Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Elf Family Trees

Tolkien Gateway > Council > Elf Family Trees

I'm confused about something. I note that Tolkien Gateway indicates that Gil-galad was the son of Orodreth and Orodreth in turn was the son Angrod. But in the family trees in the back of my copy of The Silmarillion (2nd Ed. published by Houghton Mifflin in 2001), Orodreth is shown as the son of Finarfin and Earwen and, as such a brother of Angrod, Galadriel, etc (II The Descendants of Olwe and Elwe). Meanwhile, Gil-galad is show as the son of Fingon ( I The House of Finwe and the Noldorin descent of Elrond and Elros). Is there any reason behind the inconsistency?Nolaquen 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We follow the "later Silmarillion". Christopher Tolkien admitted the parentage of Gil-galad was rushed and incorrect in the published Silmarillion, and so it was more or less retconned into what we have here. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, see canon for an explanation of how Tolkien Gateway treats various "levels" of canon. Sage 13:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Nolaquen

What adds to the confusion is that we aren't exactly consistent. For instance the High King of the Noldor lemma still follows the "published Silmarillion"-verse. -- Mithrennaith 12:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That lemma says nothing about Gil-galad being Fingon's son. Sage 15:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Better read again and analyse: under "5. Turgon" it says:
After his death, the Kingship passed back to Fingon's line, to his only son.
The "only son" clearly refers to Gil-galad. -- Mithrennaith 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the wrong place. But did somebody ever noticed that in the Silmarillion Fingon sended his youngest son (Gil-Galad) too the Falas. This means Gil-Galad had in the Silmarillion-verse a brother (I saw this in a essay of a friend of my). Possible this was Aranwë. He most then been killed and his son, Voronwë, couldn't get the kingship because he was part-Sindar. Another option is that Aranwë was a (grand)son of Argon. But both options are impossible because this stood in the Shibbolet:
Findekano [Fingon] had no wife or child; neither had Arakano [Argon].
Gil-Galad's older brother is dissapeared. Gil-Galad had come to be the son of Finrod and brother of Gildor Inglorion. Latter he became the son of Orodreth. Amroth of Arnor A.K.A. Thijs95
Indeed this is the wrong place. The forum is for discussing what should be done to the Tolkien Gateway (and for answering questions about it), not for idle speculation about Middle-earth. But ...
In The Silmarillion it is said of Fingon "but his young son Ereinion (who was after named Gil-galad) he sent to the Havens". Not "youngest". Note also that, in the external history of the Legendarium, first Gil-galad was the son of Finrod, then he became Fingon's son, before finally becoming son of Orodreth. So all of this (from your friend's essay, I assume) falls flat.
However, in an earlier versions of the Legendarium (in The Shaping of Middle-earth and The Lost Road) Fingon had one son and Orodreth two (none of them named Gil-galad, but that name had then not yet arisen and was an epessë anyway). -- Mithrennaith 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sory that i posted it on the wrong place. Where has I to post it then.
My friend didn't made the fault, it was the fault of the Translater:
maar zijn jongste (=youngest, young = jong) zoon (=son) Ereinion (die naderhand Gil-galad werd genoemd) stuurde hij naar de Havens.”
In English this is:
But his youngest son Ereinion (who latter was named Gil-Galad) he sended to the havens.
The Translater made more fault. In LOTR are Sauron, The Mouth of Sauron, The Witch-King all caled tovenaars (=wizards). But in UT there stays that there were only five wizards. This is because Sorcerer and Wizard both means tovenaar, the most common translation of tovenaar is Wizard. Also there is no translation of Necromancer in Dutch, so the name of the Necromancer is Zwarte (=Black) Tovenaar or in English: The Black Wizard. Evrything after the ) was from my self.
For your information, you can change lines with "<br>" instead of ::::::: in each line :) Sage 11:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[« Getting very off-topic here: works and doesn't work. It doesn't work when you want to indent a block quote in your post. It does work otherwise, without inserting interline space, which ::(...) does. Now when I break lines I do it to arrange my post into paragraphs, for which I often want the interline space to avoid ambiguity. Therefore to me the advantage of using <br> seems very limited. -- Mithrennaith 15:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC) »]
"Sorry that I posted it in the wrong place. Where do I have to post it then?" Well, try here or here - point is TG is not really the place for this, unless it bears directly on TG article pages, in which case it should be discussed on the relevant article talk page.
Just the other day a Belgian chap sent me an essay pointing out (among much genealogical matter) that many readers of Schuchart's translation have been mislead into making the same misconclusion by this mistranslation. I should do something about it. But lately I have been concentrating on errors in De Hobbit and In de Ban van de Ring. I have read the Dutch Silmarillion of course, but this one escaped me; I never base any conclusions on the translations - only on the original English texts. Which is the standard practice here, except of course when the translations themselves are being treated. -- Mithrennaith 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)