I'm not convinced that Mr Beaver is well up on history. He refers to supposedly historical things that we now suspect were hearsay, rumour, old wives tales, and slanderous remarks about the White Witch. 

The only thing we can trust is the Prophecy about Aslan's return. Somehow that was not lost; I can imagine Talking Beast parents reciting it to their children at bedtime. 

In LWW Narnia (the country) had no humans, but there must have been a good number in Archenland, as seen in HHB.  Lewis didn't explain this in HHB, nor how they survived over the decades of the White Witch's rule over the border in Narnia. I can only infer that the Archenlanders kept themselves safely in their own land. 

Posted by: @coracle

In LWW Narnia (the country) had no humans, but there must have been a good number in Archenland, as seen in HHB.  Lewis didn't explain this in HHB, nor how they survived over the decades of the White Witch's rule over the border in Narnia. I can only infer that the Archenlanders kept themselves safely in their own land. 

Yes, I've wondered about that too. My theory is that the White Witch's winter affected only Narnia itself, but all the mountain passes between Narnia and Archenland were totally blocked by snow and ice, so that no humans from Archenland were able to cross over the border into Narnia and no Narnian creatures were able to escape into Archenland during the Witch's reign.

Posted by: @courtenay

How did the four thrones at Cair Paravel come to be made, along with the prophecy that the White Witch's reign (the 100 years of winter) and her life would end when two Sons of Adam and two Daughters of Eve sat in those thrones as Kings and Queens of Narnia? ...

What happened to the original line of Narnian monarchs descended from Frank and Helen...?

Based on the information available, we know that Narnia starts out as a hereditary monarchy with a line of succession based on primogeniture - i.e. the eldest child inherits the crown, and there is only one legitimate monarch at a time. However by the time LWW rolls around, we have established the premise that there are four legitimate monarchs of Narnia, that the ideal set-up is to have 2 Males and 2 Females, and that the thrones for four monarchs already exist.

Therefore, to get us from the one state of affairs to the other, the simplest theory I can come up with is that at some point in Narnian history, the reigning Queen (or Queen consort) gave birth to quadruplets, of which two were boys and two were girls (side note - i'm assuming that this is biologically possible, since you can have twins of different sex, though I must admit i've never heard of it happening in triplets or higher. Though even if its not biologically possible in the real world, I can just play the "magic" card here)

In order to avoid a crisis of succession, since all 4 children are technically the "eldest" child (if anyone wants to get super technical, perhaps they were born by caesarean section so all came out at the exact same time) the Narnians decided that all four children would hold an equal claim to the throne and therefore all four should rightfully inherit it from their father or mother when the time came.

However, before they could ever inherit the throne, the White Witch invades Narnia and the monarchy is deposed (perhaps they escape to Archenland, perhaps they are all sadly killed). Either way, the promise of having Two Kings and Two Queens was never fulfilled, and it leaves the Narnians with an intensely sad feeling of injustice that these four children were tragically robbed of their birth-right. As a result, the "prophecy" becomes an informal piece of folklore which speaks to this injustice, and the desire of all Narnians to see it righted.

(its a slightly convoluted theory perhaps, but its still the simplest explanation i can think of, which gives meaning to all of the available facts, without just making up entirely new mythologies)

EDIT: I'm also working on the assumption here that the Deep Magic that governs Narnia is not some precisely written set of laws which articulates specific rules for exact situations, but rather is based on the idea that moral justice in Narnia is universal, absolute, a-priori, and magically binding. Therefore an injustice such as the rightful heirs being denied their throne would be given the weight of magical enforcement when the four thrones are restored to worthy successors in LWW.

Posted by: @icarus

Therefore, to get us from the one state of affairs to the other, the simplest theory I can come up with is that at some point in Narnian history, the reigning Queen (or Queen consort) gave birth to quadruplets, of which two were boys and two were girls (side note - i'm assuming that this is biologically possible, since you can have twins of different sex, though I must admit i've never heard of it happening in triplets or higher. Though even if its not biologically possible in the real world, I can just play the "magic" card here)

Really interesting idea! Just thinking about it, I imagine it would be biologically possible if you had boy and girl fraternal twins (two separate eggs fertilised at the same time), both of which, at the earliest stages of development, divided completely to make two sets of identical twins, i.e. two identical boys and two identical girls. There's probably a one in ten zillion chance of it actually happening in real life, but in theory, and for the purposes of a good story...  

