LucyMormont

Members
  • Content count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LucyMormont

  • Rank
    Squire
  1. The best explanation I've read of all the bizarre theories that spread everywhere.
  2. Well, she didn't have him murdered, she had him executed, those are two different things. And the Ramsay thing was only one of the factors considered, it was far from being the main one; otherwise Sansa would have had him killed by Brienne when they met in Mole's Town. Littlefinger was executed for the betrayal of Ned and Catelyn Stark, for the murders of Jon and Lysa Arryn, and because he was plotting to put the Stark sisters against each other, He was still tirelessly pursuing the complete destruction of House Stark for his personal gain, and simply he had to be taken down. This was not about Sansa not taking responsability for her own actions, she had no responsability in almost anything of what LF did to her family. And while she was not forced to marry Ramsay, she was certainly manipulated and lied. In this I agree. But it's hard for me to blame a 15 years old girl who falls into the intrigues of a consummate manipulative liar, when people much older and more experienced than she is (such as Cersei) also did so.
  3. Interesting theory. Yes, some fans support the idea that Ashara married Howland Reed. Others think she is Septa Lemore. It's obvious there is some mistery regarding her character, but for several reasons I'm reluctant to think that she married Howland. The main reason is that Howland literally backstabbed her brother. Although I understand why he did it, it was a very dishonorable act, and a death that the most legendary warrior of his generation surely did not deserve. It would be easier for me to believe that Danaerys would marry Jaime, than Ashara would marry Howland after what he did. The other reason is that the Daynes were loyal to Rhaegar, not to Ned. And once Rhaegar and his other children died, they were loyal to baby Aegon Targaryen, as Rhaegar's heir, and by extension to his mother, not to "Jon Snow" a fake bastard and to Lyanna Stark, sister of the Lord of Winterfell. I mean that Arthur and the other KG gave their lives to eventually be able to restore the Targaryen dinasty. If the baby needed to be hidden a time, and the secret of his birth had to be kept, it was only to protect him until the time arrived to restore him in power. They didn't fight to death to protect "Jon"'s and his mother's lives, which weren't in any danger from Ned Stark; they fought to death to protect the Targaryen dynasty, that was the thing that was threatened if they delivered the child to Ned, as it in fact happened when Ned raised that child as his bastard and hid his origin and birthright to everybody, even the boy himself. And the third reason is that, if Ashara married Howland, why did she fake her death? It wasn't necessary at all. Dawn was made from a meteorite; as far as I'm aware, nowhere is the same said about Lightbringer, Azor Ahai's sword. About Dawn, GRRM said that it is still in Starfall (here), awaiting the Dayne swordman worthy to wield it. It is not enough to be a good one, it has to be an exceptional one, so it's no wonder that there have been none since Arthur Dayne died; it is known that in the history of House Dayne there were occasions when no one of a generation was outstanding enough, and the sword rested in its place without anyone to wield it. Unlike other ancestral swords, it does not belong to the Lord or to the heir, only to the Dayne worthy of being called "Sword of the Morning"
  4. In the show, there are only two KG at the Tower of joy, and the only name we are given is Arthur Dayne, unlike the books, where we know from Ned's fever dream that there were 3, and all their names. In addition, all the other information we have is from the World of Ice and Fire, for example, as @Megorova points out, 2 of those King Guards presumably were with Rhaegar all the time since he eloped with Lyanna (or kidnapped her). The third one, the Commander of the KG Ser Herold Hightower, was sent later by King Aerys to bring Rhaegar back to Kingslanding, but notably he didn't come back with him, but remained in the Tower of Joy guarding Lyanna as the other 2 KG. What I'm trying to say is that the show gives very little information; but as Megorova says, there is no reason to believe that those maid servants we see in the ToJ were from Kings Landing, they were most likely dornish women, posibly faithful and trustworthy servants to House Dayne. On the other side, although Varis knowledge or ignorance of the events can not be concluded from who the servants were, the show certainly DO give the most important piece of information that can not be dismissed so easily: that Rhaegar had his marriage with Ellia annuled by the High Septon. This alone, is huge, the annulment of a royal marriage by the "pope" has great political implications, and it is difficult to think that the "chief of spies" could be unaware of it. In addition, we know that after Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped they "dissapeared", but later when Aerys sent Gerold Hightower to bring Rhaegar back, he has no problems to find him; so obviously somebody told him where he was. Who other in Kings Landing could have known, if not Varys? I mean, if other people knew but he didn't, he would have been certainly a very incompetent spy. So, I think that Varys must have had an idea of where Rhaegar was, and also most likely that he had married Lyanna. But not necesarily he knew about Jon,
