Mehmet Eren Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Well To begin with I believe Bran will be stronger than Bloodraven near time and we know Bloodraven left very short time ....And there must be stark in Winterfall( I believe it is part of magic keeping other out of seven kingdom ) but there will be another reason to back question Why Bloodraven call last Stark out of home and suggest him to came beyond the wall ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Highland Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 He is not a stark so maybe he doesn't care. Or maybe he knows why there must always be a Stark in Winterfell and thinks that is an obstacle to his plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 That's a valid question. I think the only answer is that taking Bran out of Winterfell at that time was a better alternative then letting him stay there. He had no way to survive on his own. Winterfell had fallen. Anyone that found him there would be an enemy more than likely. Also, during Bran's dream with the 3 eyed raven, (BR), he said, "now you know why you must live." "Why?" asked Bran. "Because Winter is coming!" So, it probably is that he thought it the lesser of two evils. Bran had to leave Winterfell in order to save it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mywintersong Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Plus Rickon is a Stark. Bran is not the last one. Not that a five year old can rule Winterfell, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Maybe he had sent Benjen to assume the title in the absence of Bran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Because "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" is a political idea of one Eddard Stark, a guy who did not even believe in others, that is not linked to any world-balance magic or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolorous22 Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 BR didn't request the last Stark or that WF be abandoned. Most of that is beyond BR's control. He needed Bran regardless of tWo5K. Because "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" is a political idea of one Eddard Stark, a guy who did not even believe in others, that is not linked to any world-balance magic or anything. And this ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Because "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" is a political idea of one Eddard Stark, a guy who did not even believe in others, that is not linked to any world-balance magic or anything. Where did you come by this information? I've never seen it expressed this way before and I'm curious. Everyone else, including myself seems to think there is a very important, albeit unknown reason that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell and I don't think it has anything to do with a political idea of Eddard Stark. Eddard seems the least politically minded person in all of Westeros, barring Sansa of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Maybe he had sent Benjen to assume the title in the absence of Bran. Now this is an interesting POV. Can you explain why you think Benjen is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Plus Rickon is a Stark. Bran is not the last one. Not that a five year old can rule Winterfell, but still. Rickon is a Stark, yes. He is not at Winterfell either and at the time he left Winterfell he was 3 years old, or possibly 4, but only just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Bran would be skinless now if he had stayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Do people really think that is anything more than some saying the Stark's have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateral Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Do people really think that is anything more than some saying the Stark's have? thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Why do you assume BR to have positive intentions? He hushed up the twincest in the first place, in the best situation to discover and deal with it. And he personally broke guestright earlier in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Why do you assume BR to have positive intentions? He hushed up the twincest in the first place, in the best situation to discover and deal with it. And he personally broke guestright earlier in his career. I am not in the least convinced that BR has good intentions. I'm not at all sure the CoTF aren't inherently evil. That they are pictured and described as beautiful, nature loving creatures does not mean that they can't be the bad guys. Even having read the D&E books, I'm still not sure about Bloodraven. I was simply giving an example of why he would take the Stark in Winterfell from WF. Afterall, Bran leaving was the only way for him to survive. They would not have been able to survive in the crypt for much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Do people really think that is anything more than some saying the Stark's have? I absolutely think there is something more to it than just a saying the Stark's have. Eddard tells Catelyn she can't go to King's Landing with him because there "must always be a Stark in Winterfell." That doesn't sound political to me, it sounds like foreshadowing. Ominous foreshadowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoon89 Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Where did you come by this information? I've never seen it expressed this way before and I'm curious. Everyone else, including myself seems to think there is a very important, albeit unknown reason that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell and I don't think it has anything to do with a political idea of Eddard Stark. Eddard seems the least politically minded person in all of Westeros, barring Sansa of course. People that have read some of GRRM's other works (specifically The Ice Dragon) are hung up on the idea of Winterfell having a special significance beyond being symbol of strength, and a building where the Stark's live. It's no accident that at the point in the story when Winterfell gets sacked and burned that most of Westeros sees them as a house with falling fortunes and on the verge of extinction. As the Starks regain their power as a family, I think you'll see Winterfell regain it's old image. Why do you assume BR to have positive intentions? He hushed up the twincest in the first place, in the best situation to discover and deal with it. And he personally broke guestright earlier in his career. Maybe the twincest was a necessary thing to occur within the bigger plan. In regards to BR we just don't know enough about his end game to make a judgement, it could be as simple a get a Targaryen back on the throne, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Maybe the twincest was a necessary thing to occur within the bigger plan. In regards to BR we just don't know enough about his end game to make a judgement, it could be as simple a get a Targaryen back on the throne, who knows. Probably. But personally, I wouldn't rate a "bigger plan" which necessitates a continent-destroying war as positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avlonnic Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Jojen Reed explained to Bran why he and Meera would risk their lives to help Bran - to free the 'chained wolf' of Jojen's greendreams. Greenseers are so extremely rare that few are born and none have made it to BR in all these years. BR began calling to Bran in his dreams while there were yet many Starks in Winterfell. Bran is strong in green powers but he must be taught how to awaken and harness those powers. And for that, Bran needs to go to BR and the COTF. Whatever is coming from the Land of Always Winter, it seems dire enough to risk everything to get Bran to the cave, a most treacherous journey. (On a hopeful note, however, I wonder if there is technically a Stark in Winterfell again...now that Bran can access Winterfell's heart tree at will...) That's a valid question. I think the only answer is that taking Bran out of Winterfell at that time was a better alternative then letting him stay there. He had no way to survive on his own. Winterfell had fallen. Anyone that found him there would be an enemy more than likely. Also, during Bran's dream with the 3 eyed raven, (BR), he said, "now you know why you must live." "Why?" asked Bran. "Because Winter is coming!" So, it probably is that he thought it the lesser of two evils. Bran had to leave Winterfell in order to save it. To save Winterfell and humanity, perhaps. BR didn't request the last Stark or that WF be abandoned. Most of that is beyond BR's control. He needed Bran regardless of tWo5K. Agreed. Where did you come by this information? I've never seen it expressed this way before and I'm curious. Everyone else, including myself seems to think there is a very important, albeit unknown reason that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell and I don't think it has anything to do with a political idea of Eddard Stark. Eddard seems the least politically minded person in all of Westeros, barring Sansa of course. Agreed. Eddard is a creature of the North, steeped in its traditions and in responsibility and duty. He never had a shred of "southron ambitions" as Lord of Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Where did you come by this information? I've never seen it expressed this way before and I'm curious. Everyone else, including myself seems to think there is a very important, albeit unknown reason that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell Not everybody else. I'm with the Errant Bard on this one. Maybe not a strictly "political" reason but rather a tradition. There's heaps of reasons as on how it could have started. Maye the first Starks decided that one of them always has to b at their holdfast to watch if the Others return. Maybe in the early days many other families sought to claim Winterfell and its hotsprings and so the Starks were very protective of it. I never had the feeling that there was any "magical" reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.