SFDanny

Members
  • Content count

    3,302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About SFDanny

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco

Recent Profile Visitors

7,890 profile views
  1. What was Varys doing when KL fell?

    Varys's real power was his influence on Aerys. Perhaps he believed he could still control him. One has to remember that Tywin shows up unexpectedly after he hears the news of the Trident, and Pycelle wins Aerys to the belief that the Lannisters are there to save him, thereby convincing the king to open the gates. If Varys had his way, the gates would have stayed closed and he would have had thousands of men to defend the walls, with the Royal Navy in control of the sea and river. Until Aerys gives the command to open the gates this war is still not over. The danger of the pyromancer plot becomes critical when the gates are opened as well. Before that, what could Varys do to stop the king? Only whisper in his ear. He has no troops of his own. Short answer to what Varys was doing as King's Landing was being sacked? Hiding. I have to disagree. Aegon is the Martell's piece in this game, not Tywin's. Tywin has no interest in putting a child of Dorne on the throne. If Viserys was still in King's Landing then that would be an option for Tywin. Aegon is not.
  2. Small Questions v. 10105

    That's how I read it too.
  3. Small Questions v. 10105

    No problem. If you change your mind let me know. I'd like to read your thinking on the matter.
  4. Small Questions v. 10105

    As I said, it's not a small question. If you want to discuss it we should do it elsewhere
  5. Small Questions v. 10105

    No doubt this is based on my own personal experience, but I believe it to be true. That is certainly the consensus of those who subscribe to R+L=J. My favorite theory is that Wylla is the "Fisherman's daughter" Not that she really met Ned on the way to Sisterton, but that she is the reason for the story. I think it's a cover story for anyone looking into Wylla's claimed relationship to Jon. Meaning she is from the region and likely a fisherman's child. How she ends up at the Tower is a very interesting question. I like your other observations. I think you may have come up with a new twist in the story. That would mean Doran knows as well. I think that unlikely, but it's a new take on an old question.
  6. Small Questions v. 10105

    No, no consensus that I know of, but rather than a result of his intelligence, I'd look to his age. Most twelve-year-olds believe what their parents tell is true. Arya certainly does at nine and ten. He grows up with Wylla as an intimate part of his household, so there is little reason for him to question why she is there. She just is. If he begins to wonder why the Daynes would keep a woman who is, supposedly, at least partly responsible for Ashara's "broken heart" then there could be stories told about Ned bringing Dawn to Starfall and a debt of honor, or some such cover up, but it still comes around to him only being twelve and believing what his parents tell him. Give him a few years until the rebellious side of puberty really kicks in and he will probably question everything the adults in his life tell him. edit: I should add that this provokes another question about where Wylla is from. If the people of Starfall, believe as Ned Dayne does, and there is a strong likelihood they do, that Wylla is Jon's mother, then it very likely means Wylla hasn't been in Starfall while she was supposedly pregnant. If she really is Jon's mother, then we have to ask how Ned and Wylla got together to conceive Jon during the war. If she is not Jon's mom, then we have to assume she wasn't there in Starfall or the people would know she was lying. I lean strongly to the latter explanation.
  7. Small Questions v. 10105

