The Family of Gil-Galad

I did not say that all women fight, nor did I claim that we would be establishing a culture of warrior princesses.
Yes. And if people wish to discuss warrior women further (or any other off-topic subject), I would like to request that they please start a separate thread for it. To continue here will derail the thread.

While it is true that Finwë was killed and then Fëanor was killed ... it was 455 years later when Fingolfin died. That's longer than almost any human dynasty I can think of (the earliest Chinese dynasties come to mind). It might seem just as absurd to the Noldor to plan for an eventuality that may not come to pass for centuries, as anticipating the situation on the ground at that time would be quite difficult. Wouldn't a system of convening a council at the time it was needed be deemed more prudent when there can be such a long gap between kings?
Nobody expected the Battle of Sudden Flame, which is why it was sudden. When there is talk about renewed assault upon Angband during the Siege, most Noldor didn't see the point because they liked the situation they already had, and didn't expect the Siege to be broken. They did not expect Fingolfin to die any time soon.

The Noldor do not need to have succession laws at all. The canonical Noldorin succession is too inconsistent to be law-based, which is why we can’t agree what law could describe it. That is: neither primogeniture nor "the Eldest here of the House of Finwe" could justify Fingolfin's claim while Feanor lives, and neither law can explain the entire sequence Finwe > Feanor > Fingolfin > Fingon.
To elaborate further:

If there was a rigid primogeniture law, then the sequence would have been Finwe > Feanor > Maedhros
If there was a rigid "eldest descendant of Finwe" law, then the sequence would have been Finwe > Feanor > Fingolfin > Maedhros
Neither law would allow Maedhros to keep abdicating, but he does.
Neither law would allow Fingolfin to claim the Kingship while Feanor was still alive, but Tolkien (and we) show him doing so.

So, neither absolute primogeniture nor absolute "eldest descendant" can be the law among the Noldor.

For the Noldor to have a rigid, unchanging, codified succession law, it would need to be one that is consistent with the canonical sequence Finwe > Feanor > Fingolfin > Fingon > Turgon > Gil-Galad, and consistent with Fingolfin contesting Feanor's claim while he is alive, and consistent with Maedhros contesting Gil-galad's claim. And consistent with Maedhros and Fingolfin both having legitimate claims after Feanor died.
 
Last edited:
For the Noldor to have a rigid, unchanging, codified succession law, it would need to be one that is consistent with the canonical sequence Finwe > Feanor > Fingolfin > Fingon > Turgon > Gil-Galad, and consistent with Fingolfin contesting Feanor's claim while he is alive, and consistent with Maedhros contesting Gil-galad's claim.
I'm not sure why anybody is insisting upon the Noldor having a "rigid, unchanging, codified succession law".

The only Noldor I recall having a "rigid, unchanging, codified" anything were Fëanor and his sons and that flaming Oath, and I don't recall that ending well, so why anybody else would want to imitate that…are we really portraying them as that daft?
 
I'm not sure why anybody is insisting upon the Noldor having a "rigid, unchanging, codified succession law".

The only Noldor I recall having a "rigid, unchanging, codified" anything were Fëanor and his sons and that flaming Oath, and I don't recall that ending well, so why anybody else would want to imitate that…are we really portraying them as that daft?
Code’s gotta start somewhere.
 
I only brought up elvish women not fighting in wars, because people wanted to expand on the world building. A reason was requested for why the Noldor chose no female queens.
Okay, so...Anaire is in that episode. She likely goes with Fingolfin as far as Alqualondë to see him off.

So, IN OUR ADAPTATION, Earwen, Anarie, Irime, Galadriel, Aredhel, and Elenwë all have opportunity to be involved in the fighting at Alqualondë. Aredhel, Anairë, and Elenwë all stay back in the camp (as does Finarfin and all of his sons). Aredhel's reason for sitting out the fight was most likely because she got lost somewhere on the way from Tirion to Alqualondë. Half of the noble women of the Noldor taking part in very much unplanned fighting does not mean that they would become warriors in an officially organized army later.

Galadriel is most certainly involved in taking down Dol Guldor. I would not say that never again does she fight. But for what it's worth, she doesn't fight at Alqualondë, either. She's there, and she's armed, but she dives into the water to rescue her mother rather than take part in any fighting. Later in life, her magical powers would be more formidable than her skill as a warrior, I would think. She's Melian's pupil. Here, she is young. She's allowed to develop as a character.

