Of Golf Balls and War Spoils: The One Ring and Property Law Squabbles

It has been a while since I engaged in meaty Tolkien analysis, so I deem it time to delve into one of the most pressing issues of our age. Namely, the vexed property law issues governing the One Ring in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth. I was prompted to offer some thoughts after stumbling across this essay:

https://nefchronicles.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/who-owns-the-one-ring-a-legal-inquiry/

My first thought was “no, Sauron still owns it. Isildur’s weregild claim is nonsense.” And to be fair, the weregild claim is nonsense. It’s just that when taken in another direction, we encounter one hell of a mess. Hence today’s post. Consider this an attempt to analyse the history of the One Ring from a legal perspective, from its creation to its destruction.

I: Tar-Mairon v. Isildur

(Note: for the purpose of the essay, I am just ignoring sovereign immunity).

That Sauron starts out the legal owner of the One Ring is non-contentious. He made the bloody thing, and imbued it with his power. Throughout its entire existence, the Ring answers to Sauron alone.

Then, as a result of the War of the Last Alliance, Sauron is killed by Elendil and Gil-galad in S.A. 3441. Isildur cuts the Ring from Sauron’s hand, and takes it for his own. The question is – can Isildur claim good title to the One Ring? If not, of course, legitimate ownership remains with Sauron, whose body might be destroyed, but whose spirit is still thoroughly functional. Why, yes. Real-life legal systems never had to deal with the headaches caused by immortal demigods.

Isildur’s own justification for his claim, as per Elrond, is to claim weregild. That is, the Ring is financial compensation for the deaths of his father and brother. Weregild shows up regularly in Norse sagas, and other old Germanic stories. It exists as a means of stopping long-running feuds, whereby a murder-victim’s family seeks vengeance for a death.

Now, let’s treat weregild as a legitimate thing in Middle-earth. Isildur runs into two major problems:

(1) Sauron did not murder Elendil and Anarion. They were killed in a war-situation, and were legitimate combatants.

(2) More importantly, the weregild system is a means of settlement whereby one party agrees not to take vengeance on another, in return for that second party giving them financial compensation. In short, one accepts weregild in order to refrain from killing the murderer. But Sauron has already been killed. Sure, he’s still around in spirit form, but that’s Maiar for you. Bodily, he was killed by Elendil, just as he killed Elendil. Isildur claiming weregild in that situation is thus double-dipping – he’s claiming the weregild on top of Sauron’s death.

It seems, then, that Isildur cannot justify his title to the One Ring via weregild. In which case, the Ring continues to be the property of the Estate of Tar-Mairon, until such time as Sauron can physically regain it. Or so I imagine. Wills and trusts don’t fit well with immortal demigods either.

But Isildur has a second, better, route to claiming ownership. Specifically, he could claim that the One Ring constitutes Spoils of War. This is the notion that, under some circumstances, a government can legitimately seize property belonging to a hostile power. For example, a 1751 Scottish case, The Earl of Panmure v. James Bisset, whereby an abandoned enemy ship (French/Jacobite) was deemed to belong to the British crown as res hostium (literally ‘a thing of the enemy’):

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotCS/1751/Mor3816798-006.html

These rules of property seizure have become part of the conventions of international law. Thus the Hague Regulations (1907), governing the rules of military occupation:

An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.

Note that the conventions of war, as defined by treaty (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/zh/customary-ihl/v2/rule51) differentiate between public property of the State, and private property of the individual. The latter cannot be touched. Moreover, in the case of Prisoners of War, it is permissible to take their weaponry, but one must leave their personal effects alone (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/zh/customary-ihl/v2/rule49).

Isildur could thus construct the following argument:

• He is the King of Arnor and Gondor, fighting and occupying the State of Mordor.
• The One Ring is movable property, belonging to the State of Mordor, that may be used in a military operation. It is a weapon that can decide wars.
• As such, he is justified in taking legal possession of the One Ring.
• There is no obligation to return such property at the end of occupation.
• Sauron is thus out of luck.