    Really isn't a small question. I've been involved in many pages of debate on this question in the past. The short answer is we don't know. I believe it very, very unlikely that Wylla is the wet-nurse who is with Jon when Catelyn arrives in Winterfell. It is extremely unlike Ned to bring a women who we know claims to be Jon's mother back to Winterfell to be there in his household alongside of his new wife. Not only that, but if one thinks Ned is hiding the identity of Jon's mother, and possibly his father, in order to protect them, then the last thing Ned would do was to bring a women who was part of his cover story back North, through King's Landing where he tells Robert of Lyanna's death, and into Winterfell amongst people he never tells anything of Jon's origins. Just my thoughts, but again we don't know for sure.
  8. To the bolded part, I couldn't agree more. Which is why I show the timeframe in which the decision has to have been made. I've gone over this a few times, but let me do so again. Because Ned is one of the candidates for the rebels choice to be king, we can say the decision cannot have occurred before the deaths of Rickard and Brandon. It makes no logical sense to have the second son of Winterfell to be a possible choice when the High Lord of the North and his heir are still alive. This marks one end of the timeframe for decision to have been made. The earliest time in which it could have been made being after Rickard and Brandon's deaths. Because we know the proclamation of Robert's claim to the throne is done around the time of the Trident, we know that the decision to put forward Robert as the alliance's choice for the throne takes place before this time. Again, it makes no logical sense to issue a proclamation of Robert's claim if the rebels have not actually made this choice already. This then is the second end of the timeframe in which the decision must have been made. Please note this rules out this decision being made in the pre-rebellion days of the STAB bloc. Now, it is possible, but hardly likely, that the STAB bloc takes the same decision in the pre-rebellion days and then Jon Arryn, Ned, and Robert make the same decision for some reason during the timeframe shown above. But here it is not just the question of a redundant decision being made for no apparent reason, but it is also the absence of Rickard's name in any of Robert's complaints about who made him king. If Lord Rickard has gone through these great lengths for years to build the alliance centered on a effort to put Robert on the throne, then Robert should reference those efforts. He doesn't, because Rickard didn't. Which means the STAB alliance plans were something different than the decision made by Jon Arryn, Ned, and Robert for Robert to claim the throne. The author's comments in the second quote I gave you make it clear, in combination with the discussion between Ned and Robert, that there was an evaluation of each of the three men as the choice to be king and Robert's is put forward because his is the strongest claim. The phrase "strongest claim" in and of itself implies there was an evaluation of each claim in relationship to the others. The idea that this is just something that happened without an explicit decision is, pardon me, foolish. We are talking about the future occupant of the Iron Throne here, not a matter to be left to what ever just happens. We are talking about Ned Stark and Jon Arryn making a decision based on what was necessary for the rebel side, not because they would shirk the duty if the evaluation meant that one of the two of them needed to be king. They decide it has to be Robert because of Robert's better claim to the throne, based on his Targaryen family connection better serve the rebels in winning the peace. A large part of the reason the Targaryens continued to be kings long after the dragons died can be summed up into one word - tradition. For almost three hundred years the people of Westeros, both the commoners and the lesser nobility, do not question that a Targaryen, and only a Targaryen, has the right to sit the Iron Throne. There may be squabbles amongst the dragons over which Targaryen should have the right to rule, but they have been conditioned to accept Targaryens as their overlords. So, when one has to win a peace with a new king, not named Targaryen, it matters to winning that peace that Robert is a Targaryen on his mother's side. It is certainly a paradox that people who are set to win the throne by right of conquest would care about such a claim, but Ned and Jon Arryn are smart, intelligent people who understand the precarious nature of rebellion and the need to heal the wounds of war. Robert has a connection to the Targaryens which they see the need to exploit. Yes, he is also a war hero, and a great charismatic figure, but his blood tie they consciously and coldly evaluate and see a need to use it to help to win the aftermath of the rebellion in Westeros. To think that men who have spent the last year fighting for their lives and against the oaths of fealty they swore to the Targaryens, do not see the contradiction between using the blood tie to the Targaryens and the war they just are about to win is foolish. Ned and Jon do not owe Robert the crown because of his ancestors. They use that family history to help them win. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is not that Ned and Jon Arryn can't see Robert's faults. It's just they can't see how ill-suited he really is for kingship. That and they can't see how unable Jon will be to curb Robert's faults once he becomes king. You need to explain how the STAB alliance wins Tywin to its ranks? Does he support the aim of a Stark-Baratheon dynasty and why? Why does the Tullys and the Arryns support such a aim? Why would Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn go to war to get rid of the Targaryens if it is to put Robert on the throne? Why don't they support Rhaegar's call for a Great Council if it is only Aerys they want to get rid of?
  9. Robert's pre rebellion "claim" is based on his Targaryen blood. Marrying Lyanna gets him no closer to that claim other than what the arms the North would supply in a war. Jon Connington's thoughts about Robert stem not from Robert's claim by blood of the throne, but Robert's leadership in the rebellion. Up to the Battle of the Bells, it is Robert's leadership that has won victories for the rebels at Gulltown, Summerhall, etc. It is his stand in the Battle of the Bells that rallies the people to him. Robert proves himself in battle to be a courageous and formable commander. It is small wonder that Lord Connington thinks if he had killed him the battle he would have destroyed the rebellion. The decision to "switch out the Starks" for the Lannisters is not made until sometime after the sack of King's Landing. Most likely not until Ned shows back up from his journeys with news of Lyanna's death. If Jaime isn't stolen from Tywin, and the Lannisters marry into the STAB bloc, then only the Tyrells are left of the High Lords of the realm to join the alliance. Dorne is married to Rhaegar's interests and won't join. The Greyjoys will go with which way the wind blows. The Tyrells have some of their most important bannermen possibly marrying into the alliance in the Florents (Stannis-Selyse) and the Redwynes (Blackfish-Bethany) so they have to be suspect in their loyalty, or at least persuadable if these ties are made. So what happens if these ties are consummated? The High Lords of the Realm just renounce their oaths of fealty and leave the Targaryens to ether accept the crown lands and Dragonstone as their domain, or they fight the combined might of the six High Lords with only the help of Dorne. In return, each of the six High Lords are now, once again, a king in their own lands. The evidence points to this being their plan.
  10. Preston Jacobs and the Purple Wedding