I said that we have depicted women fighting. I did not say that all women fight, nor did I claim that we would be establishing a culture of warrior princesses. Nor will we be depicting women who don't fight as weak or cowardly.
If the women fighting at Alqualonde was an exception, then it does not matter when discussing the typical roles of Noldor women. If the Noldor women continue to be warriors then it is going to have an impact. It can be discussed elsewhere, but it is going to look very strange if suddenly we go from 50 percent of Noldor princesses being warriors to 0 percent.

Lastly on this topic we have no idea what happened in Dol Guldor, except Saruman was the key for the victory. She, may have played a role similar to how she did when Dol Guldor was destroyed. Yes people grow and change. Elrond is an example of someone who goes from always being involved in wars to not fighting anymore.
I understand your distaste. Rules of succession are such a big deal to any monarchy, it would seem almost absurd not to have them. But...

While it is true that Finwë was killed and then Fëanor was killed ... it was 455 years later when Fingolfin died. That's longer than almost any human dynasty I can think of (the earliest Chinese dynasties come to mind). It might seem just as absurd to the Noldor to plan for an eventuality that may not come to pass for centuries, as anticipating the situation on the ground at that time would be quite difficult. Wouldn't a system of convening a council at the time it was needed be deemed more prudent when there can be such a long gap between kings?
455 years is not really a long time when it comes to elves is it? Remeber what Legolas said.


"Five hundred times have the red leaves fallen in Mirkwood in my home since then," said Legolas, "and but a little while does that seem to us."

Elves are dying at an unprecedented rate. For beings that have known only 1 death in thousands of years to suddenly have so many, is going to not be something they ignore.
Also...it's not the worst system ever. The College of Cardinals convenes at the death of a pope to select a new one from amongst their own ranks. That system seems to be working fairly well. Conclave is not the worst way to choose a successor. There can be strict rules about who is eligible to participate in the conclave, or who is able to call a conclave, or the manner in which elections are carried out...

...all without there being any strict rules in place for the role heredity plays in the selection of the next leader.
There are several differences between the Catholic system and the Noldor.
1. The Catholic Church is no longer being persecuted. During the Roman persecutions the Pope was often just appointed by his predecessor way before his death and legends have it that the reigning pope would often appoint the next 2 successors, because there was a high chance they would be killed.
2. Popes are not supposed to have any children, though of course some did and made sure their children ascended to the papacy. When all the Bishops have no children, you obviously cannot have hereditary succession.
Also...why is the crown desirable? Typically, it's worth it to be king because of the consolidated power and the ability to collect wealth from the entire country. The title of High King among the Noldor in Beleriand doesn't seem to have worked in quite that way. You can be lord of your own land without ever being High King, and still exercise nearly absolute authority. So....perhaps the Noldor do not anticipate bloody kinstrife fighting for the crown. It might not seem that impressive a prize. Useful for planning a united offensive against Morgoth, but other than that...
I am not sure this is the case. Being king was a lot of hard work and many would die of exhaustion. It was often about the desire for power, the belief it was a duty, the belief it was a right and the desire for glory. Power, duty, right and glory are things ALL the Noldor princes and princesses desired except for Finarfin.
We will have plenty of opportunities to emphasize a hereditary kingship among Mortals. I'm fine with doing something a little different (though not too radical) amongst the Noldor.
The question I am asking is why change the text, just for the sake of change? Is there any reason you want to change things?

I am thinking and every elf-kingdom I can think of has had hereditary succession. In fact every elf-kingdom practised Primogeniture of some sort.

Thingol-> to his brother
Thingol--> to his grandson Dior

Finwe--> to his sons Feanor/Fingolfin/Finarfin--> to his sons-->Fingon

Oropher-->to his son Thraduil.

Finrod-->his nephew Orodreth

It's a very, very elvish thing to do. We have non case of this not happening.


I have also just realised that even if we make Gil-galad the grandson of Angrod, it can be argued that he comes before Galadriel anyway. Galadriel may be senior to him, but Gil-galad would be descended from an older line of the family. Angrod was older than Galadriel.

Finally I want to clarify my argument. I am not for one minute suggesting the Noldor have completely written and defined coded outlining the succession completely.

