[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

That's my thought. If Tolkien meant for 'Morgul' to be the name of the WK, he certainly seems to have gone out of his way to be oblique about it.
Other rulers are referred to as 'King Théoden', ' King Eärnur', and 'King Brand'. Why is WK not once called 'King Morgul'?

Perhaps because Théoden, Eärnur, and Brand all have names--and predecessors and successors. The latter is the weaker argument, but it is worth noting, that the Witch-king is the one-and-only King of Angmar and King of Minas Morgûl. Théoden followed Thengel and preceded Éomer. Eärnur followed Eärnil and preceded Elessar. Brand followed Girion and preceded Bain. Granted, this wouldn't prevent the use of a character, at a given moment, referring to the King as "Rohan," but it would contribute greatly to why, in the context of the Appendices and other extra-narrative material, Angmar is referred to as such and no one else is--no one else ever was King of Angmar.

Within the tale, I think it's fair enough to note that this is not a particularly common way of referring to other people, past and present, and my general impression is that it's more literary than spoken--but, that being said, it's also a rather familiar way to speak of a king or lord, the sort of way, perhaps, that would be most likely to come from a peer. Hence, the King of England might refer to Louis N as "France" but it is less likely that an English or French peasant would. A peasant being derogatory would be more like to play off a knock-off of his title or address, as in "His Nibs," and a peasant being respectful would say "the King"--especially a French peasant, whose world would scarce have room for another king.

However, that's a rather long and not particularly well-grounded rambling. Don't take it as a serious argument.

You can take this as more serious, however: my first point in this post about Eärnur, Théoden, and Brand all actually having names, and the implicit point that the Witch-king has no name. This harkens back to a suggestion of mine earlier in the thread, when I pointed out that "Gothmog" need not be the actual name of the Lieutenant of Morgûl, but a mark of the namelessness of the servants of the Enemy. In the same way, the Witch-king has no real name. Presumably he did once, when he was a Second Age lord among lesser men... but he doesn't anymore. Calling him "the Witch-king" is, as the thrust of Gordis's general argument will agree, not giving him a name at all, but a title.

It is perfectly consistent with this treatment to call him, variously, "the Witch-king," "Angmar," or "the Morgûl-king." Each one only individuates him to the extent he needs to be individuated--as the particular Nazgûl in charge. It's notable on that note that there is no name given to the King of the Nazgûl in the Fellowship. Granted, Frodo wouldn't likely have known it--but the Nazgûl never give one out, nor does Aragorn see the need for one beyond "the Nine" or "the Riders." The personalities of the Nazgûl are so far gone, butter stretched over so many vast years of bread.

In this respect, it also strikes me that, as far as this goes, the Orks are less evil than the Nazgûl--which would seem a fair statement in any case--insofar as they still have names: Grishnákh, Uglúk, Gorbag, Shagrat, etc. Of course, they're hardly praiseworthy--they deny any name to those under them, lumping them all as "Snaga"... but I'm not really expecting much.