[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

To assume anything is never reasonable.

If that's your stance then we will just have to go on agreeing to disagree, because that is just leading around in circles. My opinion, will always be, the text (whether it be LOTR, The Hobbit, Silm...etc) is evidence, but not always is there a nifty and explicit statement. That is to say, at times, we have to interpret and make inferences (assumptions, theories, deductions, whatever you want to call it) about the text, in order to have discussions or form opinions on what it all means. If that is not reasonable to you, then we're at an impass.

In this case, Elrond being called chief in A Short Rest, correct me if any of these statements about your posts are inaccurate:

1) Elrond being called chief (of "some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors") is slender evidence of Elrond being an interim Chieftain during Aragorn's minority years. And you have not made any claim that this is the only explanation.

or

2) Bilbo didn't correctly distinguish between the Dunedain and Elrond and his chilren.

Now the way that I'm coming at this is...

With 1, it is slender evidence based on Elrond being called "their chief." And in fact, saying this reference to "chief" means Elrond could have been an interim Chieftain, is an assumption based on the text. In my opinion, 1 looks an unlikely option.

With 2, personally, saying a character mixed something up/recorded incorrectly at every moment of confusion, or conflict, is a cop out excuse. Obviously, anyone can disagree with me about this, but I don't like using the argument in #2 unless there is no other possible conclusion.

However, with 1 feeling unlikely to me, and 2 only being a general option when nothing else makes sense to me, what is another explanation? I believe this was the purpose of Form's posts, to use the context of Elrond's relationship with the Dunedain and offer another interpretation to why he's called "their chief."

I should be clear, that this is also my position, "chief" being an informal courtesy to highlight Elrond's relationship with the rangers. You are correct that there is no explicit statement for this interpration, but that does eqaute to having no evidence for my interpretation.

Matters appear to be more complicated. Chief is from Old French and originally meant simply ‘head’ and later came to be used to mean ‘head man’, ‘leader’. Chieftain is from Old French chevetain ‘captain’, ‘leader’. According to Sir Walter Scott’s novel Rob Roy, published in 1818, a Highland chieftain is the head of a branch of a clan but a chief is the head of a whole clan. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan_chief . Perhaps others here know more about this than I do.

It was really my mistake for bringing this part about chief and chieftains up, because I'm not someone who likes debating definitions. My point was to say that chief can mean the formal (or "legal" if you prefer) head of a clan, but it can also be used in the general sense of "foremost" or "leading." Someone who isn't an actual leader in a position of authority, but is rather a respected figure of authority.

Now, the evidence I speak of, mostly comes out of looking in the Appendix and interpretting the way Tolkien uses "Chieftain." Chieftain is used strictly as the formal head of the Dunedain, and it's only specified to the heirs of Isildur. When Arnor broke up, the heirs can no longer have the position "King of Arnor," thus we get to the King of Arthedain. Once the Kingdom of Arthedain is destroyed, the heirs of Isildur need a new formal title of leadership (since they are still the legal heads of the Dunedain), for that Tolkien comes up with Chieftain:

After Arvedui the North-kingdom ended, for the Dunedain were now few and al lthe peoples of Eriador diminished. Yet the line of kings was continued by the Chieftains of the Dunedain, of whom Aranarth son of Arvedui was the first.~Appendix A: Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur

And from the same section of the Appendix:

There were fourteen Chieftains, before the fifteenth and last was born, Aragorn II, who became again King of both Gondor and Arnor.

Chieftain is thus a hereditary position, for the purpose of continuing the line of Isildur. By Dunedain custom, when Aragorn is born he is the next Chieftain in line. This, to me, means Elrond can not hold the title of Chieftain, not even on an interim basis.

Now, what is Elrond's position in this period when Arathorn II dies and the next Chieftain, Aragorn is 2 years old (and during the Hobbit I believe he'd be about 10-11?).

Arahael his [Aranarth] son was fostered in Rivendell, and so were all the sons of the chieftains after him; and there also were kep the heirlooms of their house...~ibid

So, since Elrond can't be titled "Chieftain of the Dunedain", why is he referred to as their chief in The Hobbit? To me, this is evidence supporting "chief" in the casual meaning of the word, marking Elrond's importance with the Dunedain, while yet not being their official leader (Chieftain). Also, taking into account that he is a respected figure, with an established relationship amongst the Dunedain, is further evidence suggesting chief is being used as a courtesy title.