XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <87r4lvg027.fsf@swing-shift.time-tripper.com>,   
    Rich Carreiro  wrote:   
      
   > "Raven"  writes:   
   >   
   > > skrev i meddelelsen   
   > >news:de5ef97c-4b9a-44f2-91b3-ff8eb72d7db3@googlegroups.com...   
   > >   
   > >> He's already heir to the North Kingdom, long before the time of   
   > >> LOTR, so yes, he can use the northern palantirs   
   > >> (if any still exist - they're probably buried in that mythical   
   > >> Witch-King's-tomb, just to keep an eye on him).   
   > >   
   > >  The Witch-king has no tomb.  He was the Chief of the Nazgûl, that   
   > >Éowyn slew.   
   >   
   > I think Derek is snarking on the Hobbit movie, where it was stated that   
   > the Witch-King was a live man at the time of Angmar vs. the Northern   
   > realms, and was killed, and was buried, along with his sword, in a deep,   
   > special, unopenable tomb.   
      
   Yeah, that's odd. I kind of got the idea from the movie that the   
   Wicth-King was a live man, defeated in the battle of Angmar, buried -   
   and now is brought back as a ghost in Dol Goldur to "fight" Radagast,   
   conveniently losing his morgul blade that he kept as a ghost since it   
   was buried with him a thousand years earlier.   
      
   One should try to match the timeframe from the books to the movies   
   though, for obvious reasons - but this entire premise has some real   
   problems even in the scope of the movies. Even the movies identifies   
   the Nazgul as men fallen after having been given the rings, but this   
   new information seems to suggest that one of these men were slain and   
   buried - not actually turned into a nazgul by the power of the ring -   
   but rather coming back as a ghost in Dol Goldur... Huh.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)