I've fallen back to my thinking in depth days probably because I'm having stressful days and my mind goes back to deep thinking about stuff but something important popped up in my mind. I've noticed that there is a pattern where in Narnia it's very easy to become king / queen even from scratch and early childhood when we see that in Narnia ruling is going deeper and way harder than we fathom. I mean kingship in Middle Ages is all about strategy, war and political matters and difficult decisions and Narnia isn't really far behind.
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.
With the Pevensies I'd sort of understand it a bit because they've fought and proved some value and strength to the narnians, helping on defeating the white witch and I hope that they've got lots of help in strategy and all from older narnians in their early years of reign because valuable rulers or not they were still kids, aged between 13 to 8 and still need guidance. I do believe that they've grown through their adventure and managed to develop into good leaders, through experience and all. I have no idea how you have a life as a monarch back to being a kid in England, in my opinion you either don't live it for so long in Narnia or you don't go back to England. Either way I'd like to imagine it like in the movie where Peter is 16 and is somehow more mature for such position, decisions and all. Now Lucy being 8, well it's not much of an issue because she has Edmund, Susan and Peter who are older and able to make decisions.
Caspian did have a title prepared despite the fact that his uncle went after him and showed some potential, signs that he had a potential to become a good king. Now at 13 it is a bit early for such a position but at the same time he had the pevensies at first, the narnians, many people to assist him. Still I like to imagine it like in the movie where he is around 17 and more mature to be able to motivate and plan strategy the way he
I've already talked about Ramandu's Daughter this in my other topic but I forgot to mention something very important while thinking about all of this so I'll add it here. She would and I quote SUCK as a queen because she was raised isolated, in an island enchanted to punish violence and knows nothing about the Narnian world, the matter of people's struggles, social and any other matter. She only has known about peace, flowers and cosmos. I believe that the mindset of someone who grew to know nothing of the world's negative aspects isn't meant to rule well, as there is a false sense of "peace will solve everything". Even the pevensies at their early childhood fitted better as Narnia's kings and queen because they've at least experienced war, struggle, loss, growth and fear and know that to overcome adversities you need to understand the core of the struggle and not expect that only a divine force will bring peace for good, not even Aslan presents himself that way, he allows the characters to make decisions. You cannot rule people if you don't know them, if you haven't known what is their struggle.
Rillian did also learn and struggle even more than any of the other characters and if I remember well he was 25+ when ascended to the throne so not much to say here.
I don't condemn any narrative of the book gives to many characters immediate positions of power in matters that if you look deeper, might demand some strong insight. And since Aslan did have the ability to see through people's souls and has the control in Narnia I think he should've waited a bit for the characters to grow, at least Peter could be 16 (like in the movies) and Caspian as well grow a bit and also marry a queen with true potential, (preferably a personality) that could have a stronger impact on his people. He did allow two adults to enter and rule Narnia first.
So what is the main topic in this text? Personally I believe only characters who have struggled even a bit must have such an important position in Narnia where Aslan allows certain things to happen. I KNOW Lewis did intend his stories to be made for kids but he sometimes changed the canon of only kids going to Narnia. Am I overthinking this? Maybe. Don't use the argument "this is a kids' story!" because Aravis' story always pushes away that argument.
That's all of my thoughts on this topic.
Topic starter
Posted : December 9, 2025 6:20 am
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.
This post was modified 5 hours ago by icarus
Posted : December 9, 2025 3:08 pm
@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 restore her very elderly father prepare to return his place in the cosmos, 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.
There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane (for it had apparently grown again) stood Aslan himself.
"...when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."
Posted : December 9, 2025 3:47 pm
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.
Posted : December 9, 2025 4:08 pm
@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.
For better or worse-for who knows what may unfold from a chrysalis?-hope was left behind.
-The God Beneath the Sea by Leon Garfield & Edward Blishen check out my blog!
Posted : December 9, 2025 5:40 pm