Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » Legolas not a prince
Author Topic:
Eladril
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post Legolas not a prince
on: August 06, 2008 04:43
In Ellen Brundige's commentary "Legolas of Mirkwood
Prince Among Equals" she overlooks a basic grammatical probability that leads to the entire (I believe) erroneous assignation of the title "prince" to Legolas. She is correct that he is referred to as "son of" during the council (and a few other oblique references) and then goes on to foment an entire review and rationalization of how he MUST be a biological son of the elven king. In all likelihood that singular phrase refers to the monarchic tradition of being a racial embodiment of the realm (ie sons of england...). Thereby making ALL elven "subjects" the children of the king. It is neigh impossible for most autonomy-centric Americans to empathize with the complicated relationship between monarchs and their subjects. As a Earthly Viscount I take the personal well-being of "my people" to heart in an almost patriarchal manner even though it has been many generations since my family has had any control of or influence over said personages.
If one makes the single FAR more logical interpretation of word-use (ie "son" in a socially pluralistic sense) all of the other pieces of the "mystery" fall neatly into place. Legolas, as written, was a ranger of singular gifts and a true "child" of the elven race but his "strange" descriptor referred instead to those singular abilities rather than some implicit biological link to the loosely reigning monarch of the elves. The character of the king was without question an attentive and caring, if not doting, father figure. As meticulous a word-crafter as Tolkien was I find it difficult to believe that he would not have capitalized upon such a link if he had intended it as such. I realize that there are scads of fans who have a vested interest (some even commercial!) in the idea of Legolas the Prince but would suggest that a less impassioned review might support the POSSIBILITY that it is, if I may, "much ado about nothing". Personally I like the idea of Legolas as an errant, almost prodigal, son but the entire argument is predicated upon singular assumptions that do not bear close scrutiny. Indeed, any discussion on the topic seems to quickly digress and degrade to the "therefore we may presume" references, thereby losing any legitimate logic-path as a true argument. I appreciate you having taken the time to review my commentary.

[Edited on 6/8/2008 by Eladril]
Morwinyoniel
Gallery Admin & Realm Head of Estë
Posts: 1637
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 06, 2008 06:08
Very interesting point of view, Elandril.

It's true that in feudal societies, the lords (or at least some of them) regarded their subjects as their "children" of whose wellbeing they were responsible, and soldiers have indeed been called "sons of [country]".

However, when Tolkien talks about somebody being a son or daughter of someone, he really means that they are members of the same family, whereas belonging to the people of a certain lord would have been expressed "of the House of"; for example, Gildor Inglorion of the House of Finrod (= Gildor son of Inglor of the people of Finrod). Also, he wrote in a draft letter to Mr Rang in August 1967:
Legolas is translated Greenleaf... a suitable name for a Woodland Elf, though one of royal and originally Sindarin line


I don't see a ruler sending his son as a messenger, or rather, on a diplomatic mission, unheard of in any way. Think of Boromir, who was on a rather similar errand; he was the son and heir of the Steward of Gondor. And, as we don't know anything about the royal family of Mirkwood, it may well be that Legolas was a younger son, and the actual heir of the throne (which probably wasn't that significant for the elves, who were immortal unless their bodies were mortally injured, or they wasted away of grief) sat safe at home.

Actually, although Legolas is clearly presented as the son of Thranduil in The Council of Elrond, I don't think he's called "prince" anywhere in the book; that title seems to be reserved to feudal lords, like Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth, and the sons (or daughters) of a king are referred to just as that.

(Cirdaneth and PB, I think these posts could be moved to the general Legolas thread?)

[Edited on 6/8/2008 by Morwinyoniel]
Dolwen
Store Admin & Head Weaver of Vairë
Posts: 15040
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 06, 2008 07:31
I agree that it is pretty clear that Legolas is in fact Thranduil's son and therefore technically a prince. Although I could be wrong I don't recall the elves ever using the title of prince for their sons. I can't think of Feanor, Fingolfin or Finarfin ever being called that anyway.

In my opinion the line in LotR, The Council of Elrond is pretty clear.
There was also a strange elf clad in green and brown, Legolas, a messenger from his father, Thranduil, King of the Elves of Northern Mirkwood.


There are also several references to Thranduil being a king and Legolas being his son in Unfinished Tales and Peoples of Middle-Earth. A few are:

Peoples of Middle-earth:
"Among them were many lords of the Sindarin race. Such were Thranduil and Legolas his son."

