[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If that's your stance then we will just have to go on agreeing to disagree, because that is just leading around in circles. My opinion, will always be, the text (whether it be LOTR, The Hobbit, Silm...etc) is evidence, but not always is there a nifty and explicit statement. That is to say, at times, we have to interpret and make inferences (assumptions, theories, deductions, whatever you want to call it) about the text, in order to have discussions or form opinions on what it all means. If that is not reasonable to you, then we're at an impass.

Then we are at an impass. I try to read everything critically, but do not always succeed and do not know everything. An assumption is fine for giving a personal opinion, but not to convince anyone of anything.

You have convinced me from your evidence that Elrond being recognized informally as a chief by the Dúnedain is also a possible explanation. With no explicit evidence, that is a far as you can reasonably expect to go.

I should be clear, that this is also my position, "chief" being an informal courtesy to highlight Elrond's relationship with the rangers. You are correct that there is no explicit statement for this interpration, but that does eqaute to having no evidence for my interpretation.

It equates to something like slender evidence. It makes sense, but other explanations make sense.

In Scottish highland usage chief is used for the leader of a clan and chieftain for the leader of part of a clan. If one takes the half-elven as a clan, then Elrond would be chief of a clan which consists of his own children and the descendants of his brother Elros. The leader of the descendants of Elros in the North would be leader of a part of a clan and quite reasonably be called a Chieftain. Accordingly Elrond would be both Chief and Chieftain of his own part clan consisting of himself and his children and only Chief, but not Chieftain, of the Dúnedain of the North.

By this logic Elrond ought to be Chief of the Gondorians as well. But this logic was not followed in Gondor and probably was not followed in the North until the destruction of Arthedain when this clan structure was recognized by Aranarth who was the first Chieftain of the Rangers of the North with Elrond as Chief of his clan.

This argument considers that the number of generations between Elros and Aranarth was such that it was considered that almost all or all of the Dúnedain of the North were descended from Elros.

This is yet another logical explanation.

But I believe it no more or less than the other explanations because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence trumps everything.

Chieftain is thus a hereditary position, for the purpose of continuing the line of Isildur. By Dunedain custom, when Aragorn is born he is the next Chieftain in line. This, to me, means Elrond can not hold the title of Chieftain, not even on an interim basis.

To me the problem is that anything put forward only as meaning something to you is an admission that it is being put forward without evidence, and accordingly, at best, is only good fan fiction. And someone will point out that Elrond is not a Chieftain but a Chief, which in this case may, or may not, be equivalent to Lord Protector or to Regent.

What was the view of Estel (Aragorn) of the governance of the Rangers before he learned the truth about his birth and his hereditary position? Tolkien doesn’t tell and so information is not available.