Q: Were Bard and His Descendants Also Kings Over Lake-town?
ANSWER: This question has generated occasional debate. In The Hobbit we are told:
“Girion was lord of Dale, not king of Esgaroth,” he said. “In the Lake-town we have always elected masters from among the old and wise, and have not endured the rule of mere fighting men. Let ‘King Bard’ go back to his own kingdom — Dale is now freed by his valour, and nothing binders his return. And any that wish can go with him, if they prefer the cold shores under the shadow of the Mountain to the green shores of the lake. The wise will stay here and hope to rebuild our town, and enjoy again in time its peace and riches.”
“We will have King Bard!” the people near at hand shouted in reply. “We have had enough of the old men and the money-counters!” And people further off took up the cry: “Up the Bowman, and down with Moneybags,” till the clamour echoed along the shore.
This passage is often cited as the authority for declaring that there were no kings in Lake-town even after Bard’s time. Politically Lake-town had ceased to exist because of the dragon and its people were mere refugees. Nonetheless, by popular declaration they were ready to make Bard their king. Bard shrewdly declined the offer and continued to act on behalf of the Master and the Lake-town until he was ready to re-establish Dale.
Meanwhile, over in The Lord of the Rings, in a scene established some 77 years later, Frodo hears the following from Glóin:
‘lndeed,’ said Glóin, `if it were not for the Beornings, the passage from Dale to Rivendell would long ago have become impossible. They are valiant men and keep open the High Pass and the Ford of Carrock. But their tolls are high,’ he added with a shake of his head; `and like Beorn of old they are not over fond of dwarves. Still, they are trusty, and that is much in these days. Nowhere are there any men so friendly to us as the Men of Dale. They are good folk, the Bardings. The grandson of Bard the Bowman rules them, Brand son of Bain son of Bard. He is a strong king, and his realm now reaches far south and east of Esgaroth.’
Lacking any definitive statement that Brand is actually king of Lake-town, Glóin nonetheless says that his kingdom “reaches far south and east of Esgaroth”. On the other hand, in an earlier version of this passage (published in The Return of the Shadow, Volume VI of The History of Middle-earth), Christopher Tolkien wrote:
The conversation with Glóin proceeds as in the first draft, with some touches and phrases that move it to the final text (FR p.240). Glóin is now described as ‘a dwarf of solemn dignity and rich dress’, but he still winks (as he does not in FR).
At the point where the first draft ends (p. 210) my father only added a further couple of lines before again stopping: “In Dale the grandson of Bard the Bowman ruled, Brand son of Bain son of Bard, and he was become a strong king whose realm included Esgaroth, and much land to the south of the great falls.” On the reverse of the sheet the conversation continues in a different script and a different ink: Glóin gives an account of Balin’s history (his return to Moria) — but it is Frodo, not Bingo, that he is speaking with, and this side of the page belongs to a later phase in the writing of the book (see pp. 369, 391).
While this seems fairly definitive, some people have been quick to point out that Tolkien (for reasons he apparently did not share) elected to soften the language. Perhaps he felt it should be clear to the reader that Esgaroth was now part of the Kingdom of Dale; perhaps he felt that the matter should be left in some doubt.
I choose to accept that the people of Esgaroth accepted Bard and/or his descendants as their king, but it is not worth arguing over. The people of Lake-town did indeed elect a new Master, according to the last chapter of The Hobbit, and one may infer he might have been the last independent Master or that he and his successors continued to govern the Lake-town independently of any kings. Dale could easily have extended its sway through the lands around the town itself, and they might have been allies.
See also:
- Did the Kingdom of Dale Conquer Other Cities?
- How Large was the Kingdom of Dale’s Army?
- How Many Tribes of Northmen Were There?
- How Was the Kingdom of Dale Governed?
- When Was the Kingdom of Dale Founded?
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
Thanks once more Michael for a thought-provoking piece.
I’m going to question, as gently as I can, the remarkably persistent assumption that the new Master of Lake-Town is someone different from Bard. I can’t remember when I first came across this idea, but I always read it the opposite way. This is the relevant passage, from the final chapter of The Hobbit:
‘The new Master is of wiser kind,’ said Balin, ‘and very popular, for, of course, he gets most of the credit for the current prosperity. They are making songs that in his day the rivers run with gold.
Balin doesn’t spell it out, but considering the part he has played the new Master can only be Bard. It could be that his political astuteness leads him to keep “Master of Lake-Town” separate from the title “King of Dale”, thus accounting for Gloin’s slightly shaded remarks as well as laying a false trail for generations of commentators. (Maybe it’s one of those things only an eight-year-old can see – Hooray, hooray, it’s Bard!)
Tracing what is known of Dale’s history a minor but baffling question arises. The Master and Smaug both say Girion was Lord of Dale, not King, and the Lake-town songs are also about the “lords of Dale”. Bard and his descendants are Kings, but Kings of what? In the ‘Tale of Years’ we find
2944 Bard rebuilds Dale and becomes King.
2949 Gandalf and Balin visit Bilbo in the Shire.
2977 Bain son of Bard becomes King of Dale.
3007 Brand son of Bain becomes King in Dale.
It may or may not be significant that at the Council Gloin says messengers have come to “King Brand in Dale”. After Brand and Dain are killed in the Battle of Dale, 3019, “Bard II, Brand’s son, became King in Dale, and Thorin III Stonehelm, Dain’s son, became King under the Mountain.”
So did Bard actually claim the title “King of Dale” or was the final step left for Bain? And why are Brand and Bard II Kings “in” and not “of” Dale? I found a couple of historical parallels:
(i) Until 1772 the monarchs usually thought of as Kings of Prussia, e.g. Frederic the Great, actually bore the title “King in Prussia”. This was because Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland and only held as a fief by the Prussian “Kings”.
(ii) In the Irish Free State period (1922-1938), in which Southern Ireland was still formally a British dominion, the British monarchs were termed “King in Ireland”. The final break with the UK came in 1949, about the time the Tale of Years was being drafted.
The examples point to some kind of qualified sovereignty, but how this could bear on the Bard dynasty’s title to their core posession is a mystery to me!
I think it’s possible that Esgaroth continued to have a Master even after the Kingdom of Dale was established; while still remaining part of the realm. The Master could have ruled Esgaroth in the same way that Forlong ruled Lossarnach.
But I think it’s interesting how the Kingdom of Dale itself spread so quickly in 77 years. Unless they had a very high birth rate, they must have been absorbing other smaller countries in the area.
[…] know if anyone has actually asked this question but a comment left by Cole on yesterday’s “Were Bard and His Descendants Also Kings Over Lake-town?” question led me to wonder what Tolkien might have considered for Dale’s army after […]