I read here a reference to Narsil being broken in two pieces and that this was altered by PJ for the movies. Is there any reference in the writings of JRRT to this? I don't recall such a thing, but that can be an omission on my part, of course. --Earendilyon 09:40, 9 March 2006 (EST)
- A quick search through The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion did not bring any results but I did find The Thains Book states it was broken in two, and states sources though I know not which is in regards to Narsil. I say we keep it for now but it wouldn't hurt looking into more. --Hyarion 11:58, 9 March 2006 (EST)
- I've scanned Unfinished Tales and The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien for information, but I only found references to 'the shards of Narsil', no mentioning of the number of shards. Maybe you could send an e-mail to The Thain's Book to ask where they got that infor from? [I surely hope not from PJ's abomination!] --Earendilyon 16:31, 11 March 2006 (EST)
- Heh, well I know it's not from The Lord of the Rings (film series) as in the film it was broken into like 5 pieces or so. Which leads me to believe more-so that the correct answer is only 2 ;). For some reasong I think I remember reading in the [Minas Tirith forums that it was 2 as well, I'll do a quick search today. --Hyarion 16:37, 11 March 2006 (EST)
- Maybe the 'two pieces of Narsil' theory was based on this passage in The Lord of the Rings, Ch. 10, Strider:
- [Aragorn] drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt.
- Though it doesn't state in so much words that there were just two pieces, one can perhaps read that into this passage; though the rest of the sword could be broken in several shards, of course. --Earendilyon 16:17, 12 March 2006 (EST)
- I saw that one as well, I'm hoping there is another passage which is more specific as I wouldn't want to base the two-piece theory simply on that passage. If that is all we can find then we should probably change the passage to read "most likely two" or something similar. --Hyarion 16:24, 12 March 2006 (EST)
 Heirloom of the Lords of Andúnië?
I know this seems like something that can be inferred by Elendil having successfully gotten the sword out of Númenor, that it was among the heirlooms of their house (like the Ring of Barahir, the Elendilmir, Sceptre of Annuminas, the Palantiri, etc...) but I believe there's actually a note in Unfinished Tales that mentions the presentation of a sword to the heirs of noble houses, noting Narsil in particular. I might be making connections that aren't there, though, so I'll double check and see if there's an explicit reference. Corsair Caruso 08:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I found the reference I was remembering, but Narsil isn't mentioned. In A Description of the island of Númenor, it mentions the possession of swords by "the king and the great chieftains[...] as heirlooms of their fathers." It goes on in Note 2 to describe Aranruth, the sword of Élu Thingol, as being the sword of the King, and listed the Ring of Barahir, the Axe of Tuor, and the Bow of Bregor as other royal heirlooms, but also notes that only the Ring of Barahir survived the downfall. This seems confusing to me. Is it possible Narsil was then never a royal heirloom, perhaps having belonged to Elatan of Andúnië; could it have been a gift to Elendil's house by the Elves? It seems more likely that it was just forgotten by Tolkien.
In any case, it isn't mentioned specifically as an official heirloom of the either the ruling line of the House of Elros or Lords of Andúnië, though it seems likely. I don't think it merits inclusion in the article. Corsair Caruso 09:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)