Every time I see this meme, I'm reminded of this, which basically argues that the shire is just a specific type of feudal system, that looks like a place of rulerless plenty because the main characters are mostly that systems informal equivalent of nobility.
Full disclosure: I have not read your link yet, but I intend to.
How can a gardener be nobility? Frodo, definitely could see. But then there are the Tooks and Brandybucks going out and stealing produce and foraging for mushrooms? Not exactly nobility activities.
Remember, they are still pretty much children in Hobbit society. Both the Tooks and Brandeybucks hold fair bits of land, it's just their wild kids running around giving the farmers trouble. And of course there's never any real consequences for them beyond a slap on the wrist.
But then there are the Tooks and Brandybucks going out and stealing produce and foraging for mushrooms? Not exactly nobility activities.
Another way of looking at it is that they don't have to work and is using their past time doing crime just for kicks. That kind of dickishness sounds very much like that of the spawn of nobles.
Sam wasn’t, and the article goes into that. He was, in fact, one of Frodo’s tenant farmers and thus part of the Baggins family’s social support network. Hence why he becomes Frodo’s ‘batman’ during the Ring Quest.
As far as the childish mischief of Merry and Pippin, in the books it’s mushrooms only, actually. And Merry and Pippin are actually much higher-ranking than Frodo, who’s a mere ‘gentlehobit’. (They are, however, also much younger; Pippin especially is barely out of what Hobbits consider childhood.)
Pippin is the son of the Thrain, the closest the Shire gets to an actual leader and nobility, as it’s his job to ‘stand in’ for the absent King. Merry is the son of the Master of Buckland, another very powerful and very old family in the Shire.
Look Tolkein liked monarchy, what can you do about it. The Shire is still an anarchist commune, when it's not on fire
I'm not sure it really fits the bill there. It had a largely-ceremonial hereditary monarchy (which Pippin inherits from his dad about 15 years after the ring was destroyed) which can call assemblies to discuss matters, an elected mayor (which Sam served as several times over after the ring), and law enforcement in the form of the shiriffs. Tolkien does describe it as "hardly any" government, yes, but to me it seems perhaps unsurprisingly more like a miniaturised version of the British system
I mean, medieval communities were often somewhat self-managed due to the simple fact that judicial courts were far away, and the local bailiff had to enact the laws. Every-day law was mostly on a by-case basis, and if they didn't notice or care, there was no law.
Denethor was a Mordor asset. He had to be removed.
that's what they want you to believe.
Hey the man removed himself
Let's keep the people believing that, good citizen!
The line of stewards were kings in all but name as a hereditary monarchical position with all the duties and authority of the king. They theoretically had to give up power if a member of the royal family ever came back to claim the throne, but Aragorn wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to do so and only took over after Denethor killed himself with his two heirs being either dead or too injured to lead. The stewards had ruled Gondor for over a thousand years and a well liked one could have easily gotten the people behind them to reject Aragorn's claim and formally taken the title of king.
Gondor had like 30 Kings before that ...
Gondor has no
pantsking, Gondor needs no king.I don't think that's true, is it? I think Gondor had a small handful of kings before the line was broken and had a long string of stewards. Didn't Isildur sail from Numenor and establish Gondor himself? So, one single king, right?
No, isildurs nephew led the line of kings in gondor for two thousand years before the plague and civil war weakened gondor and it ended when the witch king nazgul killed the last king of gondor.
So did France but they figured out how to break the cycle (eventually)
The shire was founded under the rule of the king of arnor, as a semi independent shire. So aragorn was technically king of the shire.
Until the beginning of the Fourth Age when King Elessar (Aragorn) makes it a free land (still under protection)
lol, the secret lives of Hobbitses. GOLLUM WAS RIGHT
Eru's own special little favourites
Here's the thing.
He named it even. Please read about Thing/Din of the old germans, it's basically a simple democracy.
This made me sad.
dont be! Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist. Something like monarcho-socialism but more radical, with highly symbolic but powerless monarchs and lots of good ritual, combined with anarcho-federalism and Mutualism
with highly symbolic but powerless monarchs
That's not exactly what it means: http://wikibin.org/articles/anarcho-monarchism.html
Given that definition we wouldn't exactly call them powerless.
Edit: This Reddit thread shines light on both 'Anarcho-Monarchism' and J.R.R Tolkien's beliefs: https://reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/pvkkjy/what_is_anarchomonarchism/
They didn't remove an unfriendly one beforehand tho.
I first read it as "hobbyists" and was very confused.