At the time of Finwe's death there should be no clear idea of the successor. It's here where the Noldor add the first precedent to the code of succession. The King of the 1.'Noldor must be a descendant of Finwe.'
At the death of Feanor two precedents are set, but they can be argued upon.
2. The next king is the oldest descendant of Finwe
3. The House of Feanor is disinherited.
4. During this time of war, the King must be a warrior and general in the field.

After the death of Fingolfin the code is added to again.
5. The next king is not the oldest descendant of Finwe, but the oldest descendant of the last king.
This statement would keep the throne in the House of Fingolfin.
Then after the death of Turgon, it can be restated the
6. Feanorians are barred from the Kingship.

The code develops organically and over time.

In times of war you need to have a clear chain of command and limit the chance of infighting. It's for these reasons precisely why a code would need to be developed and agreed upon as soon as possible. The Noldor would lament how the infighting and distrust between brothers weakened them.
 
I know you don't want to stray from the text. And that is of course an admirable inspiration.

But Tolkien never laid out the Noldor rules of succession. So it is up to us to figure out what aspects of the Noldor culture to reflect in what we depict on screen.

Having a reason for doing what we do is important. And remaining in the spirit of how Tolkien presented the High Kingship is important, as well.

Tolkien did not spend a lot of words talking about squabbling over the throne or the politics of people worried about who would be the next High King, etc. The feud between the Fëanorean camp and the host of Fingolfin certainly got plenty of attention, though. So if talk of succession feeds that storyline, then sure, it can be relevant.

But when Tolkien talks about kingship, he spends a lot more words on the concept of the divine right of kings than political machinations angling for the throne. He *has* characters who are politically grasping, and the narrator spends words on denouncing these characters. We don't get any of that directed at Fingolfin, or Fingon, or Gil-galad, or even Turgon. Elves don't talk or worry about the importance of having heirs. They don't remarry if a spouse dies (well, except for Finwë). Having children is something they do in times of peace, *not* in response to the trials of war. Elves are a bit different.

And so, I fear that if we do something that is very much recognizable as kingship in Europe, it will look weirdly anachronous - as if our elves are just falling into human culture for no reason. We have to continually remind our audience that the elves on screen are NOT HUMAN. So, they have to talk about death and fate and things like that so we see the difference. And inheritance just feels like one of those areas where there would be a difference. While the audience may be primed to accept the idea that the eldest son will be heir to the king, there is less reason to think that would be obvious to the Noldor. To them, the concept of heredity might be simply 'the House of Finwë' and that would work. I am not suggesting that Tolkien thought of the High Kingship this way, but that perhaps his characters would, so it's a possibility we can explore.

We will want there to be a sense of legitimacy to whomever is chosen, so the idea of a council who recognizes and acclaims the new High King (or the current one designating his successor) helps to express that. Gil-galad simply listing off his family tree is less likely to do that.
 
I'm imagining a scene with Finrod and one ofthe first Edain, talking "recent" history, and bothbeing bewildered by the other's explanation of the succession history of their people.

"What do you mean, 'and then X became High King'? What about the other claimants of closer descent? Who determined who would take the reins?"

"What do you mean, X took over from his father? Wasn't his cousin Y the obvious better king?"
 
I know you don't want to stray from the text. And that is of course an admirable inspiration.

But Tolkien never laid out the Noldor rules of succession. So it is up to us to figure out what aspects of the Noldor culture to reflect in what we depict on screen.

Having a reason for doing what we do is important. And remaining in the spirit of how Tolkien presented the High Kingship is important, as well.

Tolkien did not spend a lot of words talking about squabbling over the throne or the politics of people worried about who would be the next High King, etc. The feud between the Fëanorean camp and the host of Fingolfin certainly got plenty of attention, though. So if talk of succession feeds that storyline, then sure, it can be relevant.

But when Tolkien talks about kingship, he spends a lot more words on the concept of the divine right of kings than political machinations angling for the throne. He *has* characters who are politically grasping, and the narrator spends words on denouncing these characters. We don't get any of that directed at Fingolfin, or Fingon, or Gil-galad, or even Turgon. Elves don't talk or worry about the importance of having heirs. They don't remarry if a spouse dies (well, except for Finwë). Having children is something they do in times of peace, *not* in response to the trials of war. Elves are a bit different.

