you made a lot of weird stuff up, but anyway, i think the hobbits are in the book just for flavor, the main thrust is the legitimization of so-called aragorn.
i copied this from another site and i don't fully agree with this, i think the hobbit stuff was clearly added for reasons probably related to what this guy is talking about but definitely the main point is aragon.
and what do you mean by "so-called"? i've never seen it suggested that that wasn't his name, though certainly there's plenty of debate over his true status/lineage/whatever.
(also i meant to reply to @Judge_Juche, whose post was more closely related to mine)
oh yeah super likely that this vagrant who intends to steal a kingdom (having the current ruler and his heir assassinated under suspicious circumstances, etc) is called "revered king"
yeah right.
"aragorn" is to this dude as "god emperor" is to trump.
i mean, he very much succeeded. and i don't know if his parents named him aragorn, but he certainly never went by anything else according to anything i've read on the subject
yeah, but those were clearly temporary monikers, not actual names. i'm just saying it makes sense to call him what he probably would have been called by other people at the time.
first of all, if people called him anything "in his time", it was elessar, though this too was engineered propaganda.
[W]ord went through the City: 'The King is come again indeed.' And they named him Elfstone, because of the green stone that he wore, and so the name which it was foretold at his birth that he should bear was chosen for him by his own people.
(elessar means elfstone)
and aragorn was another one of these monikers. it's all false identities.
alright, sure. i feel kind of gross getting this close to defending a monarch, so it's definitely not worth going any farther here. i think it's a little ridiculous to put quotes around aragorn, but it's not a big deal.
you made a lot of weird stuff up, but anyway, i think the hobbits are in the book just for flavor, the main thrust is the legitimization of so-called aragorn.
i copied this from another site and i don't fully agree with this, i think the hobbit stuff was clearly added for reasons probably related to what this guy is talking about but definitely the main point is aragon.
and what do you mean by "so-called"? i've never seen it suggested that that wasn't his name, though certainly there's plenty of debate over his true status/lineage/whatever.
(also i meant to reply to @Judge_Juche, whose post was more closely related to mine)
oh yeah super likely that this vagrant who intends to steal a kingdom (having the current ruler and his heir assassinated under suspicious circumstances, etc) is called "revered king"
yeah right.
"aragorn" is to this dude as "god emperor" is to trump.
i mean, he very much succeeded. and i don't know if his parents named him aragorn, but he certainly never went by anything else according to anything i've read on the subject
you cant have read much on the subject then. he went by various codenames like estel, strider and elessar.
yeah, but those were clearly temporary monikers, not actual names. i'm just saying it makes sense to call him what he probably would have been called by other people at the time.
first of all, if people called him anything "in his time", it was elessar, though this too was engineered propaganda.
(elessar means elfstone)
and aragorn was another one of these monikers. it's all false identities.
alright, sure. i feel kind of gross getting this close to defending a monarch, so it's definitely not worth going any farther here. i think it's a little ridiculous to put quotes around aragorn, but it's not a big deal.