R+L =J v. 115

[Alia of the knife]

The rose as an inference to R+L=J doesn't negate the blue rose as a symbol of a Stark daughter.

Its a red flag to who Jons mother actually is, which is the current mystery.

Rhaegar as Jons father will be a revelation.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

The rose as an inference to R+L=J doesn't negate the blue rose as a symbol of a Stark daughter.

Its a red flag to who Jons mother actually is, which is the current mystery.

Rhaegar as Jons father will be a revelation.

That works for me. What troubles me about the idea of the rose as an inference to RLJ is that I don't believe it requires R. In other words, the blue rose as symbol/metaphor for Lyanna stands on its own - whoever Jon's father turns out to be.

I also think it's a push to think a symbol for Lyanna is also necessarily a symbol for Jon. And, even setting aside the HoU vision, I can't think of an appearance of the blue rose that would seem to represent Jon himself.

[J. Stargaryen]

I too have a hard time associating the blue rose with Jon rather than the Stark female. Note that when Ned remembers that last time he saw Lyanna, he first sees blue rose petals flashing across the sky (Lyanna is still alive). Then Lyanna dies and the roses are dead. Why would GRRM use dying flowers to represent the new life Ned found at the TOJ?

You may be onto something associating the blue flower in the chink of ice with a Stark daughter. It has also been suggested that the blue flower may be a Karstark female who would show up at the Wall in a later book...only to take a wildling mate, just like her ancestor.

Yeah, by you. When you were called Fred. And it was a terrible idea then.

Shiny new, precious. Tower of joy and Ygrain's comments linkies in my signature.

The child is exchanged for the blue rose, implies equality of the child to the blue rose. The daughter is replaced by the rose, but that is not equated, as a payment, it is a theft (Wildling marriage). The payment comes later.

The blue rose left in the daughter's bed can be considered a promise of a male child in exchange for the theft of the daughter. But, clearly the daughter is stolen by Wildling tradition, while the rose is not.

Basically this. While I agree that the way the story is told, and the song written, it is meant to equate the daughter with the rose. That's very clear, on the surface. Yet, I'm surprised by how often people fail to notice or comprehend the inclusion of the son in the rose symbolism.

Well, I continue to explore options. But there are several male characters who might fit. Two that I find rather interesting are Roose Bolton and Tywin Lannister.

I marvel at your ability to alternate between close mindedness in the face of nearly overwhelming evidence, and open mindedness in its absence.

No - there I disagree. How would it make sense that Bael the bard and his song of the winter rose could be an illustration of an event that wouldn't happen for at least another 200 years?

As stated above, I just fundamentally disagree that "R+L" is the appropriate starting point for reading and interpreting Martin's story.

It's not the starting point. But once you know the answer, R+L=J, why wouldn't you go back and reinterpret the text? It reveals another layer to the story.

[BearQueen87]

That works for me. What troubles me about the idea of the rose as an inference to RLJ is that I don't believe it requires R. In other words, the blue rose as symbol/metaphor for Lyanna stands on its own - whoever Jon's father turns out to be.

I also think it's a push to think a symbol for Lyanna is also necessarily a symbol for Jon. And, even setting aside the HoU vision, I can't think of an appearance of the blue rose that would seem to represent Jon himself.

But L wouldn't even be associated with blue roses without R.

[J. Stargaryen]

But L wouldn't even be associated with blue roses without R.

Right. Because of the Bael story, people act as if there is some extensive history of associating Stark maidens with winter roses. There's not, as far as we know. There's Lyanna and Bael's girl. I would move to call her Baela, if it wasn't already a Targaryen name.

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if the Targ-like spelling of Bael was on purpose. In order to nudge readers to think of Targaryens in this other blue rose story. Why is GRRM using a Targaryen spelling for this child's father?

[The Twinslayer]

Yeah, by you. When you were called Fred. And it was a terrible idea then.

.

I don't know who first came up with this theory, so it may have been a Fred, but it has been floating around for a while. I discussed it in some detail in R+L=J v. 38, but I didn't claim that I came up with it on my own.

I said this:

Well, in fairness, there is a theory that the blue rose is connected with Bael the Bard, that both Lyanna and Alys Karstark are descended from Bael, and that the HoTU vision presages Alys' arrival at the Wall in ADWD. Not that I necessarily embrace that theory (and I do believe that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna), but I think it shows that GRRM likes to have more than one possible explanation for each of these clues.

I also said that I was initially skeptical of this theory but that certain things were pointed out to me and that

So I was not able to disprove the Blue Rose = Alys theory on the grounds you suggest. As I said, this is not my theory, but I don't think it can be disproved at this point.