And so, I fear that if we do something that is very much recognizable as kingship in Europe, it will look weirdly anachronous - as if our elves are just falling into human culture for no reason. We have to continually remind our audience that the elves on screen are NOT HUMAN. So, they have to talk about death and fate and things like that so we see the difference. And inheritance just feels like one of those areas where there would be a difference. While the audience may be primed to accept the idea that the eldest son will be heir to the king, there is less reason to think that would be obvious to the Noldor. To them, the concept of heredity might be simply 'the House of Finwë' and that would work. I am not suggesting that Tolkien thought of the High Kingship this way, but that perhaps his characters would, so it's a possibility we can explore.

We will want there to be a sense of legitimacy to whomever is chosen, so the idea of a council who recognizes and acclaims the new High King (or the current one designating his successor) helps to express that. Gil-galad simply listing off his family tree is less likely to do that.
I have given several ways these codes develop and why. You haven't really addressed them either positively or negatively.

Elves are still Children of Illuvatar and have similarities to humans. Eru is King of the universe and he appoints Manwe as the Elder King. So elves and men are following the ways of Eru.

I think it is highly presumptuous to assume we know better than Tolkien how his characters would think. I have given reasons why the eldest son inheriting makes sense.

Tolkien's work is actually full of political machinations and people angling for the throne. Tolkien's work is often impregnated with lots of historical information.

With the Noldor alone we have the infighting between Feanor and Fingolfin for the throne (even if the SilmFilm has downplayed this the Noldor as a whole are fighting about who should be king. Turgon apparently urges Fingolfin to take the throne. We then see many of Maedhros brothers disputing Fingolfin over Maedhros. In Gondolin we see Maeglin try to gain political power and the kingship. In Nargothrond we see Curufin and Celebrimbor playing a political game.

Tolkien tells us ALL the descendants of Finwe are:

PROUD, strong, and self-willed, as were all the descendants of Finwe save Finarfin.

Part of the reason they leave Valinor is because they want lands to rule of their own and to be free of the direct rule of the Valinor. They have all been tainted by the shadow of evil. Galadriel managed to perceive this in Feanor, but:

'she did not perceive that the shadow of the same evil had fallen upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own.

Part of the reason the elves behave wiser is that they have had thousands of years to reflect and learn from their mistakes. The other part is that Cirdan and Galadriel are two of the best elves to live in ME.

Every single one of the Noldor royalty have been corrupted to a greater or a lesser extent and are now power hungry.

Fingolfin especially has the same description as Morwen at his death.

Thus died Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor, most proud and valiant of the Elven-kings of old.

Morwen proudest and most beautiful of mortal women in the days of old.



Where is is said that elves don't worry about the importance of having heirs especially in ME? They don't have children in times of war, because wars are not a good time to raise children. Humans too try to restrict having children in times of war, hence why there are baby booms when wars end. As for the marrying only one spouse, this is very Catholic. I don't want to put words in Tolkien's mouth, but it's likely he would hold the traditional Catholic viewpoint on marriage. Marriage is only dissolved by death, where the souls of Men go elsewhere. Elves are different in that, there souls remain on Earth and then are later rehoused. This position is exactly the same as the Catholic one.

I am not suggesting that Tolkien thought of the High Kingship this way, but that perhaps his characters would, so it's a possibility we can explore.

We will want there to be a sense of legitimacy to whomever is chosen, so the idea of a council who recognizes and acclaims the new High King (or the current one designating his successor) helps to express that. Gil-galad simply listing off his family tree is less likely to do that.


The quote above is what I have most trouble with. You are suggesting we know better than Tolkien, what his characters thought. I admit in an adaption, certain things have to be changed to fit the new medium and we need to expand on where Tolkien left gaps. However, unless we have a very good reason I don't see why we should presume to think we know more about ME elves, than Tolkien.

There are multiple reasons why elves would have similar laws of inheritance, especially in ME when they keep dying. What happens in Valinor, is a very, very, very different story than in ME. The immortality of the elves in ME, hardly matters since they are in the middle of a war, which by the Second Age will leave just 4 confirmed descendants of Finwe alive: Galadriel, Earendil (though he is no longer allowed back), Elrond and Elros. It would be extremely negligent for the Noldor not to start considering inheritance.
 