Against this, Sauron could argue:

• The One Ring is the personal property of himself, not of an abstract State of Mordor.
• The One Ring is indeed uniquely personal, in that it is imbued with a substantial portion of his own power. To destroy the Ring is to permanently maim Sauron as a person.
• At no point was the Ring abandoned. Sauron was violently forced from his body, leaving the Ring behind.
• While the One Ring might indeed be used in a military operation, Isildur does not use – or even recognise – it as such. He sees it merely as pretty jewellery, and later seeks to use only its invisibility power (Gladden Fields).
• Isildur took what he thought was private property – hence his nonsensical weregild argument, demanding that Sauron the Individual personally compensate him for his loss. Further justifying this claim by appealing to the rules of “movable public property” contradicts the character’s own actions.

It is unclear which argument would prevail, though my instincts lean towards Isildur, on the basis that the One Ring is an extremely powerful weapon, even if it does differ from, say, a sword or gun, and Isildur never recognised its full potential. But it is clear this is a much stronger argument than the weregild proposition the character put forward in Tolkien’s story.

In summary: if Sauron wins this dispute, he likely retains his legitimate claim to the One Ring throughout the entire story. If Isildur wins, we have a messy situation, one that leads on to further complexities.

II. Abandonment Questions and Deagol as Finder

Isildur not only claims the One Ring for himself. He also claims it as an Heirloom of the North Kingdom. Then he loses it in the River Anduin, and gets pin-cushioned by Orc archers. From T.A. 2 to T.A. 2463, it lies lost at the bottom of the river. In T.A. 2463, Deagol the Stoor retrieves the Ring from the riverbed, and promptly gets himself murdered by his best mate. As one does.

We shall leave the murder and its consequences until the next section. For now, we can focus on two issues: abandonment and finding.

(i) Was the Ring abandoned property by T.A. 2463?

At the time the Ring first fell into the Anduin, there were two potential claimants: Sauron and the House of Isildur. In the ensuing two and a half millennia, did either relinquish their claim?

In the case of Sauron, while he did not openly assert his claim to the Ring during this time, his long-disembodied status, and the political necessity of keeping a low profile, makes this inevitable. Sauron was not in a position to openly pursue his claim. However, later in the Third Age he was very active in hunting the Ring, to the best of his ability. His agents were investigating the Gladden Fields, he offered rewards to finders, and later the Ringwraiths searched for ‘Baggins’ based off available information. One cannot realistically conclude that Sauron relinquished his claim to the One Ring at any point.

(The assertion that Sauron thought the Ring destroyed is merely Gandalf’s guess. Nor does the status of the Ring as lost negate Sauron’s continued claim. Hibbert v. McKiernan has a Golf Club retaining title over lost golf balls, including those underwater, precisely because they continued to assert their claim. I cannot be alone in finding the idea that the Dark Lord’s right to the One Ring hinges on golf balls to be absolutely hilarious).

In the case of the Line of Isildur, not a single individual of the Line after T.A. 2 treats the One Ring as an Heirloom of the House. No demands or assertions are made, and no attempt to find the Ring is ever launched on behalf of Isildur’s Heir. Later, we have Aragorn asserting that the Ring does not belong to him, which is notable since Aragorn is otherwise highly protective of his ancestral property (c.f. Anduril). Against this, we might suggest that the Scroll of Isildur, and the role of the Ring as potential Heirloom, is not common knowledge – Gandalf asserts that none save himself and Saruman have read the Scroll in Minas Tirith since the Gondorian Kings failed. This might imply that up until Aragorn, the Heirs of Isildur did not relinquish their claim to the One Ring because they did not know of it. Aragorn, of course, explicitly relinquishes it.