Then:

As I understand the theory, it goes like this.

The first reference to a blue rose (chronologically, not the order in which we see it in the books) is the Bael the Bard story. There, the Lord of Winterfell thinks Bael is referring to a literal "flower." In fact, Bael is referring to Lord Stark's daughter as a figurative flower. Blue rose=Stark daughter.

The second comes from Ned & Robert in the crypts. Ned says that, when she was alive, Lyanna liked flowers (so Ned brings them to her in her tomb). Flower associated with a Stark duaghter. Not a sign of her having a child (one hopes!), because the flowers are coming from her brother.

The third comes from the tourney at Harrenhall. Rhaegar gives Lyanna a crown of blue flowers. Again, blue flowers --> Stark daughter.

The fourth comes from the TOJ. Lyanna dies holding dead flowers: flowers and a Stark daughter.

The last blue flower is the one in the HoTU vision. The theory is that it would be incongruous for this to relate to a Targaryen son (and even if he is half Stark he's still the wrong gender).

I suppose I ought to flesh out the theory some more. It surmises that Alys is introduced as a way to tell the reader that prophecies can be interpreted incorrectly. Mel sees a girl on a horse, fleeing an unwanted marriage. She thinks it is Arya. The reader thinks it is Jeyne Poole.

But it turns out to be Alys! And for reasons the reader cannot have known when reading about the prophecy -- it is based on information we only get after the mystery is revealed. So the theory goes that GRRM knows a lot of readers think the blue rose prophecy refers to Jon and this is his way of telling us we have misinterpreted the prophecy and/or that there may be more information coming in the future that will challenge the original assumption.

I have tried to come up with a convincing argument that this can't be right, without success. If someone here can do a better job than me I would love to hear it.

[sj4iy]

Right. Because of the Bael story, people act as if there is some extensive history of associating Stark maidens with winter roses. There's not, as far as we know. There's Lyanna and Bael's girl. I would move to call her Baela, if it wasn't already a Targaryen name.

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if the Targ-like spelling of Bael was on purpose. In order to nudge readers to think of Targaryens in this other blue rose story. Why is GRRM using a Targaryen spelling for this child's father?

No one acts like that. People are simply pointing out that Martin wrote "Bael the Bard" as an allegory for R+L=J, and to clue people into the fact that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child.

[J. Stargaryen]

No one acts like that. People are simply pointing out that Martin wrote "Bael the Bard" as an allegory for R+L=J, and to clue people into the fact that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child.

Yeah, I think you might want to work on your reading comprehension. I'm saying people who dispute Bael as an allegory for R+L=J act as if the blue roses mean Stark maidens, based on an extensive history of that symbolism. But it doesn't exist. It's just Lyanna and Bael's girl.

[sj4iy]

Yeah, I think you might want to work on your reading comprehension. I'm saying people who dispute Bael as an allegory for R+L=J act as if the blue roses mean Stark maidens, based on an extensive history of that symbolism. But it doesn't exist. It's just Lyanna and Bael's girl.

No need for insults. All I said is that no one here was saying that there was an 'extensive history' of associating Stark women with blue roses.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I'm surprised by how often people fail to notice or comprehend the inclusion of the son in the rose symbolism...

It's not the starting point. But once you know the answer, R+L=J, why wouldn't you go back and reinterpret the text? It reveals another layer to the story.

To be honest, I don't believe the son is included in the rose symbolism. As a result, it surprises me that people do find a way to read it that way. It seems rather forced.

Re: going back through the text to reinterpret in light of "R+L=J"... Once again, I'm confused about whether you would consider "R+L" (1) the premise upon which readers can be expected to locate and identify clues and evidence to Jon's parentage; or (2) the conclusion which readers can be expected to reach on the basis of such clues and evidence. And if you ask me, it looks like it would be very difficult to get to the conclusion (2) without first assuming it as a premise (1). It's very circular.

But L wouldn't even be associated with blue roses without R.

Actually, I'm arguing against precisely that point. It's completely reasonable to believe that Lyanna would have been associated with blue roses, whether or not she'd ever laid eyes on Rhaegar. And that she was.

Because of the Bael story, people act as if there is some extensive history of associating Stark maidens with winter roses. There's not, as far as we know. There's Lyanna and Bael's girl.

Strike the word extensive. There is a history in which a Stark maiden is associated with winter roses. That's what the song of the winter rose is. It's not merely "an illustration" or "an allegory" of some more recent event, cleverly cast in the past tense to fool readers. How would Mance, Ygritte, Qhorin, and others (north of the Wall) know anything about Rhaegar, Lyanna, Harrenhal and its aftermath? What interest would Ygritte have in illustrating "R+L?" Reducing an older, widely known oral tradition into nothing but a reflection of something we already "know" effectively excises from Martin's story what may be crucial background for a more informed understanding of the events leading up to Robert's Rebellion.