In order to avoid a crisis of succession, since all 4 children are technically the "eldest" child

Hmmm, this is where — just going by what we know from the books — I get the feeling this wouldn't work. We do have twin boys born to the King and Queen of Archenland in HHB, and King Lune is absolutely clear that Cor's argument of "if we're twins we must be the same age" won't get him out of being sole heir to the throne: "One must come first. Art Corin's elder by full twenty minutes." It's probably safe to assume Narnia's laws of succession work the same way as Archenland's, since their original monarchies began with the same family.

(if anyone wants to get super technical, perhaps they were born by caesarean section so all came out at the exact same time) 

I certainly don't want to get super graphic about the major traumatic surgery that is a caesarean section, but suffice it to say it would be physically impossible for four babies to be pulled out of the one womb at the exact same time, no matter how big the cut. Even if they were taken out only moments apart, it would still have to be one at a time and so there would definitely be an eldest child, even if by a matter of less than a minute.

(Also, unless Narnia has surgical techniques, anaesthetics, sterilisation procedures and infection prevention methods on the level of at least 20th-century Earth, they would only be performing caesareans if the babies' mother had died during or just before labour, since there would be no way she could survive the operation, but that's a side note here.)

EDIT: I'm also working on the assumption here that the Deep Magic that governs Narnia is not some precisely written set of laws which articulates specific rules for exact situations, but rather is based on the idea that moral justice in Narnia is universal, absolute, a-priori, and magically binding. Therefore an injustice such as the rightful heirs being denied their throne would be given the weight of magical enforcement when the four thrones are restored to worthy successor in LWW.

That's a very good point and something we just don't know enough about from LWW (or any of the other books) to be sure. Was there a very specific reason for the prophecy of the four thrones? Especially as it's in the first Narnia book that Lewis wrote, I get the sneaking suspicion that he just brought the prophecy in as a handy plot device for why all four of the Pevensies are needed in Narnia and why the White Witch is so determined to get rid of them, without him ever really giving thought as to why that should be so.

I personally would prefer to think there was a specific magical reason for the two kings and two queens being needed, especially as it's something the Witch is so concerned about, as she does seem to know enough about the Deep Magic to know the difference between it and mere folklore. But on the other hand, while this went over my head as a very young first-time reader, it doesn't escape my notice now: the prophecy isn't actually fulfilled in the way we're originally told. Mr Beaver states clearly enough that "it's a saying in Narnia time out of mind that when two Sons of Adam and two Daughters of Eve sit in those four thrones, then it will be the end not only of the White Witch's reign but of her life..." But in the event, the Witch's reign and her life end BEFORE the four children sit in those thrones, because Aslan kills her in the Battle of Beruna. So the four Pevensies being in Narnia is a sign that the Witch's reign is about to end, but their filling of the four thrones isn't the literal mechanism by which she's deposed and killed. So was it a "real" prophecy? It's another of those mysteries in the Chronicles...  

@courtenay Really interesting idea! Just thinking about it, I imagine itwouldbe biologically possible if you had boy and girl fraternal twins (two separate eggs fertilised at the same time),both of which, at the earliest stages of development, divided completely to make two sets of identical twins, i.e. two identical boys and two identical girls. There's probably a one in ten zillion chance of it actually happening in real life, but in theory, and for the purposes of a good story...

If you remember a publication called the Australian Women's Weekly, which at one time was actually a weekly publication, we'd read regularly in it, about the Sara Quads as I grew up and there was another set of quadruplets born later, in the same 1956–1964 time frame. In both cases there were two boys & two girls. Those were the days before reproductive technology became more familiar, but when there had already been improvements in obstetrics & post-natal care. There were quins born as well, all of whom were girls, I think in Canada or USA, but I think that multiple births were still fairly rare at any time, in humanity's history. 

Having said that, & realising that C.S.Lewis was vague about details, possibly the reasoning for four thrones might have been to ensure that a quartet of siblings would watch each other's back. They would be in a strong position to watch the four main points of a compass, at any time Narnia was under threat. British history shows a rather turbulent past, why not Narnia as well? And the Archenlandish mountains were a good place to flee to, especially the valley created by the Arrow River, until the desert brought them to a halt. Are we told anything about the relationship between Archenland & Calormen? It seems that until they were told about Narnia, that the Tisrocs only saw Archenland as a competing nation they wanted to subdue, if they could. 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Having said that, & realising that C.S.Lewis was vague about details, possibly the reasoning for four thrones might have been to ensure that a quartet of siblings would watch each other's back. They would be in a strong position to watch the four main points of a compass, at any time Narnia was under threat. British history shows a rather turbulent past, why not Narnia as well?