But during the time of the Gondorian Kings themselves? During the height of their power (T.A. 1050) it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the Dunedain had both the loremasters and the capacity to seek out Isildur’s remains, and know that the Ring (if they might find it) arguably belonged to their Northern cousins. But again, no search or claims seem to have been made. The conventional wisdom might well have been expressed by Saruman, when he tells his fellows that it fell into the Anduin, and rolled down the river to the Sea, but a single post-Isildur attempt to verify that would not have gone amiss. Nor did the Northern Kingdoms, even prior to the Angmar Wars, seek out the Ring’s resting place. Elrond at least knew that Isildur had taken it, and knew of the Disaster of the Gladden Fields – but even a fellow who eventually took the other Northern Heirlooms into his custody took no action to help the North retrieve anything.

The difference between Sauron’s behaviour and the behaviour of Isildur’s Heirs cannot be more stark. Sauron, when the opportunity arose, asserted his continued rights to the One Ring. The House of Isildur did not.

From this, one might suggest that if Sauron still owned the Ring at the time of Isildur’s death, the One Ring was likely not abandoned property, since it continued to belong to him, even in a lost state. If Isildur owned it in T.A. 2, then there appears reasonable grounds for considering the One Ring abandoned property by T.A. 2463.

(ii) What is Deagol’s claim as Finder of the One Ring?

In the case of Deagol, we are dealing with the law of finders. Had the Ring been hidden deliberately, with a view to later recovery, we would be dealing with treasure trove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove). But since the Ring was lost, this is a matter of finding.

Essentially, as per Bridges v. Hawkesworth, the property would then go to Deagol, if the True Owner cannot be found.

Can the True Owner be found?

As suggested, if Isildur successfully claimed the One Ring, the Ring appears to be abandoned property by the time Deagol finds it. As such, Deagol appears to have good title. It would also be a stretch for him to investigate returning the Ring to the Chieftain of the Northern Dunedain (Arahad I). If Sauron retains his claim to the Ring, Sauron would obviously still be the True Owner. But Deagol cannot have known that, unless he had been sufficiently mad to visit Dol Guldur.

It thus appears that Deagol and his heirs either have a rightful claim to possess the Ring, full stop, or at the very least a rightful claim until the open rise of Sauron later in the Third Age.

But there is one additional legal hurdle for Deagol to overcome: South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman.

Here a worker was hired to clean a pool situated on land owned by the South Staffordshire Water Company. In the process of cleaning, the worker found two golden rings. The True Owner could not be found. The worker therefore claimed ownership as the finder, which the Water Company objected to. The lower court found in favour of the worker, but that was overturned on appeal. Essentially, the higher court decided that since the Water Company had an excludable right to the pool (i.e. it could decide who could access it or not access it) , and the worker was merely there to clean, the gold rings ought to go to the Water Company.

Does Deagol run into such potential competing claims from landowners?

The Gladden Fields lie outside the realm of Gondor, even at its maximum extent. Thranduil of Mirkwood is similarly too far away. The only landowner that might challenge Deagol’s claim here is none other than the Necromancer of Dol Guldur. Better known as Sauron. Small world.

Can Sauron therefore use South Staffordshire Water Co. to regain the One Ring?

Unlikely. Sauron might claim lordship over the area, but he does not have a clear excludable right to that part of the Anduin. Of course he doesn’t. He is no position to stop Deagol and his people fishing the river, even if he wished. Deagol was not there because he was hired by Sauron to perform a duty, but rather because he was there on his own terms, accessing a common resource. In the process, of course, he just happened to find the One Ring.

Thus one can clearly distinguish the facts of South Staffordshire Water Co. from the situation of the One Ring. Necromancer v. Deagol likely results in Deagol winning, since Sauron’s claim as landowner is simply too tenuous to overcome Deagol’s status as finder.

III. The Forfeiture of Smeagol

Deagol is murdered by his relative Smeagol in T.A. 2463, not long after he finds the One Ring. Smeagol then takes the Ring for himself, claiming it as his birthday present.

What happens legally to the Ring in these circumstances?

