• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ygrain

  1. You're putting the horses before the cart. The vision doesn't imply one way or the other for the first two shadows, only that they are somehow important, and the third one is clearly a malevolent presence. It can work as non-malevolent versus malevolent, but it is in no way a given. It's not about who is better or worse, Varys is definitely a terrible person, as well, but the point is that Varys didn't plan or want the demise of House Stark. For him, it's not personal - if the Starks don't meddle in or turn out beneficial, he leaves them alone, if they get in the way, he throws them under the bus. He basically doesn't care. Whereas, Petyr engineering a situation in which Lannisters were bound to turn on the Starks, and as the ones more ruthless and in their own territory in KL, things were bound not to end well for Ned and House Stark. The only wolf howling in the rain I know about is Greywind, trying to warn Robb. The only time I can think about that rain is narratively or thematically important is the Red Wedding aka Frey going Rains of Castamere. There is no other scene than Red Wedding where we get music interspersed with screams and a very sad moment involving little bells. It is no use looking at the individual elements of the vision, it must be all of them combined. Thus the second vision is tied to the first one, sort of explaining the wolf's grief. The first two visions are connected through situation, and the third and fourth through the person. The motive is clear - his crimes against House Stark. The only unknown factor is how Sansa or Arya find out. Sansa heard Lysa say that she put the tears in Jon Arryn's wine and blamed it on the Lannisters at Petyr's behest, but hasn't figured out what it means. Sandor and Barristan were present when Petyr held the dagger to Ned's throat, and Tyrion knows Petyr framed him for the attempt on Bran. When or if the characters converge, they may pass on the knowledge, and Bran might see it all on the weirnet. When his machinations are uncovered, death will be the penalty and his head, I hope, will be placed on the walls of Winterfell, like the scene with the doll foreshadowed. If Sansa orders the execution and someone else carries it out, or if she swings the blade herself like the Starks should, Petyr has had it long coming. Show spoiler Beric. Who has been killed and resurrected way too many times.
  2. It is obvious only after it happens, just like Patchface's rhyming about chains for the guests. And what is the purpose of the purple flowers that Arya is never seen wearing? What happened at that feast we never saw nor hear about? Do you really need to be explained the difference between Varys, who makes use of people as he sees fit regardless of who they are, and LF, who planned the demise of the Starks from the get-go? Or do you need to be reminded of the extent of Sandor's involvement with both Sansa and Arya? See below. Couldn't agree more. Sigh. My point is that the descrition fits both Jaime and Joffrey, who, being Jaime's son, has his golden looks, as well.
  3. Found Joffrey's Blackwater armour - part-gold: Boy and horse alike wore gilded mail and enameled crimson plate, with matching golden lions on their heads. The pale sunlight flashed off the golds and reds every time Joff moved. Bright, shining, and empty, Sansa thought. Funny how Sansa's thoughts fit with the imagery of Bran's vision.
  4. OT: Could someome help my memory if it has been discussed that the shadow "armored like the sun, golden and beautiful" is not Jaime but Joffrey? He also possessed a golden armour (had it for his funeral, haven't checked what he was wearing during the battle of Blackwater), and his involvement in the Starks' lives had a bigger impact than Jaime's.
  5. There is a difference between thining creatively and between making things up so that they "fit", sorry - besides, your hypothetical scenario doesn't fit, either, because if Arya was indeed wearing them, we would have a comment how she was lucky that she got the rash only on her arms. Besides, why would the vision show something so absolutely inconsequential that happened completely off page, as something to characterize Arya? It doesn't make any sense at all. If he was important enough to be shown in a vision just because he was there all along, then he should have got a honorable mention, at least in retrospect or something, and with Bran's interest in knights, he wouldn't have escaped his attention (you're forgetting that we have Bran and Jon's PoVs during the royal visit to Winterfell). No, he doesn't wear an armour, but Sandor doesn't have a hound's face, either - i.e., the vision is symbolic and the armour needn't be literal. LF's family sigil is the Titan (just like Sandor's are the hounds), which is a statue/fortess, i.e. stone (and bronze, I know). Furthermore, armour can be used in figurative meaning (e.g. Sansa's courtesy is a lady's armour) and stone is associated with lack of feelings and mercilessness (Lady Stoneheart), so there is a number of explanations why the armour may not be a literal one and still fit Petyr. Plus, that thing that both me and LM have pointed out before - even he is not there yet, LF has had an immense impact on the Starks' lives, the biggest of all the characters involved with them, and a negative one, so he indeed is a giant shadow looming over any other. But death and destruction is what he spreads, and his psyche under his smooth exterior is deadly and corrupt. I don't see Sansa as weak-willed, for one, and if she arranges the situation, or issues a killing order, she would be the one who killed LF even if her own hands remained clean.