Interestingly there is precedent in British History during the Heptarchy period of Anglo-Saxon rule (5th Century to 9th Century) for having multiple Kings ruling their own separate Kingdoms (Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, and East Anglia) with a over-arching "High King" known as the Bretwalda to rule over all the other sub-ordinate Kings - Alfred the Great for example.

I feel though that for this sort of ruling structure to have been applicable to Narnia (say 1 monarch to oversee  the NW, NE, SW and SE quadrants of Narnia respectively) that it is something that would need to have already been in place prior to the White Witch invading. Otherwise it just makes no logical sense to me why the Narnians would bother to build 4 thrones at Cair Paravel during the 100 Year Winter (nor that they would have been able to). Therefore I feel the thrones, and thus the concept of having 4 monarchs, need to have a purpose for existing that is independent of the Pevensies.

Posted by: @courtenay

 

Hmmm, this is where — just going by what we know from the books — I get the feeling this wouldn't work. We do have twin boys born to the King and Queen of Archenland in HHB, and King Lune is absolutely clear that Cor's argument of "if we're twins we must be the same age" won't get him out of being sole heir to the throne: "One must come first. Art Corin's elder by full twenty minutes." It's probably safe to assume Narnia's laws of succession work the same way as Archenland's, since their original monarchies began with the same family.

• The doctor who delivered the quadruplets forgot what order they came out in, so the Narnians had no choice but to name them all as heirs.
• The Narnians weren't happy that the doctor delivering the baby got to choose (to some extent) what order the quadruplets came out in, so they felt this was an unfair influence.
• The Narnians were just so happy that something as miraculous as boy/girl quadruplets being born, that they decided the best way to celebrate was to make them all heirs (but with the true first born still getting to be "high king" for official purposes).

In either scenario its all just a narrative contrivance to get us to a situation whereby the Narnians would have cause to build Four Thrones in Cair Paravel some 100 years before the Pevensies arrive, and for the White Witch to have some prior knowledge about the meaning and significance of 2 Boys and 2 Girls inheriting those thrones.

Posted by: @icarus

Interestingly there is precedent in British History during the Heptarchy period of Anglo-Saxon rule (5th Century to 9th Century) for having multiple Kings ruling their own separate Kingdoms (Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, and East Anglia) with a over-arching "High King" known as the Bretwalda to rule over all the other sub-ordinate Kings - Alfred the Great for example.

That's unfortunately a massive over-simplification of English history. There was never a clear-cut or stable group of "seven kingdoms" and the meaning of the term "Bretwalda" is unclear, but through most of the Anglo-Saxon period there definitely was not a mutually acknowledged "High King" over all or even most of the kingdoms. The overall situation throughout that period of history changed and fluctuated a lot — and of course, at no time did multiple kings rule any one of those kingdoms, let alone from the same castle. There's really not a precedent there for anything that's even hinted at in Narnia's fictional history. (Wikipedia's pages on Heptarchy and Bretwalda give a good summary.)

I feel though that for this sort of ruling structure to have been applicable to Narnia (say 1 monarch to oversee  the NW, NE, SW and SE quadrants of Narnia respectively) that it is something that would need to have already been in place prior to the White Witch invading. Otherwise it just makes no logical sense to me why the Narnians would bother to build 4 thrones at Cair Paravel during the 100 Year Winter (nor that they would have been able to). Therefore I feel the thrones, and thus the concept of having 4 monarchs, need to have a purpose for existing that is independent of the Pevensies.

I agree, and then a related question here is — what actually happened to the original dynasty of Narnian Kings and Queens? We could assume the White Witch destroyed the last of them when she invaded, but to me that doesn't make much sense. 100 years is a long time for it to be always winter (and never Christmas), but it's not long enough for the presence of humans in Narnia to become so vague and distant a memory that it's unclear whether they really existed. Mr Beaver of course turns out to be wrong (retrospectively, in light of the books Lewis wrote later) when he declares "there's never been any of your race here before", but for him to be able to believe that, it must have been much longer than a century since any humans were last seen in Narnia. Mr Tumnus, likewise, has a book in his collection titled Is Man a Myth? All this could only make sense if it had in fact been at least several centuries since the last human beings — the royal family and any others — died or disappeared. We've got a period of nearly 1,000 years between the creation of Narnia and the return of Jadis as the White Witch, so that's certainly plausible.

