Fanatic

Feanor claims the title of king of the Noldor, and until his death he is considered as such. In the short time he acts in Beleriand, the most telling elements regarding what kind of kingship his was, are the hints about his last stand. As a heroic character that blends Old English and Norse influences, he is the leader of his contingent of men, who keep at his side despite the desperation of their last stand. The text says that only few of his friends remained - only the most valiant, steadfast, loyal and corageous. Literary conventions are surely at play, and we must suspend our disbelief at the tactical/strategic error of pursuing an army of orcs into the arms of Balrogs. In this frame, not pursuing the enemy would have made him a worse king.

Considering the kind of literary influences traceable in Feanor's character and the manner of his death, it seems safe to hypotise that his kingship is based, in this context of returning from Valinor, on oaths of loyalty, and that the army thus raised is called into action by levying the oaths sworn between the king and other noble-men, and these noblemen and their armed followers in turn. His kingship is too short to make any other evaluation wrt land administration, a court system etc.

Then Fingolfin reaches Beleriand. At this point we have, on the one hand, Fingolfin being the leader of the entire host and his people, Finrod called the leader of his people, having received the title from his father. On the other hand, a vacant kingship - Maedhros is absent and it is unclear if the Feanorian host is led by one of them (Maglor?) or by all of them in concert. The fact remains that it is Maedhros the one with the authority to hand over the crown, so it is safe to assume that the Feanorian host considered him king, and he had a strong claim on the crown.

Now here the published Silmarillion attributes this decision to Maedhros alone and he cites an interesting reason, aside the atonement - seniority. He calls Fingolfin "eldest here of the house of Finwe", perhaps using it as an argument in favour of his abdication.

In earlier drafts, Tolkien seems to leave the decision to a council, which elects the king.

An interesting detail in the published Silmarillion is also this quote from ch. 9: "by no means all were in mind to take Feanor as king." Is this the result of Morgoth's lies, of Feanor's actions against Fingolfin? A general dislike? Could the fact that his succession to the throne is even in question suggest that primogeniture is not a guarantee? Or is this limited to Finwe's indecision to name an heir between the two?

So far, between the death of Finwe, the flight, and Maedhros' abdication, it seems as if the line of succession is all but set, and that both primogeniture as well as other considerations (in particular, having a greater following, as Fingolfin has) are both valid criteria for considering someone for the position of King.

After Fingolfin ascends to the throne and becomes High King, there is no question about inheritance. His sons inherit the title upon their predecessor's death - Fingon, then Turgon, and then Gil-Galad, apparently the last man of the house of Finwe left alive and old enough.

But in practice, what does "high king of the Noldor" mean in Beleriand? Does he have supreme command over all the other kings? It seems he doesn't. Turgon disappears and rules his city in autonomy. Finrod does the same. Maedhros seems to do the same, though the difference is in title. He's never called king per se, but it appears as if he has a certain amount of autonomy. His lands are called a "march". Now, that may signify a lot of things, but in general that is a portion of lands that were close to the border, were particularly militarised and even had a particular legislation. So far, it makes sense, though the question is: march of which kingdom? Of Maedhros' lands, meaning all of East Beleriand? Is it a march under Fingolfin's broader kingdom? (There is no evidence to support this latter hypothesis...).

In the chapter "Of Beleriand and its Realms" the great lords are Fingolfin, who "was held the overlord of all the Noldor", Fingon, Maedhros and Finrod. Aegnor and Angrod are called explicitly "vassals" of Finrod, while the rest of the sons of Feanor are under Maedhros. Turgon, in Nevrast, is "lord", and isn't counted among the "great lords". So far, this fits the scheme. But then he moves to Gondolin: he gets the title of King. Who gave it to him? His people? Himself? Fingolfin?

It is interesting how, in different occasions, Finrod, Turgon and Maedhros can and do actually refuse the High King's request to particiapte in a battle or begin an assault on Angband. Turgon joins in only during the Nirnaeth, urged by the Valar themselves; Orodreth refuses on the account of the crimes of C&C; the Sons of Feanor (so, Maedhros) are said so have been loathe to break the long peace, even if Fingolfin has his misgivings and urges for an attack.

It seems as if the power of the High King to "order" the other kings around is quite limited. Theirs is closer to a collaboration between peers, in the true sense of the word princep - a "primus inter pares". Participation in the war is negotiated, not demanded.

And this aspects involves even the lower levels of nobility, not just the "Kings". Some lords can answer the High King's summon, even if their direct liege lord doesn't - actually, in spite of their king's refusal (Gwindor - though he takes up Fingolfin's banner and joins Fingon's ranks, as if defecting from his own kingdom).

And again, on the matter of autonomy. These kings can legiferate as they wish. Turgon can decide to execute Eol, or to confine any visitor in Gondolin (I'd assume, unthinkable laws in Valinor). But something (war) in Beleriand has changed the Noldor's laws and customs profoundly and their society is now fully militarised, entrenched in hierarchy and violence. Curufin even quotes "the laws of the Noldor" against Eol, which, apparently, would allow him to kill Eol for abducting Aredhel.