Family Names

In message <news:47bbaa4f$0$15178$607ed4bc@cv.net> David Trimboli
<david DeleteThis @trimboli.name> spoke these staves:
>
> Scott55 wrote:
>> What were the family names of:
>> a. The House of the Stewards
>> b. The Princes of Dol Amroth
>> c. Aragorn
>
> I'm pretty sure the Númenóreans and their descendants didn't use
> family names. So far as I know, only the Hobbits and the Men of
> Bree were ever said to have family names.

Aragorn instituted the family name of Telcontar, and it seems to me
unlikely that he would have done so had there been an older family
name to take up.

The House of the Stewards is called the House of Húrin according to
appendix A (named after 'Steward of King Minardil (1621-34), Húrin of
Emyn Arnen').

I can't find anything for the Princes other than 'of Dol Amroth',
which would actually be quite appropriate; naming a noble family for
its fief is old practice (it is also the practice for the Danish
royal house -- our current Queen being of the Glücksborg, which
replaced the House of Oldenburg -- both of which are now in Germany).

Aragorn named by Galadriel 'Elessar, the Elfstone of the house of
Elendil!', but says himself (passing under the Argonnath) 'Elessar,
the Elfstone son of Arathorn of the House of Valandil Isildur's son
heir of Elendil'.

We also have the House of Eorl for the royal house of Rohan, and
Pippin is said to be 'of the House of Took'.

All in all I think there is good evidence that the use of actual
surnames was rare outside the Shire and Breeland, and that families
were usually named for some notable ancestor or for their home (of
Windyreed Farm).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- /Interesting Times/ (Terry Pratchett)
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

Troels Forchhammer <Troels DeleteThis @thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
> Aragorn instituted the family name of Telcontar,

Is that a "family name" or the "name of his house"? Or is there no
difference between those? Because

> The House of the Stewards is called the House of Húrin

I cannot really imagine "House of Hurin" used as a "family name".
Hm. "I am Denethor of the House of Hurin". No, he would say "I am
Denethor, son of Ecthelion".

> All in all I think there is good evidence that the use of actual
> surnames was rare outside the Shire and Breeland, and that families
> were usually named for some notable ancestor or for their home (of
> Windyreed Farm).

And that people just mentioned their father's name instead of a
"family name".

And of course all that fits nicely with the Hobbits being the "modern"
equivalent of our world, while the rest of ME is equivalent to the
"ancient" form of our world.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

"Scott55" <bredalbane DeleteThis @aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:26b4d823-64ed-484f-8b0c-975cc5869dd6@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> What were the family names of:
> a. The House of the Stewards
> b. The Princes of Dol Amroth
> c. Aragorn
> Thanks!

a. Stuart.
b. Prince-Doll. (They were *very* aristocratic.)
c. Aragon.

No, no - don't thank me!

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

In message
<news:20080220110656.1FF2.1.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
Thierbach <dthierbach.RemoveThis@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:

> Troels Forchhammer <Troels.RemoveThis@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> Aragorn instituted the family name of Telcontar,
>
> Is that a "family name" or the "name of his house"? Or is there no
> difference between those?

I've treated the name of the House to be equivalent to a family name.
It is not a surname, perhaps (I don't think he would call himself
'Elessar Telcontar'), but it is a name that identifies a family in
the wider sense. I don't know, however, if it really makes sense to
attempt to split the surname function (a proper part of your name
identifying you) from the family name function (simply naming a
family in the wider sense -- the descendants [usually only the male-
line descendants] of some common ancestor), but that was in any case
my intention

> Because
>
>> The House of the Stewards is called the House of Húrin
>
> I cannot really imagine "House of Hurin" used as a "family name".
> Hm. "I am Denethor of the House of Hurin". No, he would say "I am
> Denethor, son of Ecthelion".

I did specify appendix A:

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 Númenorean
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.
LotR App. A,I(iv) 'Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion', '/The
Stewards/'

I don't really think it matters how Denethor and others of the House
presents themselves -- the name of the House is the closest we can
come to something similar to what I would understand by 'family
name'.

The present Queen of Denmark wouldn't announce herself to be 'of the
House of Glücksborg', but that is nevertheless the name of her family
(they don't have a surname like the rest of us).

>> All in all I think there is good evidence that the use of actual
>> surnames was rare outside the Shire and Breeland, and that
>> families were usually named for some notable ancestor or for
>> their home (of Windyreed Farm).
>
> And that people just mentioned their father's name instead of a
> "family name".

Yes, but the patronymic is not a family name -- at least not in the
sense I understood the question to mean (of course patronyms have
become family names nowadays, but that's another story altogether).

