King Ned Stark

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About King Ned Stark

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    Good point, perhaps there was confusion and miscommunication. For the second point, I can't see why they would be there for any other reason than they believe it is the right thing to do. Have you seen any good ideas as to why they would still be with Lyanna and Jon if they didn't think Jon was heir?
  2. Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    Assuming all the following to be true: 1-Rhaegar and Lyanna married. 2-Those 3 KG stayed to fulfill their duty to their new king and queen regent (like Stannis told Massey - if I die seat Shireen on the throne). Then that is possibly gonna cast some shade on Ned, right? He chose war over a Lannister bastard, but before he chose peace and his friend over his nephew's right. Is this another example of Ned getting clever with wording on someone's deathbed (Rob and Lyanna)? Any thoughts on that, anyone?
  3. Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    That's really clever. If Jon is the legitimate son of a second wife, it puts Danny's heart in conflict. Is she doing what is right, or just for power like the others vying for the throne.
  4. Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    The fact that polygamy is rare is a clue in and of itself, to me. Kind of like the out-of-nowhere Beric resurrection, by a largely unfaithful priest. Martin seems keen on laying down precedents, so later surprises don't seem so far fetched. If the majority of Targ kings had multiple wives, then everyone would assume Rhaegar would. Making it rare, hides it in plain sight. Regarding the KG, I think Hightower is the key, as it seems fairly clear that Whent and Dayne were firmly with Rhaegar, in for a penny, in for a pound. I think Rhaegar managed to swing HT to his side, as Gerold was unhappy with Aerys, but as Jaime said, "That's the Old Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree". Maybe that's a clue as well, that they both turned on their king, but Jaime did so in a violent way, but Hightower only acquiesced after hearing Rhaegar's plan for a peaceful transition; a la Maximus in Gladiator. Once he had command and loyalty of the army, he could march in and plant whomever he wanted on the throne. Getting back to the precedent thing, I think Robert keeping Barry in for his will, and then Ned having him read the will is important. It's let's us know that the Lord Commander of the KG has authority and is entrusted with kings wills and decrees. On a personal, tinfoily, note, I think Hightower was sent with Aerys's decree legitimizing Rhaegar's second marriage, in a trade off for putting down the rebellion. I think Rhaegar was in communication with Aerys (and Tywin, who was unresponsive) for sometime, hence Aerys running through multiple Hands' of the King. And why Rhaegar left Jaime as a hostage against Tywin.
  5. It's not Alys Karstark, either

    I think it is Lyanna Stark. Jeyne never made it to a lake of that size, Arya doesn't fit because the lake is starting to freeze, and Alys would have had to nearly double the length of her route to fit. The wording Martin uses while Arya and Gendry are traveling along the Gods Eye is the same as used by Mel to Mance. And, even as Mel watched, the grey girl blew away.
  6. Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

