Eowyn and feminism and Tolkien

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Anyway, I don't think Eowyn was second or even third in line for the throne. Rohan and Gondor were patriarchal societies and only male descendants were considered heirs proper. She was only a temporary deputy and her case of "sexism" was perhaps not cut and dried, but it was a strong one nonetheless. It's been a while since I read the dialogue between Aragorn and Eowyn but as far as I can remember it's very balanced and hard to call. When Aragorn tells her to stay he makes many good points, but she too comes up with strong counter-arguments.

There isn't any precedent to judge it from in Rohan, but in Numenor in the better days women took their place as rightful heirs and I can't see Rohan being different if, as it appears, Eowyn was considered capable enough to be trained in the sword to a lesser or greater degree.

Even under primogeniture the daughters of a King never relinquish the right to be heirs, they just take second place to their brothers - which results in interesting conflicts at times - see Matilda Vs Stephen and The Anarchy in the 12th century!

It's a good topic to look up though and see what rules were in place in various kingdoms at different times.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There isn't any precedent to judge it from in Rohan, but in Numenor in the better days women took their place as rightful heirs and I can't see Rohan being different if, as it appears, Eowyn was considered capable enough to be trained in the sword to a lesser or greater degree.
...
It's a good topic to look up though and see what rules were in place in various kingdoms at different times.

I'm aware that Numenor had reigning queens but that wasn't that an alteration in the laws Aldarion made to avoid having to snuggle with Erendis again while still keeping the sceptre in the family? And wasn't this practice discontinued in Gondor later on? It's hard to believe that there were no kings or stewards who died with only daughters left behind anyway. Yes, this should be checked up, but not by me as I don't have time at present. Shouldn't even be writing this...

[Lindale]

Originally Posted by skip spence

It's hard to believe that there were no kings or stewards who died with only daughters left behind anyway. Yes, this should be checked up

The father-son bloodline of the Stewards did not fail, from Mardil to Denethor. Apparently the Stewards learned from the Kings' mistakes

I agree with Skippy with the points on Aldarion and the ruling Queens. But though in Gondor the female line was disregarded, in Rohan if the female bloodline was sort of next-in-line. Thus we have Helm Hammerhand's nephew Frealaf being king after him; and Eomer after Theoden.

Perhaps the Gondorians shouldn't have been so stupid as to disregard the female line... for princesses could bear potential heirs for their crowned brothers too. That is the thing hard to believe, that the line of Anarion truly ended, i.e., wouldn't a male heir via a female descendant have counted? This for me is sexism, Salic Law-style.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Lindale

The father-son bloodline of the Stewards did not fail, from Mardil to Denethor. Apparently the Stewards learned from the Kings' mistakes

Making sure that the Steward couldn't leave the realm must have helped as well in that regard.

Perhaps the Gondorians shouldn't have been so stupid as to disregard the female line... for princesses could bear potential heirs for their crowned brothers too. That is the thing hard to believe, that the line of Anarion truly ended, i.e., wouldn't a male heir via a female descendant have counted? This for me is sexism, Salic Law-style.

I think this was the exact problem with Arvedui's claim on the Southern Throne. If there had been a stronger tradition of allowing for the female line to count, presumably his claim would have been stronger. However, I think the rejection of that claim was more based on the fact that people in power in the South didn't want a Northern king at this point than any sort of sexism. They used such reasoning to further their own ends, and at a great detriment to themselves.

What is interesting is that even though sometimes Tolkien's societies do not honor the role of females in succession, Tolkien himself does. The line of Elendil came from the line of the Kings of Numenor because of a female (older female from before women were allowed to rule? I don't remember). Heck, I don't even remember the name of Silmarien's husband: she essentially started the line of the Faithful who ended up becoming Kings in Gondor. And again we have the case of Firiel--you could argue that not allowing her blood to validate Arvedui's claim was a result of the corruption of Gondorian society at this point and ended up hurting them in the long run.

Then we also have the interesting case of inheritance in the Shire, where after marriage husband and wife are regarded as one legal unit with joint ownership, allowing the survivor of the two to inherit all legal and economic power regardless of sex.

Bringing this back to Rohan, I think the fact that the people are willing to accept Eowyn as a ruler shows that their society is relatively healthy. True, it's not something that Theoden immediately thinks of (Whom do you trust? The house of Eorl! ...But... I need Eomer in battle!), but other people think of it, put the idea forward, and don't seem to care about the fact that Eowyn is a woman. It's more important that she's part of the right bloodline.

Which means that her dereliction had more to do with personal reasons than any sort of feminism, although of course when you're soul-sick you can use any sort of reasoning to justify something that's wrong and I'm sure some of that reasoning was "they don't want me to come along because I'm a woman!". Well... not really...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I think this was the exact problem with Arvedui's claim on the Southern Throne. If there had been a stronger tradition of allowing for the female line to count, presumably his claim would have been stronger. However, I think the rejection of that claim was more based on the fact that people in power in the South didn't want a Northern king at this point than any sort of sexism. They used such reasoning to further their own ends, and at a great detriment to themselves..

I'd agree that any prejudice against Arvedui's claim deriving from a female heritage through Fíriel was relatively immaterial to the reason his claim was disallowed. Arvedui didn't rely soley on that as a basis for his claim: he was also a direct descendant of Isildur. The connexion to Gondor through Fíriel was just something that should have strengthened his claim even further.
The argument of Gondor against him appears to be based upon the idea that Isildur had handed off Gondor to Anárion, and Gondor could order things as it liked. Tradition, and probably pride, held sway more than common sense.

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

What is interesting is that even though sometimes Tolkien's societies do not honor the role of females in succession, Tolkien himself does. The line of Elendil came from the line of the Kings of Numenor because of a female (older female from before women were allowed to rule? I don't remember). Heck, I don't even remember the name of Silmarien's husband: she essentially started the line of the Faithful who ended up becoming Kings in Gondor.

I don't know the name of Silmarien's husband either. But she was the eldest child of Tar-Elendil, and indeed the apparent beginner of the Lords of Andúnië, of which came Elendil and Isildur. It's rather ironic that Gondor 'forgot' that.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I'm aware that Numenor had reigning queens but that wasn't that an alteration in the laws Aldarion made to avoid having to snuggle with Erendis again while still keeping the sceptre in the family? And wasn't this practice discontinued in Gondor later on? It's hard to believe that there were no kings or stewards who died with only daughters left behind anyway. Yes, this should be checked up, but not by me as I don't have time at present. Shouldn't even be writing this...

I've looked up Numenor, and the rule was one of primogeniture until Aldarion changed it so that daughters could inherit, even if they had younger brothers - of course he only had a daughter, Ancalime. Telperien was a Queen with a younger brother, and his child succeeded the childless Queen.

As for Gondor, I can find no instance of a Queen inheriting, as there were always sons. However when it comes to Firiel, she ought to have inherited had women been allowed to do so, as there were no other siblings.

Of course her husband Arvedui made the claim on Gondor but was denied. Maybe his claim was the cause of Firiel being rejected too, we don't know, but it was odd to seek out a fairly distant royal cousin in Gondor to inherit (though it has real world precedent in the choice of George I to succeed Anne, just to avoid having a Catholic inherit!).

He had a blood right to the kingship, though it was rather a late claim! It might be rather like that Aussie bloke who is the bloodline descendant of the Plantagenets via George, Duke of Clarence making a claim on the UK throne - he would have a bloodline right to it but imagine the mayhem it might create!