Not A Prince...

[Cúdae]

First, my apologies if this has been brought up before. I serached, but I either have the wrong wording or I'm doing something first (for once).

Anyway, I was contemplating the Elvish class system, or lack thereof, when this idea came back to me. Legolas is the son of King Thranduil, but no where that I can think of does it say that he is a prince. So, I was wondering, is Legolas a prince of the Woodland Realm? Or if he isn't, could this be an implied idea, an idea of the masses, something The Great Perfectionist (Tolkien) overlooked, or a small comment on Elves and how their society works? Is it possible that in Elvish society, being the son of a King means close to nothing- or has the value of nothing in the realm?

Sorry if this made little sense, my mind isn't working... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Marsyas]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that elves are immortal. If his father isn't going to die, then the realm never gets passed on right? Or it could be that he isn't the 'heir' and therefore he doesn't claim the title. Just a thought.....

*~Marsyas~*

[Manwe Sulimo]

Well, in The Silmarillion heritage meant a lot. Fëanor's sons became masters of their own Noldo realms, as Turgon received the title of "High-king" when Fingolfin was slain (as well as Gil-galad).

The king of Greenwood in the Second Age was Oropher, father of Thranduil. After that, I'd expect it's like a normal monarchy.

[doug*platypus]

"Prince Legolas" would get a bit annoying after a while, and sounds a bit too much like "Priss Legolas", which is of course dangerously close to the truth! "Princes of the Noldor" is a phrase used at least once in The Silmarillion, so there definitely seems to have been a structured monarchy, but maybe they weren't big on using titles as a matter of fact. You don't often see the words "King Thingol" or "King Gil-Galad", and even Thranduil is "the Elven-king", more of a nickname than a real title. Great point, I hadn't thought about that before, which is why these forums are so great!! There aren't many leaders who aren't nobility i.e. hereditary rulers. Theoden and Denethor from LOTR, Thingol, Turgon, Fingon, Finrod, Maedhros, almost everyone who had a realm to command (and not simply a squad or a section of an army) was of 'high birth'. Elven leaders were chosen at Cuivienen, and only Elves descended from these original three seem to have ruled. It would be interesting to find out more about Thranduil's parentage. The only elected leader seems to have been the Mayor of the Shire, Will Whitfoot - underappreciated character fanclub anyone?

[The Silver-shod Muse]

The only elected leader seems to have been the Mayor of the Shire, Will Whitfoot - underappreciated character fanclub anyone?

Nah. I'm a fan of monarchy myself [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, arguably the Master of Esgorath was elected, even if by perhaps an elite electorate.

But Legolas was a prince, technically, but perhaps he had an older brother, who was the true heir, but given Elvish immortality this might have been of relatively little matter.

In the First Age one hears talk of the princes of the Noldor, but among the Sindar there is little of that. Cirdan is well, just Cirdan and so forth. And the Noldorin realms were much more majestic and regal.

I think for a place like Thranduil's realm, and especially by that time in the history of the Elves, they had sort of let go of such formality and so forth, and it wasn't really appropriate any more.

Also, Odopher and Thranduil were sort of selected rulers of the East Elves, just as Celeborn and Galadriel were after the passing of Amroth, and Celeborn and Galadriel were not consistently entitled as King and Queen, but rather as Lord and Lady. Had Thranduil died it may not have been automatic that he was succeeded by a son. Some other arrangement may have been better, for that realm, remember in that the Green-Elves of Ossiriand didn't have a King after the death of Denethor, but took Beren and Dior for time as their ruler.

In a sense, for that time and place, it was simply pretentious and unnecessary for Legolas to carry the title of "prince".

[doug*platypus]

GC about the Master of Esgaroth, as I remember he was elected in a sort of unbalanced democracy where the merchants had more say.

In the First Age one hears talk of the princes of the Noldor, but among the Sindar there is little of that. Cirdan is well, just Cirdan and so forth. And the Noldorin realms were much more majestic and regal.

