claiming the throne shite
Just read an article on the BBC about some bloke who tried to say he was a claimant to the throne in the 1930s.
The words 'rightful heir' get thrown about a lot. I know there's some bloke in Australia who insists he is. I just... :facepalm: These people have clearly been reading too many ballads and fantasy novels. There is no such thing as a 'rightful heir' or 'true heir' when it comes to thrones and the position of royalty. Just because so-and-so is the eleventh-generation descendant of a deposed king/the crown prince that got smuggled away by the loyal retainer the night there was a coup and the nasty mean uncle took the crown, this does not give him anymore claim to the throne than the average pigkeeper. The next pigkeeper you come across may very well have a fuckload more 'royal blood' than said 'rightful heir', because royalty, as has been very, very well documented throughout the ages, has a habit of shagging everyone from the maidservants to the courtiers. The amount of maidservants that got sent off with a bit of money to hush them up is untrue. The amount of mistresses and actual *acknowledged* bastards is also untrue.
Kingship is conferred by *force* and *power*. Whoever has the throne at the time is the rightful king. See the Wars of the Roses for a good example. Also see the Georges. And best of all, William the Conqueror. Note the title. I haven't seen any relatives of the Godwinsons laying claim to the throne since 1066. The rightful heir is normally the most direct heir the current king has, and if said heir gets ousted when the king dies for being too weak too hold onto power, the traditional and correct response to any whining from them or their descendants is 'Tough luck, Sonny Jim, come back when you've consolidated enough power and influence to get yourself on the throne by either family connections, force or looking like a very stable marriage candidate with enough political power to prop up the current regime.' (see William of Orange for that one) Charles II only got invited back because he seemed a stable choice politically, and Parliament realised a politically astute figurehead with no illusions about what they could do to him if they really got pissed off was a good idea. Also note that this was *after* Cromwell died.
Of course, the romanticists' view is not helped by Tolkein. Aragorn only gets the throne because he has the elves backing him, friendship as a half-decent general from the Rohirrim, a bit of charisma, the instability of Gondor post-War of the Ring and Faramir doesn't want power the way his dad ruled. Yes, that's right. *Ruled*. The Stewards of Gondor were only Stewards in name. Like Pratchett, if that throne had been made of anything other than stone, it would be a mass of wood lice and collapse when you poked it. If Faramir hadn't been severely injured, had a bad experience with Dad going nuts, and also hadn't come under the influence of everyone who'd been affected by the elves' political manouevering and the general approval from the Rohirrim (who never actually supported him as a throne-claimant, they just didn't mind having a good fighter on their side), Aragorn wouldn't be within a sniff of that throne. And even then it's mostly Aragorn consolidating power whilst Faramir was recovering from his injuries.
Besides, people going on about the whole 'bloodline being passed down the ages from son to son, and there's also this ring and sword' bollocks - um... what makes you think there wasn't an affair on the mothers' side on occasion? The only thing you can absolutely, definitely prove in any pregnancy or birth is who the mother is. DNA testing only goes so far, and most of these stories don't have anything like that to guarantee it. Not to mention any of them that have the genetic power thing in there as a tester, hello, bastards, plus very probable that mummy dearest had an affair with another noble who in all likelihood had the gene as it was (nobility being a pretty small genepool).
:breathes: Rant over. Honest.
The words 'rightful heir' get thrown about a lot. I know there's some bloke in Australia who insists he is. I just... :facepalm: These people have clearly been reading too many ballads and fantasy novels. There is no such thing as a 'rightful heir' or 'true heir' when it comes to thrones and the position of royalty. Just because so-and-so is the eleventh-generation descendant of a deposed king/the crown prince that got smuggled away by the loyal retainer the night there was a coup and the nasty mean uncle took the crown, this does not give him anymore claim to the throne than the average pigkeeper. The next pigkeeper you come across may very well have a fuckload more 'royal blood' than said 'rightful heir', because royalty, as has been very, very well documented throughout the ages, has a habit of shagging everyone from the maidservants to the courtiers. The amount of maidservants that got sent off with a bit of money to hush them up is untrue. The amount of mistresses and actual *acknowledged* bastards is also untrue.
Kingship is conferred by *force* and *power*. Whoever has the throne at the time is the rightful king. See the Wars of the Roses for a good example. Also see the Georges. And best of all, William the Conqueror. Note the title. I haven't seen any relatives of the Godwinsons laying claim to the throne since 1066. The rightful heir is normally the most direct heir the current king has, and if said heir gets ousted when the king dies for being too weak too hold onto power, the traditional and correct response to any whining from them or their descendants is 'Tough luck, Sonny Jim, come back when you've consolidated enough power and influence to get yourself on the throne by either family connections, force or looking like a very stable marriage candidate with enough political power to prop up the current regime.' (see William of Orange for that one) Charles II only got invited back because he seemed a stable choice politically, and Parliament realised a politically astute figurehead with no illusions about what they could do to him if they really got pissed off was a good idea. Also note that this was *after* Cromwell died.
Of course, the romanticists' view is not helped by Tolkein. Aragorn only gets the throne because he has the elves backing him, friendship as a half-decent general from the Rohirrim, a bit of charisma, the instability of Gondor post-War of the Ring and Faramir doesn't want power the way his dad ruled. Yes, that's right. *Ruled*. The Stewards of Gondor were only Stewards in name. Like Pratchett, if that throne had been made of anything other than stone, it would be a mass of wood lice and collapse when you poked it. If Faramir hadn't been severely injured, had a bad experience with Dad going nuts, and also hadn't come under the influence of everyone who'd been affected by the elves' political manouevering and the general approval from the Rohirrim (who never actually supported him as a throne-claimant, they just didn't mind having a good fighter on their side), Aragorn wouldn't be within a sniff of that throne. And even then it's mostly Aragorn consolidating power whilst Faramir was recovering from his injuries.
Besides, people going on about the whole 'bloodline being passed down the ages from son to son, and there's also this ring and sword' bollocks - um... what makes you think there wasn't an affair on the mothers' side on occasion? The only thing you can absolutely, definitely prove in any pregnancy or birth is who the mother is. DNA testing only goes so far, and most of these stories don't have anything like that to guarantee it. Not to mention any of them that have the genetic power thing in there as a tester, hello, bastards, plus very probable that mummy dearest had an affair with another noble who in all likelihood had the gene as it was (nobility being a pretty small genepool).
:breathes: Rant over. Honest.