.

[Alia of the knife]

I believe the flowers are cultivated in the Winterfell glass gardens, called the winter rose, hence the association with the Starks, particularly the females.

But again, that doesn't negate, or is mutually exclusive in its association to others.

This is hardly an "either/or" work.

Edit: And again, given Whents nature, it would not surprise me to learn that he commissioned the "crown" because of its rarity, and the fact that Lyanna ends up with it adds another layer of prophetic fate.

[IceFire125]

Upon further reading, I'm not gonna bother anymore, it's like what's the point?

If someone do not want or refuse to believe, than just agree to disagree with meanings and symbolism.

Because it's fruitless and unnecessary to keep going on and on when it won't change people's mind or even have the chance of consideration.

The Snowfyre Chorus have yet to respond on what the blue rose is? or who it represents in the ASOIAF universe. Unless he/she provide an alternative theory that actually makes sense in the story as a whole (thus far in the series), then it's ridiculous that we, the majority that look at the blue rose as one contributing factor of meaning/sign, pointing to R+L=J, should go down to the level of trying to convince someone that obviously do not want to accept it.

[BearQueen87]

Right. Because of the Bael story, people act as if there is some extensive history of associating Stark maidens with winter roses. There's not, as far as we know. There's Lyanna and Bael's girl. I would move to call her Baela, if it wasn't already a Targaryen name.

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if the Targ-like spelling of Bael was on purpose. In order to nudge readers to think of Targaryens in this other blue rose story. Why is GRRM using a Targaryen spelling for this child's father?

Y'know...never even thought about the fact that Bael is a Targ spelling....nice!

Actually, I'm arguing against precisely that point. It's completely reasonable to believe that Lyanna would have been associated with blue roses, whether or not she'd ever laid eyes on Rhaegar. And that she was.

.

I really don't know how given that Lyanna was crowned with blue winter roses BY Rhaegar. Before that, she has no connection to them. Even the Bael story is just an illustration of RL--a royal prince/king who steals a Stark lady and there is a blue rose involved. And in text that story of Bael is told AFTER you already associate Lyanna with flowers, specifically blue winter ones. I really don't see how you are distancing Rhaegar from this at alll.

Blue winter roses grow at Winterfell...so should we associate it with ALL Starks? inducing..*gasp* Jon??

[J. Stargaryen]

No need for insults. All I said is that no one here was saying that there was an 'extensive history' of associating Stark women with blue roses.

No need to try and argue about nothing. Btw, keep reading.

To be honest, I don't believe the son is included in the rose symbolism. As a result, it surprises me that people do find a way to read it that way. It seems rather forced.

And your reading seems rather shallow.

Re: going back through the text to reinterpret in light of "R+L=J"... Once again, I'm confused about whether you would consider "R+L" (1) the premise upon which readers can be expected to locate and identify clues and evidence to Jon's parentage; or (2) the conclusion which readers can be expected to reach on the basis of such clues and evidence. And if you ask me, it looks like it would be very difficult to get to the conclusion (2) without first assuming it as a premise (1). It's very circular.

R+L=J has been figured out by thousands of book readers. Once you know R+L=J, you pick up new things in the text on a reread.

Actually, I'm arguing precisely that point. I believe Lyanna would have been associated with blue roses, whether or not she'd ever laid eyes on Rhaegar. And was.

Hey sj4iy, this is what I'm talking about. And it's an argument I've had before. But thanks for pointing out that no one here is literally saying "extensive history."

Strike the word extensive. There is a history in which a Stark maiden is associated with winter roses. That's what the song of the winter rose is. It's not merely "an illustration" of some more recent event, cleverly cast in the past tense to fool readers. How would Mance, Ygritte, Qhorin, and others (north of the Wall) know anything about Rhaegar, Lyanna, Harrenhal and its aftermath? What interest would Ygritte have in illustrating "R+L?" Reducing an older, widely known oral tradition into nothing but a reflection of something we already "know" effectively excises from Martin's story what may be crucial background for a more informed understanding of the events leading up to Robert's Rebellion.

Are you one of those people who has trouble differentiating in universe knowledge with the reader's perspective?

[BearQueen87]

Strike the word extensive. There is a history in which a Stark maiden is associated with winter roses. That's what the song of the winter rose is. It's not merely "an illustration" or "an allegory" of some more recent event, cleverly cast in the past tense to fool readers. How would Mance, Ygritte, Qhorin, and others (north of the Wall) know anything about Rhaegar, Lyanna, Harrenhal and its aftermath? What interest would Ygritte have in illustrating "R+L?" Reducing an older, widely known oral tradition into nothing but a reflection of something we already "know" effectively excises from Martin's story what may be crucial background for a more informed understanding of the events leading up to Robert's Rebellion.

