• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FuzzyJAM

  1. The Lannisters would probably have lost if most of the Vale had supported him. I'm not sure if that means Robb would have won. Of course, it depends a great deal on what everyone else does. I think the idea of a separate North, at least if it incorporates the Riverlands, is simply not tenable. Whoever won the Iron Throne would have demanded submission, and the Riverlands are not defensible. So for Robb to win, he'd have had to take the Iron Throne. At that point, I guess it would come down to a battle between Stannis and Robb - who could claim more loyalty and show more political nous? Hard to say - perhaps the war would just continue for years, awaiting the Restoration.
  2. So Jon was legitimised by Robb. He's Jon Stark, the son of Ned Stark, and heir of the King in the North. Let's say some form of the GNC is true, let's say the North rises from the ashes, let's say they crown Robb's heir. And then Jon's parentage is revealed. He's actually not Ned's son, but Rhaegar's. Perhaps even a legitimate Targaryen. He's no longer Jon Stark at all, Robb made Jon his heir under false pretences. Something tells me Jon as a Targaryen is going to have a far harder time keeping the North's loyalty and things could fall apart. And so, because of his crown prince father, Jon loses a crown. It's not hugely likely, but I think it's a pretty neat little inversion of the "boy is the son of the king raised in obscurity but his parentage is revealed and he takes the throne" trope. Maybe Jon's royal parentage is a great liability to his claim to kingship, not a plus. Ned's bastard could be King in the North, Rhaegar's legitimate son loses everything.
  3. Given that there are already a lot of people who think Dany is the greatest person in the history of fiction and another camp which considers her evil incarnate, I can't imagine any arc that would leave the final judgement unambiguous. For myself, I can't imagine I'll see her as particularly heroic by the end. She might end up worse, she might end up better, but I can't see any plausible character arc that'd leave her a hero in my eyes. She could end up a villain, especially if (like me) you view Aegon the Conqueror as "villainous". But most likely she'll continue to do some very good things and some very bad things and I will continue to dislike her and consider many of her actions evil despite having a grudging respect for some of the good she's at least attempting.
  4. Aren't we explicitly told that weirwoods are (sometimes) planted in new locations? I'm not great on biology, but isn't that by definition not clonal? There are weirwoods on islands and (I think?) across seas. I really doubt they're all physically connected thousands of feet down across vast expanses of water. At any rate, we know that the weirwoods take on some sort of other organisms in joining with Children and human greenseers.
  5. Hm. . .I like the idea of fleshing it out, but surely that would lead to war with the Lannisters? It'd be better if Robert explained that he didn't care about the incest - maybe he's not the jealous type - and that it was best to keep it secret so that nobody questioned the legitimacy of Joffrey and start a nasty war. Maybe Robert already knew, actually.
  6. We're offhandedly told by Benjen that Will was known to have hallucinations.
  7. Bran wakes up in Winterfell after his fall. What a strange set of dreams he had while in his coma!
  8. Love it.
  9. Bully discovers a totally new kind of "beeting".
  10. I can assure you that there are lots of horrible things a big brother can do to a little brother that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex. This is especially true for a sensitive soul like Tommen.
  11. There are some very strong classic signs of psychopathy in Joffrey and zero evidence to the contrary, but that's not proof. There could be a side we never see. What's definitely not the case is that he's just your average bully. That's ludicrous and I have no idea how George could claim it. A good deal of 13 year olds bully, but I doubt a good deal would be happy to cause lots of deaths and so on. If George sees that as a normal attitude for a child to have, he has a far worse idea of humanity than I do. Now, if George really meant "A lot of people with Joffrey's upbringing and the tragic events he suffers could turn out like him. Say, the sort of person who only turns out to be a bully in our world could turn into the monster that is Joffrey in his" - yeah, that's no doubt true. But that's not the same thing as saying there are lots of Joffreys running around in our own society at all.
  12. "Lord Tyrell, some of the lords are a little resentful and restless of your rule. Let's command people to attend a tourney/wedding/whatever so that they can re-swear fealty." "Sounds good."