Assuming Deagol does not have a Will, his property would pass to his next of kin. Which, incidentally would exclude Smeagol, since he’s just murdered him. Homicide means Smeagol forfeits all legal claim to Deagol’s property, including any legal claim to the Ring. Even worse for Smeagol, his claim that the Ring is a birthday present/gift means he’s a volunteer – someone who has received something without offering anything in return. As the maxim goes, Equity Will Not Assist a Volunteer, leaving Smeagol without either equitable claim or legal claim to the Ring. He’s now basically looking after the Ring for the True Owner.

So if Smeagol is our first Ring possessor without any legal leg to stand on, who is the True Owner? As noted, it might be Sauron. It might be Arahad I, Chieftain of the Northern Dunedain, albeit I find that unlikely due to abandonment. But as noted, Deagol’s very real claim passes to some other Stoor hobbit. Perhaps even Smeagol’s grandmother, famed matriarch of the clan. And thence? It passes out of history.

One can speculate on whether any of the present Shire hobbits count as Deagol’s kin. Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, perhaps – someone who might be game enough to take on Sauron himself in court. If she can get the spoons, she can get the Ring. Mind you, the way genealogy works, if Deagol and a Shire hobbit have a common ancestor, chances are that all Shire hobbits descend from that common ancestor. It would become a case of exhaustively researching the entire Shire (and Bree), to see who has the best claim. Just as well hobbits are so fond of genealogy.

Or not. Because if the next of kin cannot be found, the property goes the government. But who is the government in context? Smeagol’s grandmother would probably be the immediate answer too. But this strange little community of Stoors is not going to last forever. They’re gone by the time of the War of the Ring, and in Tolkien Letter #214 (1958/1959), the author speculates that they either died out or fled from the Shadow of Dol Guldur.

This last point introduces an extra degree of complexity to the situation. The notion of Forfeiture is fairly straight forward. Smeagol can’t inherit Deagol’s property, so it goes to the next of kin, and thence to what passes for Stoor government. But if Smeagol manages to outlive the Stoor government itself, while still being in possession of the Ring? If he literally becomes the only one of his people left? The real-world legal system is just not equipped to deal with that sort of question. Smeagol becomes the person left after an apocalypse.

The article linked at the start of this essay suggests Smeagol might have eventually developed a claim to the Ring, based off Adverse Possession. I am sceptical. First off, Adverse Possession pertains more to land than chattel property (ironically, Smeagol’s long occupancy of his cave might give him just such a claim against the Goblins of the Misty Mountains – but only for the cave, not the Ring). It would also violate the principle that a murderer like Smeagol cannot benefit from his crime. And lastly, Adverse Possession requires the person to be “open and notorious” in their possession. Smeagol had the Ring in a dank mountain cave for five centuries, forgotten by all. The very opposite of “open and notorious.”

So by the time the Ring slips from Smeagol’s hand in T.A. 2941?

Smeagol is basically holding the Ring for:

• Sauron OR
• Aragorn II, Chieftain of the Northern Dunedain (unlikely) OR
• Some random hobbit. Possibly even Bilbo Baggins himself OR
• Smeagol has succeeded in breaking the legal system, and by virtue of being the Last One Left after the extinction of his people, has contrived to get title for himself.

It is starting to get messy.

IV. A Tale of Two Bilbo Bagginses

In T.A. 2941, the One Ring slipped from Smeagol’s finger. It then lay for some time in the tunnels beneath the Misty Mountains, before being picked up by Bilbo Baggins Esq.

What follows is two versions of events:

(1) First Edition Bilbo: the Invented Account

Bilbo encounters Smeagol (called Gollum in the book, of course), and enters into a Riddle Game. If Bilbo wins, Smeagol promises him a present. If Smeagol wins, Smeagol gets to eat Bilbo. Bilbo wins the Game, via the somewhat-questionable “What have I got in my pockets?” riddle, which to be fair, Smeagol accepts and legitimises by trying to answer it. Smeagol goes back to his island, and discovers that the Ring is missing. He realises he cannot give Bilbo the promised present. So he shows him the way out as compensation, never realising Bilbo had the Ring the entire time.

