XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm   
      
   On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:35:02 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote:   
   > I'll have to look around to see where the relevant part of the   
   > argument is made, but the parts that I recall are around the ability   
   > of the Ring to influence a new possessor at once. As I recall it, I   
   > argued that Isildur's claim of weregild is similar to the claims of   
   > Bilbo and Gollum when they attempt to put their right to possess the   
   > Ring beyond question (the 'birthday present' and the 'won in a   
   > riddle-game' explanations respectively). The argument was that it   
   > didn't matter that Isildur's claim surely wasn't a lie but rather   
   > was at least a semi-valid legal argument (possibly Isildur's claim   
   > was perfectly legal -- all I know is that in the Danish regional   
   > laws, the earliest, IIRC, from the thirteenth century, weregild   
   > (/mandebod/) is payable for an unjust killing, not for killing   
   > someone in war).   
      
   That's true also in early English law.  Wergild or weregild for a   
   king was "so high that no one could possibly pay it", according to   
   Charles Rembar in /The Law of the Land/, but it was a definite   
   amount, not subject to the whims of the current occupant of the   
   throne.  I saw some claims in the thread that Isildur as king had the   
   right to set the amount of the wergild for his dead father, but that   
   is quite wrong under English law and, I suspect, under Númenórean law   
   as well.  Kings of England did not make new law (in theory), but were   
   subject to the laws of the realm as they had been known since time   
   immemorial.  I suspect that Númenórean kings were the same.  If there   
   was any Númenórean law of wergild -- and we have no evidence that   
   there was -- then Isildur would have no right to set or alter the   
   amount, especially not on the spur of the moment in battle. So I am   
   afraid that his claim of "wergild was as spurious as Gollum's claim   
   of a birthday present.   
      
   There was also the claim that Isildur acquired title to the Ring as   
   spoils of war.  This seems more plausible, but also falls to the   
   ground when examined.  If the Ring belonged to Isildur, then on his   
   death is belonged to his heir, and so on down the line to Aragorn.   
   Yet Aragorn explicitly disclaimed ownership, which means that Aragorn   
   at least did not believe the Ring had ever belonged to Isildur.   
      
   As Aragorn said, the Ring belonged to Sauron and always had; Frodo   
   was merely "holding" it.   
      
   --   
   Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA   
                                     http://OakRoadSystems.com   
   Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)   
   FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm   
   Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm   
   more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)