This leads me to ask, what makes a kingdom a kingdom? Do you need a king first or a kingdom first, or should I just ask about the chicken and the egg? Cirdan is, if I remember correctly Lord of the Havens, originally Lord of the Falas. Gil-Galad is the High King, because he comes from the oldest line of kings of the Noldor. The Sindar weren't completely unattracted to the idea of nobility - Thingol and Thranduil were certainly kings, even though Celeborn was only ever a Lord.

Elrond is never mentioned as the king or the High King, despite his lineage, but maybe that is because he was not descended from Gil-Galad. After Gil-Galad there doesn't seem to have been a king of the Noldor in ME. Man, this is actually pretty confusing.

[Cúdae]

I'm confused. And not for the first time. This too much for me to get through me concussed head without straightening it out first.

So we have several ideas here about election (or some form of it, not necessarily what we think of) and lordship. Then we have the whole "I say you're King" and "No, I'm not King, I'm a lord" ideas. Followed quickly by something about Thingol and Thranduil. I'm not lost at all.

Personally, I think that Oropher (let''s just say he started the Woodland Realm in Mirkwood without arguing whether it was him or Thranduil) became King because he was both Sindarin, which is "higher" than the Silvan Elves and because he had some leadership qualities. What they were is practically a mystery, but I'd take my chances on overbearing power. Then we have Oropher killed in the battle at the end of the Second Age (what was that called again?) and succeeded (sp?) by his son- Thranduil, the Elven-King. Alright, so there's evidence that the rule was passed from father to son (or possibly daughter). Then we have Legolas in the Lord of the Rings refered to as the "son of Thranduil" who, or course, is the King of the Elves in Mirkwood, but Legolas is not referred to as a prince. Now we come to the ideas of why not.
I do not think that Tolkien ever went into any great detail of thought about Legolas family, so we can pretty much get rid of the idea of Legolas having an older brother who has the title of Prince.
The idea that the title was not claimed because of the Elvish immortality is interesting. Perhaps the title would not be claimed by Thranduil's son until Thranduil was thinking about doing something like going off to war on the slopes of Mount Doom and getting himself killed.
Another idea was that the title was simply not claimed by Legolas because he wasn't interested- as seems true with a lot of the Sindar, as many of them mingled with the Silvan Elves so that they could live as they thought Elves should, without all the cares of the world. So maybe Legolas did not claim the title because that was his thought- after all, he did refer to himself as Silvan Elf, although we know that his father at least was Sindarin, so he was at least part Sindarin.
Here's another idea, Legolas could have not claimed the title of prince because he had other things to do. We know he was a messenger, at least once. We also know that Elrond chose him to represent the Elves. Could this be because he had a relatively high position in Mirkwood that he gained in a way other than his birth? Perhaps his own leadership or courage or bravery earned him a military honor or something of that like.

Alright, I'm trailing off, little by little, so I think I'll stop.
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

Nah. I'm a fan of monarchy myself. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Eew. They're inbred. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Raefindel]

Perhaps his own leadership or courage or bravery earned him a military honor or something of that like.

I would imagine he would have fought in the Battle of Five Armies. And they were constantly battling the Necromancer, spiders, orcs & trolls to keep their realm free.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Raefindel ]

[doug*platypus]

Interesting point about the immortality of Elves being a factor in Legolas not being referred to as a Prince. It makes sense, since maybe he would never become King. Of course, convention in our own world and with the Noldor shows that there can be Princes who will probably never be Kings. Prince William and Prince Harry (although I'm no expert on the Royals). And the many, many Princes of the Noldor. "Mirkwood is different" seems to be the likeliest answer, that or "Legolas wasn't like that".

Personally, I think that Oropher (let''s just say he started the Woodland Realm in Mirkwood without arguing whether it was him or Thranduil) became King because he was both Sindarin, which is "higher" than the Silvan Elves and because he had some leadership qualities. What they were is practically a mystery, but I'd take my chances on overbearing power.

Interesting, although it wouldn't really explain why Cirdan was a Lord and not a King. Maybe the only difference is in ambition, or vanity. The leaders of the Elves from Cuivienen (Ingwe, Elwe, Olwe, etcwe) must have been chosen on innate abilities. Maybe fate or destiny had a role to play there. Were they created noble from birth in some way? Like it or not, Aristocracy is all over Tolkien's world.

[greyhavener]

It also seems to have something to do with whose family got to Middle Earth first and who has seen the Valar first hand. More lineage stuff.

[Arien]

Legolas may not be a prince but in"Characters from Tolkien" by David day Legolas is indeed Sindar. It says" It is also told in elvish writings how in greenwood the Great ( Mirkwood) through the Second, Third and Fourth ages of the Sun there was the Woodland relm of the Sindar Lord Thranduil" Lord it says LORD ne way carring on "The concealed city of the silvan elves of Thranduil was beautiful and magical, for it was the diminished image of the ancient sindar relm of Menegroth- once the fairest city in middle Earth. But apart of its beauty had lived on and withstood the dark invasions of the Third age. It is told that in the fourth age the son of the King" now it says KING "took part of the silvan elves to the woodland of Ithilien. This prince was named Legolas and became Lord of the elves in Ithilien" So it seems by this text that Lord, king and prince r just titles, or They are called Lord when the rule over a Realm.... see what you lot make of it..........

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Arien ]

[Legolas]

'Prince' and other titles for specific members of the royal family were not used often in Tolkien's works.

Legolas obviously is the Prince of Mirkwood, but in Middle-earth, such a title was not carried through different lands. If he ever was called that, I'd estimate that it would've only been in Mirkwood.

The instances of the word 'prince' being used to refer directly to certain persons are few.

1) The princes of the Noldor. There was obviously a struggle for leadership there, and a majority of The Silmarillion is based on these princes. The title of High King of the Noldor was a great title indeed - the ruler over an entire kindred of Eldar.

High princes were Fëanor and Fingolfin, the elder sons of Finwë, honoured by all in Aman;

Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor;

but Galadriel, the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes,

2) Sindarin princes of Beleriand. Olwë was called a prince because he rose to a ruling position when many of the Teleri went to Aman, and King Thingol returned to Beleriand. This is the case with the Sindarin princes spoke of in Unfinished Tales - explaining how they came to rule other lands after the fall of Doriath. It seems Celeborn is referred to as a prince to explain Dior's marraige to Nimloth and Galadriel's marraige to Celeborn - they were marrying other royalty, not just any elves.

As for themselves, they desired now no other home but the strands of Eldamar, and no other lord than Olwë, prince of Alqualondë.

...their son Dior Eluchíl had to wife Nimloth, kinswoman of Celeborn, prince of Doriath, who was wedded to the Lady Galadriel.

There she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

3) A title for a woman whose status had suddenly changed and was surrounded by peasant talk.

At all events, suitors for Ancalimë's hand soon began to appear in Emerië, and not only because of the change in her position, for the fame of her beauty, of her aloofness and disdain, and of the strangeness of her upbringing had run through the land. In that time the people began to speak of her as Emerwen Aranel, the Princess Shepherdess.

4) The Prince of Dol Amroth. A formal title of the ruler there.

5) Prince Faramir, whose status as prince was highlighted because he had snuck off into battle disguised, fell, and was found to be Ondoher's son after his death. His father had ordered him to stay at Minas Tirith as regent.

6) Faramir, speaking to Frodo. He used it to highlight Boromir's status as son of Denethor, the Ruling Steward (whom he thought to be above Aragorn before he was told who Aragorn was).

'No, not because I choose,' answered Frodo. `It does not belong to me. It does not belong to any mortal, great or small; though if any could claim it, it would be Aragorn son of Arathorn, whom I named, the leader of our Company from Moria to Rauros.'
'Why so, and not Boromir, prince of the City that the sons of Elendil founded? '

6) Pippin's title as Prince of the Halfings.

He looked now, had he known it, verily Ernil i Pheriannath, the Prince of the Halflings, that folk had called him; but he felt uncomfortable

7) Faramir, Prince of Ithilien - a title Aragorn appointed to him.

Of those listed, only the princes of the Noldor is a title used repeatedly. The others are used one or two times (except in the case of the leadership positions of Faramir and the Prince of Dol Amroth).

As you may notice, 'prince' wasn't necessarily used to denote the son of a king, but to all of the males in the royal family. It also seems to be a generic royal title given to a ruler that did not exercise great authority or gain reverence as a king would, or rulers who shared said leadership.

The lordship over Mirkwood had been held by Thranduil for quite sometime - he was either the first or second ruler of the realm. There was no reason to point out Legolas' princedom, especially since he never returned to Mirkwood for any extended visits.

[Cúdae]

Excellent points all around! My mind is even more confused than before, but I have a new idea to bring up:

Maybe Tolkien just didn't care.

I know that sounds like some type of blasphemy, as we are speaking fo the Great Perfectionist, but really, I can back it up. In Unfinished Tales, I got the impression that Tolkien did not feel that Legolas was all that important- to anyone, anything, or any event. Tolkien said that Legolas had achieved the least. I'd find that passage for you, but unfortunately, my books are not with me. So maybe, Tolkien didn't go into any details about Legolas's title because he didn't feel that Legolas was important.

Speaking of importance... I have heard that there was a character also called Legolas in the original drafts of some parts of the Silmarillion- I have conflicting ideas on this, but if any of you who are more knowlegable than myself know much about this, share the knowledge, I beg you! My reason being is that, possibly Tolkien had this character in mind (even in the back of his mind) when writing the character of Legolas that we know from the Lord of the Rings.

[Voronwe]

I have heard that there was a character also called Legolas in the original drafts of some parts of the Silmarillion

'Legolas Greenleaf' was a minor character in the original Fall of Gondolin in Lost Tales. This was the first appearance of any of the names of members of the Fellowship of the Ring in Tolkien's works. The Legolas in the Fall of Gondolin was a Noldo of the House of the Tree. Very little is known about him except that he had extremely keen sight - a characteristic the Legolas of Tolkien's later writings shares. Here is his entry in Tolkien's name list to the Fall of Gondolin:

Legolas or Green-leaf was a man of the Tree, who led the exiles over Tumladin in the dark, being night-sighted, and he liveth still in Tol Eressea named by the Eldar there Laiqalasse; but the book of Rumil saith further hereon.

Note that Tolkien used the term 'man' to refer to Elves as well as mortals in the Lost Tales.

[littlemanpoet]

No rhymes this time, at least not intentionally...

Prince is used by Tolkien in at least two different ways, which reflects the word's historical use.

The word, prince, is derived from principal, as in primary individual; hence, leader.

Originally, princes were not sons of kings; rather, they were rulers in their own right; such as the Seven Principalities of the Holy Roman Empire in feudal Europe. These seven Princes elected the Holy Roman Emperor.

Likewise, the Princes of the Noldor were equals, ruling over their own lands - but their father, Feanor, had he survived, would have been considered High King of the Noldor; since he didn't survive, the title was passed down.

Hmmm.... I don't recall, did the next High King of the Noldor get elected, or did he inherit the title?

So that's ONE usage of the word; I think that Peregrin Took is called Prince of the Halflings in this sense, of the Ruler of the Halflings - almost correct. He was in line to become the next Took and Thain, which was, as a matter of fact, virtually the "High Lord of the Hobbits", so to speak (check your appendices for verification).

Imrahil as Prince of Dol Amroth is another example of this.

Then there is the peculiarly English use of the title, Prince, as heir to the King or Queen. Prince of Wales. Prince of Minas Tirith probably fits under this as well; although, it's an odd usage, seeing as Denethor was not King but Steward.

Just goes to show that these titles can be used loosely as one chooses, within certain reasonable bounds.

I would be interested in a run-down of what titles Tolkien DOES use for sons and daughters of rulers in the Sil, Hobbit, and LotR. Anybody game for that?

[Kalimac]

Legalos and littlemanpoet, wow! So much etymology, I'm a little dizzy...

Two points. First of all, the term "prince" doesn't necessarily mean the son of a king in all times or languages; in fact, sometimes it means everything but. Second, many people that we *would* consider princes in the English-speaking sense - son or daughter of a king or queen - were never referred to as such. Consider the pre-Revolution Russians; plenty of princes and princesses there, but for them the title was more like Duke or Count; there was no implication that being called a prince meant you were even within shouting distance of the throne. To add to the confusion, the actual daughters of the Tsar were called the Grand Duchesses, in the same way that the Habsburg sons and daughters of the Empress Maria Teresa were Dukes and Duchesses, not Princes and Princesses.

Even in the English-speaking world, the children of kings were not always called Prince or Princess. Most often, in addition to being a prince or princess they were also duke or duchess of somewhere else, and were referred to as such (e.g. Queen Victoria's father, known as the Duke of Kent although he was a king's son). In medieval times they would have most often been addressed as "my lord" or "your grace" but probably not as "Prince [name]" except possibly in very formal situations or in writing; certainly not during a conversation.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on so long. Just wanted to say that with Tolkien's predilections and all, it's easier to picture the Elves doing it early-medieval style (or possibly even more sparingly than that - after all, the thrill of a title would wear off after a few thousands of years). Legolas also does not seem to stand too much upon ceremony, especially since in the Fellowship it's probably the worst thing he could do. Possibly at Thranduil's court he'd be "my lord Legolas" but even then only at special times. And while you can picture Frodo writing everything in the Red Book afterwards and referring to Legolas as "Prince Legolas Greenleaf of Mirkwood" calling him that to his face would be out of place considering their situation.

Please excuse the ramble, it's a bit late [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Hope that made sense.

[Legolas]

Well said. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[doug*platypus]

Originally, princes were not sons of kings; rather, they were rulers in their own right; such as the Seven Principalities of the Holy Roman Empire in feudal Europe. These seven Princes elected the Holy Roman Emperor.

Interesting tidbit Little Man, and it's nice to see someone else interested in digging around the roots of democracy. As you point out, however, these Princes elected the Emperor, to whom they were subservient. So these Princes, while rulers in their own right, were not absolute rulers. In this respect they can be compared to leaders such as Prince Imrahil, who ruled a "Princedom" but was secondary to the King of Gondor and to the High King of Gondor and Arnor (the only remaining Numenorean realms), in that order. As an aside, it's quite interesting that a ruler of Dol Amroth never made a play for the throne of Gondor. Love those Amroths!

Re-reading UT, I found answers to one of the questions brought up on this thread. In one version (someone please correct me if this was not the latest version) of the story, Amroth was King of Lorien. When he got all starry-eyed and followed after Nimrodel, eventually drowning, Celeborn and Galadriel took over as rulers of Lorien. Until that time they had never permanently lived in Lorien, travelling between there, Eregion and Rivendell. They did not take the title of King and Queen, as they did not inherit this from Amroth, and were really kind of Stewards, like the Lord Denethor in LOTR - hence Lord Celeborn and Lady Galadriel.

The Lord Círdan thing still confuses me. He was a Telerin and a Sindarin Elf, they're not as haughty as Noldorins, but Thranduil and Oropher were Kings, so why wasn't he? Did he hold himself under the rulership of another, such as Thingol and his descendants? Or was it simply lack of ego/ambition?

[littlemanpoet]

If my memory
serves me correctly
Cirdan the Shipwright
was by right
of lineage and acknowledgment,
Lord of Teleri who never went
over sea.
But he
was, as you suggest
of the humblest
inclined
of his kind.

[Adastrea]

I have found, from my intrests in history, that it seems My Lord was an acceptable term to use to address a King (though most would have gone through the motions of courtly etiquette first)and that by naming Legolas as son of Thranduil clearly shows him as a prince, no need to say the words if you clearly state he is the son of a king.
Another possibility is this: Tolkien's work seems in the most part more concerned with the High Elves, maybe they did not recognise Thranduil's claim on the title???

Also in the Unfinished tales, does it not state the possibility of Amroth being the son of Galadriel and Celeborn?

also to go quite far back in the topic, I think it more than likely prince William will one day be king, he is only second in the line of succesion. We brits don't plan on getting rid of our monarchy any time soon, no matter what the media say, after all without them who would they have to dish the dirt on?

[Cúdae]

Doug, Littlemanpoet, and the others- you have enlightened me more than I have been enlightened since... well since I argued over the color of Thranduil's socks with my sister (never did reach an agreement on that one).

Anyway, I am at the understanding now that "prince" does not necessarily mean the son of king. But that's not answering my question! What was my question again? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] So, have we decided or have we not decided why Legolas was never referred to as a "prince." We have ideas presented (some even in rhyming form) that I agree with, but I am going for the idea that Tolkien didn't care. Unless someone is willing to contradict me on this...

[Nieninque]

I'll have to agree with you, because I get the feeling Tolkien just stuck him in the Fellowship because he needed an elf to be there. Poor Legolas, he hardly gets any history, a mate, or even a definate haircolor...

[littlemanpoet]

I don't agree Tolkien didn't care.
He cared about every niggling detail.
I conjecture that in Tollers' tale,
Legolas Prince would not well wear.

[mark12_30]

In his letters, Tolkien was absolutely adamant that Galadriel is NOT a queen. Somebody made the grave error of calling her "queen Galadriel." Tolkien got quite annoyed about it. So if he didn't call Legolas a prince, well... just don't go there. Tolkien would be mighty irritated, I'll wager. He's Legolas, son of Thranduil; enough said.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen, are you sure about this? There is one point in LotR where she is definitely called 'Queen Galadriel'. When Gimli is describing the caves of Helm's Deep, he makes a reference to 'the living hands of Queen Galadriel." There may be others as well, but I can't lay my hands on them quickly.

Galadriel is always referred to as "Queen" in all the guides--Tyler, Foster, Day, etc.--not that guides don't contain a ton of mistakes.

Are all the guides wrong, or did JRRT change his mind, as he often did? Can someone help with this?

sharon

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Kalimac]

JRRT was not totally consistent (hard to be over the course of seventy-odd years) but I've never seen anything where he referred to her as a queen or allowed others to do so. Gimli does call her "Queen Galadriel" but he's a Dwarf and could just be describing her Dwarf-fashion; after all, Dwarves aren't exactly big on downplaying their titles. (e.g. Thorin, "Say that the King under the Mountain has returned!" when technically he wasn't in charge of anything except for a dozen waterlogged Dwarves). It's easy to imagine dropping a Dwarf's title as being very disrespectful, and of course since Gimli loves Galadriel he would never dream of calling her by anything less than the highest title known to him. And frankly, what with the axe and all, it's hard to imagine anyone trying to correct him.

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

If you have Letters near to hand (I don't) refer to his review of that movie script. The movie script writer refers to Galadriel as a queen. Tolkien goes ballistic. He hated the whole movie script. Maybe he was just in a fine temper by then. They also talk about a Cinderella-type castle in Lorien, too, and he goes really ballistic over that; maybe that was what set him off and he was already in flaming-balrog-form by the "queen" comment.

But I wouldn't call her a queen after reading that scathing, scorching, singed-all-around-the-edges letter. No, sir. Not me. Lady Galadriel it is, Professor, sir.

--Helen

[Legolas]

But Celeborn and Galadriel wanting to be called 'Lord and Lady' of Lorien is different. I don't see how calling the king's son a prince to denote his relation to royalty (i.e. not as a title of authority) could anger anyone, unless the prince had been disowned by his father.

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[doug*platypus]

How is Legolas introduced by Elrond to the Council? Or is he just introduced by the narrator? If I remember correctly (yeah, and monkeys might fly outta my butt), Elrond introduces him, but doesn't refer to him as a Prince. Maybe the Elven community don't recognise him as such. Maybe Elrond's just being an overbearing Noldo. Even Celeborn and Galadriel don't seem to really care that they are entertaining the heir to the kingdom of their nearest ally! Maybe Legolas has some deep dark secret in his mysterious past... ooh, er...

[mark12_30]

Galadriel a queen? Letter 210, page 274: (quoting from the proposed "film 'treatment'")

"'It is the home of Galadriel... an Elvenqueen.' (She is not in fact one.) "

He continues, exhasperated,

"Will Z please pay my text some respect, at least in descriptions that are obviously central to the general tone and style of the book?.... The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis."

(Fascinating hint a paragraph later about Lembas having a religious significance... from the pen of the prof'...)

[ January 07, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Rimbaud]

Prelude:

Main Entry: prince
Pronunciation: 'prin(t)s
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin princip-, princeps - leader, initiator, from primus first + capere to take.

Date: 13th century

1 a : MONARCH, KING b : the ruler of a principality or state
2 : a male member of a royal family; especially : a son of the sovereign
3 : a nobleman of varying rank and status
4 : one likened to a prince; especially : a man of high rank or of high standing in his class or profession
- prince·ship /'prin(t)s-"ship/ noun.

M-W.com (Oh, how I miss my OED)
(Italicised fourth my own)

Only to confirm the earlier propounded thought that prince is not used by Tolkien as meaning 'son of the king' or even, necessarily, nobleman. The clearest example I can see of the lesser meaning being applied is the title bestowed upon Pippin as 'Prince of the Halflings', where the context points the meaning directly at the fourth meaning outlined above.

The term gained a colloquial vogue in older English texts, very often purely referring to the weaker meaning of 'high standing in a class or profession'.

The modern meaning, where people see the title as meaning 'heir' of the king or queen, is, as has been mentioned, peculiarly English, although the custom has spread somewhat. I wonder if anyone here is better informed on why this came about? It certainly was not so in the homelands of the settling/invading folk in Britain, so far as I am aware.

[littlemanpoet]

I think Kalimac had it right;
Dwarves weren't known for getting
Elvish names, titles, and begettings [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
correct, and Helen's cite
makes me think that's quite
all right
with Dwarvishness
I guess.

[doug*platypus]

Don't be too proud of this Dictionary Terror which you have constructed. The ability to describe entire words is insignificant next to the power of the Barrow Downs.

And from now on he'll always be The Legolas Formerly Known as Prince.

Does anyone else share my whacky theory about Legolas, or other Elves, actively foregoing the use of his title? Perhaps he was out of favour with Thranduil.

[Cúdae]

Alright, so maybe Tolkien did care about who Legolas was and what his history was. Maybe that was something he had hoped to be getting around to later in his life. But then that unfortunate little matter of death stepped in the way. Just a theory... I'll stand behind it though.

Hmm... Maybe Legolas was out of favor with Thranduil. Possibly that is one reason he was sent as a messenger to Rivendell. I know, I know, it is perfectly possible for the son of a king to be a messenger in most normal circumstances. But possibly Thranduil wanted him gone, out of sight, out of realm, out of social position. This doesn't seem very probable, but it is very interesting.

[littlemanpoet]

Out of favor?
The opposite, I wager.
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

Out of favor?
The opposite, I wager.

This is definitely stretching it, but they did lose Gollum, didn't they? It is possible for Thranduil to have been miffed at Legolas, given the circumstances. Then again, this is pure speculation, utterly unsupported and probably wasteful.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Yes, I think Tolkien is more inclined to use the term "Prince" (note capitalization) to be a great leader or ruler of a Principality.

Although prince can mean a son of King, Thranduil's Realm (not necessarily Kingdom) was not royal dynasty but more of politically expedient way for the Wood-Elves to have some leadership and organization.

Also, we tend to think of Prince being a king's son, because the King of England is a Prince, and this is common practice for any male Royal, but Prince Charles (ugh! Stuarts) is also actually Prince of Wales, literally, in that the final principality was made a Royal vassalage to be held by any heir to the Throne of England, and Prince Philips was actually bestowed by the Queen, even though Edinburgh was made only a Duchy.

So, while Legolas was a prince in one standard sense, it is perfectly consistent of JRRT not to have that treated as a Title that he bore.

[doug*platypus]

Interesting, MOTW! And relevant, surely, since Tolkien would have been well versed in the naming of Princes and things like that. The Duke of Edinburgh/Prince Phillip one is an anomaly, though, and I don't think you really give a good reason why he isn't simply called Duke Phillip.

So, Legolas probably wasn't a Prince, because he did not have a Princedom, and it seems that in Middle-Earth being the son of a king doesn't grant you any title. Looks like you might have killed this thread, MOTW, or at least given it a good beating.