(2) Second Edition Bilbo: the Real Account

The Riddle Game sees Bilbo promised a way out if he wins, and the prospect of getting eaten if he loses. Bilbo wins, again, via the same somewhat-questionable means. Smeagol goes back to his island, plotting to use the Ring to catch and kill Bilbo anyway. The Ring isn’t there. Bilbo discovers the Ring’s invisibility power by accident, and is able to follow Smeagol back out to safety.

Well and good. These scenarios in turn raise two legal questions: Bilbo’s status as a Finder, and Bilbo’s status as a Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice.

(i) What is Bilbo’s claim as Finder of the One Ring?

On the surface, Bilbo’s case is much like Deagol’s. He finds the One Ring, which is lying about, lost. He seeks to keep it, and then runs into the problem of Smeagol.

Except that Bilbo’s situation is quite different. In Bilbo’s case, the Ring he stumbles across might be lost, but he swiftly realises it is not abandoned. Bilbo even assumes that Smeagol is the True Owner – Smeagol might have no good title to the Ring, but this is not known in The Hobbit.

Bilbo is thus in a curious situation. Objectively as a Finder, he is entitled to possess the Ring against everyone save its True Owner – which might be Sauron, but which might even be himself, depending on the chance of inheritance from Deagol. But so far as Bilbo knows for many long years, Smeagol is the True Owner, and he needed to withhold Smeagol’s property in order to save his own life. In other words, Bilbo thinks he has less legal right than he does – assuming he can overcome the final legal hurdle.

The final hurdle for Bilbo is the problem of the landowner. There are two possible landowning objectors to Bilbo’s status as Ring Finder.

The first is whomever takes over the position of Great Goblin. The local Orcs/Goblins could reasonably consider the tunnel in question to belong to them, and they enjoy an excludable right over who is permitted in their tunnels. The other is Smeagol himself, who via Adverse Possession might have acquired a right to his cave and the surrounds. The cave and tunnel are, after all, land that he has been making use of for centuries, with no permission from the the Goblins.

Since there are arguably two landowners, one needs to resolve that dispute before considering Bilbo. I think on balance that Smeagol’s claim to the cave is a decent one, though one might quibble about “open and notorious.” The goblins know something is down there, but do not know about the invisible goblin-eating hobbit. But the tunnel where the Ring was found? Smeagol himself would admit he does not exercise exclusive control there. The right to exclude within the tunnel rests with the Goblins.

Bilbo’s claim as Ring Finder is thus up against the Goblins’ rights as landowners… and I daresay, I think in the case The New Great Goblin v. Baggins, the Goblins win. Unlike the Anduin river, their tunnels are not public, and Bilbo is a trespasser and escaped prisoner, literally on the run. Frankly, the Goblins have a better claim to the prize than the Water Company in South Staffordshire Water Co.. Sharman was there legitimately when he found the rings. Bilbo isn’t.

So Bilbo (unlike Deagol) likely has no finders rights after all, and the Goblins of the Misty Mountains join the list of potential Ring claimants while never actually knowing of the Ring’s existence. Now there’s a twist.

(Albeit unlike Sauron, Isildur, and Deagol, there can be no claim to True Ownership from the Goblins. The Goblin claim is mere right to possess until the True Owner is found. Sauron might have something to say about that).

(ii) Bilbo as Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice

First Edition Bilbo gets a second bite of the cherry. In contrast to Second Edition Bilbo, who enters the Riddle Game in the hope of winning the way out, First Edition Bilbo enters the Riddle Game for a present (later revealed to be the Ring). And he puts his own life on the line in the process. This risk to himself might legitimately be considered consideration for the purpose of contract law – he is offering something in exchange for something. And at this point, Bilbo has no way of knowing that Smeagol is not the True Owner. He thinks everything is above board, insofar as a Game where losing means getting eaten can be above board.

