[J.R.R. Tolkien] Why Lord of the Rings?

[Legolas]

No. While those you listed would have more success in using the Ring than Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, or Isildur, the Ring's will would not be bent by anyone. The idea that Galadriel, et. al could use the Ring is an illusion created by the Ring itself:

It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.

They would only be able to use it for a short time for their own devices, but the Ring would conquer even Gandalf.

Tolkien said so.

If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.

Note the bold text (that I highlighted). The Ring would yield to no one but Sauron, period. With any other person wielding the Ring, it would be master. Sauron was the only person who could possibly be Lord of the Ring, and subsequently the only Lord of the Rings. Therefore, he is only person the title could be referring to.

You could argue with my thoughts on such matters, but to argue with the creator of the subject would be quite silly.

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]