I also don't like changing the text unnecessarily. But it is not a change to say the Noldor do not have a rigid, codified law of succession.

Tolkien never described any Noldorin laws of succession. He never even said they have any such laws at all. The only time he ever actually wrote an event in which the High King of all Noldor is chosen, it is by the "choice" of the Noldorin people as a whole, or by Maedhros' fiat, and apparently involves no laws whatsoever. The only word about how Fingon became High King was that he did it "in sorrow." I have not seen one word (outside the Lost Tales, in which Fingon doesn't exist) about how Turgon or Gil-galad became High King, nor why any particular royal (besides Maedhros) did not become High King.



To have any succession law (other than "a descendant of Finwe"), all the Noldorin nobility would have to agree what that law was and would be forever henceforth, come what may. Once they decide on a law and give their word to follow it, they can't just decide they don't like its results and throw the law out. But, I don't envision the Feanorians and the non-Feanorians are likely to actually be able to agree on such a law. They weren't even able to actually agree on a High King, they "had to" default to Fingolfin because Maedhros abdicated. How could they agree upon the rules which would mechanically choose every High King henceforth, forever?

The non-Feanorians will not accept a law which, depending on who dies later, seems likely to give any Feanorian a legitimate claim to the High Kingship, because they aren't willing to unite under Feanorian leadership. Maedhros recognizes his lack of broad support. He is not going to want to codify a rigid, unchanging law which could later put him in a position where, to keep his word, he has to divide the Noldor again by claiming the crown when the majority still don't want to follow him. I don't think he's interested in setting himself up to be manipulated into doing something that would threaten the fragile Noldorin unity. That means that "Eldest descendant of Finwe" is not going to be the law.

"Eldest son of the previous King" is already ruled out by Maedhros abdicating in favor of Fingolfin, and retroactively making it the law later is going to bring up the Feanorian question again. So that law isn't going to happen, either.

But Maedhros' brothers will not accept any law which effectively says "No Feanorian can ever be High King," and might get pissed off enough to start a real, bloody fight if any non-Feanorian dares suggests such a law. Maedhros did not want that to become law, either. Simply put, such a law is politically infeasible and suggesting it is more likely to start nasty fights than avoid them.

It is simpler and easier for Maedhros to just keep saying "Not it," because his brothers can't argue against that effectively. Any fixed, codified law might eventually result in a High King whom the majority of the Noldor will not accept, with potentially very bad results during wartime.* But no matter who might die in the future, the Feanorians have no opportunity to rules-lawyer a decision-making process that boils down to "You can't make me claim the crown."

If you want to say that each time, the Noldor chose a High King, and then made up a post-hoc excuse in the form of a so-called "rule" I guess that's plausible, but that's still choosing a King by council, not by an actual, pre-existing code of law.




*As it is, the Fifth Battle is a disaster partially because a large chunk of the Eldar refuse to follow any form of Feanorian leadership, no matter what.
 
Last edited:
I also don't like changing the text unnecessarily. But it is not a change to say the Noldor do not have a rigid, codified law of succession.

Tolkien never described any Noldorin laws of succession. He never even said they have any such laws at all. The only time he ever actually wrote an event in which the High King of all Noldor is chosen, it is by the "choice" of the Noldorin people as a whole, or by Maedhros' fiat, and involves no laws whatsoever. The only word about how Fingon became High King was that he did it "in sorrow." I have not seen one word (outside the Lost Tales, in which Fingon doesn't exist) about how Turgon or Gil-galad became High King, nor why any royal other than the Feanorians did not become High King.



To have any succession law (other than "a descendant of Finwe"), all the Noldorin nobility would have to agree what that law was and would be forever henceforth, come what may. Once they decide on a law and give their word to follow it, they can't just decide they don't like its results and throw the law out. But, I don't envision the Feanorians and the non-Feanorians are likely to actually be able to agree on such a law. They weren't even able to actually agree on a High King, they "had to" default to Fingolfin because Maedhros abdicated. How could they agree upon the rules which would mechanically choose every High King henceforth, forever?