(A somewhat artificial situation, given that in the First Edition Hobbit, the Ring lacked the backstory, so Smeagol was arguably the True Owner anyway).

This means that First Edition Bilbo can reasonably argue that he is a Bona Fide Purchaser For Value Without Notice. That is, he is “purchasing” the Ring from Smeagol by means of the Riddle Game. Sure, Smeagol had no actual right to the Ring, and via the established principle of Nemo dat quod non habet, Smeagol cannot transmit any rights to the Ring, but such a Bona Fide Purchaser is considered an exception to that rule. Our Purchaser generally can’t keep the item against the True Owner, but does enjoy various legal protections.

(There is the complicating twist that Bilbo already had the Ring before the Game, and his real reward was being shown the way out in lieu of the Ring, but it is not a stupid argument).

By contrast, Second Edition Bilbo cannot even argue that the Riddle Game transmitted ownership. His claim relies entirely on being the Ring Finder – which as discussed earlier, is a fairly weak argument, in light of the Goblin claim as landowners. And within the context of The Lord of the Rings, the Second Edition Hobbit is the “real” account.

The conclusion? Barring inheritance from Deagol, Bilbo Baggins has no more right to the Ring than Smeagol. So we find a second Ringbearer without any legitimate claim…

V. Finding Nemo: Frodo and After.

Regardless of his claim (or lack thereof) Bilbo Baggins retains the Ring until T.A. 3001. At his 111th Birthday Party, he trolls his relatives by vanishing before their eyes. He also leaves Bag End, and the Ring, to his heir, Frodo Baggins. Gandalf the Grey acts as Bilbo’s bailee in the period between Bilbo leaving and Frodo coming back in – that is, he is looking after the property on someone else’s behalf.

Frodo’s inheritance is treated as right and proper, from the viewpoint of hobbits. But he also inherits a giant problem. And I do not mean the fact that Bilbo’s Ring turned out to be the dread One Ring.

No, I mean Nemo dat quod non habet. No-one can give which they do not have. Since we have established that Bilbo had no rights to the Ring, even as Finder, Frodo initially has no legal rights either, except that he is just the fellow in present possession. Nor can Frodo even argue he is a Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – he received the Ring for no consideration, on account of it being left to him in Bilbo’s Will.

In T.A. 3018, Frodo takes the Ring from Bag End to Rivendell. In the interim, there are three different bailees – Gandalf the Grey at the hearth in Bag End, Tom Bombadil in the House of Tom Bombadil, and an Unknown Personage at Rivendell, who puts the Ring on a new chain. All are operating on Frodo’s behalf, even though as noted, his legal claim appears to be weak.

At the Council of Elrond in Rivendell, Frodo expresses surprise to learn of the Ring’s extended history, and of Aragorn’s lineage. Applying the idea that Isildur successfully claimed the Ring from Sauron, and that the two and a half millennia in the Anduin did not constitute the House of Isildur abandoning its claim, Frodo concludes that the Ring rightfully belongs to Aragorn – albeit, as discussed before, I think there is good reason for arguing that a ‘Isildur succeeds’ scenario most likely sees the Ring as abandoned. Aragorn then promptly declares that the Ring belongs to neither Frodo nor himself.

Aragorn’s declaration can be read in one of three ways:

• It is an acknowledgement that Isildur was wrong and (regardless of morality) True Ownership of the Ring still rests with Sauron. Recall that even Gandalf emphasises that The Lord of the Ring is Sauron, not Frodo.
• It is an acknowledgement that Isildur was right, but the loss of the Ring in the Anduin resulted in the abandonment of his line’s claim.
• It is an acknowledgement that the line’s claim was legally valid, but he as the Heir of Isildur has rejected ownership of the Ring for moral reasons.

Aragorn has no jurisdiction to rule on the legal history of the Ring. But under the third scenario, where he is consciously relinquishing his claim to the Ring, the Ring is now arguably abandoned property. In which case, and notwithstanding Aragorn’s own words, Frodo as present possessor now arguably has good title if he chooses!