  13. I did note earlier that it's possible that the event was a test for Arya. But if that's the case, why would Jaqen say Arya took three from the Red God? Surely it's only two, i.e. Biter and Rorge but not Jaqen? Unless that was a lie as well - and Jaqen giving her three kills was just another test for which the fire was an excuse he cryptically gave. But really. . .that's making the rabbit hole rather deeper than it need be. I do think Jaqen's actions are a little at odds with what Arya is taught at the House. I don't know if that's accidental or intentional inconsistency. I do think that any attempt to make the inconsistencies work into a theory will necessarily be wildly speculative, however.
  14. I'm not suggesting Robb told anyone what to call anyone. We don't really know the specifics of who's saying what title except for Luwin. I'm only trying to explain why it's important to emphasise titles for Bran and Rickon for those who support the Northern/Stark cause. I really think Robert's case is different to Robb's, as I've tried to show. The war really wasn't centred around or even about a Baratheon king taking the throne, nobody particularly cared for Robert's heirs or wanted to ensure their succession should he fail. Robert's rebellion was about vengeance and removing the Mad King [and Targaryens in general], and Robert was the best replacement because he was good at rallying men and he had the strongest legal claim of the rebels. Stannis or Renly or Baratheons in general don't really matter all that much. Starks do matter to the cause, however. That, coupled with the North's history of Stark kingship and a few other things I've mentioned, explain it. But I'm really just repeating myself here and I guess you just disagree. Fair enough. For Shireen, again, I think that's different to Robert. Stannis's fight is very much about succession and dynasty, Robert's Rebellion wasn't. Stannis is at war and knows there's a good chance he'll die, Robert didn't - yeah, Robert hunted, but he was competent in his youth, and even as an fat drunken fool people were trying to assassinate he was able to kill his massive boar before going down. Stannis and Selyse are all about proper titles. Heck, if you want to get into it, perhaps Stannis is pissed that he never got called a prince and Robert mocked him when he tried to insist - who's to say? At any rate, I think there are a lot of reasons for why it's more important for Shireen to be a princess than Stannis to be a prince. I mean, at the very least, there's that you can't please a girl better than by calling her princess, right?!
  15. Jorah not hearing of a term doesn't mean much. It's hardly surprising if bookish Rhaegar knows phrases that a Maester would use. As for use of "World", yeah, it's somewhat odd to refer to your own planet as "The World of X" when it seems unlikely they knew of any other worlds (certainly, real mankind didn't know about other worlds, in the sense we would use the term, until fairly recently.) But as a poetic device I guess it's fine - it's modal rather than quantitative. By which I mean, you could describe Planetos as "The World of Pain and Misery" or "The World of Reality and Myth" or "The World of Man and Beast" or whatever - so "The World of Ice and Fire" is a particular term used when talking about the planet in a particular mode, rather than to differentiate it from other worlds (which, again, presumably aren't known about.) I suspect "The World of Ice and Fire" is the term when dealing with particular myths: with Yandel dealing with far flung places and ancient mythology, as well as ending the book on dragons, it's not surprising if he's thinking in a mythical or prophetic sense. (Of course, it's not going to be as differentiated or logically thought out as I'm presenting here. I'm trying to give a sketch of the basic underlying psychology - it's unlikely anyone in Westeros has thought this through, it simply happens naturally.) Edit: And another in-world explanation would be if there's some philology going on at the citadel. Perhaps the Valyrian (or wherever) word for Planetos has its etymological roots in the phrase "Ice and Fire". Realising this, different in-world conceptions of the planet can prompt you to talk about "The World (of X)". At any rate, this is closely tied with what I've said above: there are more ways of conceiving of something being a world of a particular sort than knowing that there are other worlds in terms of solar systems and so on.
  16. I wasn't talking about what was going on legally. You're very right, it's inconceivable that there was any decree about who should be called what. I was talking about the psychological reasons for why it's extremely important for the North to refer to the Starks as princes and princesses while there isn't much drive to refer to the Baratheons (or others) as such, i.e. emphasise security of succession, emphasise legitimacy of crown, emphasise "reclaiming" of Stark/Northern heritage, etc. It seems unlikely to me that these ideas never impacted the title usage, whether consciously or not.
