Posted by: @thef-maria

Don't use the argument "this is a kids' story!" because Aravis' story always pushes away that argument.

Sadly i don't know an answer to that question that isn't a boring answer - i.e. that CS Lewis was writing a fairly simple set of stories for children, and wasn't really factoring in the political complexities of medieval kingship.

I'm also not really sure Aravis' story acts as a trump card in that regard.

However i'll definitely take the time to see if i can come up with a more creative in-universe explanation, because that's usually more fun.

@thef-maria I would agree with icarus about Caspian's queen (daughter of Ramandu), her story is not told in detail. You can find a few clues that show she was not just skipping about picking flowers on the island; she had responsibilities of a serious nature, helping her very elderly father prepare to return his place in the cosmos restored, and watching over the enchanted men. She joins the song of praise each morning, and serves Aslan in ways the book does not tell us. 
If Lewis concludes that she is a good queen for King Caspian, we either accept his judgement or reject the books. 

As for becoming a king or queen, it is a very interesting topic! I would like to read people's views on the book characters, since they are the ones Lewis created.  

I guess am somewhat reminded of that famous quote from George RR Martin, where he questions JRR Tolkien's characterisation of Aragorn, and his lack of Tax Policy as a monarch.

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-aragorns-tax-policy/

I guess the answer here is the same as for Narnia - that Tolkien simply wasn't writing that sort of story.

Game of Thrones maybe aspires to be that sort of story? but LOTR doesn't... and neither does Narnia.

@thef-maria First, I'd like to thank you for starting some topics in Talk About Narnia. Nowadays, it can feel like all people discuss on this site are adaptations of the Narnia books. But if it weren't for those books, we wouldn't have adaptations. (I'd start some more topics myself, but I just haven't felt like rereading the books lately.) 

But I wonder if you're assuming Narnia functions exactly like a medieval monarchy. Mind you, that's an understandable assumption given the general look and sound of the books. Still, just because historically kingship has been about "strategy, war, political matters and difficult decisions" that doesn't mean it might not work differently in Narnia. FWIW, here's what the books say about the qualifications. 

“Well,” said Aslan, “can you use a spade and a plow and raise food out of the earth?”
“Yes, sir, I could do a bit of that sort of work: being brought up to it, like.”
“Can you rule these creatures kindly and fairly, remembering that they are not slaves like the dumb beasts of the world you were born in, but Talking Beasts and free subjects?”
“I see that, sir,” replied the Cabby. “I’d try to do the square thing by them all.”
“And would you bring up your children and grandchildren to do the same?”
“It’d be up to me to try, sir. I’d do my best: wouldn’t we, Nellie?”
“And you wouldn’t have favorites either among your own children or among the other creatures or let any hold another under or use it hardly?”
“I never could abide such goings on, sir, and that’s the truth. I’d give ’em what for if I caught ’em at it,” said the Cabby. (All through this conversation his voice was growing slower and richer. More like the country voice he must have had as a boy and less like the sharp, quick voice of a cockney.)
“And if enemies came against the land (for enemies will arise) and there was war, would you be the first in the charge and the last in the retreat?”
“Well, sir,” said the Cabby very slowly, “a chap don’t exactly know till he’s been tried. I dare say I might turn out ever such a soft ’un. Never did no fighting except with my fists. I’d try—that is, I ’ope I’d try—to do my bit.”
“Then,” said Aslan, “you will have done all that a King should do.

@thef-maria Am I overthinking this? Maybe. Don't use the argument "this is a kids' story!" because Aravis' story always pushes away that argument. 

Perhaps you are indeed overthinking the Narnia stories, and I'd like you to expand on why you think Aravis' story, in particular, pushes away that argument. I doubt it is specifically monarchy that C.S. Lewis had in mind, when, apart from Jadis, the White Witch, the main qualification for Narnian kings & queens were, first & foremost, that they were human beings, that is to say, "a son of Adam and a daughter of Eve", which was "enough to shame the proudest emperor & to exalt the poorest beggar", though I don't have my copy of Prince Caspian within easy reach at the moment. 

C.S. Lewis was born in Northern Ireland, on 29/11/1898. In WWI, which lasted from 1914-1918 (ending on 11/11/1918) he also served in Flanders Fields, alongside troops from Australia, New Zealand, Canada & South Africa, where J.R.R. Tolkien, his fellow inkling, was born, himself. By World War II, his beloved Ireland, which influenced C.S. Lewis so much, had split into the Republic of Ireland, comprising 3 of the 4 original early Medieval Irish kingdoms, of Leinster, Munster in the South, & Connaught in the West.

