears to be the case that Gil-Galad inherited Turgon's title of High King, while Eärendil succeeded his grandfather as ruler of the Gondolindrim, despite being half-elven (presumably the loyalty of the Havens' Sindar was actually to Elwing his wife).

If GG were the son of Fingon, then a strictly lineal system would have made him High King instead of his uncle Turgon. If on the other hand he was a Finarfinian, then in a strictly lineal system Eärendil of the House of Fingolfin would have had a superior claim (despite his mixed parentage). Whereas under an "eldest survivor" system, GG does, in fact, become High King.
Celebrimbor repudiated his father Curufin, but still ends up leader of Hollin.
But Celebrimbor was never the rightful ruler of Eregion: that would be Celeborn and Galadriel. Celebrimbor only became de facto leader as the result of the coup by the Mirdain, and never claimed to be a king.

Elrond seems never to have wanted to be a king, in fact IIRC in the books (not movies) he is only ever given the title "Master", not "Lord." In the War of the Last Alliance he served as a herald, not a commander. Allthough he was a general in the First War of the Rings, it was as Gil-galad's deputy.

Maglor? Wherever he was, he doesn't seem to have had much interest in much besides his own depression.
User avatar
MithLuin
Fëanoriondil
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm

Post by MithLuin »

By some accounts, Gil-galad would have been a child when Fingon died, so perhaps High Kingship would have passed him over as unfit (regardless of who his father was), but then at Turgon's death, he would have been an adult and able to assume that role.

I guess I am just saying that there are a lot of possible scenarios of how the rules could have worked,

I don't think posited rules can ignore the Dispossesed, though - they seem to be 'naturally' dispossessed, so that once the rule passed to Fingolfin, there was no way for it to get back to Fëanor's kids. I don't see there being some special case ban that bars them from taking the title High King, just that it would not come to them. For some reason, Maedhros cannot be Fingolfin's heir, even after the deaths of all of Fingolfin's children. Maedhros is quite likely the eldest of Finwë's grandchildren, so you have to interpret the rules very carefully to exclude him....his father named him "Third Finwë" (Nelafinwe) because he saw him as the next in line after himself. And yes, I don't put it past Fëanor to name his firstborn out of spite against his half-brother, a very in-your-face name! So maybe it doesn't mean anything.

But to me, the Dispossessed got that way because after Fingolfin, they were selecting heirs of Fingolfin, not heirs of Finwë. Which means...Turgon has to be Fingon's heir, not just Fingolfin's heir in the event of Fingon's death. OR something.
Post Reply