  6. Reference guide The R+L=J theory claims Jon Snow most probably is the son of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Ned's sister Lyanna Stark. The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory: Jon Snow's Parents And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary: Jon Snow's Parents A Wiki of Ice and Fire: Jon Snow Theories Radio Westeros podcast: A Dragon, a Wolf and a Rose Kingmonkey's essay: R+L=J Frequently Asked Questions: How can Jon be a Targaryen if ordinary fire burned his hand? Targaryens are not immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. See this thread on Targaryen fire immunity. Don't all Targaryens have hallmark Valryian silver-golden hair and purple eyes? Not all of them: Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Bittersteel, who like Jon was half first men blood, had brown hair. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had the Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin). Rhaenyra Targaryen's three sons all had brown hair and brown eyes even though both their parents had light silver-gold hair. Had Jon Valyrian features, it would give his parentage away: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Tyrion got the bit about the mother wrong, though: his mother was the Stark. If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him? Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar. Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be? Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son. How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf? He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves. Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother? Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother. There's a hidden hint at who Jon's mother might be: In chapter 4, Eddard's internal monologue goes "Lyanna ... Ned had loved her with all his heart." and in chapter 6, Catelyn thinks "Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely". Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn? We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side. Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as "my sons in the very first chapter? In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon and explicitly excludes Jon from the list. ADwD Chapter 34 has Bran's vision of younger Ned in the Winterfell godswood: "...let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive..." which not make sense if they are brothers. Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard? He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate. Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal? Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell. George R.R. Martin says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is alsothis SSM predating the worldbook. On Polygamy essay by Ygrain with additions by Rhaenys_Targaryen Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage? If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir. Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though? The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else." We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order. "Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J. Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir? No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens) and in hindsightby maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see the next answer. Are matters of succession just as clear as presented here? Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking. Ned is dead. Who's going to tell anyone about it? Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's CrannogmanHowland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and George R.R. Martin has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body" tells that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned. Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story? The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown. This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true? It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 18 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight. George R.R. Martin is a "breaker of tropes, there can be no hidden prince, it's simply too cliché. In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope. Is there a list of all R+L=J clues that have been found? There is a list of R+L=J hints, clues and foreshadowing compiled by sj4iy. Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans? He has stated that he won't change the outcome of the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle. A thread for discussing strengths and weaknesses of the theory that Jon Snow's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna. Previous editions: Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread
  7. So the flowers that she was holding in her ARMS, are shown in a vision as serpents in her HAIR. Sheesh. Because 2-metre tall men are so easy to miss in the crowd, apparently. So, the vision showed us a person that no-one, the author included, considered important enough to mention, who has zero importance to two out of the three characters included in the vision and a limited one to the third one... It might have been Gregor, but if it was him, it definitely wasn't due to his proximity at the time.
  8. ???Where is this stated? The first time we see Gregor in AGOT, it's at the Hand's tourney. And why should he be escorting Robert, anyway? He's a Lannister vassal, not Robert's, and the three guards are Jaime, Boros and Meryn. It's definitely not JonCon, but not for the reason of proximity. At that point of the story, Jaime wasn't doing anything except being around, which is hardly worth placing him in a vision, and Sandor's only contribution is killing Mycah. It's Jaime's past (pushing Bran) and future (ambushing Ned and sending Brienne on the quest to find Sansa) that makes him significant, and Sandor later becomes involved with both Sansa and Arya. Gregor has zero connection to Sansa or Ned and there is no interaction between him and Arya during her capture, so there is no reason for him to be in the vision, either. Whereas Littlefinger is the reason why they all went to KL (had Lysa murder Jon Arryn and blame the Lannisters for it), and his betrayal of Ned directly caused Sansa and Arya's respective ordeals, not to mention that he is the prime suspect in enabling Jaime's ambush of Ned and manipulating Joffrey into executing Ned. If that doesn't count as a gigantic influence looming over other persons involved with the Starks' lives, I don't know what else might.
  9. You're welcome :-)
  10. Which is why I favour LF. His scheming has had an immense impact on Ned, Sansa a Arya's lives, and in this respect, Gregor doesn't fit at all - out of the three, he was involved only with Arya, and not even personally. There is no reason why the vision should point him out as the most important figure. And death on an immense scale is what his machinations cause, so that his twisted little ego can have the power and revenge that has consumed him. His smooth, unthreatening appearance is like a mask, or helmet, but when you look inside, you see him for what he is.
  11. The bells belong to the Red Wedding vision and it's a reference to poor Jinglebell with his little bells.
  12. I think those are valid points - Manderly doesn't want to pledge himself to Stannis but cannot afford to flat out refuse just yet, so he's basically buying himself time by dispatching Davos on... is it correct to say, a shaggydog mission? If Manderly was indeed the one who dispatched Rickon and Osha to Skagos, he doesn't really need Davos to go there, right? How Osha and Rickon got to Skagos is the only part of the whole story which I find potentially fishy, even though there certainly could be a plausible explanation how they got there and how Wex learned (in fact, the knowledge the two went to Skagos may not have come from Wex himself but from Manderly's own search after he learned about the survivors).