Whereas Northern Ireland, also known as Ulster, still remains as part of the United Kingdom, as the parts of the British Isles under the jurisdiction of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland, are now called. King George VI was the king of Great Britain during WWII, as his father, George V, was king in WW1. From Queen Victoria onwards until the present day, UK remains a Constitutional monarchy, where much of the business of governance is done by Parliament, and where the King, more so than Presidents, is a neutral chairperson in government proceedings, with the main powers to warn, to encourage and most of all, to be informed. We have been told how much C.S. Lewis respected George VI, in particular, who never expected to become king or even wanted to do so, but took it up in December of 1936, as his duty to his country, realising that his 10-year-old elder daughter, later Elizabeth II, would be the next heir as ruling monarch. Elizabeth never had a proper school education except for one thing - she was sent to an Eton College tutor in the British Constitution, which served her well throughout her 70-year reign.  

Thank you for bringing up the subject, however, and also @icarus & @col-klink for their thoughtful quotes, especially @col-klink's coronation discussions with the about to be crowned King Frank, in particular. Just what I thought of, myself.  

@coracle her story is not told in detail. You can find a few clues that show she was not just skipping about picking flowers on the island; she had responsibilities of a serious nature, 

Yes, "Liliandil"'s story was ill-served by the Walden depiction of VDT, when they did not include looking after her elderly father, the retired Star, Ramandu, not to mention the 3 remaining lost Lords, plus Lord Rhoop, a nervous wreck after his stint on Dark Island. BBC's effort with VDT, though briefer, did a better job. However, the duties of a Queen Consort are different from the monarch, whether the consort is hard-working Queen Helen, fished off to Narnia whilst doing the laundry, the old-fashioned way. Or whether it is Queen Prunaprismia, who, at least, provided Miraz with his very own hoped-for son & heir.

Or Caspian's bride, Ramandu's daughter, who also did every bit as much for King Caspian X. Again, that, too, plays into British constitutional expectations of - say - Queen Camilla, our present Queen Consort. Basically, a Queen Consort's job is to support her husband, the ruling sovereign, & to assist his leadership of Narnia. And I agree that Ramandu's daughter might not have died, had she called off her picnic maying in Spring to attend Caspian's council, alongside her husband. In fact, she went to sleep on the job, to put it bluntly. And when her killer, LotGK, the Queen of Underland, abducted Prince Rilian, holding him captive for a decade, spinning some yarn of marrying him, what sort of domineering Queen Consort of Narnia would that snake-in-the-grass have made? 🐍

@thef-maria Like a few people have said, the blunt answer is that Lewis was writing stories for children, not ultra-realistic and politically complex stories for adults.

He was also writing stories that intentionally had Christianity at their heart, set in a fantasy world where God / Jesus Christ is manifested in the form of a Lion and is personally present not just in one short lifetime, but fairly regularly throughout Narnia's history. The kings and queens who are wise and good are the ones who know Aslan as the true and ultimate ruler, who understand implicitly that they are governing the land on his behalf and any power they have comes truly from him, and who govern in the just and compassionate way that he would want, whether or not they meet him in person during their earthly lives. The periods of tyrannical and cruel and unjust rule during Narnia's history are the periods when there are rulers who either don't know Aslan at all and reject any idea of his existence (the Telmarines before Caspian X), or who do know him and absolutely oppose him (the White Witch). That's an intrinsic feature of the Narnia books, because they are stories infused with Christianity (NOT allegories, but that's another topic) and intended to show something of what God / Christ is like, at least in this author's view, in a way that young readers can understand.

And as for Ramandu's daughter's further alleged inadequacies, I was going to explain the difference between a Queen Consort (which she is, as are Helen and Aravis) and a Queen Regnant (which Susan and Lucy are), but I see @waggawerewolf27 has already done that — thanks, Wagga.

Honestly, in short, I think you really are over-thinking things. These are fantasy stories for young readers, not ones that are intended to stand up to an adult level of political analysis. But it's always interesting how deeply we readers can get caught up in them nevertheless, isn't it? 