UT- History of Galadriel and Celeborn:
" In the second age their king, Oropher [the father of Thranduil, father of Legolas]...."
"...Thranduil father of Legolas of the Nine Walkers..."
Eladril
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 06, 2008 07:57
Morwinyoniel;

I appreciate your measured and dispassionate response, very nice. Having seen some other running commentaries I was hesitant to raise the head of such a hoary beast lest I be cyber-bashed. As a newbie to this medium I defer to your suggestion for a better location/post for this discourse. Not having access to a Tolkien database (nor the personal knowledge) I will not spar with dissections and quotes but rather focus on my main premise. To the meat of it. Hesitantly nodding to the history of the English Monarchy of which Professor Tolkien was a vetted expert AND loyal subject we can presume his experience was greater at LEAST than mine own. At several times in the history of England's feudal development there were multiple legitimate kings simultaneously giving rise to veritable hosts of scions of royal blood. Reflecting on the almost prehistoric and feudal nature of this history there are many direct references and inferences made by Tolkien to the city-state-like Steads scattered across the Middle Earth. I've no doubt someone has gotten away with an entire Doctor of Literature dissertation on Tolkien genealogy and quite likely there are those who have published (hence the aforementioned vested economic interests) on the subject. But I would offer that if a generous fan were to give the Tolkien texts to a member of any reputable Royal Genealogical Society there would be assigned "degrees of certainty/validity" that would undermine the assignation of the title "prince". Again I will say that I am a fan of the idea of an errant Prince being largely estranged or at LEAST ignored and sent on ignominious errands for Pater Rex. He MAY be of royal and most confidently noble blood, but as to certainty of his being a biological son of King Thranduil...? I do appreciate your point and your way of presenting it but, something still rankles my logic circuits about the myriad presentations and arguments made by the throngs of zealous fan-sites. Not trying to pick a fight by any means. Its not actually that serious an issue to me and I consider this little more than an intellectual posit. But the use of the title of prince by the elves seems quite unlikely in ANY case as they seem to only use the title King in passing out of deference to their mortal human allies (makes the humans feel more comfortable thinking they're talking to the boss-o-bosses). In-suma I would be eager to see if any organization with formal credentials has actually DONE a genealogical study of Tolkien's characters.
Morwinyoniel
Gallery Admin & Realm Head of Estë
Posts: 1637
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 06, 2008 08:25
I don't know if any "organization with formal credentials" has made such a genealogical study, but there certainly is one person who has, and is more than qualified to do it: Christopher Tolkien, the Professor's son and coworker in editing his father's writings. I wholeheartedly recommend getting acquainted with the History of Middle-earth series and Tolkien's Letters.

Regarding Legolas's descent, I just rely on what the author himself said about the matter. It's much clearer than, for example, the descent of Gil-galad, which changed a lot over the times.
Eladril
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 06, 2008 08:59
Advice from such an august and dedicated follower of the form is not to be taken lightly. I will track down and review said History of Middle Earth series if for no other reason than the joy of seeing how well JRR's progeny reflects his father's style. Thank you both for your time and thoughtful responses.
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 07, 2008 10:58
This is a very interesting thread.

I suppose I could move it to the Legolas thread ... but I'll probably just change its name, as it is seriously addressing the definition of the terms *prince* and *king*. something I've thought about a lot. It would be a shame to have it swallowed up in the great Legolas Melting Pot.

I shall leave it as it is for the time being, as I'm seriously involved in a local festival for the next couple of weeks. I'll get onto it afterwards.
Maedhros
Council Member
Posts: 23
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 07, 2008 02:01
Eladril ,

I don't want to sound aggressive, but it seems that you are falling prey to the same which you accuse these zealous fan who want to style Legolas as a "prince".

Your original post was excellent, but your second seemed to be an elaborate way of saying, "I'd like to only discuss my theory and not bring in evidence to the contrary".

Both Morwinyoniel and Dolwen presented quotes from Tolkien saying rather explicitly that Legolas was the biological son of Thranduil. With that added context, it only makes sense to interpret the LotR reference in a literal manner. There's nothing to say about "sparring with dissections and quotes", there's just reading what Tolkien wrote; in this case Tolkien wrote that Thranduil was the father of Legolas in the most literal of senses.

Your spin that there might have been several 'competing royal lines', while interesting, doesn't hold water. Tolkien never wrote of any such situation, it's pure conjecture, Tolkien only ever referred to a single ruling family in the northern realm of Mirkwood.

I must add, however that your notion of Legolas not being a prince is by no means harmed. Legolas' lineage and his status (or lack thereof) of being a "prince" are wholly distinct ideas. In Tolkien's works, the word "prince" is - as the others before me have said - largely used rather as a title for lesser rulers, either under a king or as an independent ruler. Some examples include:

--- Prince Imrahil (mentioned)
--- Faramir being made the "Prince of Ithilien" despite not being related to the royal family.
--- The multiple Princes of Rhovanion (there was one of these who styled himself king, but it is unclear whether the others acknowledged this).
--- Celeborn was referred to as a prince.
--- The "Princes of the Noldor" of the First Age, while there was a formal "High King", most of the other leading descendants of Finwe ruled an independent kingdom in their own right.

There is also the fact that the Numenoreans - who derived a good deal of their culture and traditions from Beleriandic Eldar - referred to the next in line to the throne as the "King's Heir" rather than as "Prince".