    As with most of Martin's riddles, he has covered his tracks well, and while I do not think it's necessary for to the story for Jon to be legitimate, there are subtle clues that Martin has planted that I feel should not be hand-waved away. Most notably, the Faith Militant uprising, which came about due to three transgressions of king Aenys, which has somewhat of a nice symmetry with the events of the past twenty years within asoiaf. Stannis resembles lord Goren Greyjoy who ousted the faith of the seven from the Iron Islands. Joffrey is a parallel to "King Abomination". And lastly, the one I found most peculiar, is that Martin decided to have prince Maegor take a second wife, against the wishes of his king and the high septon. So we have a precedent of a prince, not a king, taking a second wife. That should tell us that neither the king nor the faith of the seven have to okay a marriage, or that they have the authority to annul such a marriage against someone's wishes. Later we see Targaryen kings bend more to the will of the Faith, but is this a clever way of hiding Rhaegar's polygamy? Couple that with @Lady Blizzardborn's point ( I think, if not my apologies) that I had not thought of before; that perhaps Rhaegar was looking for an "heir and a spare", or the high septon was playing politics and thought Rhaegar must win. How much do we really know about the events that happened in that time? Is it possible that Rhaegar's Aegon was a stand-in, until the prince could get a legitimate heir? Maybe not, I'm not good with the timeline. Or that Rhaegar was skeptical that he could overthrow his father whilst ensuring the safety of his children? So, for me, it could go either way, and I'd be fine with it.
  7. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    Matt Cassel, IMHO, is the best example of that, but a lot of people don't know (I didn't until recently) that 2007 patriots played something like the 3rd hardest schedule, went 16-0. The Matt Cassel patriots played something like the 28th hardest schedule, went 11-5, but lost the division and missed the playoffs. I don't know if there were other "radical" changes from one year to the next, but if not, it speaks highly of Brady, and Bill's ability to recognize this. After that, qb-desperate teams were exactly that, desperate. Making moves out of desperation, whether in monopoly or the NFL, is never a good decision. Trading or signing Mallet or Hoyer, even back then it was foolish. I didn't like the Mallet draft. Sorry man, not trying to give you hard time, so I hope you don't take it as such. But the Cassel ordeal, I think, coupled with Belichick's somewhat unorthodox approach, leads people to undervalue Brady. Just my opinion. However, Belichick had a 3-5? year sample size at Cleveland, and did nothing. I think they're both great, but if I have to pin the patriots "greatness" on one man, I pick Brady. Maybe that's just me. Just a general thought, in hindsight, deflategate may have been a blessing in disguise for Brady and the patriots. It seems to have somewhat lit a fire under Craft and Belichick. Of course they want to repeat, but their wheelings and dealings in FA almost makes me think they want to erase the 18-1 blemish, if you can call that a blemish.
  8. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    I don't get that much into best-of-all-time. I will say I thought while I watched them, that Marino (the best thrower of a football I've seen) was better than Montana, but everyone said Joe's a winner; never holding it against Montana that he played for an all star team (and Marino played with junk). Now, it seems the criteria has changed, Brady is the best winner of all time, but I see a lot of "yeah but...", where Bill or the defense is concerned. Where is the criteria now, somewhere between "eye test" and stats? Was never a Manning fan, so admittedly biased, however Manning (who ran his own offense?) seemed to call a lot of passing plays when it was 1st and goal in the 4th quarter when he was up two touchdowns.
  9. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    Reports that Butler will visit the Saints thursday, Bill can match offer (if they make one) or take Saints first rd pick (11). Think I'd rather have Butler, and go for it all the next few years, but either way, it seems too good to be true.
  10. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    I read somewhere this morning that if Butler doesn't at least play the last seven games, then they could tag him again next year with the first round tender, IIRC. So, yeah, the guy has no leverage. Don't necessarily like seeing it, as he is nearing 30 and has never "cashed in". But I guess that's business.
  11. Political power and arms

    @Altherion, to directly answer the last question of your OP, no, I personally do not think the Constitution, or the 2nd Amendment is antiquated or obsolete, even given the full might the US military can bring to bear. It may be more important now because the military is so much better equipped. The civilians would have overwhelming numbers, something like 100 million to 4 million (and that's including state and federal LE). As to who would win, I personally don't see the civilian populace being able to throw back the military in a no holds barred fight, but there are too many variables to know for sure. One being that military and LE personnel, AFAIK, are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the federal government. But, oaths don't mean all that much to most people, I think, yet surely there would be dissenters. Having said all that, just because you believe you can't win a fight doesn't mean you shouldn't actually fight, IMHO. I'll state further that it's my personal and probably unpopular opinion that the 2nd amendment has been partially shredded over time. Military and LE have access to SBR's, SBS's, full auto, suppressors, etc (civilians can acquire some of these, through long and costly applications, which require approval from local and federal authorities and a tax stamp). I don't think the founding fathers would agree with these laws. But that may be off topic. I'm reminded of the opening scene of the movie Body of Lies; I think I agree with the sentiment, that it is a fallacy to believe a prolonged war will weaken an occupied enemy, the longer the fight went, the more it could swing in favor of the civilians, maybe? I'm no military buff, but that does sound somewhat accurate to me.
  12. @Macgregor of the North, @SFDanny, you've both given me a lot to think on, which is the reason I started this thread, to get all points of view and see what seems to fit best. I don't post a lot, and start threads even less, because of time restraints and other obligations I typically can't keep up with savvy posters. I do enjoy a good debate, and the truth above a theory of my own. @SFDanny, the link @Lord Wraith provided, specifically that Lyanna warned Rhaegar has made me warm to your theory, mainly because I admit the I look at the north, and in particular the Stark's with rose-colored glasses. It seems fitting that Martin would use POV to obscure things. I tend to look at the Starks' through a "Ned Stark" lens, and not all Starks are like Ned, and maybe Martin fooled me on that, or I fooled myself.
  13. NFL Superbowl: Dont Waste My Overtime

