Of Eorl: The line thought broken
 

Eorl was the father of the Rohirrim, who all had golden hair. But where they did they get their golden hair from? House of Hador would be an obvious answer, but how? Tuor only had one son, and there is no indication that Earendil is an ancestor of Rohirrim in any way. That leaves his cousins, but all three of them died.

But there is an unknown variable there: Tolkien never explicitly stated that Nienor and her child died, only that they jumped into the river. And the river took them to a hidden place, where Nienor lived long enough to bear a child before dying.

That child is Eorl's ancestor.

The golden-haired tendency of the Rohirrim could indeed be explained by a connection with the House of Hador, but at further removes from Tuor specifically.

The Northmen of Rhovanion eventually became the Rohirrim, and of them it is said:

Unfinished Tales Cirion and Eorl

Footnote Four adds:

The genetics for blonde hair were simply present in both some of the Edain who went into Beleriand and their kin who remained behind.

Interestingly, the Gondorians came down closer to Urwen's view; Faramir tells us this:

On which point Tolkien rather scathingly says:

So yeah, the idea that they were actual Beleriandic Hadorians, rather than just relatives from east of the mountains, was a bit of Gondorian snobbery.

To the specific idea that only Hador's line had his characteristic blondness, Tolkien also gives us this:

hS

Eorl was the father of Brego at least-- but ALL the Rohirrim? What, was the guy Abdul-Aziz? And even he wasn't the father of all the Saudis, just the myriad members of the House of Saud.

There is no "unknown variable". Nienor committed suicide, and with her an unborn child. Tolkien never haunts a place unless a tragic death has occurred on the spot:

If Tolkien tells you a place is haunted, invariably a death has happened there.

Yes, a death, but it doesn't mean multiple deaths. But whatever, it seems you are naturally inclined to disagree with me no matter what. Therefore, I forbid you to post in any of the topic I make in the future.

It would be quite some biological trick to jump from the heights of a chasm, drown in the roiling rapids, and then birth a baby post-mortem -- which survives as an infant. Saved by otters and raised in the traditions of seal-craft? :rolleyes:

Forbid? Good luck with that. Last time I checked, I didn't see the site's name change to "Urwin's Forum of Fantastically Far-Fetched Fan-Fiction©". I am naturally inclined to disagree with odd conspiracies that don't jibe with the books or the author.

Nope, you're just going to have to live with folks poking holes in your fantasy plots.

Oookay. Swinging back to this, I think the 'haunted' answer is a very elegant one - it's not just a 'nope Tolkien meant she died', it's an interesting look at what exactly implies that.

Attempting to do the same thing by a different track, Morgoth. We know that he could lose track of the Children of Hurin - I believe Turin revealed himself multiple times - but also that his curse continued even when he didn't personally know where they were (I don't believe he was ever aware they'd reached Brethil, for instance). To argue that Nienor and her child could have escaped it is to argue that Morgoth's power in Beleriand is far weaker than it seems.

It also makes Hurin and Morwen's ends even more tragic... and implies that Hurin, seeing all from his stone throne, somehow missed Nienor's escape.

hS

My riddle needs solving. ;)

Maybe, but I created this thread. Last time I checked, many sites have adopted a 'my thread, my rules' policy.

Please don't let's fight, people. The Downs is so small these days, a little bad blood will wind up affecting everyone.

I've always felt that if you give implicit or explicit rules in a thread (eg by asking a question like 'what would be the effects of this?'), I'm expected to abide by those; I can post other things, particularly in response to other comments, but I shouldn't try to shut down conversation on the original topic.

But if you post something just as a theory, like this thread or... ah... most of mine, to be honest, then the rule becomes simply 'discuss' - which can be 'disagree with details'. A flat 'nope that's wrong' would be pretty rude, but a 'here's why [I think] that's wrong' is a different matter.

Urwen, I think you've stayed out of the Balfrog threads (actually I think they mostly stopped posting them before you became active again), but I know I spent a lot of time disagreeing with them over there, and others did too. If they tried to shut down disagreement with their theories that, say, The Hobbit is largely plagiarised from an obscure Elizabethan play, I think we'd all be very disgruntled.

hS

It seems to me that proposing a theory based on canonical (or even HOME) information from the published books is perfectly fine; putting forth an idea with no such support because it isn't impossible and can't be disproved is another matter.

I agree that it's a different matter, and think it's is definitely more suited for N&N than Books. :)

hS