The non-Feanorians will not accept a law which, depending on who dies later, seems likely to give any Feanorian a legitimate claim to the High Kingship, because they aren't willing to unite under Feanorian leadership. Maedhros recognizes his lack of broad support. He is not going to want to codify a rigid, unchanging law which could later put him in a position where, to keep his word, he has to divide the Noldor again by claiming the crown when the majority still don't want to follow him. I don't think he's interested in setting himself up to be manipulated into doing something that would threaten the fragile Noldorin unity. That means that "Eldest descendant of Finwe" is not going to be the law.

"Eldest son of the previous King" is already ruled out by Maedhros abdicating in favor of Fingolfin, and retroactively making it the law later is going to bring up the Feanorian question again. So that law isn't going to happen, either.

But Maedhros' brothers will not accept any law which effectively says "No Feanorian can ever be High King," and might get pissed off enough to start a real, bloody fight if any non-Feanorian dares suggests such a law. Maedhros may not want that kind of law, either. Simply put, such a law is politically infeasible and suggesting it is more likely to start nasty fights than avoid them.

It is simpler and easier for Maedhros to just keep saying "Not it," because his brothers can't argue against that effectively. Any fixed, codified law might eventually result in a High King whom the majority of the Noldor will not accept, with potentially very bad results during wartime.* But no matter who might die in the future, the Feanorians have no opportunity to rules-lawyer a decision-making process that boils down to "You can't make me claim the crown."

If you want to say that each time, the Noldor chose a High King, and then made up a post-hoc excuse in the form of a so-called "rule" I guess that's plausible, but that's still choosing a King by council, not by actual, pre-existing code of laws.




*As it is, the Fifth Battle is a disaster partially because a large chunk of the Eldar refuse to follow any form of Feanorian leadership, no matter what.
Your argument is the precisely why they have codes and precisely why the Noldor have strife with each other. The Noldor DONT have unity and they DONT obey the High-King. Do you think the sons of Feanor checked before attacking Doriath or do you think they checked with Gil-galad before attacking Elwing.

An agreed code and plan for succession does not mean everyone accepts it. English/British monarchs were claiming to be kings of France until the early 19th century.

Codes and laws of succession come up, when there's an unexpected crisis. When decisions are made, these set precedents and then become codes or law.

In the SilmFilm, Turgon will make the argument that Fingolfin, was the King during Finwe's exile, therefore should continue to be the king. Fingolfin, despite the majority of people agreeing with Turgon is going to accept Feanor's kingship. This actions sets up a precedent, which people are going to argue for.

I am not against a council to decide upon the next High-King. I am against the idea the council can act completely arbitrarily. The council will see previous decisions as precedents for future choices.

Feanor - becoming High-King will set the precedent of the eldest son inheriting.
Maedhros acknowledging Fingolfin as king, will set the precedent of the Feanorians being disinherited. Of course the Feanorians are going to argue against it, but once a precedent has been set it's very, difficult to reverse.

As each precedent is set and then followed, it becomes a code of succession.

Fingon becoming king is the death knell to any Feanorian claim. Whether the Feanorians agree or not, it will be seen as definitive proof that the High-Kingship has passed to the House of Fingolfin.
 
Keep in mind that Fëanor was never officially recognized as High King.

Certainly Fingolfin --> Fingon --> Turgon screams 'House of Fingolfin.' But if Gil-galad is related to Orodreth, we will have to show the High Kingship pass to the House of Finarfin. That's where we'll see it contentious with the House of Fëanor.

I do not feel that I have been ignoring your points, but I do possibly see this conversation from a different viewpoint.
 
3. The House of Feanor is disinherited.
But, Maedhros didn't agree to establish this law. Sometime after Turgon died and Idril departed, Maedhros was claiming the Kingship for himself. [Shaping of Middle-earth, 1930s Quenta, 17 (Q II), 3rd Kinslaying] I don't think it is necessary to change the text on that point, and I would rather not change the text without need.

I don't see any evidence that the Noldor had any system of written, codified, rigid succession laws that mechanically selected the High King according to a formula. I do not think we should give them succession laws that contradict the list of High Kings and claimants which Tolkien gave us. Since Tolkien depicted them deciding with a council, I think it makes sense to just use a council.

Let us just agree to disagree. For my part, I am tired of arguing and have nothing more to say.
 