    Why would any protest from Sansa about Lady Olenna "touching her hair" make anyone believe Sansa innocent of the crime? Sansa has the motive to kill Joffrey, and she has the actual weapon found upon her person. Her husband has threatened violence to the king, and has actually hit him on numerous occasions. The Tyrells and the old lady Olenna have no known motive for committing such a crime, and it would seem counterproductive to Highgarden's interests. It's absurd to think Sansa's story of "the old lady must have done it" and the "fool told me to wear the hairnet" would be believed by anyone. Nor is Tywin likely to jump to such an outrageous idea that would destroy the alliance that has brought him victory.
  11. Preston Jacobs and the Purple Wedding

    But ease of access isn't the only question here, is it? Nor is it the most important. The hairnet gives two vital benefits that are denied if Lady Olenna brings it in in her pockets. She could be searched and the poison could be found on her - thus incriminating her in the crime. With the poison in the hairnet she, and any co-conspirators who might also want access to the poison, only need carry the murder weapon in the amount they want and from the time they gather it from the hairnet to its use. No, search of their person entering the wedding, or leaving after the crime would incriminate them. Sansa, as one of the chosen patsies, will have the murder weapon found on them in any search of the guests for the poison. Thereby guaranteeing any suspicion falling on Sansa and Tyrion will produce evidence showing their guilt, and not the guilt of the real murderers.
  12. and The discussion between Robert and Ned, and the author's comments all tell us the same. The decision was made between Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn about which of them would be the new king. That Ned is involved as a possible candidate for kingship tells us that this was done after Rickard and Brandon are killed, or Ned would not be considered before them. The remarks of Martin telling us the claim is proclaimed "around the time of the Trident" tells us the other end of the range of time possible for the decision to have been made. All of which rules out a pre-rebellion plan to put either Robert or Jon Arryn on the throne. If either one was the STAB candidate there is no reason to make a decision on this after the start of the rebellion. It would have already been decided. It is important to note that Robert never blames Rickard Stark or Hoster Tully for making him king. All the evidence points to neither Robert or Jon Arryn being the STAB alliance's pre-rebellion choice for king to follow their ouster of the Targaryens. Which begs the question who was if anyone was? I believe there is a choice between only Rickard and Tywin - or the Alliance had no one who was their choice for a new king. Does anyone think Rickard would orchestrate this alliance for at least a decade in order to put Tywin on the throne? Tywin who spends most of this time scheming to marry his daughter to Rhaegar? No, it makes no sense. But if not that, then do we believe, the same Tywin would sign on to the alliance's aims to set up Rickard as the new king? Not a chance. Tywin wants to rule, not be a junior partner to someone else's rise to power. That leaves only the last option - the alliance had no choice for a new king. But what then brought these men together? What makes sense is a common desire to rule their own people without a need to kneel to any overlord.
  13. The evidence of a pre-rebellion goal of putting Robert on the throne is decidedly against it.We have the author's own words telling us that the rebels do not announce Robert's claim to the throne until around the time of the Trident, and, more importantly, we have direct evidence in the books that the decision was between Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn. That tells us that it wasn't a decision made before Rickard and Brandon's deaths. It tells us that the decision to make a claim for Robert to be the new King in Westeros was made during the rebellion, not before it. It tells us it wasn't the decision of the STAB alliance as it was forming in the pre-rebellion days. We are left to wonder what was the aim of the alliance after getting rid of the Targaryens - which, I agree, all evidence points to that being their first objective. If they aim to claim the Iron Throne in the pre-rebellion days, it isn't with Robert's claim. So, what then was the unifying goal for a post Targaryen era that bound the STAB alliance together? And, perhaps more importantly, what was the goal that bound Lord Tywin Lannister to the alliance? Do you think Tywin was on the verge of joining the alliance through the marriage of his heir Jaime to the second daughter of Hoster Tully, because he wanted Rickard Stark to become the new King of Westeros? I think not. Or do you think the STAB alliance all of the sudden decided to offer Tywin the throne? Again, I think not. Yet they almost came to agreement for House Lannister to join. One has to explain how that happened. Now, why was the goal of the alliance different in the pre-rebellion days from what it becomes during the rebellion? Because circumstances change and force the rebels to change their goals with them. The rebellion is fought with four High Lords as the leadership of the rebellion - with the Tullys joining late. Why then should the victorious rebels leave the look of the future of Westeros to include those who fought against them? Or those who waited until the last minute to join the rebellion, as was the case with the Lannisters and the Greyjoys. I'd say there is every reason to, under those circumstances for the victorious rebels to dictate that the Houses that fought the rebellion will decide the make up of the future, and they will make sure they control it.
  14. Small Questions v. 10105