But the patronymic appears to be frequently used when people identify
themselves in LotR, and while not a family name as such, it of course
also indicates a family relation.

> And of course all that fits nicely with the Hobbits being the
> "modern" equivalent of our world, while the rest of ME is
> equivalent to the "ancient" form of our world.

Yes.

This makes me think of something I didn't realize when I read
Shippey's comments about the Hobbits -- the people of Breeland
function as some kind of bridging between the modernity of the
Hobbits and the medievalism of the other settlements of Men and Elves
-- and Dwarves for that matter. The consistent use of family surnames
in Bree is a point in that, but I think it goes beyond that simple
fact.

As it is, the stop in Bree now seems to me to function also to set a
scene where neither the modern Hobbits nor the medieval Strider would
be out place, where they could both belong comfortably. I think I'll
want to think a bit more about that

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Original thought
is a straightforward process.
It's easy enough
when you know what to do.
You simply combine
in appropriate doses
the blatantly false
and the patently true.
- Piet Hein, /Originality/
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:15:35 +0100 from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels.RemoveThis@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> I've treated the name of the House to be equivalent to a family name.
> It is not a surname, perhaps

No "perhaps" about it. This point comes up over and over on
alt.talk.royalty.

The UK ruling house is the House of Windsor, but the Prince of Wales
is not "Charles Windsor". I won't make a blanket statement, but at
least in most European countries, the royals don't have surnames.

I wonder whether Sweden is a special case. Karl XIV Johan (reigned
early 19th century) started life as Charles Bernadotte. The present
reigning house is the House of Bernadotte, but I don't know whether
the founder of the dynasty lost his surname when he became Crown
Prince.

Bringing it back to the original topic, at least the Citadel guards
in Minas Tirith didn't have surnames, based on how Beregond and his
son Bergil introduce themselves. Since the Citadel guards weren't
nobility, I think we can infer that commoners generally didn't have
surnames in Minas Tirith. That suggests that Númenórean commoners
probably didn't either, since Gondor tried to preserve Númenórean
customs.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
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
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

On 2008-02-21, Troels Forchhammer <Troels DeleteThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in
<Xns9A4B16FCC4FBDT.Forch DeleteThis @130.133.1.4>:

[snip]

> This makes me think of something I didn't realize when I read
> Shippey's comments about the Hobbits -- the people of Breeland
> function as some kind of bridging between the modernity of the
> Hobbits and the medievalism of the other settlements of Men and Elves
> -- and Dwarves for that matter. The consistent use of family surnames
> in Bree is a point in that, but I think it goes beyond that simple
> fact.
>
> As it is, the stop in Bree now seems to me to function also to set a
> scene where neither the modern Hobbits nor the medieval Strider would
> be out place, where they could both belong comfortably. I think I'll
> want to think a bit more about that

Good thing Tom Bombadil comes in between, as he has a surname. Yet
another odd thing about Tom!









--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

21 Feb 2008 02:58:14 GMT from Huan the hound
<huanthehound RemoveThis @netscape.net>:

> Good thing Tom Bombadil comes in between, as he has a surname. Yet
> another odd thing about Tom!

*Is* that a surname? Or is it merely an epithet, like Johnny
Appleseed?

Somehow, I don't think Tom was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Bombadil, and
it passes belief to think of Mrs. Goldberry Bombadil.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
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
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

In message <news:MPG.2226deffbbb5698198b496@news.individual.net>
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown DeleteThis @fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
>
> 21 Feb 2008 02:58:14 GMT from Huan the hound
> <huanthehound DeleteThis @netscape.net>:
>>
>> Good thing Tom Bombadil comes in between, as he has a surname.
>> Yet another odd thing about Tom!
>
> *Is* that a surname? Or is it merely an epithet, like Johnny
> Appleseed?

I would say that, yes, it is a surname in a modern sense (a last
name), where that doesn't mean that it identifies his family.

I could, at any time I wanted, change my last name to something else,
'Lykkengak', for instance, without even affecting my wife or kids. It
would definitely not be a family name in any sense of the word, but
it would be my last name. On the other hand I'm not completely
certain that surname is exactly identical to last name in English?

> Somehow, I don't think Tom was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Bombadil,
> and it passes belief to think of Mrs. Goldberry Bombadil.

LOL!

I quite agree that Bombadil belongs to Tom alone, and identifies him
more uniquely than his first name (of all the Toms, only he is the
Bombadil!)