(In this reading, the True Owner has relinquished his own claim, Elrond the landowner will not claim it. That leaves Frodo the possessor. And indeed, Frodo later rejects Boromir’s claim. He retains the ability to exclude others from the Ring).

But I think the better reading is that Aragorn is intending the Ring to be res nullius. That is, property of no-one. Frodo is merely the one tasked by the Council to carry it to Mount Doom – a bailee for Middle-earth as a whole. But even if Sauron were still the legal owner, the Council and its associates are set on destroying the Ring for moral reasons. Legality be damned.

This means that from when the Fellowship sets out, until Cirith Ungol, there are four candidates for legal True Owner:

• Sauron (Isildur Was Wrong)
• Deagol’s Unknown Heir (Isildur was Right. But the Anduin abandonment means it’s Deagol with the valid claim)
• Frodo Baggins (Isildur was Right. And the Anduin doesn’t matter. Aragorn’s renunciation leaves Frodo)
• No-one (Same as with Frodo – Sauron’s claim is not valid. The Heir of Deagol’s claim is not valid. But this time there is a joint renunciation of ownership from those at the Council. Frodo is bailee, not owner)

The remainder of the book is arguably only consistent with candidates #1 and #4 – a tad frustrating, because as I have indicated, there is very reasonable legal grounds for #2.

During Frodo’s incapacitation at Cirith Ungol, Samwise Gamgee acts as Frodo’s bailee (initially interpreted as bailee of the Estate of Frodo Baggins, in that he thinks Frodo dead at first). Which potentially makes Sam a bailee of a bailee, depending on how one reads the situation.

Curiously, if Frodo had indeed died, there is an argument that Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, as Frodo’s next of kin, ought to have inherited the Ring. But since Frodo’s own inherited rights were so lacking, Lobelia would have not got very far. Sam himself does not invoke Frodo’s inheritance, but rather his role as appointee of the Council.

Frodo then explicitly claims the One Ring for himself on 25th March, T.A. 3019, at Mount Doom. Of note is that this greatly disturbs Sauron. Rather as if Sauron were still the continuing owner in a metaphysical sense, only to now face a challenge. Smeagol assaults Frodo, bites his finger off, and claims the Ring for himself. This is the second time Smeagol has based his claim off a crime, so once again, he lacks validity. Only this time he promptly falls into Mount Doom.

The One Ring is thus destroyed, along with any legal claims.

Phew.

**

When viewed as a whole, it is clear that the answer to the question of “who legally owns the One Ring?” is that it depends on the time in question. It is also clear that based purely on legal assessment, the two strongest claimants throughout the late Third Age are Sauron and whomever was the Heir of Deagol. Sauron’s claim hinges on the One Ring being considered personal property in a war-situation, and on (courtesy of golf-ball precedents) Sauron maintaining his claim throughout the long years when the Ring was thought lost. The Heir of Deagol bases their claim on the One Ring being considered a state weapon/legitimate spoils in a war-situation, and the House of Isildur then abandoning their claim in the two and a half millennia the Ring was lying in the Anduin. Certainly, the validity of Deagol’s claim should not be overlooked.

The third possibility, that the Ring remained (in theory) the property of Isildur’s Heir until Aragorn’s formal renunciation at Rivendell strikes me as less likely, at least when the matter is viewed via a purely legal lens. However, despite finding much interest and even hilarity when approaching the text from this angle, The Lord of the Rings is not intended to be a treatise in Law. There are powerful messages contained within its pages, and the ‘real’ answer from a thematic viewpoint appears to be either Sauron throughout – he is the only one the Ring answers to – or alternatively, that from Rivendell onwards we are dealing with res nullius. The Ring as property of no-one, as carried by people who (save for the bitter end at Mount Doom) have renounced all claim.

• September 17, 2023
• Law stuff, Tolkien essays
• 4 Comments