  17. Robert wouldn't be faithful to Lyanna, Rhaegar might have been. By all accounts, he seems to have been faithful to his first wife up until he/they decided to stop sleeping together.
  18. Disagree for two reasons. (1) Robert's life was fairly safe when he took the throne. As I understand it, he didn't fight in his war any more. He doesn't need to designate immediate heirs because there is little likelihood he will die before creating his own (and he knows he's fertile, of course). This directly contrasts with Robb, who is crowned in the middle of a war and is regularly fighting throughout his kingship. Robb knows there's a strong possibility he will never create heirs: this is most borne out by his [attempted] legitimisation of Jon. (2) The Stark's independence claim was rather different. It's important for there to be an heir to the position of KitN - if Robert lost his throne, the position of the IT would presumably continue, but for Robb to die without an heir? It's entirely possible that KitN would cease to be, therefore clear succession is important. In conjunction, the key point is that a Stark is king, whereas Robert's Rebellion was about getting rid of the old regime and putting Robert (not just "a Baratheon") in their place. If Robert dies in a rebellion, well, that sucks, but then it's time to re-evaluate what's going to happen, because nobody (except Ned perhaps) would immediately want Stannis as king (as we see!) Whereas it's very clear that, if Robb dies with no children, Bran and then Rickon and then [maybe] Jon and then [maybe] Sansa and then Arya are preferred. There is a great loyalty to Starks as kings, not so much to Baratheons. Re: Val She's a princess because it's convenient if she's seen as a princess. I don't think anybody is really stupid enough to seriously think she's a princess in any logical sense.
  19. But then the Targaryens ruled, they called the rulers of their lordships "princes": Prince of Summerhall, Prince of Dragonstone. It's a little iffy for Storm's End, but Robert specifically changes the title of ruler of Dragonstone from "prince" to "lord" when he gives it to Stannis. I don't think he'd have done that if Stannis were regarded as a prince, so it can't simply be that prince (of nowhere) was a lower title than Lord of Dragonstone.
  20. Well, I'm not sure your example of Mirri holds up. We're explicitly told it's "blood magic", and she uses a fire. Two elements, if you want to call them that. This is the same as Valyrian magic, which is about blood and fire. The Rhoynish used water magic. R'hlorr uses fire and shadow magic. The First Men and Children don't seem to draw on any element, they just do stuff. And so on. I don't see any connection to hallows or triads or whatever. Now you're totally right, there do seem to be some basic human psychological ideas that circulate in different cultures about shadows and fire and blood and earth and so on which George is playing on. But I think druidic ideas (along with other superstitions and ideas about magic and power) are an outworking of the same source rather than George being inspired by it.
  21. Robert's claim is for the Iron Throne, not the Stormlands. He can't possibly claim it's a continuation of the old Baratheon line of kingship. Admittedly Robb is claiming more land than any of his ancestors, but he's still claiming it under the title of "King in the North".
  22. Not the sons of royalty. Edit: The real question is "Why are Bran and Rickon called princes?" I think the answer is that the Starks are supposed to be reclaiming their title, while the Baratheons are creating theirs. So Bran and Rickon are the sons of a direct heir to kings, even if there's a gap of 300 years. Further, as a warring king Robb needs heirs, and calling his brothers "princes" legitimises their claim should Robb die - Robert never had any such concern, he was fairly secure on the throne when he claimed it and had time to create heirs himself.
  23. Could be Azor Ahai. Mel managed to convince Stannis he was AAR, I wouldn't be surprised if she can convince Jon too. If she revives him with fire magic, that's pretty convincing evidence, at least from the point of view of the characters.
  24. Oh, well that makes sense then. Plot hole solved. Perhaps with Jon's death and warging into Ghost, they'll combine to create Arcanine. Jon is Ghost's "Fire Stone". Confirmed.
  25. The "song" has two elements, not three. I'll be honest, I don't see anything of anything in what was written here. George isn't drawing inspiration from druidic ritual.