    None, that we haven't covered before. We agree on the timing of Dany's nameday. Which places the Sack in Aug.-Sept. of 283, and Jon's nameday most likely falls from that date to about six weeks later. I guess the four-five weeks later makes the most sense. Meaning Jon is about a week old when Ned arrives at the Tower. All which would place Jon's real nameday in late Sept to early Oct. 283. When I try to count backwards from the purple wedding to Robb's nameday before his arrival in Riverrun, it looks to be a October to early November date. Note these are all guesses and are in the possible range, so we have some leeway in pushing the date either way. But what I keep coming back to is that it looks like the differences between the namedays Jon and Robb celebrate and what looks to be real is there. Meaning Ned changed the date of Jon's nameday. The only way to change Jon's nameday is to say he was born later than he really was. It makes no sense for Ned to give Cat the story he fathered Jon after he left her pregnant with Robb and to then say his nameday puts his conception before they were married. Nor does it make much sense to give Cat a story that puts Jon's conception a week or two after he leaves her. I keep coming back to a month or two for the difference in celebrated days, and about the same time of the real namedays to Jon being born a little earlier. The advantage for Ned is real if he changes Jon's nameday. He removes it in time from when he is at the tower of joy and closer to his arrival in Starfall. He also shores up his story to Cat. Not with an absurd story like Jon being conceived on his trip to Starfall, but with one that suggests he met Jon's mother a month or so after he left Cat.
  15. Small Questions v. 10105

    At least with Stannis's voyage north we have "magical winds" that carry his ships to Eastwatch. Tyrion is just faster than it makes sense for him to be. The problem with Jon's nameday keeps coming up, but it is a lot clearer if people just think of the day in which he has celebrated his nameday all of his life and when he is actually born as possibly two separate dates. It is clear from the books that Jon's nameday is celebrated after Robb's. How long after is the question, not that it is later than Robb's. They both celebrate namedays that place their birth in Year 283 AC. Confusion sets in when people assume the date Martin speaks of for Jon's birth being tied some "eight or nine months or thereabouts" before Dany's is the same as Jon's celebrated one. Does that place Jon's real nameday before Robb's? I think it likely, but we can't be sure.