Last edited:
I think that one of the causes of frustration is that many of the texts are written from the historical perspective, where you look back at what 'of course' everyone knows to be true or inevitable. And yet, for the people living through it, things aren't as obvious, nor are they viewed in the same way. So, the text goes out of the way to point out that the House of Fëanor is the Dispossessed from the moment Maedhros recognized Fingolfin. Which is true...but it does not mean that they viewed it that way at the time. Same with the futility of the Watchful Peace, or the failure of the Union of Maedhros, or the inability of any mariner to reach Valinor before Earendil.

The frustration with tone in the thread is something we will all need to work on. It is fine to disagree, even passionately. There is no need for everyone to be convinced or to reach a consensus on all details. That's why we have an executive producer model. As we discuss each episode, the Execs get to make the call of which option to follow, and then we move on. For this particular conversation, I imagine it will be relevant early in Season 4, when Maedhros and Fingolfin (and their followers) discuss the High Kingship. I am fine with tabling this discussion until that time.

I do think it is important that we all remember to be friendly and charitable in these online discussions. We're all doing this for fun, and so we'd like to have fun. We're meant to suggest different ideas as they come to us - the more options to choose from, the better. And it's a collaborative creative project, which means we have to work with one another.
 
Last edited:
I agree I think it's best to shelve this discussion for later. A lot of my post are written during my commute and if the tone is off I apologise, but it's more due to haste as seen by some atrocious spelling.

I wonder how much of the misunderstanding is due to constitutions we are used to. I had in mind a succession plan similar to the British Constitution and not say USA constitution and certainly not held in the same regard. Rather a code not written at one moment in time, but organically developed by Laws, Traditions and previous decisions, and equally important the consensus of the people at the time.
 
I agree I think it's best to shelve this discussion for later. A lot of my post are written during my commute and if the tone is off I apologise, but it's more due to haste as seen by some atrocious spelling.

I wonder how much of the misunderstanding is due to constitutions we are used to. I had in mind a succession plan similar to the British Constitution and not say USA constitution and certainly not held in the same regard. Rather a code not written at one moment in time, but organically developed by Laws, Traditions and previous decisions, and equally important the consensus of the people at the time.
Again, the insistence on a "code" with the implication that it will last for all time.

Someone observed further up that these Elves expect to live forever barring unfortunate incident, and even that would only be a pause. Why would they want to bind themselves and all of their descendants to a decision made here and now with no knowledge of later developments?

Establishing a rigid code is entirely too much like human thinking for immortal Elves: mortal people who lay down a code now are hoping to impose their will on people yet to be born. Elves expect to be there to argue their side, they won't need a code.
 
Again, the insistence on a "code" with the implication that it will last for all time.

Someone observed further up that these Elves expect to live forever barring unfortunate incident, and even that would only be a pause. Why would they want to bind themselves and all of their descendants to a decision made here and now with no knowledge of later developments?

Establishing a rigid code is entirely too much like human thinking for immortal Elves: mortal people who lay down a code now are hoping to impose their will on people yet to be born. Elves expect to be there to argue their side, they won't need a code.
The arguments being made against a succession plan are not consistent.

On the one hand there is the argument, Elves hope the one High King will never die and reign forever. So they are hoping for one monarch to rule them for all eternity according to some, then at the same time they don't want to bide themselves to any codes that may last forever.

How is establishing a code (a rigid code is exactly the opposite of what I have argued) imposing their will on people yet to be born, but Ingwe ruling the Vanyar for all time not so?

If any group hates change and wants things to remain the same, it's the elves. Sauron manages to ensnare them, because they want to stop time.

The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance – this is more or less an Elvish motive.

Freezing time and keeping things as they are is EXACTLY how Elves think.

Look at what Finrod has to say.

'Can you deny it? Now we Eldar do not deny that ye love Arda and all that is therein (in so far as ye are free from the Shadow) maybe even as greatly as do we. Yet otherwise. Each of our kindreds perceives Arda differently, and appraises its beauties in different mode and degree. How shall I say it? To me the difference seems like that between one who visits a strange country, and abides there a while (but need not), and one who has lived in that land always (and must). To the former all things that he sees are new and strange, and in that degree lovable. To the other all things are familiar, the only things that are, his own, and in that degree precious.'

According to Tolkien the desire for constant change is a Mannish quality, which the elves don't. The elves generally with the exception of the Noldor in Valinor are content with their lives and DONT want thing to change.

Look at Galadriel's wish.