Posted by: @thef-maria

First, Frank and Helen didn't really have that much of experience to go into that position but we don't really have that much context on how they really ruled and I can't say for 100% sure what type of rulers they become. 

I would agree with @col-klink 's point that Aslan pointed out that Frank was qualified for the position according to Aslan's standard.  

@waggawerewolf27 's point that King George was a king that Lewis admired in spite of the fact that he was not really trained, nor even wanted to be king.  The movie 'The King's Speech' does a good job of showing that the king was really just an ordinary person with little training to be a monarch; admittedly the modern Monarchs do not have the same responsibility as a Medieval Monarch.

Historically, I am not sure that a Shepherd Boy was a great qualification for a king.  But God chose David to be king of Israel and he seems to have done a reasonable good job (through out the books of 1&2 Kings, a good king is said to 'do what is right in the eyes of the Lord, like his father, "David"').  Admittedly, the books of Kings focus on how faithfully a King follows Yahweh, rather than on how well they ran their kingdom politically; many of the kings that the book condemns look pretty good when we review what they did historically from a worldly, management-of-a-nation perspective.

At 8 years old (see 2nd Chronicles 34), Josiah was probably not the most well trained or experienced King to take the throne (and he had not had a good example in his father, "Amon" - though possibly he remembered the reforms his Grand Father, "Manasseh" brought about towards the end of his life - as Amon's rule was only for two years).  Though the bible records mostly his religious devotion to God, it also shows that he consolidated power, strengthened national identity and resisted Assyrian attack & rule (unlike the Northern Kingdom of Israel which fell to Assyria).

The rule of the kings and Queens in Narnia is under Aslan's reign.  Though Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy are Kings and Queens, Aslan is king over them all.  This is not unlike the Judean kings who were expected to rule under God's higher rule.  I think there is an element in Lewis' writings where fidelity to Aslan is an essential part of the King & Queen's rule - similar to how the Books of Kings and Chronicles view fidelity to God as one highest responsibility of the monarch.

In the case of Frank and Helen, I am not sure how many wars they needed to personally fight while the tree that Digory planted kept the White Witch at bay and there were only the first inhabitants of Narnia living there.  (Although, Aslan warns Frank that enemies will come because of the Witch.)

I am also a bit hazy on how much responsibility rulership involves in Narnia.  C S Lewis comments somewhere on the book, "The Wind in the Willows" [paraphrasing] about how the characters seem to live lives of perpetual childhood, always engaging in hobbies, without doing any real work to earn their living, or seemingly without having any real responsibility. I do see something in common here with Narnia.  Other than being a spy for the White Witch, all we really know about Mr Tumness is that he liked dancing with Dryads, having 'jollification for weeks on end' when Bachus visits and other hobbies. We know even less about what work Mr and Mrs Beaver did in Narnia - Mr Beaver fished for their dinner and Mrs Beaver did sewing.  It is not clear what the economy of this world was, or how the Kings and Queens would need to manage it.  This is my long-winded way of saying I think the other people in this thread who have said, "it is a children's book, do not read too much into it" have a point.  In a society of animals, who seem to provide quite happily for themselves by living in a similar manner to traditional animals (with some anthropomorphic behaviors thrown in), it seems like Narnia would be - to some degree - a self-managing economy without too much interference from the royal household.

Caspian was raised and educated in a Royal household.  Though he is just a child, he is living in an era where people do not need to do 12 years of school and 3+ years of university / trade school before they are considered employable and able to fend for themselves.  As I understand it, in traditional societies where children learn the family trade - rather than being educated in a school system, they have a tendency to take on responsibility earlier and are better able to handle that responsibility at younger ages (they seem 'very mature for their age' from our perspective).  I am not saying that schooling systems are a bad thing, but though Caspian is too young in our culture, where he would not be trained or expected to handle these responsibilities at such a young age, this may be projecting too much of our culture onto Narnia.

Anyways, that was a bit of a ramble.  Hope it made some sense.

@thef-maria First off, in all honesty, perhaps you are overthinking. As many of us have been saying, CS Lewis wrote a fantasy series for children. Though something like this can be for open discussion. That’s one of the reasons why we have the Narniaweb forum- to gather fans and speculate on these things. 