  13. That's what I think, as well. Either he was unconscious or pretended to be dead, and Ramsay's men didn't bother to do anything about the dead, they left them where they fell, no matter who they were. I don't see anything implausible here :-) Oh? And where does it say "they didn't find any bodies in godswood"? I've re-read the chapter, and it doesn't. There may have been bodies which either Bran didn't see because they were not along the path they took to the hearttree, or were omitted in the description because they were not important, just like GRRM doesn't describe every single body they encounter as they roam amongst the castle ruins the whole morning See above - it would have been perfectly possible for Luwin to drag himself there after Ramsay and his men were gone. In fact, it is the only explanation that makes sense, because had he tried to crawl there while they were present, they would have finished him off. As for the inconsistence between the people and voices, I think it is a matter of omission as well as a couple other linguistic knacks the names of which I have forgotten: the number given doesn't necessarily relate to the number of voices heard (and as you have noted yourself, it is technically only five people speaking, anyway). What Wex "said" is not, "I heard six people talking"; what he, with the intrusions from Manderly and Glover, says, is "I heard voices. There were six people who were supposed to be dead". It is completely irrelevant how many people were actually speaking under the hearttree, and poor Luwin is irrelevant, too because he is not one who had disappeared from the castle and had been presumed dead, and he died shortly after, anyway. Hence the discrepancy in the numbers: number six doesn't relate to everyone speaking or present but to the number of people who were supposed to be dead but weren't and are hugely important.
  14. Lyanna holding onto roses on her deathbed comes from Ned's memory of her demise in his very first PoV, it has nothing to do with the dream sequence.
  15. I'm afraid not, someone reported it here from a con, I think, and I've seen it referenced around several times since. I was never invested in it, so I didn't look for the link.
  16. Back then, Cersei was not Mrs Bobby B yet.
  17. In fact, this is further supported by the Kevan epilogue where he thinks that Cersei would have given him the sons he wanted - not meaning that Kevan knew what was going on in Rhaegar's head but that he thought wanting more sons was the motivation behind Rhaegar's actions, and didn't think such a motivation out of place.
  18. How is your quote supportive of anything? The reference to Lyanna comes before it, as a reaction to Robert asking him for a promise (and the promise concerns serving the boar at the funeral feast, so hardly anything to do with Jon's parentage). You have it backwards: IF Jon is Robert's, THEN the passage might mirror a promise to Lyanna, but it doesn't work the other way round because Ned, the one who gave the promise, doesn't draw any connection. Where he does draw one, it is with Sansa pleading with him to save Lady. I'd like to see the evidence. So far, an avid supporter of the theory failed miserably. I would very much like to see something that trumps Lyanna's iconic blue roses which she received from Rhaegar, meaning that every single mention of the item ties not only to Lyanna but to the person who gifted them, as well. A strawman. Being able to show the parentage one way or the other has zero bearings on who the parents really were. Another strawman. Trying to second-guess the author is not a proof for or against anything. Plus, you forget about Robb's will - naming Jon his heir makes him also heir of Winterfell. The current situation in the NW offers at least two scenarios for him to be released of his vows, either by his death, or by NW being eliminated in an ensuing fight. A third scenario would be Jon breaking the vow not to take any crown for the sake of the greater good, because as KitN, he would be able to organize a more effective defence of the realms of men. The list of hypothetical objects in the crypt is much longer, but all of them have one thing in common: their presence there depends on Lyanna being his mother. Last time I checked, her tomb was still there, so again, a nice strawman there. Please. How does king imagery rule out Targaryen, as in, royal, heritage? If anything it would tie to both because as Rhaegar's only surviving heir, he would have a claim to the IT. Plus, you might start wondering about Jon's dream, where he see himself in an armor of black ice. There is just one person in the series famous for a black armour, and it's neither Brandon nor Robert. BTW, the Corn king theory was rejected by GRRM, so it doesn't matter what it relates to or not. And how does this point to anything about Jon's parentage? The shadows between Cat and Ned are a figure of speech. Bran's coma is filled with prophetic visions and the shadows in Mirri's tent are magic-induced. None have anything to do with the others. Allusions to incest, in the book where incest plays a major role in the plot, can hardly be considered a hint towards anything. Sorry. B+L doesn't make Jon a true heir of anything, because he would still be a bastard. So now we're into "Dany is not Dany"? How does this affect Jon's parentage? You're again putting the cart before the horses. Well, let me think... how might a guy born of the union of Ice and Fire fit in the story called A Song of Ice and Fire ? Long story short: all you're doing is arguing your own assumptions. You don't have any text to support what you say, not do you counter the actual arguments in support of RLJ. You don't like RLJ, fine, but your argumentation doesn't really bring in any food for thought.
