Rosie a twin? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Olorin_TLA · 05-01-2004, 08:17 PM

Poor Mrs. Cotton! If they're not twins, the minute she's finally free of one, her husband puts another burden inisde her...her figure'll never recover from this constant abuse!

Findegil · 05-02-2004, 02:10 AM

With Elladan and Elrohir we were told in the book that they were twins. That they were stated to be born in the same year is only a consequence of this.

But here with Rose Cotton and her brother we have only the same year of birth stated in the family-tree. And as was already explained that does not make them neccessarly twins.

On the other hand after a look into the The History of Middle-Earth, volume 12: The Peoples of Middle-Earth, part one: The Prologue and Appendices to The Lord of the Ring, chapter III: The Family Trees I come to the conclusion that we are talking about a misprint here. This is not stated in the book (which that series of books does some times), but in the series of family trees for the Cottons never apeared the same date for Rose and here younger brother Jolly. In the first table Rose was born in 1386 and Jolly in 1384. In the next table they are both shifted to be two years younger making them born Rose in 1384 and Jolly 1382. These dates remained in table no. 3 and no change is recorded niether for the subsequent table no. 4 (which is not shown in the book but discriped) nor for the printed version (for which are even changes made in the prove are recorded).
It would be nice to know if these misprint is global or if it is particular form some editions. In my three editions (Grafton one volume paperback and 2 German editions of the Appendices as singel books) the date for Rose's birth is (mis-)printed 1384.

Respectfully
Findegil

Lord of Angmar · 05-02-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

I saw that as well, but I thought that it was what NightKnight said, that there was a difference in age of at least nine months.

Who says hobbit pregnancy lasts nine months?

05-01-2004, 08:17 PM	#1
Olorin_TLA Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Gardens of Lórien, Valinor. Posts: 420	Poor Mrs. Cotton! If they're not twins, the minute she's finally free of one, her husband puts another burden inisde her...her figure'll never recover from this constant abuse! __________________ "For I am Olórin! And Olórin means me!" ELENDIL! - Join "Forth Tolkiengas!" Last edited by Olorin_TLA; 05-01-2004 at 08:20 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-02-2004, 02:10 AM	#2
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	With Elladan and Elrohir we were told in the book that they were twins. That they were stated to be born in the same year is only a consequence of this. But here with Rose Cotton and her brother we have only the same year of birth stated in the family-tree. And as was already explained that does not make them neccessarly twins. On the other hand after a look into the The History of Middle-Earth, volume 12: The Peoples of Middle-Earth, part one: The Prologue and Appendices to The Lord of the Ring, chapter III: The Family Trees I come to the conclusion that we are talking about a misprint here. This is not stated in the book (which that series of books does some times), but in the series of family trees for the Cottons never apeared the same date for Rose and here younger brother Jolly. In the first table Rose was born in 1386 and Jolly in 1384. In the next table they are both shifted to be two years younger making them born Rose in 1384 and Jolly 1382. These dates remained in table no. 3 and no change is recorded niether for the subsequent table no. 4 (which is not shown in the book but discriped) nor for the printed version (for which are even changes made in the prove are recorded). It would be nice to know if these misprint is global or if it is particular form some editions. In my three editions (Grafton one volume paperback and 2 German editions of the Appendices as singel books) the date for Rose's birth is (mis-)printed 1384. Respectfully Findegil