As to what could have happened to them, I don't know, since Archenland apparently continued throughout that time and it seems to be a place whose sentient population is all human (same goes for Calormen, of course). Did some disaster or some evil opponent wipe out the relatively few humans in Narnia? Had there indeed been four simultaneous Narnian monarchs in the period directly before that, and that's why there were four thrones needing to be filled? After the destruction of humans in Narnia — however it happened — did Archenland break off diplomatic relations, hence why the remaining non-human sentient Narnians gradually became uncertain whether "Man" existed at all?

I've just now been checking The Magician's Nephew to see whether there's any indication that the Tree of Protection was to protect Narnia against all evil, or only against Jadis... as far as I can see from what Aslan says about it, it sounds like it's only specifically a protection against Jadis. I was wondering whether the Tree might have died or been cut down prematurely, perhaps about halfway between Narnia's beginning and the White Witch's winter, and that's what allowed the Narnian monarchy and any other humans in Narnia to come to some tragic end. But if the Tree only kept Jadis herself at bay, and not other forces of evil, then it could have gone on existing even after the extinction of Narnian humans, up until perhaps not long before Jadis re-invaded Narnia as the White Witch.

Maybe without humans there in Narnia to keep up the records of history, that's how over a few centuries the other Narnian peoples almost forgot there had ever been humans in their country, and perhaps even apparently forgot what the Tree of Protection was there for and (as I remember someone suggesting in another recent discussion) chopped it up for firewood??  

In all this discussion of English history, you have all forgotten that Lewis was Irish! It was Ireland that had 4 kingdoms and a high king over the other 3.

My notes from a visit say '4 Celtic provinces, Ulster, Munster, Connaught and Leinster. The High King at Tara.'

Lewis as a young boy was told Irish fairy tales by one of the servants in his home, which must have surely included the Kings of Ireland!

Posted by: @coracle

In all this discussion of English history, you have all forgotten that Lewis was Irish! It was Ireland that had 4 kingdoms and a high king over the other 3. My notes from a visit say '4 Celtic provinces, Ulster, Munster, Connaught and Leinster. The High King at Tara.'

Quite so. I thought that Brian Boru, who lived from c941 to 1014, & who was the ancestor of the O'Brian family, was the last High King at Tara, which was as far as I remembered. He was credited with being one of the most successful kings of Ireland.  I find Irish history rather hard to follow, when some see the Battle of Clontarf where he died in 1014, as being a fight against Vikings, whilst others see it as a continuing civil war, against Máel Sechnaill, who was High King from 980 to 1002, according to Wikipedia. Apparently, he had much trouble with the Uí Néill family who had dominated the High Kingship of Tara, & whose main allies were in Ulster. Brian Boru is the only king of Ireland that I actually knew about offhand.

When Ireland was invaded by the Anglo-Normans under Richard de Clare, also called Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke, about 1170, it was due to an invitation from Diarmait mac Murchada, the deposed king of Leinster. I've a vague memory that this Diarmait mac Murchada was considered a traitor, to have brought in the English. Now that sounds quite Narnian, don't you think? When Shift the Ape brought in the Calormenes. And when the disappearance of the Pevensies, after getting rid of the White Witch, ushered in the Telmarine invasion of Narnia. 

It needn't have been fairy tales, when Irish history is far from straightforward, & when its own history has been dominated by the rest of the British Isles, especially England & Scotland. 

Posted by: @courtenay

 

100 years is a long time for it to be always winter (and never Christmas), but it's not long enough for the presence of humans in Narnia to become so vague and distant a memor that it's unclear whether they really existed. Mr Beaver of course turns out to be wrong (retrospectively, in light of the books Lewis wrote later) when he declares "there's never been any of your race here before", but for him to be able to believe that, it must have been much longer than a century since any humans were last seen in Narnia.

@icarus Yes, that's a possibility, although I've always assumed that Talking Beasts probably have longer life spans than their non-talking counterparts. I don't think we're ever given any evidence either way, though. Certainly in Prince Caspian, Trufflehunter is specifically described as older than his Dwarf companions and he has a lot to say about how "we don't change, we beasts... We don't forget" — especially when it comes to the reality of Aslan and the four Pevensie Kings and Queens (who at that stage of Narnia's history are even further removed in time than the early Narnian monarchs would be from the characters in LWW). But maybe Talking Badgers are longer lived and/or have better memories and better oral history transmission than Talking Beavers!!  We don't really know enough to say for sure.

