DIRECT Symbolism in LOTR

[Encaitare]

Yes, it is a story first and foremost, and certainly is not meant to be allegory, but this does not mean that all historical parallels and other connections must immediately be tossed aside.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

What I am suggesting is that Tolkien intended for his writings to have more meaning than just a simple plotline. He obviously wished for his books to serve as moral examples, and to show some truths about the world, as well as some of his own hopes for the future

Britain- The king abdicated for the love of a woman, much like Tolkien himself, in Beren and Aragorn. Since then, the Queen has taken a much lesser role in the affairs of state.
Tolkien, being a huge romantic, might have hoped for the "Return of the King", or a event that could give Britain a new sense of pride and nationalism

White Supremacy- Like the Uruks, many Nazis expressed distaste at having to work alongside "lesser" men, like the Italians or Japanese. Yet, they were all defeated equally, in that all the orcs headed for Isengard were killed, and burned together in one heap. This shows some of Tolkien's views on white supremacy, or any racism. Despite their racial strength, the uruk-hai were defeated alongside the rest of the orcs

Last, Tolkien very much realized that no creature is truly born evil. One has to become evil first. Denethor was a good man once, but was corrupted by the Palantir. Theoden, a mere child when Aragorn wandered through Rohan, himself was infected by Saruman's influence, but rescued. Even the "black" Haradrim (Understood to be "PC" in Tolkien's time) were once stated to be noble people and friends of Gondor before Sauron rose again.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Michael Wilhelmson

Britain- The king abdicated for the love of a woman, much like Tolkien himself, in Beren and Aragorn. Since then, the Queen has taken a much lesser role in the affairs of state.
Tolkien, being a huge romantic, might have hoped for the "Return of the King", or a event that could give Britain a new sense of pride and nationalism

Just to continue on an already-made point, when Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, it was already several years since the abdication of Edward VIII, and he had finished writing it by the time George VI passed away.

In addition, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was an event of great national pride. It was a hugely patriotic ceremony, and was certainly well-appreciated by the people of Britain (and to a lesser degree, the Empire in general).

Also, Aragorn did not "abdicate" any more than Tolkien himself did. In fact, Aragorn had to BECOME king in order the marry the woman he loved. Elrond refused to allow Arwen to marry anyone other than the King of both Arnor and Gondor. Aragorn wasn't abdicating, he was achieving.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

Isildur was the king who abdicated, who left the throne for personal reasons, whether it was voluntary or not.

[gorthaur_cruel]

Isildur was the king who abdicated, who left the throne for personal reasons, whether it was voluntary or not.

Even Isildur did not truly abdicate. Rather, he merely decided to change which kingdom to rule. At that time, Arnor was considered to be the greater of the two kingdoms, and as Elendil's eldest son, he felt that he had the right to take over its kingship. He never stopped being a King. He just became the King of Arnor instead of the King of Gondor.

...and in reference to allegorical meanings in the story...
(This is from Tolkien's letter #203)

There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story. Allegory of the sort 'five wizards=five senses' is wholly foreign to my way of thinking. There were five wizards and that is just a unique part of history. To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs.
That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivocal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among Elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men', and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheel going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!

The first paragraph sums up nicely the absence of allegory in LotR.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Even Isildur did not truly abdicate. Rather, he merely decided to change which kingdom to rule. At that time, Arnor was considered to be the greater of the two kingdoms, and as Elendil's eldest son, he felt that he had the right to take over its kingship. He never stopped being a King. He just became the King of Arnor instead of the King of Gondor.

Let's just go a bit farther and say: Isildur did not abdicate at all. He was king of the United Kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor (compare to G.W.B. like-it-or-not, President of the United States, just as much President of Maine as of California). Isildur didn't give up the kingship of Gondor to take the throne of Arnor, rather his father Elendil had been High King of both realms and Isildur a sort of sub-king (compare, governor) under him. When Elendil died, Isildur inherited the High Kingship and simply transferred his residence to Arnor. However, Isildur was the last King under whom Gondor and Arnor were united. After Isildur's death Arnor was ruled by Isildur's heirs and Gondor was ruled by the heirs of his brother Anarion.

Sorry to drag the thread off on a tangent.

Sophia