Heir

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 53486

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" <amani at c...> wrote:
> bboy_mn:
> ...edited...
> 
> King Arthur became King not by some provable line of blood but
> because the next true heir, the one person worth of becoming king 
> would be the man who could pull the sword from the stone. King by 
> birthright of worthiness, not by birthright of blood.
> 
> Me:
> ...and he just /happens/ to be the son of Uther.
> 
> It can really depend on which version of the legend you're following.
> 
> --Taryn

bboy_mn:

I assume you are referring to Arthur and not Harry. I admit that I am
working off only a general knowledge of the legend of Arthur, but I
don't think anyone  said, 'Oh, you're Uther's son, well, I guess that
means you get to be king'. There may have been other people who had
some royal blood but try as they might, they couldn't pull the sword
from the stone. So I was only using a small portion of the legend to
make my point. Arthur became king because he proved his worthiness by
pulling the sword from the stone. Blood or no blood, no sword = no king.

By analogy, as applied to Harry, he proves his worthiness not by
strength of arm, but by strength of character when he 'pulls the sword
from the stone', or perhaps in Harry's case, pulls the sword from the hat.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn