Talk:Stewards of Gondor

Untitled

Unlike the "List of Gondorian Kings" page, the Stewards are not linked. This was done originally, but it was found that: A. 90% of the Stewards had not had pages made yet, and B. The 10% that did have pages, were only the Stewards which had named themselves after other famous figures in middle-earth, and the linked pages were for said character, not the steward. Most of the Stewards are not well documented anyway, but feel free to link to any that get a page written about them.

---

Please think carefully before adding a Wikipedia page for a character who exists only in a few lines of a single book. DJ Clayworth

Tolkienology is all about discussing characters who only exist in a few lines, or even less. Itai 23:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there a reason Faramir is not included on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.37.194 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. He is not considered a Ruling Steward. Eric119 02:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure that the part stating that "Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth took his place much of that time" is totally correct. Off the top of my head I remember the book stating that Hurin Warden of the Keys was in fact the person who ruled Minas Tirith while Faramir was in the houses of healing. I amy need some clarification on this. Although Hurin was the official ruler, Minas tirith was under the De Facto stewardship of Aragorn.

No, Aragorn was no steward, he was king, and he explicitly denied to do everyday Steward politics before being crowned king (for not encouraging a still possible anti-royal uprise). The de jure Ruling Steward (yes!) was Faramir, as is explicitly mentioned in the Lord of the Rings. The person who fulfilled the Steward duties instead of him was one specific person, namely, Prince Imrahil. Note that it is Imrahil's flag that is hoisted in Minas Tirith, and that Imrahil takes part of the Last Council in place of the Steward. Supreme Commander of all troops (by election) was Gandalf (who did of course leave the command to Aragorn at some point). Hurin was in command of the city after the army including Imrahil (and Aragorn) had parted. --84.154.109.173 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

original model

Surely the original model for the stewards of Gondor was the Masters of the Palace in Merovingian Francia. Their title obviously comes from the title of steward, but the idea of royal servants who become rulers in the absence or decrepitude of the kings goes back specifically to the Frankish model. I'm fairly certain I've seen literature discussing the issue. john k 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But the maiordomus of the Frankish Kingdom ruled instead of the king when there still was one, and assumed not even only a vacant throne, but dethroned an existing king. I personally thought first of the Steward of Hungary Miklos Horthy, as I was reminded also by the idea of two connected kingdoms (Arnor and Gondor, Austria and Hungary) and the name Arvedui of Arthedain, as Charles IV is in Hungary called Last-king. You could also think of the secular role that the Patriarch of Constantinople played in the Ottoman Empire after the kings had ceased to rule, Arnor and Gondor being interpreted as the two halfs of the Roman Empire. But the role of Steward in itself is, in my opinion quite obviously, modelled after the English Lord High Steward. --84.154.109.173 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

claim

I don't get it. Why didn't the Ruling stewards claim the throne of Gondor after Earnur's death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.185.96.150 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the original Kings of Gondor were literally decended from the gods! Also, due to the Kinstrife, no one was too willing to claim the throne for fear of setting off yet another civil war. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And because at least for the first some years, nobody knew whether Earnur was in fact dead.--84.154.109.173 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Faramir

Faramir did not remain in the houses of healing, he left to 'take up his office'. He therefore was a ruling steward, regardless of how short a period this covered. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "remained in the Houses of Healing" is not quite correct. However, his title was Steward of Gondor, not "Ruling" Steward of Gondor. He took the command of the city in the absence of his king, whom he had already acknowledged, so he was fulfilling the role of an ordinary Steward. I would not want to call him a Ruling Steward unless there is evidence that Tolkien thought of him that way (and there may well be, I just can't bring any to mind at the moment). If we can't find such evidence, we should probably just say that it's not clear whether Tolkien considered him to be a Ruling Steward. -- Elphion (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above argument in that Faramir is not included on any of the lists of the Ruling Stewards. Although he indeed ruled Gondor for a brief time, Tolkien obviously did not consider it long enough to include him. Reading through all the sources I can find absolutely no reference to a 27th Ruling Steward, therefore Faramir cannot be included unless the list is changed to include all the Stewards of Gondor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.232 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reference to "The Heirs of Elendil" from The Peoples of Middle-earth saying that Faramir laid down his office as steward when Aragorn ascended the throne but Aragorn renewed the hereditary title. Encyclopedia of Arda also includes Faramir into the line of stewards (bold script). Therefore Faramir may well be included into the list over here. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether he was Steward (he clearly was, both before and after the coronation), but whether Tolkien considered him one of the ruling Stewards. Elessar was the first king we know of to make the office hereditary, so it was natural for Faramir to surrender his office -- derived from Eärnur -- upon the accession of Elessar, who reappointed him as his own Steward and made the office hereditary. "Ruling Steward" was not an office at all -- they were "Stewards" who were ruling only because the king was not there. During Faramir's tenure of the office, the king was not gone (at least not in the same sense as before -- there was now a physical king you could point to). Though Aragorn was not yet crowned, Faramir had already acknowledged him. The City had embraced Aragorn by rumour, and the commanders of the army by formal declaration. He was already at this time effectively the king. During this period, Faramir discharged the normal duties of the Steward: he ruled the City in the king's absence. But his authority was no longer the supreme law of the land -- at the least, the army was no longer under his command. (And Encyclopedia of Arda is a good reference to check but not a Reliable Source (TM).) -- Elphion (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as Tolkien's intent is concerned, I think the following statement from App A (ii) is practically conclusive (and this is probably what IP 212... was referring to above): "He [Denethor II] was the last of the Ruling Stewards, and was followed by his second son Faramir, Lord of Enyn Arnen, Steward to King Elessar, F. A. 82." -- Elphion (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That does seem pretty conclusive. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that is something else then and Faramir should not be listed as a ruling steward. And, off topic, I'd like to point out that the Encyclopedia of Arda provides references (if not in the actual articles but still on a bibliography page). And it is not a one-man show, there seems to be a team behind the publisher, so is that still a self-published source? De728631 (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Encylopedia of Arda, along with the Thain's Book, are both excellent resources. They do a good job of integrating material from the books, and are very good about providing references. But they will occasionally jump to conclusions not in the text (Thain's Book is more reliable in that regard), and in general they try to provide a more fixed view of Arda than Tolkien's progressive development warrants. At root, both sites are fan sites -- very good ones, but still fan sites, and my experience has been that corrections sent to them fall into the bit bucket. They're good for finding the relevant citations in the books, and that's the right way to use them. If they claim something for which their citations don't provide adequate evidence, I would be careful about repeating the claim. -- Elphion (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reworded the paragraph on Faramir somewhat to reflect this discussion. -- Elphion (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Two mistakes in the picture of the seal

1. There should be used the letter for the thrilled r, namely rómen, instead of óre present in the current version.
2. In Quenya, the diacritics mark the vowels that go after the respective consonants (above which they are written). Whereas in the picture of the seal, a vowel diacritic is written above a consonant before which it is pronounced. For a correct example, see Quenyan Aran.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You are likely correct about at least the first R, which appears as Tengwa 25 (rómen) in the related word aran on the illustration of the West Door of Moria in FR. In UT, "Cirion and Eorl", note 25 (p. 313 in my edition) Tolkien describes the letter sequence as R-ND-R, using the same Latin letter for the first and last Elvish letters, so one could assume he meant the same Elvish letter was used in both positions. But it's not clear, since Latin orthography doesn't make that distinction. (Did Tolkien represent Quenya -ur in Tengwar anywhere?) Placing the stars directly over the letters, however, is a fair representation of Tolkien's description ("R-ND-R surmounted by three stars"). Tolkien's note doesn't say that the stars represent the vowel diacritics, which may be OR. -- Elphion (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the family tree contribute any useful information?

I propose deleting the family tree diagram. The text listing above it conveys all we're really interested in. -- Elphion (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Family trees have been added to a lot of articles in the last month. They can all go for me, but I'm not precious GimliDotNet (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hereditary element

To quote directly from the Appendix to Return of the King.

The House of the Stewards was called the House of Húrin, for they were descendants of the Steward of King Minardil (1621-34), Húrin of Emyn Arnen, a man of high Númenórean race. After his day the kings had always chosen their stewards from among his descendants; and after the days of Pelendur the Stewardship became hereditary as a kingship, from father to son or nearest kin.

I think that passage makes it pretty clear that the Stewarship became officially hereditary during the life of or at the death of Pelendur as his name is explicitly linked to the change.

Having looked into it further I am aware that the Peoples of Middle Earth adds some confusion to this so let's examine that text too:

But in fact it had descended from father to son since Pelendur, Steward to [King Ondoher], and after the ending of the kings it became hereditary, though if a Steward left no son, the office might pass in the female line, that is to his sister-son, or to his father's sister-son

There is an element of contradiction to the above but this also extends to the Appendix of Lord of the Rings. Do we therefore take a text that remained a working draft during the author's life over a text that was actually published? I would say no. Yes Peoples adds a lot of further material, but when it contradicts the fully published work of Lord of the Rings it should be taken as a secondary paper.