| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 20:12:04
I did a search on this, and couldn't find a definitive answer: Why is Zaor a King, rather than a Coronal? I used to think it was because Kingship is hereditary, whereas Coronals were chosen on merit, but re-reading The Fall of Myth Drannor disproved that idea. When Eltargrim died, his niece was the automatic choice to take the throne (or, rather, whomever she married would have been).
So IS there a difference? Does it denote a differentiation in rank, perhaps? King>Coronal? I'd appreciate any ideas on the subject, and (especially) any lore.
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Elven Avenger |
Posted - 19 May 2009 : 20:04:17
Just my particular opinion not a statement but...
The Coronal from Myth Drannor was from the Irythil family and all the six from each rysar were from the same family, but I don't think that they are Coronal because of family heritage as would happen if they were Kings instead of Coronals. They are Coronal because that family dedicated themselves to preserve Oacenth's vow with fervor (even with different interpretations from each other), the fact they are from the same family and also have earned the Coronal title is just a detail, what really counts it is the fact that the Ruler's Blade has accept them as Ruler of the Elves.
In the Ruler's section of the book Cormanthyr and Fall of Myth Drannor, it says Aravae was a dedicated student of knownledge and the ways of the elves, she was also a good diplomat, so she was almost for sure to be Eltargrim's sucessor, but still she would not rule because she was an Irythil and only because the Ruler's Blade would accept her. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 18 May 2009 : 06:16:40
quote:
The Hooded One wrote (23 May 2007 : 15:00:13):
Hello again, scribes. I bring you Ed’s response to Zandilar’s query on behalf of those on (gasp) the OTHER forums: “Heya, Passing along a question from those other forums... some regulars would like to know what the difference between the title Coronal and King/Queen are. They would also like to know anything you can tell us about what other royal/noble titles that are held by the elven people.
Thanks!”
Ed replies:
I’m afraid I can’t delve deeply into other elven noble and royal titles, thanks to NDAs (most of my lore on the subject was submitted to TSR, now WotC, years ago, and thus belongs to them; it can’t be published except by them). However, I can answer the narrower aspect of this question, to whit: in the Realms, the terms King, Queen, Prince and Princess all have elven linguistic roots, and are still used by elves of many communities. A few ancient elven titles were revived in Cormanthyr in reverence to the “lost glories” of elder elven realms. These include:
• Coronal (literal meaning ‘wise elder’ but really meaning: chief justice, mayor, and later emperor) pronounced: “core-OH-nul”] [plural form: coronals]
• Lusabrar (literal meaning ‘sword of the people’ but really meaning: war-leader; that is: A war-leader or commander rather than THE war-leader or commander-in-chief, because there would usually be multiple lusabren) [pronounced: “luhss-AB-rar”] [plural form: lusbaren]
• Mraerital (literal meaning ‘vigilance of the people’ but really meaning envoy, herald, and observer; watching, witnessing [including formal agreements], and gathering intelligence openly, never stealthy spying) [pronounced: “mur-AIR-it-all”] [plural form: Mraeritar]
So saith Ed. Creator of Myth Drannor, these titles, and indeed Ye Whole Balle of Waxe.
love to all,
THO
Link |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 18 May 2009 : 03:27:12
Thanks, Sage- so the answer is that it's chiefly a stylistic difference. Which is as good an answer as anything, I suppose. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 May 2009 : 00:54:38
Ok. I respectfully disagree, but ok. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 May 2009 : 00:44:59
Here's a snippet from Elaine on the subject [from May '07]:-
"The term "coronal" is not quite the same as "king." The moonblades were created for the establishment of a hereditary monarchy. We understand "king" as being a hereditary title. Also, Evermeet has Arthurian undertones, and "king" is much more resonant a title.
I should also point out from an out-of-game viewpoint that the novel was written BEFORE the boxed set The Elves of Cormanthyr was published. If my memory serves, the title "coronal" did not appear before this publication. But even if I'd heard the title, I wouldn't have used it. Zaor was Evermeet's first king. Amlaruil rules as queen. That, to me, sounds right and good. It's really that simple--nothing terribly complicated about it." |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 21:12:29
Sildeyuir didn't exist until 3e, and more importantly, no one knew about it (and most still don't). Good catch on the sea elves, but it's just the two realms of the Inner Sea, and there's essentially no intercourse between them and Evermeet. Myth Adolfhaer was a city, not a realm, so was likely ruled by a Desmrar, not a Coronal. But they're gone and haven't come back, so they don't factor into the question.