So, all told, I think that the most logical interpretation of the text is that while Legolas was indeed the biological son of Thranduil (this much at least seems beyond contest), Legolas was not a prince.
Eladril
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 07, 2008 05:36
Again, I am not enough of a fan to where I can debate text with any degree of credibility and my original post was not so intended. In retrospect I think I was reacting to what I saw as yet another unsupported publication using faulty logic to arrive at a spurious conclusion. In all likelihood Ms Brundige's article was probably not intended for a casual reader such as myself. It is more likely that she intended it for people, like the folks here, who already have a wealth of background knowledge on the details of Middle Earth and its characters. I appreciate everyone's posts being polite and considerate during my learning curve. Regarding the quotes from JRR you'll hopefully forgive the lawyer in me for wanting to see the documents myself. Kinda a "show me state" mentality. And yes, I did rather over focus on my initial question in following posts but again, was striving to get to the level of reference that everyone on here has so kindly provided. Happily I have an entire new perspective to pursue and a goal in my re-reading of Tolkien! I am satisfied with the degree and depth of responses and, if possible do not need to be further involved in any discussion. I hope I have not opened a Pandora's box for anyone and appreciate having had the chance to learn from you all.

[Edited on 8/8/2008 by Eladril]
Maedhros
Council Member
Posts: 23
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 08, 2008 01:16
Eladril,

You didn't so much open a Pandora's Box for me so much as reignite an old topic that I enjoy discussing.

I fully understand the desire to read the texts for yourself - being the mathematical sort I have much the same mentality. Best of luck, and happy reading!
Rulea
Council Member
Posts: 738
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 22, 2008 03:21
This is an interesting debate... as for my two sense, why wouldn't you consider Legolas a prince? Gimli calls him a prince and Legolas' dad is a king. Plus he has his own little kingdom in Ithilien before he gose West. But then, we don't know much about him...
Image
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: August 26, 2008 02:02
It's not that the posting members don't consider Legolas to be a prince; instead, the society he lived in didn't consider him to be a prince.
In Middle-earth society a Prince seemed to be a 'lesser' ruler of a land smaller than a kingdom, such as Dol Amroth or Ithilien. We can something similar in Monaco, which is also ruled by a Prince rather than a King. The son of a Middle-earth king simply wasn't known as a prince.
In fact it seems that he wasn't even guaranteed to succeed to the throne. In the Story of Aldarion and Erendis (Unfinished Tales)it is stated that the Numenorian King Tar-Meneldur asked his son Aldarion to stay at home and stop sailing to the East for a time as he wished to declare Aldarion to be the King's heir. When Aldarion was declared the Heir he was then named Lord of the Ships and Havens of Numenor. At no time was he referred to a 'Prince'.
In the case of Legolas, as was previously stated, he was the son of Thranduil, but it seems that the son of a ruler was just that, the son of a ruler, forever.
Under our rules we may consider Legolas to be a Prince, but he didn't seem to be one under the rules of his own society.
Maedhros
Council Member
Posts: 23
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: September 02, 2008 02:25
Gimli calls him a prince and Legolas' dad is a king.


Where does Gimli call Legolas a prince? :dizzy: I'm not familiar with any such reference, if you could point me in the right direction, I'd be much obliged.
NellasTaralom
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 242
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: November 01, 2008 04:46
I'm pretty sure Gimli never refers to Legolas as a prince in the text. No one does, in fact.
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: December 27, 2009 08:40
Being the son of a king doesn't automatically make you a prince. The term seems to originate when the kings of large clearly defined realms divided their governance betwen their sons. These being the 'principal' divisions of the realm, the term 'Prince of ...' came to be used for the person governing it on the King's behalf. Sometimes an area was allotted to a more distant relative, a valued commander, or someone marrying a royal daughter. Faramir springs to mind.

To have Principalities you need a fairly settled structured realm with a hereditary monarchy. I think Aragorn does refer to Legolas as a prince at one point, but only because Aragorn comes from a culture that uses that title and thinks along those lines. Legolas does not see himself as such.
Evil~Shieldmaiden
Games Moderator, and Chief Corrupted Weaver of Vairë
Posts: 36001
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: December 27, 2009 09:37
It strikes me that whether or not Legolas is referred to as "Prince" is somewhat moot when you consider that his father is immortal and the likelyhood of him inheriting his father's throne very slim to none.

In point of fact, he does not inherit his father's throne. He remains in Middle Earth until Aragorn dies and then goes to the Grey Havens with Gimli and sails into the West.
Image
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: December 27, 2009 11:20
You are right about the matter of Legolas inheritance, Eomer_Sister, but the focus here is on Prince as a title. In fact, there were elven princes at times, and the sons of Feanor were all princes and ruled territories of their own in Beleriand. They are referred to as such in The Silmarillion.
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Legolas not a prince
on: December 29, 2009 10:29
Legolas, at the time of the War of The Ring, unlike the sons of Feanor, didn't rule any territory or principality,and not being an active ruler of any land, he wasn't given a title.
Imrahil was considered a Prince, because the territory he ruled was part of a Kingdom.
What of Elrond? Galadriel? Cirdan?
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: September 30, 2015 06:26
* bump
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email