'Yet I could wish, were it of any avail, that the One Ring had never been wrought, or had remained for ever lost.'

She fears a time when time will come and change her land.

'Yet if you succeed, then our power is diminished and Lothlorien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it away.'

In my opinion the truth is completely the opposite of what you have said. It's a very modern philosophy to want constant change and progress. You are imposing your modern viewpoint on the elves, which is not backed up by the text or even human experience. In the text I can give numerous examples of how immortal or long lived creatures are resistant to change and like to freeze time (Ents and Elves). This goes back of course to Eru, who is eternal and unchangeable. Even in general life the older one gets the more resistant to change and conservative they are. I can't think of anything in the text to back up your reasoning.

Secondly, I never ever argued for a rigid code. In fact I have constantly, argued for the opposite. I have compared it to the British Constitution, which is easy to change, not written down and always adapting. I have compared it to an organic tree. I have repeatedly argued for a fluid ideas of succession being laid down and developing over time, with the princes arguing over what previous decisions meant.

I believe we have to fight the subconscious desire to make elves and the Noldor in particular, like ourselves or a perfect version of ourselves. The Noldor were not perfect by any means, in fact they are the most flawed out of all the Eldar and they are not like our modern society.

If the Noldor were randomly electing Fingolfin as High King first then Curufin, followd by Maedhros and then Glorfindel, followed by Gwindor before going back to Fingon, then you would have an argument there was no order.

However, we see a clear pattern in the High Kings.
1. All are descendants of Finwe
2. All are male.
3. The succession seems to follow Salic Law.

The line of High Kings implies order and not chaos. I repeat I have never once, argued that the Noldor had a clear code or plans when Fingolfin was chosen. They would argue over who should be the next king and the criteria for choosing the next king. Certain ideas would be added and other ideas would be rejected. For example the question of whether the Feanorians were barred from the throne would come up in heated debate twice. First at the succession of Fingon. Did Maedhros just set aside his claim for Fingolfin (the oldest of the Noldor princes) or for the entire House of Fingolfin. Would Maedhros want to press his claim as the oldest living prince over his good friend Fingon? Did Maedhros not push as hard as possible, because Fingon saved his life? Did Fingon win, because he was just more popular than Maedhros. Once Fingon is declared king it will be decided that the House of Fingolfin comes before the Feanorian claim. The fact that Fingon only accepted this, because Fingon saved his life will not matter. It will set the precedent that the House of Fingolfin comes first and confirm Turgon as the next High King.

Then again at the succession of Gil-galad. It was decided that Maedhros' claim would come after the House of Fingolfin, but should it be behind the House of Finarfin and to a younger elf not even born in Valinor? Maedhros and the Feanorians will strongly press their claim, but of course the decision will be that they are barred from the succession. If there hadn't been a Second Kinslaying, if the Fifth Battle had gone differently then maybe Maedhros would have been High King, but it didn't.

These decisions would not be from Unchangeable Codes, written in stone by the Noldor as soon as Finwe became king, but instead set precedents that need to be followed to keep order, unity and legality.

EDIT

I will even go as far as saying if the weakness of Men, is to wish for immortality and to escape death, then the weakness of the elves was to stop change and wish for stagnation.

This becomes a great burden as the ages lengthen, especially in a world in which there is malice and destruction (I have left out the mythological form which Malice or the Fall of the Angels takes in this fable). Mere change as such is not represented as 'evil': it is the unfolding of the story and to refuse this is of course against the design of God. But the Elvish weakness is in these terms naturally to regret the past, and to become unwilling to face change: as if a man were to hate a very long book still going on, and wished to settle down in a favourite chapter. Hence they fell in a measure to Sauron's deceits: they desired some 'power' over things as they are (which is quite distinct from an), to make their particular will to preservation effective: to arrest change, and keep things always fresh and fair.
 
Last edited:
So in regards to Gil-Galad, his family will also determine where he is; Fingolfin's family was mainly in the northwest of Beleriand, Maedhros in the East, and Finrod in the southwest. Being Fingon's son will perhaps require an explanation of why Turgon became King of the Noldor in Beleriand; perhaps Fingon is too young at the time. If he is Orodreth's son, we need to explain why he is not in Nargothrond when it fell, since all captives from Nargothrond were slaughtered.
 
Back
Top