  19. /cough/ Stannis and Renly /cough/ Apparently, you don't even need to wait for a generation
  20. Travelling without proper retinue and clothes befitting her status? I don't think that would be convincing. I'd ascribe it to Tyrion's fragile ego - Tywin has crushed it so many times that Tyrion probably wouldn't confide to him even if his life depended on it (which, in a way, it did).
  21. That's how I perceive Rhaegar, too. I just know that quite a few people paint him in a different light.
  22. All I am saying is that while Jon Arryn's murder was mainly a means to an end, there may have been another motive. The timing was definitely chosen to cast the suspicion at the Lannisters, but who knows what Arryn may have stumbled into? As to Tyrion not figuring it all out, he might have, given enough time, he certainly saw there was something fishy going on. To make Jon Arryn's death seem suspicious. Those two had one hell of a motive, and given Ned's not actually subtle feelings about the Lannisters, it was an easy bait. He couldn't. He made an educated guess that in case of Jon Arryn's death, Robert would turn to Ned instead of Stannis or Renly, and that if Ned had a suspicion that Jon's death wasn't of natural causes, he would start to investigate. If there was nothing suspicious going on, if the Lannisters had nothing to hide, Ned would never have confronted Cersei, and here is where the conflict starts for real because that's when Robb calls the banners and when Tywin stops hiding behind his dogs' plundering. Oh, Baelish definitely wouldn't want Stannis on the IT, on that we can agree, but are you so sure that this was the first time LF made such a move? Remember Ned's fateful visit to the brothel? How did he get there? He wanted to leave KL ASAP along with Arya and Sansa, but what happened? LF chose that particular moment to tell him about Barra. Are we supposed to believe that he had only found out? Had Baelish not interfered, Ned would never have encountered Jaime, who learned about his whereabouts how? And boy, I am looking forward to this! But who would he tell? Jaime wasn't there, and other than him, who was there that Tyrion liked or trusted? No-one. So he kept the information to himself, watched and waited to see what's cooking. Plus, his ego of the smartest guy around prevented him from realising that LF could actually outsmart him and might be playing a really high game.
  23. Pfft. We don't have any evidence for tons of stuff about Rhaegar, so I don't see how this speculation is any worse. Plus we do know that Rhaegar believed in prophecies, he had changed all his life for one, after all. So if he learned that there was a respected, or perhaps even reliable, seer available, I don't think it's a stretch at all to consider that Rhaegar might have wanted to mine for extra information. It has been speculated that the whole "dragon has three heads" is somehow important, and the lack of a third sibling may have troubled Rhaegar to the point of starting to question his own role in it all. Some have claimed that it was all hubris on Rhaegar's part, wanting to be the hero who saves the world, but I don't think this is the picture GRRM is painting, dutiful people don't tend to overestimate their own importance to boost their ego, and melancholy is definitely not an accompanying sign of hubris. I always interpreted Cersei's remark about the "hurt" she saw in Rhaegar's eyes as simply a part of his general melancholy but what you suggest is perfectly plausible. It may have been elsewhere, of course, but Summerhall is the only place we know where Rhaegar went completely alone. Not that people don't seek solitude when they want to compose something, but did he really have to travel all that way to get inspiration, to that one particular location? And those sad songs he brought back - singing about deaths of kings as if about his own and those he loved, sounds awfully much like visions of his future, and then there are only two options: either he was prophetic himself, or had a source. If he learned why his parents had to marry, and if it was known that "Jenny's woodswitch" survived the inferno, wouldn't it be logical to go looking for her to ask for more information? And the other way round: might GoHH have seen that Rhaegar was looking for her, that they were to meet at Summerhall? IIRC, we don't know when she came to High Heart. She seems to dwell on the past quite a lot, so I don't think it is implausible that she might have wanted to stay in the vicinity of Summerhall and come visiting to remember Jenny.
  24. Now that's an interesting thought! I don't recall anyone mentioning Maggy the Frog in connection to Rhaegar, even though it has been speculated that his songs about the deaths of kings inspired by his visits to Summerhall were, in fact, inspired by the visions of Ghost of the High Heart (whom he paid in songs). Consulting another "source" would make sense!
  25. And then his execution. Wouldn't he? He had been robbing the crown for years; if we learn that Jon Arryn started to suspect something, I won't be surprised. Also... his very personal grudge against the Tullys and Starks. Jaime and Cersei merely provided convenient means. Ned was doomed from the very start, I'm afraid. And I believe his true goal was the destruction of those who ever "slighted" him and took what was "his", while elevating his own status and showing a finger to all those high and mighty houses that were looking down on him the whole time.