thoughts on Theoden, KINGship, and lord of the rings - Page 2

Mercator · September 10, 2003, 16:53

Now you've started to mention links. Here's another excellent one:

http://people.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~...h/M-earth.html

H Tower · September 10, 2003, 18:55

a truly unique way to announce a bump in title lotm

Dr Strangelove · September 10, 2003, 19:38

I guess you'd be right to conclude that the ruler of a "mark" shouldn't be given the title of "king", but sometimes a great leader is given an advancement of his title by virtue of some great service. As an example, the rulers of a small holding in southern Germany, the Hohenzollerens, acquired a margravate, i.e., Brandenberg. Later they acquired a duchy, Prussia. As the result of the favorable outcome of a war they were eventuially allowed to bear the title of "King in Prussia" even though none of their holdings were a kingdom.

Come to think of it Theoden was entitled "King of the Rohrrim" wasn't he?

H Tower · September 10, 2003, 22:31

IIRC, the men of rohan came down from the north to help Gondor in a time of war, and the king of gondor gave them the province of Rohan to rule as their own kingdom.

Hence, Lord of the Mark (province) and King both fit.

Agathon · September 10, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
IIRC, the men of rohan came down from the north to help Gondor in a time of war, and the king of gondor gave them the province of Rohan to rule as their own kingdom..

Yeah - a desperation move by the Gondorians who didn't have enough forces to protect Calenardhon, so they gave it to a hairy bunch of Northmen.

Forgive me if I am wrong but isn't the only claim to fame the Northmen have before the Field of Celebrant, the fact that one "Fram" slew Scatha the Worm (a wingless dragon).

Tingkai · September 11, 2003, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Turambar
Oh and Tolkien never wrote a trilogy! He wrote LoTR as one book which the publishers printed and released in three parts.

*** Switching into LotR geek mode ***
Actually, Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings as six books which he wanted published seperately. The book was published in three parts, but still contains references to the six books.
*** Switching out of geek mode ***

Sprayber · September 11, 2003, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

*** Switching into LotR geek mode ***
Actually, Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings as six books which he wanted published seperately. The book was published in three parts, but still contains references to the six books.
*** Switching out of geek mode ***

Better hope that switch dont get broken

H Tower · September 11, 2003, 00:59

yeah, you may never be able to return to geek mode ever again

axi · September 11, 2003, 08:40

Quote:

Especially relevant in that the film of "Return of the KING" will soon be out.

IIRC, the title of the book "Return of the King" is referring to Aragorn and not to Theoden.

Also IIRC, in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien includes a passage where Aragorn and Eomer visit the tomb of an ancient king (Eorl?) which is at a hilltop exactly on the borders of Gondor and Rohan, in order to renew the treaty of permanent alliance between the two kingdoms. Alot is explained there about the relative status of the two kingdoms.

lord of the mark · September 11, 2003, 09:40

Quote:

Originally posted by axi

IIRC, the title of the book "Return of the King" is referring to Aragorn and not to Theoden.

Also IIRC, in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien includes a passage where Aragorn and Eomer visit the tomb of an ancient king (Eorl?) which is at a hilltop exactly on the borders of Gondor and Rohan, in order to renew the treaty of permanent alliance between the two kingdoms. Alot is explained there about the relative status of the two kingdoms.

Never read UT - Im not THAT much of a Tolkien geek - I did know that "Return" was reference to Aragorn - just wanted to get in as many "king" references as I could.

Turambar · September 11, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Actually, Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings as six books which he wanted published seperately. The book was published in three parts, but still contains references to the six books.

No. He wrote it as one book! The fact it is split into 6 is porbably for storyline purposes etc. Do you have a quote from the Biography / letters to back that up btw?

Tolkien wrote LoTR in one go and intended for it to be published like that.

Quote:

Also IIRC, in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien includes a passage where Aragorn and Eomer visit the tomb of an ancient king (Eorl?) which is at a hilltop exactly on the borders of Gondor and Rohan, in order to renew the treaty of permanent alliance between the two kingdoms.

Isildur not Eorl. The original alliance was sworn there betweem Cirion and Eorl.

Agathon · September 11, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Turambar

No. He wrote it as one book! The fact it is split into 6 is porbably for storyline purposes etc. Do you have a quote from the Biography / letters to back that up btw?

Tolkien wrote LoTR in one go and intended for it to be published like that.

Isildur not Eorl. The original alliance was sworn there betweem Cirion and Eorl.

Wrong, it's Elendil's tomb. Isildur was lost in the Anduin at the Gladden fields.

Aragorn and Eomer do go there - it's in the endnotes.

Kaak · September 11, 2003, 15:25

edit : nm, i was wrong...

Turambar · September 11, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Wrong, it's Elendil's tomb.

Doh. Close enough though

HershOstropoler · September 11, 2003, 15:36

I have no idea about the legal matters of the lotr world, but for the euro medieval stuff:

"There were several english kings who held what had been fiefs of France"

Yes, but they did not hold their Kingdom as a french fief, but duchies and counties in France.

"A King could be vassal to an Emperor, as was the King of Bohemia to the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire."

The King of Bohemia was a vassal of the german king. The subtle difference matters when in eg 1276, Ottokar Pzremysl had to take Bohemia as a fief from King Rudolf, who was not emperor.

"The Crowns of Burgundy and Lotharingia were vacant"

The german kings were kings of Burgundy in personal union. Lothringen was just a duchy. Attempts to revive the Crown of Lothar (9th century) came only with the Dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century.

"but any King would also have been a vassal of the Emperor (the Emperor himself was also King of Germany and Italy)."

In theory, but this was rarely the case. More important was the idea that Kings could be cassals of the pope, like John Lackland (as Ramo said) or Peter I of Aragon.

As for the leader of a Mark becoming King: Austria started as a Mark with a Markgraf (Count, Marquis). It later became a duchy. In the 1240s, it almost became a kingdom, though still as a fief of the german King, similar to Bohemia. Frederick II and Frederick II

(Emperor and Duke) had agreed on such a deal, but it fell apart later. So a Mark could become a Kingdom. What Strangelove mentions was different - a Markgraf acquiring another Kingdom.

Agathon · September 11, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Turambar

Doh. Close enough though

Not enough for you to retain that nick, you newbie!!!!

Rogan Josh · September 11, 2003, 16:22

My next door neighbour when I was young (I have moved since) was Tolkein's nurse at the end of his life. She was there when he died.

Ecthy · September 11, 2003, 16:23

The Kings of Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg were vassals to the Prussian King since he was also Kaiser from 1871 til 1918. Case closed.