  5. The main problem IMO is that we can not establish a correct dating of these events and characters, they are too far in time and only stories and legends remain, which have been transmitted orally for generations, and then someone picked up and put in writting thousands of years after they occurred, if they ever occurred. We can draw a parallel with myths of our real world, which have also been transmitted orally first, and then someone put them in writing ... for example, you could compare the stories about the Long Night around Planetos with the ancient stories about a Great Flood, that many different cultures around the world have. Both can be considered as the trace that remained in the collective memory, of a cataclysmic event that might or might not have actually occurred, but of which we know nothing concrete. Or closer in time, the Trojan War ... Today it is believed that if there was any real warlike event that inspired the epic poems of the Song of Ilion, it must have occurred around 1200 BC. That's barely more than 3000 years ago, and we can not even be relatively confident about whether it happened or not. How would the Weterosi know about events that happened 10.000 or 8000 years ago? That is a great, great deal of time. I believe that many of those ancient events and characters are wrapped in mistery deliberately, and that GRRM's intention is to keep them that way, except those (if there is any) that might be relevant to the development of the story, and need to be revealed. But for this we'll have to wait for the Three-eyed Raven to focus on them. Many theories have emerged along the years, in old threads of this and other forums you can find them. But I think that is best to postpone the debate on these until you've read the books, to not spoil your reading experience
  6. You are obviously right . We don't know which the Old Tongue word for "winter" is (or king), but we can assume that the same Old Tongue word was in the name of the Stark's seat (Winterfell), in their motto "Winter is coming" and in their titles (Kings of Winter) And the way I see it, is that GRRM wrote the books in English, not in the Old Tongue nor the Common Tongue (nor High Valyrian, for the matter). So, I assume that the person who devised the existence of all those fictional languages knew very well how to "translate" to English their original connotation as well as the meaning the words have for the people speaking it, that can vary over time. Anyway, all I wrote is only speculation, and I'm doing it just for fun. True. GRRM is no philologist, and most likely I'm reading too much in his choice of words. But I don't think all of his choices are meaningless and by chance. Is it a coincidence that "Bran" means "crow" in Welsh, and he chose that name for the creator of the Night's Watch, whose men wear black clothes and are known as "crows"? Is it a coincidence that "Craster" is a locational surname, whose original form means "an old fort inhabited by crows" (and that the actual village is located in proximity to Hadrians Wall, just like GRRM Craster's Keep is in proximity to the Wall)? I believe these and many other choices are deliberate, but who knows, maybe his intention was just to add a nice touch. As I said, I'm just speculating for fun, nothing more.
  7. All this have a lot of sense IMO. Simply put, the allegoric and symbolic relations are too much to be random. In addition of all you said, it always intrigued me that the olds Kings in the North were also called Kings of Winter. Why? It has to be more to it than normal winters being harsher in the North than in the South . So I agree that the same word is used with two meanings: we have winters (seasons) and Winter (WW, Long Night, etc) and the second meaning is what we are meant to take when looking at names like Winterfell . The same can be said about Winter is coming (the only house's words that looks like a grim warning, and not something you're proud of, or a threat, like the other house's mottos) . It is a warning passed through generations, and a sentence that has a tacit end, which remains unsaid but it feels as natural as in music a dominant seventh chord needs to fall to the tonic, and is "... and we have to be ready to face it" About Kings of Winter, the etymology of both words gives more curious associations King: Possibly related to Old English cynn "family, race, tribe" (see kin) Winter: Some etymologists think the word comes from the Proto-Indo-European *wind-, meaning “white”. All this suggests that the Kings of Winter are also of the same “family” of “the White (walkers)”, or in other words, they have the same ancestors, pointing to the Stark vs. Stark theory.
  8. Interesting questions. You are absolutely right in that this change in the final episode for Sansa must have been a deliberate choice. They do it all the time, Many of those choices are too subtle for me to catch, for example, did you know that Cercei's clothing at the Dragonpit meeting was meant to give a hint that she was lying and was going to betray them? About Sansa's cloak, it comes to my mind some things I read. Maybe we could draw a parallel with what Michelle Clapton said about Jon's cape, that it was a big, heavy one, meant to give him a strong presence and a Stark lordly look, since it is very similar to the one Ned used to wear. Sansa's one is very similar too, and gives her the "Lady Stark" look. Michelle said that there was a lot of discussion as to when Jon should wear this cape, and when it was convenient for what they were trying to express that he looked more vulnerable, less strong, hence the choice to make him wear that fur cloak when he met Cersei, and the opposite when he first met Dany. It seems strange that they chose to make Sansa look less "strong" in the moment she was more a Lady Stark. She was sentencing someone to death, after all. But if you think about it, and rewatch the scene, out of the three siblings, it was Bran the one with the heaviest cloak (his clothes had the most furs), and I think this might have been meant as to highlight Bran's participation in Littlefginger's demise, and to show that he was the one who took upon himself most of the burden of the decision to execute him. Sansa played the "Lady" role by giving the signal to execute LF, Arya acted on it, but it was Bran who ultimately decided how the things were to play out. The Stark siblings are one now, each one with different parts to play in different moments, but they are together like they never had been, not even as little kids.
  9. We are off topic in this debate, and I've already said what I had to say, If you can not see th difference, then there's nothing more I can say. You and I have two very different takes on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Anyway, it would be very boring if everybody agreed on everything
  10. No, I don't think they have. No Northen House owed any fealty to the Crown, just from the very moment they declared the North independency by naming a King in the North. Until that moment, some of them could have had conflicting loyalties, but we know that in fact they hadn't, all Northen houses chose to follow Robb, broke with the Crown (the Iron Throne), and since then their only oath was to the King in the North.