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think,
also admit that some things are much more nearly certain
than others.
- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

Troels Forchhammer <Troels.TakeThisOut@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
> In message <news:MPG.2226deffbbb5698198b496@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown.TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:

>> 21 Feb 2008 02:58:14 GMT from Huan the hound
>> <huanthehound.TakeThisOut@netscape.net>:

>>> Good thing Tom Bombadil comes in between, as he has a surname.
>>> Yet another odd thing about Tom!
>>
>> *Is* that a surname? Or is it merely an epithet, like Johnny
>> Appleseed?

> I would say that, yes, it is a surname in a modern sense (a last
> name), where that doesn't mean that it identifies his family.

But that's what a surname in the modern sense does, doesn't it?
It's the name that will also be used to identify your children, and
in a marriage usually one partner changes his or her last name to
the last name of the other partner (or at least has the option
to do so), to make clear they are a family.

That you can change the last name under specific circumstances doesn't
make that more common usage invalid.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

In message
<news:20080221110308.7C7.3.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach RemoveThis @usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Troels RemoveThis @thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>

About 'Bombadil':

>> I would say that, yes, it is a surname in a modern sense (a last
>> name), where that doesn't mean that it identifies his family.
>
> But that's what a surname in the modern sense does, doesn't it?

My impression, obviously based almost exclusively on Danish
circumstances, is that this is becoming far less important. The
important part is that it identifies yourself.

> It's the name that will also be used to identify your children,

Usually, yes. But that is actually part of my point.

The surname, at least in Denmark, is more and more coming to identify
/you/, and thereby you identify your children as yours by giving them
your surname. In the later years it has become both more common and
easier to change one's surname in Denmark -- i.e. rejecting the name
that shows who your parents were and choosing a name that is your
own.

This is what I mean -- it is not so much the desire to pass on one's
name to one's children, but rather the desire create a new name that
is your own.

> and in a marriage usually one partner changes his or her last name
> to the last name of the other partner (or at least has the option
> to do so), to make clear they are a family.

I don't have the statistics on this, though I would expect that it is
still more common than not that a married couple take the same name.
It is, however, not uncommon to reject both the original names and
create a new, and where they choose one of the original names, the
young couple more often go for the greates 'coolness factor' (e.g.
consistently rejecting the more common patronymic surnames such as
'Jensen' and 'Hansen').

Another way to say the same is to say that the concept of 'family'
contained in the common use of a surname as family name has become
narrower. It is no longer 'The House of Oldenborg' implying a family
stretching over more than half a millennium with many generations and
branches, but now it rather implies the individual or the kernel
family -- father, mother and kids -- and once the kids start making
their own kernel family, they don't feel any particular attachment to
the name given them by their parents (obviously this is not
universal, but an overall trend in society, even though you can also
find counter-currents of people who increasingly define themselves
based on their longfathers).

> That you can change the last name under specific circumstances
> doesn't make that more common usage invalid.

I'd say that my point is precisely that common usage (in my
experience) is that the wider sense of family has become unimportant
-- it doesn't matter if your surname identifies the family you stem
from, the important part is to identify yourself and possibly the
family you create yourself.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the
world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

Stan Brown wrote:

> The UK ruling house is the House of Windsor, but the Prince of Wales
> is not "Charles Windsor". I won't make a blanket statement, but at
> least in most European countries, the royals don't have surnames.

But Henry VIII was of the House of Tudor, but was also "Henry Tudor",
was he not?
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The wise will remove "se" to reach me. The foolish will not!)
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:09:34 -0600 from Bill O'Meally
<omeallymd DeleteThis @wise.rr.com>:
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > The UK ruling house is the House of Windsor, but the Prince of Wales
> > is not "Charles Windsor". I won't make a blanket statement, but at
> > least in most European countries, the royals don't have surnames.
>
> But Henry VIII was of the House of Tudor, but was also "Henry Tudor",
> was he not?

In common parlance, maybe. But then, the ex Princess of Wales was
"Princess Diana" in common parlance, and that was wrong, wrong,
wrong. Certainly to his contemporaries and to the next generation
Henry VIII was plain "King Henry" or "King Harry" or "the late king".

Seriously, I don't think "Henry Tudor" was right for anyone except
the fellow who later became Henry VII. Consider "Elizabeth Tudor": I
don't know how that strikes you but to me it sounds very wrong.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
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
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names 

Bill O'Meally wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> The UK ruling house is the House of Windsor, but the Prince of Wales
>> is not "Charles Windsor". I won't make a blanket statement, but at
>> least in most European countries, the royals don't have surnames.
>
> But Henry VIII was of the House of Tudor, but was also "Henry Tudor",
> was he not?

Strictly speaking, the monarch has no last name.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
 >> Stay informed about: Family Names