    @Altherion, agreed, I engaged in some hyperbole. But it gets a bit tiresome for me talking to the football fans that I do (I'm not from the New ENgland area, though I have been a fan since my high school days, the days of Drew-Bledsoe-much-he-got-a-transfusion-on-the-field, and we don't have a professional football team), where the hatred turned at some point of Belichick towards Brady, like Bill could just plug me in at QB and make me an all-pro QB. As to your response to Sperry, I agree, but again I come from an area where the only people I know who like the patriots are my dad, brother, wife and kids. And honestly, I've stopped telling people who I pull for or wearing apparel, because too many people want to negatively engage me. It's gets tiresome. My kids came home from school and told me everyone was mad that the Falcons lost, the hatred runs deep, even in states that don't have a team, which seems odd to me.
  14. Thx, that is very compelling. I think you may be right, or that you are right, I'm just unsure, personally, when Rhaegar's "behavior" became erratic, for lack of a better word, to outsiders due to his involvement with prophecy. May be it was the crowning, that's where he definitely starts doing things that confuse/anger a lot of people.
  15. @J. Stargaryen, @Macgregor of the North, good stuff guys. So much from Harrenhal to the ToJ engagement is confusing to me. 1-Why did Rhaegar crown Lyanna, when it was so self-destructive towards his own ends? 2-Did Lyanna stay at Harrenhal after the tourney? I can reconcile with myself with the "abduction", as I think she was actually fleeing kings' men sent to arrest her, to lure Rickard, a la Brandon. I think Lyanna was actually the grey girl on a dying horse, and the GoHH told Rhaegar where she was. Hence the journey that would ultimately lead him back to the riverlands. 4-I can even reconcile why Rhaegar stayed away, completely unsupported by text, but Rhaegar and Lyanna married, and Rhaegar demanded a royal decree recognizing said marriage before coming back. I think, Martin set a precedent here with LC of the kingsguard carrying/witnessing royal wills/decrees (with Ned, Barristan, and Robert). Gerold seems pro-Aerys, and then suddenly is team Rhaegar, I think Gerold was the cement that Rhaegar demanded to close their deal, like Ned tried with barry and Cersei. Also, Maegor took a second wife as a prince, and was exiled by his brother the king, why add that tidbit, just backstory? Perhaps Aerys wanted to disinherit/or exile Rhaegar, but couldn't find a suitable war commander? 5-The lone survivor, Ethan Glover, why was he spared? Seems a small thing, but the World Book tells us that Aerys executed ALL the Darklyns, distant kin, good-kin, etc., and would have executed Dontos, a boy if not for Barry. I have my own thoughts, but again it's not supported with text, and actually might make a famous line in the books a lie. But, I think Martin has kicked the "unreliable narrator" thing into high gear. Those are 5 off the top of my head. At this point I don't think we can solve anything on textual support and look to motive, how those characters typically acted, albeit in secondhand flashbacks. Anyway, answer if ya like, if either have an opinion, as I think a lot of these instances are subtly connected, or should I say, I don't like the coincidence angle, as in, ahh Aerys forgot about Ethan, etc.