As for green elves, they're migrants too. They didn't come from the same realm at the same time as the gold elves of the Durothil migration in the Evermeet novel, but they aren't native. And plenty (perhaps a majority) of gold and silver elves migrated from other places at other times. There are large numbers of elves in wildspace, for instance, and some of them have come to Faerun.
If I had to guess why some elves refer to their leaders as kings is specifically for human neighbors. Instead of having to constantly explain what a "coronal" or a "desmrar" or "telegaunt" is they use human terms when there are humans around and default back to elven terms when the humans leave. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 20:54:44
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I don't think there is a difference, though if you want one, that's fine. Also, for most of the FR setting, there *weren't* any Coronals. All the elven empires that had them (Eaerlann and Myth Drannor being the most recent) had fallen. So the "Coronal of Evermeet" would be an equal to other Coronals, except that there weren't any others and so therefore was accounted as ranking above more local rulers.
Also remember that the leader of the elves in Shilmista is called a king, and he's essentially just a clan chief with a few hundred green elves. "King" is a sloppy term that's innately human, and has been assigned willy-nilly to various elven monarchs.
While you may well be right (I don't claim to be ANY kind of FR elf-sage), I always thought that the ruler of Shilmista using 'king' was spot-on: The title of Coronal being one associated with the 'Fae refugee' elves (gold and silver elves and their descendants) while the 'faerunian elves' (copper elves) used 'king'. It's even possible that the Wood Elves learned the usage from the humans with whom they interacted.
And not ALL the Coronals are dead and gone- even if you don't use the re-established Myth Drannor (with another Irythil on the throne), there's the Coronal of Sildeyuir... and if you want to count it, probably a Coronal of Myth Adofhaer. Also, don't some Sea Elven settlements have Coronals? |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 20:44:45
I don't think there is a difference, though if you want one, that's fine. Also, for most of the FR setting, there *weren't* any Coronals. All the elven empires that had them (Eaerlann and Myth Drannor being the most recent) had fallen. So the "Coronal of Evermeet" would be an equal to other Coronals, except that there weren't any others and so therefore was accounted as ranking above more local rulers.
Also remember that the leader of the elves in Shilmista is called a king, and he's essentially just a clan chief with a few hundred green elves. "King" is a sloppy term that's innately human, and has been assigned willy-nilly to various elven monarchs. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 20:39:19
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I was under the impression that *king* meant ruling over all elven people, everywhere, whereas Coronal was more localized, like the Coronal of Myth Drannor, who has no direct sway over Evereska, for instance.
But I hope someone more knowing than I steps in and fills in an answer.
Cheers
I was inclined toward the same interpretation, Erik, but someone (I think it was Ed, but I've read like 200 posts trying to track this one down, and they've run together in my head) made a statement to the effect that being king/queen of Evermeet was just that- ruler of the island of elves, not ALL elves. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, both because it's a simple answer, and b/c I like the idea of an Elven 'High King'.
quote:
Personally, I've always gone with the idea that Zaor was the Coronal of Evermeet, and the title of "king" was a human (mis)translation. Remember that the novel Evermeet was actually compiled/edited by Danilo, and is therefore somewhat incomplete and inaccurate.
Again, I'd like to believe that, but the fact that ALL the sources reference Zaor/Amlauril as King/Queen seem to undercut that concept. There are several instances that reference 'The Coronal of Myth Drannor' and 'The Queen of Evermeet' in the same source, by (ostensibly) the same author, which gives me the feeling that there IS a difference. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 20:29:40
I was under the impression that *king* meant ruling over all elven people, everywhere, whereas Coronal was more localized, like the Coronal of Myth Drannor, who has no direct sway over Evereska, for instance.
But I hope someone more knowing than I steps in and fills in an answer.
Cheers |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 17 May 2009 : 20:25:32
Personally, I've always gone with the idea that Zaor was the Coronal of Evermeet, and the title of "king" was a human (mis)translation. Remember that the novel Evermeet was actually compiled/edited by Danilo, and is therefore somewhat incomplete and inaccurate. |
|
|