The use of Irish history is a really good solution though, @coracle! It was funny seeing Brian Boru pop up - I actually just released an unpublished short story on my blog a while ago that takes place at the battle of Clontarf and details the death of Brian. (The story does stress the existence of a Norse-Irish coalition, not just an Irish vs Norse battle, as wagga pointed out). Any who are inclined can find the blog link in my signature or profile!  

It's a total cop-out, but my guess/headcanon as to the lack of information is that the majority of Narnian records were destroyed during the Witch's coming, leaving behind a Library-of-Alexandria-sized gap in the timeline that could only be filled in by the less-than-scholarly source of Talking Beavers, etc.

If I mistake not, there was a later Roman emperor who appointed his four sons to rule the Empire simultaneously so as to avoid fighting between them over succession. He advised them to "stick together and keep the soldiers paid." They failed to do either, and the empire promptly decayed even further under their rule. I wonder if something similar happened with an early monarch of Narnia.

Posted by: @courtenay

How did the Tree of Protection ultimately die or get destroyed, enabling Jadis / the Witch to return?

One of the other major changes to the status quo that occurs between MN and LWW is that Jadis goes from being a relatively normal warrior-queen type figure, to a full-on supernatural witch who has specific control over the weather and climate.

Therefore presumably at some point after fleeing Narnia she learnt the particular magical witchcraft that turned her into the White Witch.

Combining this bit of information with the one above in an attempt to answer the question posed - I would postulate something along the lines that whilst the Tree of Protection prevented Jadis from physically returning, her new found ability to control the weather elements meant she could influence Narnia from afar.

Hence she sent the winter storms into Narnia first to freeze the tree to death, thus allowing her return.

That then also provides some retroactive justification as to why she chose to implement a permanent winter - i.e. to prevent the tree from regrowing.

Posted by: Cleander

If I mistake not, there was a later Roman emperor who appointed his four sons to rule the Empire simultaneously so as to avoid fighting between them over succession. He advised them to "stick together and keep the soldiers paid." They failed to do either, and the empire promptly decayed even further under their rule. I wonder if something similar happened with an early monarch of Narnia.

I think you are referring to the Emperor Diocletian who did something like that, but the people appointed weren't his sons. His own son, Numerian, died in some internecine battle or other. Appointed emperor by his own Roman troops, he ruled from 284 AD to 305 AD, when he abdicated. He remained ruling the Eastern Roman Empire, but appointed Maximian as co-emperor, or "Augustus", for the West, with Galerius and Constantius (Chlorus) as junior colleagues, called "Caesars". I've linked to a Wikipedia article which explains how these rulers became a Tetrarchy or "rule of four". Diocletian was apparently nicknamed "Jovius", with many successes to his credit, such as ending the Third Century Crisis when the Roman Empire, beset by so-called "barbarians" was ruled by a succession of emperors, set up by their troops, & often murdered by others, who considered them a failure. Constantius (Chlorus) died at York, then called Eburacum, and his son, Constantine the Great, whose statue is outside York Cathedral, famously adopted the Cross of Christ as his symbol, thus conquering his rivals & uniting the Roman Empire again. Eventually, Constantine adopted Christianity as his faith, as well. 

I agree with what coracle said about the four ancient provinces of Ireland being more of a pointer to Narnia's history, when I almost forgot Finn McCool, a legendary Irish leader, & mostly remembered in the sort of folklore C.S.Lewis, might well have learned from a particularly well-informed servant.  I was supposed to read about him, but with so much else to do in my ancient history major, I failed to follow up on that information, when the Dark Ages is such a good fit to explain much about Narnian history.  

Getting back to that mention of a 100 years' winter, & never Christmas, there really was a time in the so-called "Dark Ages", when a volcanic explosion in Iceland in 536 AD left vast swathes of Western Europe in darkness for a few years, before this darkness gradually dispersed. The effluvium from this volcano, with an unpronounceable & unspellable Icelandic name, caused what we know now as a nuclear winter, even further afield than Ireland, & France, even stymying Justinian's attempts to reconquer Italy to reunite the Eastern half of the Roman Empire with the fallen Western Empire. Though people knew about volcanoes throughout history, they might well have not known about the effects of a volcanic eruption a long way from where they were actually living. And folklore, exaggerating an already interminable time, for such an occasion, might well start people thinking about a white witch, causing 100 years of winter.