  11. @jcmontea I am objecting to him being killed because he did not bend the knee to Danaerys Targaryen. I am not sure whether Jon would have spared the Tarlys or not basically because what SmallJon and Harold did was not the same, in the sense that they did not have conflictings oaths to keep, a liege Lord and a King. They only had their oath to the King in the North to keep, and they betrayed that. I agree that Jon would have had Small Jon and Harold executed, But the Tarlys are not in the same situation. In the case of Lord Tarly, he had 2 conflicting loyalties to keep. Here it is pertinent to recall other very alike situations in the past. When Robb's army needed the Freys to open the gates so they could arrive to Riverun in time, Cat was the one in charge of the negotiation. She first recalls what happend with his father's bannermen in the times of Robert's rebellion: And why did those bannermen fight with Rhaegar, despite their liege Lord fighting in the opposite side? That was answered by Walder Frey himself This is the situation here for Lord Tarly, he can not win, because if he goes with Ollena against the Crown, he would still be breaking an oath. And I think that Jon would take that into account, that Randyl Tarly had not a black/white choice to make. One could argue that it was Cersei who broke the fealty pact between the Crown and House Tyrell (it goes both ways), so they and their bannermen owed nothing to the crown anymore, and it would be a strong argument, but anyway, I charge this to the poor writting and not to the Tarlys. The other reason I think Jon would have spared them, is that I can not see Jon killing Sam's family, unless he has very good and indisputable reasons, which in this case, he has not.
  12. Yes, she should have imprisoned them. That's the Westerosi ways, it was shown to us since season 1, in all the battles of the different factions. You win, and those of your enemies who haven't died in the battlefield, you take them prisoners. Two more mouths to feed does not make much of a difference, and in the show anyway this isn't a point because actually she can not feed anyone but this was conveniently overlooked... if this was an issue, she should have not army left, everyone should have starved to death already. What does "breaker of chains" mean in this context? She was no breaker of chains to all the soldiers who actually bent the knee just to not die, quite the contrary... unless you take the chain metaphor too literally. I don't see it as just semantics. I do not have any sympathy for him either.. But he did not deserve to die that way Cersei is not example of anything, she is just a psycho power grabber. Jon maybe would have had him executed for treason, maybe not. I can picture Jon trying to convince Lord Tarly that "the dead are coming for us all" and letting those 2 meditate a bit in cells, just the solution Tyrion thought was the best. That would have been the right thing to do. But what Jon certainly would not have done, is to require them to accept him as their king in exchange for not killing them. Do not get me wrong. I like Danaerys. I do not think that she is mad, nor that she is evil. But she has done wrong things, and has been unnecesarily ruthless in the past, and this is one of those things. She has still plenty to learn. Anyway, we can agree to disagree
  13. Still way better than being burnt alive, don't you think? And no, they were not going to get stripped of anything, Jon had already said that he wouln't do that, and that his word was final, before asking the question. So did the Karstarks and Umbers. Particularly the Umbers, who got Rickon killed by giving him to Ramsay as a gift. It is to note that at the moment he did that, to all accounts and as far as he knew, Rickon was the true King in the North as Robb's only surviving trueborn male brother and heir. Anyway, Jon sparing of House Karstark and Umber was because the remaining members had not have decision power in what the heads of the Houses did; Jon would most likely have had those 2 executed for treason had they survived the battle. And no, the Tarlys did not deserve firmer treatment, they were defeated and unarmed, it was cruel and unjustified to kill them like that. She did not say "For treason to your liege Lady, I sentence you to death," she said "bend the knee or die" , those are two very different things,
  14. Lol. And then, "queen" Sansa and queen Dany would put Jon in charge, because he is the most fit to lead in this troubled times. Seriously, all the possible struggles between them for different reasons, and Jon's own identity crisis, won't last long. Or in the worst case,all that things will have to wait till the WW are dealt with. They just do not have time for that kind of narrow-mindedness now. And there is a strong possibility that some or even all of them do not survive, so what's the point?
  15. This exactly. As in real life history, european royal houses who practiced inbreeding for many generations weren't aware of it. The most representative of this were the Habsburg, whose last Spanish king, Charles II, noted for his physical, intellectual, and emotional disabilities, received the surname of The Bewitched (el Hechizado), and was believed of having been victim of a curse by his contemporaries, and as far as we know, that is what he himself believed. Things were so far that when he failed to produce an heir, was subjected to painful rituals of exorcism, which I suppose did not help at all with his mental stability. His sister, Margharet Theresa , a beautiful girl (the princess in the Velazquez's famous painting Las Meninas) and "the joy" of her parents, married her uncle (who was also her first cousin once removed, since was her mother's brother and her father's first cousin). People who give a modern mindset to Planeto's characters, and think those characters would see things as we see them in 2017, just don't have a clue.