Adelstein

Members
  • Content count

    1,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adelstein

  • Rank
    Freerider
  • Birthday August 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    London
  1. Westeros=Medieval Europe

    For some reason this image is upside-down, but worth a look side-by-side: http://i.imgur.com/sUPOnmP.jpg Lose Dorne and below the Neck it's a dead ringer, imo.
  2. The source of the Andals' name

    The Andal homeland is called Andalos. The similarity to Al-Andalus (or Andalusia; they are both pretty obviously from the same root and refer to essentially the same place) is inescapable. Whether it's intentional or not is a different question, and without word from GRRM we'll never know. Thematically they are probably more similar to the Anglo-Saxons, though the parallel isn't exact. The Romano-Brythonic Britain into which the Angles and Saxons arrived was much more advanced than the First Men appear to have been (well into the Iron Age, for starters). In some ways the Andals look a bit more like the Romans, or the Celtic Britons themselves. But inevitably the history of Westeros is rather simple compared to that of Britain.
  3. The "saddle is a throne" thing comes up a few times (I think also with one of the Teague kings in the Riverlands). It may be one of GRRM's literary tics or of one of his co-writers on this project. (I felt that the WoIaF book was pretty replete with GRRM-isms in places). It might just also be representative of a failure of imagination when it comes to thinking up something different to say about so many prehistoric kings. On the Grey Emperor/Grey King it's worth considering, as the Grey King is one of the more egregiously fantastic characters in Westerosi pre-history and as I've noted elsewhere the purported Iron Islands timeline is completely out of whack with the rest of Westeros. But it's a hard one to swallow, especially given that Yi Ti and the Islands really are an awfully long way from one another.
  4. Princess Rhaenyra = Empress Matilda?