You're right---Ygritte wouldn't. But she's not trying to tell Jon the story of RLJ...MARTIN IS. There is a difference. Ygritte is just telling a story, but Martin is being all author-as-god and pointing to "the thing" that he wants readers to figure out: another Stark maiden kidnapped by a musician and there is a blue rose...but ooooh TWIST! BABY! And then LOVE!

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I really don't know how given that Lyanna was crowned with blue winter roses BY Rhaegar. Before that, she has no connection to them. Even the Bael story is just an illustration of RL--a royal prince/king who steals a Stark lady and there is a blue rose involved. And in text that story of Bael is told AFTER you already associate Lyanna with flowers, specifically blue winter ones. I really don't see how you are distancing Rhaegar from this at alll.

Blue winter roses grow at Winterfell...so should we associate it with ALL Starks? inducing..*gasp* Jon??

Well, for one thing - in the song of the winter rose, Bael was not a king or a prince. For another, his story is one that has been told about House Stark for at least 200 years, and is widely known enough to have become a common oral tradition. It pre-exists the Harrenhal tourney. So the relevant question to ask is whether Rhaegar's actions there should be interpreted in light of the song of the winter rose - not the other way 'round. Just because we read about the Harrenhal tourney first, doesn't mean we have all the information we need to understand the context in which it occurred. And the story of Bael the bard may provide some of that context - though Martin doesn't offer it to us until book 2. For instance, it's possible that Brandon Stark responded as he did to news of Lyanna's abduction because he'd already mentally framed Rhaegar's actions at Harrenhal in terms of the Bael story.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I don't know who first came up with this theory, so it may have been a Fred, but it has been floating around for a while. I discussed it in some detail in R+L=J v. 38, but I didn't claim that I came up with it on my own.

I said this:

I also said that I was initially skeptical of this theory but that certain things were pointed out to me and that

Then:

Thanks, Twinslayer - I was unfamiliar with that set of posts, but it's very much in line with my understanding of the blue rose metaphor. I had not considered it in terms of how it might apply to Alys Karstark... and I'm not sure I'd make that connection. But it's very interesting.

[BearQueen87]

Well, for one thing - in the song of the winter rose, Bael was not a king or a prince. For another, his story is one that has been told about House Stark for at least 200 years, and is widely known enough to have become a common oral tradition. It pre-exists the Harrenhal tourney. So the relevant question to ask is whether Rhaegar's actions there should be interpreted in light of the song of the winter rose - not the other way 'round. Just because we read about the Harrenhal tourney first, doesn't mean we have all the information we need to understand the context in which it occurred. And the story of Bael the bard may provide some of that context - though Martin doesn't offer it to us until book 2. For instance, it's possible that Brandon Stark responded as he did to news of Lyanna's abduction because he'd already mentally framed Rhaegar's actions at Harrenhal in terms of the Bael story.

Wasn't Bael King-Beyond-The-Wall? (please correct me if I'm not remembering right)--but at any rate, a musician (like Rhaegar).

And no I don't think Brandon Stark new the story of Bael--Jon didn't. It's a Wildling story, not a Westerosi one (and why would it be? It's about the Wildilings getting the better of the Westerosi people and lords. Not a story to be sung by those perceived to be the losers--Bael is a cultural hero to the Wildlings)

[The Twinslayer]

"Kings are a rare sight in the North."

Robert snorted. More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!

.

I have trouble tying these quotes to R+L=J. This one is a good example. The part you quoted makes it sound like there are kings hiding under "Snow." In fact, the fuller dialogue is:

"Where are all your people?"

"Likely they were too shy to come out. Kings are a rare sight in the North."

Then, it is: Robert snorted. "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!"

There is nothing there about kings hiding under snow. Just the commoners in the North hiding from a king.

[BearQueen87]

I have trouble tying these quotes to R+L=J. This one is a good example. The part you quoted makes it sound like there are kings hiding under "Snow." In fact, the fuller dialogue is:

"Where are all your people?"

"Likely they were too shy to come out. Kings are a rare sight in the North."

Then, it is: Robert snorted. "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!"

There is nothing there about kings hiding under snow. Just the commoners in the North hiding from a king.

But I think GRRM is playing fast and loose with grammar here. The subject of Robert's "they" could reflect back to the people (the original subject) OR it could reflect back to Ned's new subject in his second sentence "Kings"