the hobbit was written first lord of the rings or the hobbit.
the hobbit was written first lord of the rings or the hobbit.
what was written first lord of the rings or the hobbit?
the hobbit
jackson and walsh originally expressed interest in filming "the hobbit" in 1995, then envisaging it as part one of a trilogy (part two would have been based on "the lord of the rings"). frustration arose when jackson's producer, harvey weinstein, discovered that saul zaentz had production rights to "the hobbit", but that distribution rights still belonged to united artists (which had kept those rights, believing that filmmakers would prefer to adapt "the hobbit" rather than "the lord of the rings"). the united artists studio and its parent corporation metro-goldwyn-mayer was for sale in 2005, but weinstein's attempts to buy the movie rights from the studio were unsuccessful. weinstein asked jackson to press on with adapting "the lord of the rings". ultimately, "the lord of the rings" was produced by new line cinema, not the weinsteins, and their rights to film "the hobbit" were set to expire in 2010. in september 2006, the new ownership and management of metro-goldwyn-mayer expressed interest in teaming up with new line and jackson to make "the hobbit".
the hobbit (film series)
a more immediately significant trend though was the rebalancing of the powers of the houses of parliament in favour of the lower house. from the glorious revolution and onwards it had become increasingly constitutionally untenable for the person setting fiscal policy (i.e. the chancellor) to reside in the house of lords, a principle which was embedded permanently in the constitution from 1718 with the resignation of lord stanhope (note this excepts the brief tenures of certain lord chief justices, who historically assumed the office of chancellor of the exchequer "pro tempore" during vacancies, and who were often peers). that notwithstanding, the constitutional convention mandating that the prime minister reside in the commons became embedded much later, with a prime minister serving without difficulty from the lords as late as 1902 (lord home, though the last peer-prime minister, felt compelled to renounce his peerage, so the principle had been entrenched before his assumption of office). throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries prime ministers would continue to be drawn regularly from the upper house. in circumstances where the prime minister was a peer it was felt appropriate for the head of the ministry overall to take the primus inter pares position on the commission as first lord, even if through constitutional convention he couldn't serve as the chancellor, who was otherwise first lord by virtue of his office. the first lordship's linkage with the prime ministership was particularly strong because all prime ministers up to lord salisbury, apart from lord chatham, had been first lords. accordingly, in circumstances where the prime minister was a peer, the chancellor assumed the second lordship. the coagulation of this principle occurred in 1841 with the instalment of the second peel ministry. being a viscount, lord melbourne (the outgoing prime minister) had not been able to be chancellor as well, but nevertheless assumed the first lordship pursuant to his premiership in the usual way for premiers from the peerage. however when sir robert peel returned to office for his non-consecutive second term he elected to be first lord of treasury, a title he had naturally assumed in his first ministry wherein he had also served as chancellor. but despite being a member of parliament, this time peel did not assume the chancellorship. thus the chancellor, henry goulburn, became the first chancellor to be second lord of the treasury whilst the first lord was also in the commons. from that point onwards, the second lordship was excepting where the prime minister has also served contemporaneously as chancellor, permanently linked with the chancellorship of the exchequer.
lords commissioners of the treasury