    Although I guess it might not be common knowledge among non-UK readers, it's pretty clear that the inspiration for the Dance of the Dragons was indeed the Anarchy (the civil war between Matilda and Stephen), as the Wars of the Roses is for the main plot of ASoIaF. As the period has been fleshed out it's seemingly moved further from its origins, but the key elements are there. On this point though: Matilda had several half-brothers, but all were illegitimate. Henry did remarry after his first wife's death but had no surviving children by his second queen. Matilda did have one full brother, a year younger than her, who was Henry's first heir but died without issue several years before Henry himself.
  5. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    I find it hard to believe that any news of that has spread outside King's Landing, and probably not even within it. Very few of Robert's bastards are common knowledge: only the game-players in King's Landing really have any idea. Ned and Jon Arryn were as close to Bob as anyone, and they needed LF and Stannis to introduce them to Gendry. Gendry himself has no idea who his father is. The guards sent to kill Bob's children didn't know the significance of their targets. Which is, of course, the whole point. If everyone knew that Bob had so many bastards they might start wondering for themselves why they looked nothing like their "legitimate" half-siblings. The only two of Robert's bastards who are common knowledge are Edric and, more locally, Mya. And they're both fine. There is reason to be suspicious of Cersei and Joff, but for Joff to kill his half-brother is rather different than cutting Ned's head off; the taboo against kinslaying applies as much as anything else. Stannis on the other hand has made it pretty clear his intention is to kill Robert's children in King's Landing, and has very possibly just killed his brother. There's reason to believe that it would be better to hand Edric over to pretty much anyone but him. I would suspect that Penrose would prefer that it be the northerners who come to liberate him rather than the Lannisters. But "Anyone But Stannis" is a reasonable line for him to take at this point as regards Edric, I think.
  6. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    It's not exactly a massive leap of logic, though, is it? Who had the greatest motive to kill Renly at that point? Who benefitted the most from his death? That people buy into the Brienne story so easily and go over to Stannis as a result doesn't speak all that highly of their intelligence. Even if you accept that Brienne could have killed Renly it doesn't strike anyone as a remarkable and truly exceptional coincidence that she did so right then? And that it's rather likely that even if she did kill Renly herself she almost certainly did so on Stannis's account? I think Penrose was justified in calling horseshit on the Brienne story and instead drawing his own conclusions. Especially since he was right.
  7. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    I'm starting to think that the main reason Stannis doesn't do his spousal duty more often is that every time he considers it he has to fight his way through a horde of StanStans wanting him to bone them instead, and decides it's not worth the effort.
  8. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    What? No. That you denied participating in a debate against all available evidence and I offered you the opportunity to stop doesn't mean I agree with you, and trying to play it as if I do is frankly insulting, so please don't. I know it's illegal to disagree about anything with anyone (and especially those with Stannis-boners) but even so, come on.
  9. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Forgive me, but... ...Yes you are. I mean, we can stop if you (and everyone else in the debate) likes. But denial =/= reality. (Although as far as Stannis is concerned it is rather apposite). I think you'll find they're traitors, because they disagreed with Stannis about something and had the balls to do something about it. Those bastards.
  10. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    It's like you really want to pretend Edric doesn't exist... There's also a chance - at the time - that Margaery is carrying Renly's child.
  11. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    I've never said Joff should be the heir, and if that's what you're arguing against I have a straw man to introduce you to. There's a difference between executing a convicted traitor after due process and having someone accused of treason assassinated. Even Aerys's execution of Brandon and Rickard Stark had more legal weight to it than did Stannis's killing of Renly, sorry to say. It's Stannis's Red Wedding, as mentioned above. An argument can be made from pragmatism that it's the right thing to do but it's completely outside all norms and the majority of people are going to find it despicable. Which is probably one of the reasons he hasn't told anyone it's what he did. We saw how the Stormlords reacted when they thought even for a moment that Renly was still alive. How would they have reacted if they knew that Stannis had murdered him? And while you can argue Renly had it coming, reusing the same trick on Penrose, a good man doing his duty as he understood it (just as Stannis had during the Rebellion) but a bit inconvenient for Stannis right now, was really a bit cheap when there were other options available and the shadow assassin was just the least risky. Indeed I think the Penrose killing serves two literary purposes. Firstly it allows us to see how the shadows happen (without spoiling the shock of the Renly moment) but it also demonstrates that Stannis has no qualms about killing anyone in his way by any means at his disposal, whatever the complexities or hypocrisies involved. It's not just the upstart younger brother against whom he doesn't have a chance - it's anyone, regardless of allegiance or sympathy. Robb, Tommen, Brienne, all these characters we might actually care about: they're all for the chop if he thinks they're an inconvenience. This is why when there was the debate over whether he was going to sacrifice an innocent child just to make himself king, we thought he might actually do it. But doubtless there are some people who think he should have.
  12. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    :agree: Oh thank god. It was never proven, I guess, that Maekar killed him (as in theory it could have been one of a number of people, although he accepted full responsibility) but that was in a judicial trial by combat, so the normal rules to prevent murder presumably wouldn't apply. I must admit that one has slightly puzzled me. I imagine nobody made much of a fuss about it because Maekar was still so far down the line of succession that it wasn't considered particularly important next to the fact of Baelor's death at all. Still it would be interesting to know if anyone raised that charge/claim against Maekar and his rule later. We know so little about his reign. Well this is part of it. By the understanding of most people at the time, Joff was the rightful king by the laws of succession at least, and both Stannis and Renly were rebels. Surely Renly wouldn't have named Joffrey his heir, yeah. But he might have named Edric: of all the available candidates he seems in some ways the most likely.
  13. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Double post.
  14. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Using dark magic to slash someone's throat in their tent is a standard method of judicial execution in Westeros, then. Good to know. Robert undoubtedly could have deprived Balon of his position, but the presumption very much appears to be that he would not, rather than the title was automatically forfeited on rebellion (see also: the Tyrells and their bannermen in the WotFK, and everyone who fought for the "wrong side" in the Dance. Heck, even in the Blackfyre Rebellion most of the lords involved seem to have got to keep their primary title). The heir to Storm's End is not entirely clear-cut. Normally one would assume it was Stannis, yes, but there could be debate on the subject. It could be argued to be Edric, and there are also questions over whether Stannis was cut out of the Storm's End succession by Robert anyway in effect, and whether one can hold the LP-equivalent title in both Dragonstone and another seat simultaneously. Stannis having murdered the previous holder would count heavily against him in such a debate, if it didn't disqualify him altogether. I know it's attractive to think in such black and white terms as Stannis does, but this really isn't the setting for it.
  15. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    The difference in this context is between heir and liege. In some cases they can be the same person, but they're different hats. An heir succeeds on the death of the principal and gains legal title to their possessions (sometimes subject to a delay for grant of probate, etc.) I guess we haven't been given a clear-cut example of how murdering somebody voids your title as their heir (although an unrelated murder should have no bearing: the Tywin-Tyrion situation is slightly opaque) - but in any sane legal system this is one of the fairly basic principles of inheritance, because a society where it's not just legally ok but desirable for the heir to murder their way to a title results in a total disaster of a society. I'd be astonished if a similar law wasn't in operation in Westeros. So if Stan is claiming Storm's End as Renly's heir, he loses out. Soz, Stannis. A liege lord is the ultimate owner, but in the sense of a landlord: he can reclaim the titles in question from his vassals but there is generally a process attached. But the king still can't go around killing his vassals and taking their stuff on a whim. There is another instance in the books of a LP defying the (otherwise undisputed) king: Balon Greyjoy. There was a war Balon lost, swore an oath, and then everything carried on as before. It seems that raising your banners against the king doesn't automatically forfeit your lordship of a given seat. (See also: the Tyrells, and countless smaller lords). If Stan is claiming Storm's End on that basis, Penrose still has a case that he's a tyrant who killed the lord of the castle out of hand and therefore isn't fit. (This is of course how Bob became king in the first place, and Stannis supported him). In fact this is pretty much what happened; had Stannis not been so implicated in Renly's death, it seems not unlikely that Penrose would have switched support to Stannis on Renly's death anyway.