# Was Aragorn part Elf? How was he related to Elros/Elrond?



## Confusticated

How are they related exactly? Because I read Strider and Arwen are related, and I don't reckon its through Curubrian because she is the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn and therefore is a full elf.

Also, do you think Tolkien gives too much weight to bloodlines, all the noblest or major people seemingly related into what could be one single huge family tree of the history of Middle-earth?

Is it supposed to be part of the myth that back then things like nobility and fate were hereditary but eventually everything gets all mix-mashed and into a heap of eveness as potency is lost in the breakdown, where we all have a tiny bit of orc in us (except of course the Children of Luthien - and how many are these today? Several? Thousands? Unless anyone is crazy enough indeed to think distant orc descendants can mingle with some of these bright and noble folk...?)


----------



## Thorondor_

> How are they related exactly?


There are, apparently, 62 generations between Elros and Aragorn.


> Is it supposed to be part of the myth that back then things like nobility and fate were hereditary but eventually everything gets all mix-mashed and into a heap of eveness as potency is lost in the breakdown


I think so too.
I think that any descendant of an orc is still an orc or orc-like, no matter who they mingle with (well, unless Eru's grace saves the orc in question).


----------



## Starflower

Aragorn is related to Arwen through his father's lineage, as his direct ancestor was Elrond's brother Elros. Aragorn is descended from Elros's great-granddaughter Silmarien, and after her, father to son in an unbroken line. Incidentally, Aragron is related to Arwen through Celebrian as well. Celebrian was the daughter of Galadriel, whose father Finarfin's brother Fingolfin was father to Turgon, who in turn was father to Idril, whose sons were Elros and Elrond. (Can you tell I like genealogy!)

Nobility is certainly hereditary - even in real life. Most of the monarchies in Europe (whether still in power or dethroned) are related to one another through one person - Queen Victoria of England. But common heritage does not mean common fate for all descendants, each person makes their own fate.


----------



## Ingwë

Here is a link:
http://www.annalsofarda.dk/annals-of-arda/Humans-index-tables/Human.htm
Go to Kings of Númenore and Kings of Arnor and Gondor and Chieftains...
You will find it useful 

And I gotta go... See you after a week...


----------



## Inderjit S

Perhaps Tolkien does put too much influence on lineages etc., or perhaps Tolkien's characters put too much influence on lineages.  Well, Legolas does seem to think it is important that Aragorn is a descendant of Luthien and has that Elf-strain in his blood, and his son is certainly related to pretty much all the main actors in the History of Arda (incarnates that is) and I guess that "ties it up" nicely.


----------



## baragund

So I think we have established that Elros is Aragorn's great-great...(repeat 62 times or so) grandfather. That would make Elrond Aragorn's great-great...(repeat 62 times) uncle. 

Now what would be the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen? Because she is the daughter of Elrond, does that make her and Aragorn first cousins? Or are they cousins 62 times removed?


----------



## Thorondor_

> Now what would be the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen? Because she is the daughter of Elrond, does that make her and Aragorn first cousins? Or are they cousins 62 times removed?


I go with the second option.


----------



## Greenwood

baragund said:


> So I think we have established that Elros is Aragorn's great-great...(repeat 62 times or so) grandfather. That would make Elrond Aragorn's great-great...(repeat 62 times) uncle.
> 
> Now what would be the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen? Because she is the daughter of Elrond, does that make her and Aragorn first cousins? Or are they cousins 62 times removed?


First cousins, 62 times removed; if I understand such things correctly.


----------



## Haldatyaro

Nóm said:


> Also, do you think Tolkien gives too much weight to bloodlines, all the noblest or major people seemingly related into what could be one single huge family tree of the history of Middle-earth?
> 
> Is it supposed to be part of the myth that back then things like nobility and fate were hereditary but eventually everything gets all mix-mashed and into a heap of eveness as potency is lost in the breakdown[...]



I think that in the character of Aragorn and his union with Arwen, Tolkien was personifying the restoration of the Children of Ilúvatar. That yes, the bloodlines had gotten 'mixed up' or spent, or had otherwise diminished -- I would argue due to Man's growing distance from their origins (and connection to Primal Good), and the Elves growing disinterest in the world.

In Aragorn and Arwen, the heritage of all Three Kindreds, and the Three Houses of the Edain is redeemed. I believe that in the context of Arda, Aragorn was the End of History -- which may explain Tolkien's reluctance (or disinterest) in creating tales for the Fourth Age. Note that the last third of the book is "The Return of the King", not "Frodo Saves the World"... I'm not trying to be cheeky or belittle the role Frodo played, but that signals to me that for Tolkien, LOTR was the fruit of the branch of a very, very old tree.


----------



## Thorondor_

> Note that the last third of the book is "The Return of the King", not "Frodo Saves the World"


It seems that Tolkien first intended to name the third book as The War of the Ring, but this wasn't accepted by his publisher.


----------



## Greenwood

Thorondor said:


> It seems that Tolkien first intended to name the third book as The War of the Ring, but this wasn't accepted by his publisher.


Absolutely correct. I believe Tolkien thought the title _The Return of the King_ gave away the ending!


----------



## Inderjit S

I suppose it did-but then again Aragorn was going back to Gondor as "the king"-that was obvious so it could be seen as giving the story away in one sense, but in another it is just reinforcing what we already knew, and it doesn't mean Aragorn would succeed in becoming king.


----------



## Greenwood

Inderjit,

You have a point, however, I was referring to a letter Tolkien wrote to his publisher. I didn't have my books at hand when I wrote my earlier post, so I could not give the specifics. In letter 140 to Rayner Unwin tolkien discusses the titles for the three volumes. He writes:


> On reflection I prefer for Vol. III The War of the Ring, since it gets in the Ring again; and also is more non-committal, and gives less hint about the turn of the story: the chapter titles have been chosen also to give away as litle as possible in advance.


----------