As for this topic on Why Is It So Easy to Become A King Or Queen of Narnia, I’m sure there are Narnia commentaries you can read, and certainly many scholars have tackled this question. Commentaries aren’t always reliable though, since the author is sometimes just giving their opinion, and not actually basing it on the text. Perhaps the best Narnia commentary are the books themselves (even though CS Lewis didn’t plan out the series in advance, the books remain the primary source).

So why is it so easy to become a king or queen of Narnia? Maybe because Narnia itself is a place of transformation—where children find purpose, and where humility often outweighs bloodline. Consider Edmund: a traitor turned king, not by conquest, but by redemption. He even says in The Horse In His Boy, “But even a traitor may mend. I have known one that did.” The throne wasn’t earned by war or power, but by something simpler—and harder—to fake: character.

@davidd Historically, I am not sure that a Shepherd Boy was a great qualification for a king.

Or maybe it was, when Jesus Christ is also called "The Good Shepherd" and the "Lamb of God". Earlier, this year, it was really interesting to go to church to hear a discussion about King David's career, & how he got to be King.

In the current NIV version of the Bible, we were able to follow in 1 Samuel, how Samuel came to be a prophet, himself, & how he came to anoint first King Saul, who, because of his disobedience or only partial obedience to God's instructions about the Amalekites, was found to be wanting in the role. Then later, Samuel anointed the erstwhile shepherd boy who eventually replaced Saul as the very famous King David. Saul's & Samuel's contrasting treatments of Agag the Amalekite leader in 1 Samuel 15: 8-33 was also a topical discussion, this year, including a debate between Jewish, Christian & Islamic scholars about their respective beliefs about the conduct of war, as one infamous cleric was taken to court for his fiery antisemitic preaching. 

The treatment of Israelite kings in the Hebrew Scriptures & consequently in the Christian Old Testament books of Samuel, Kings & Chronicles, is sharply at variance with how the polytheistic Egyptian Pharaohs are treated in their own steles & historical records. We only hear what Pharaohs like Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah or Rameses III have bragged about doing in the name of their own gods. Whereas the Israelite kings are put under the monotheistic microscope of the followers of Jehovah, whether they foul up or not. And that brings us back to Christian C.S. Lewis' Narnia, which isn't alone in its little world.

@jasmine_tarkheena also makes a good point when she says:  "Maybe because Narnia itself is a place of transformation—where children find purpose, and where humility often outweighs bloodline". There is also the Lone Island's Governor Gumpas, drowning in red tape, statistics & much humbug, who let in the piratical slavers, & also is found wanting. There is also Archenland's King Lune, who points out that it is the Law which makes Shasta the future king, in preference to his better trained & nurtured twin brother, Corin. What about Calormen, the contrasting, only too familiar, system of deciding who was to be in charge? A leader, a king, must take on the responsibility of leadership, laying down his life for his people, as Christ did on the Cross, one would think. And on 6th May 2023, that was also the point of the very real Coronation of Charles III, as much as the simpler Narnian Coronation of Frank the former Cabbie & his wife, Helen. Would you see the Tisroc making such an effort? What about Aravis' opinion of her own Calormene leaders?

Posted by: @icarus

However i'll definitely take the time to see if i can come up with a more creative in-universe explanation, because that's usually more fun.

Right, I've come up with what I think is a more fun, in-universe explanation to explain the nature of Narnia's monarchy in a way that doesn't get bogged down in boring real-world political detail.

• First, since Narnia is principally a Kingdom of animals, the majority of the country runs according to the rules of nature, and so doesn't require a lot of state intervention on domestic matters.

• Secondly, much of Narnia's national defence (particularly during the reign of King Frank) is based on magic, which also is largely self-functioning, and thus doesn't need a lot of governance.

• In most instances then, the monarch is largely symbolic, hence why it can be filled by young children with very little experience.

• At other times, when times are harder, it does require someone like Caspian, who has been tutored on leadership from a young age. (Caspian specifically mentions all the things he has to get done during the early years of his reign before he could sail on the dawn treader)

@icarus Well, yes...It is one simple explanation of Why it is so easy to become a king in Narnia. And mainly, Narnia was meant at its creation, to be as simply run as you say, from its beginning in Magician's Nephew. But when @thef-maria is so disapproving of Liliandil, Caspian's Queen, whom she suggests "only has known about peace, flowers and cosmos", why, on the first peaceful spring day that Caspian's Queen actually does decide to go maying, (i.e. fiddling around with flowers, I think), then gets tired, & goes to sleep on a bank, does she get bitten by a snake?

Now, it might be a good idea to catch the snake, to see if anti-venene is available, but why then does Rilian, fond son though he might be, go haring off on his wild goose chase to avenge his mother? Of course, Narnia is not reality, though its talking animals might have taught their human minders something about bushcraft, & roughing it in the wild. Don't go to sleep on a bank for any old snake to bite the sleeper, for instance. 

At other times, when times are harder, it does require someone like Caspian, who has been tutored on leadership from a young age. (Caspian specifically mentions all the things he has to get done during the early years of his reign before he could sail on the dawn treader)

So why, if leadership is so easy, did Caspian, in particular, need help from past monarchs, like Susan, Peter, Edmund & Lucy? At the point of his having to flee his Uncle Miraz, Caspian already had as much education from his Nanny & Dr Cornelius as Peter Pevensie, when they were both about the same age.  Why does Shasta, the runaway slave, also need to be educated, when he has a twin brother, who has already been educated all the time, whilst Shasta was being reared by Arsheesh? It isn't as if Shasta hadn't had oodles of work experience, you could say. 

Narnia, a land of animals, gets invaded three times. You could make that four, or even five.

• White Witch who sticks around for 100 years
• Threatened invasion from Calormen, where life was never meant to be easy, especially for slaves and ordinary people
• The Pevensies go back home, & Telmarine Caspian the Conqueror takes over the land, for at least 10 more generations. 
• Another threatened invasion, when Rilian was abducted for 10 years, when magic became somewhat less than self-functioning. Especially when Caspian's Queen goes to sleep on the job.
• Finally, Calormene civilisation takes over the land, in a world-ending Armageddon in the Last Battle. 

Do you think that the children sent to Narnia, are there, purely for work experience?

@coracle I don't think we have to agree with absolutely everything included in the books. I don't recall disagreeing with everything Lewis included in the rest of the books except from this romance. Just like everything I write cannot be accepted by everyone. If someone told me they didn't like a three pages NPC I honestly wouldn't care THAT much. I do love the role of Aslan and his main characters especially Caspian and that should be enough. And I am saying this because I've been accused of not treating Lewis respectfully on Reddit for the exact same topic which made me lose half of my brain cells...

Look, I get that many people said that indeed he didn't intend for romance in his stories but I start realizing I have to either focus on my fanfic to rant about this through storytelling or focus on Aravis' and Cor's story, his short romance with Suspian because I'm sort of tired of responding to the same arguments.

The statement that Ramandu's Daughter grew up only knowing how to pick up flowers and watch the stars is my interpretation and to some may make sense to some others don't but indeed she had zero human life experience. 

@icarus Fair I think that may be coming from my increased time getting into much more complicated universes as I grow up and wanting to see everything I meet complicated than it should be. But that's not Narnia it's my weird brain lol

@col-klink Fair enough, I think I shouldn't expect so much complicated stuff but my brain usually goes to that pattern where everything is more complicated than it should be.

@waggawerewolf27 I always thought that indeed Lilliandil was never queen but rather queen consort and these two are very different terms. 

@courtenay The queen consort argument is very accurate at this point when it comes to this topic but yes I tend to forget no to demand such complicated aspects from the books. 

@thef-maria of course we don't have to agree. Discussions are made from differing opinions. You may find on Narniaweb that there's a majority opinion on a number of things. But we remain friendly, and we have always promoted a friendly atmosphere. I hope you will always feel this.

@coracle Yes, I absolutely agree which is one of the reasons I decided to leave reddit, all off my opinions were usually taken badly and I was always attacked about how passionate I had been on my opinions. I only pretty much said the same stuff as I have here, no direct insults to anyone. And if anyone really feels the need to downvote me because I dislike Ramandu's daughter then I'd love to see what they'd have to say to someone who hates Aslan (true story).

I like that here I am given real arguments and meaningful interactions.

@waggawerewolf27 I am confused on what you are mentioning there, I said Lilliandil hasn't known anything about life other than flowers and cosmos, and then you're saying that... she indeed went to pick flowers? I never said its anything bad but it really is all she knew but I guess then the life in Narnia away from Ramandu's island would give her some slap or two and she would learn the true Narnian world, after all it took her and Caspian 15 years to have Rillian. And her death would've happened anyway, the snake would have been sent in her chambers as she slept for all we know, it was premeditated.