Lady Stoneheart is actually Robb Stark

[Lordsteve666]

Whoa where did this one crawl from!

We need a warning for this topic...

[Neds Secret]

Well it is a fantasy novel and a work of fiction and after reading the entire thread I can conclusively say that it is possible and I definitely have no way of proving or disproving it. IMO it would be a rather out there way for The George to write Stoneheart to be actually Robb and it would seem to be punishing Robb and making his story a whole nother layer of more tragic and I personally would prefer it to be just Uncat, but the O-poster does argue the theory quite well, so as with a lot of AsoiaF I have to say at this point, who knows?

[Gwindor]

50 minutes ago, Neds Secret said:

Well it is a fantasy novel and a work of fiction and after reading the entire thread I can conclusively say that it is possible and I definitely have no way of proving or disproving it. IMO it would be a rather out there way for The George to write Stoneheart to be actually Robb and it would seem to be punishing Robb and making his story a whole nother layer of more tragic and I personally would prefer it to be just Uncat, but the O-poster does argue the theory quite well, so as with a lot of AsoiaF I have to say at this point, who knows?

Thanks. Personally, I'd prefer them both to just stay dead, but if something gets resurrected in Cat's body, it better be something incredible. Compared to the revelation that Littlefinger and Lysa were behind Jon Arryn's death just a chapter earlier, the twist with Catelyn's resurrection in ASOS epilogue looked kind of bleak.

[Dorian Martell]

9 hours ago, Gwindor said:

This talk of absolutes, possibilities, and backpedaling is pathetic. I don't see how this is relevant at all. Do you perhaps consider rigidity of opinion a virtue?

As to 'conclusive demonstrations', I went back to check for them once more in case I missed something. Basically, it's like that:

1. Resurrected Catelyn makes more narrative sense than a resurrected monstrosity of merged Robb/Catelyn.
Not necessarily: see previous posts.

2. Interactions with Brienne become meaningless.
No, they don't. The whole thing may not necessarily be about Brienne's oath to Catelyn, her guilt/innocence, redemption or something like that. As I see it, Lady Stoneheart has gotten her hands on a person who could lead her to Jaime Lannister, and that is Stoneheart's primary interest. Again, this has been discussed, read the thread (!!! NOT JUST THE TITLE, THE THREAD !!!)

3. No indication of warging in the last Catelyn's POV.
Actually, there is something that can be read as indication. Reread that place from the book or have a look at the previous posts, it has been discussed.

4. It couldn't happen because warging doesn't work like that (reasons, reasons).
We don't know that, we've never before witnessed such a situation, who the hell knows what could happen there.

5. The great Varamyr failed to warg Thistle, so why should Robb succeed.
Varamyr was wounded, starved, and exhausted. Robb was in a life-threatening situation. That kind of changes their relative abilities. A power-lifter can carry much more weight than an average person, but an average person could probably lift a heavier object than a mortally wounded power-lifter, if their life depended on it. And anyway, we don't know how good a warg Robb was. Maybe his estrangement with Grey Wind had an additional reason: he had really developed his powers in the West (where we didn't see him), but not understanding what it was became scared and tried to shut it.

So where exactly is your 'conclusive demonstration of impossibility'? The theory has not been conclusively proven false, it remains a possibility, interesting to speculate upon, but in your narrow-minded arrogance you persist in your attempts to destroy it as if its mere existence were a personal offense to you. Maybe you can only comprehend "certainly happened" and "certainly didn't happen", so you just call everything uncertain impossible not to traumatize yourself, but I, for one, am perfectly comfortable with less definite kings of knowledge.

I get it, you don't like the theory and would probably go to Jihad against it, no matter what. You have expressed your opinion clearly on multiple occasions. Thanks for your input, but as it happens there are people with different opinions here, so I guess this thread just continues whether you like it or not. Feel free to move on, I don't really see how else you could contribute to the thread.

I get it, you desperately need this to be a thing, even if it makes no sense, serves no purpose and requires a lot of "If this, then maybe." The Author has not given us any hints to this being a thing. As an intellectual exercise in creating in universe  fan fic,  you proposed something. Good for you . This being a web forum, you can hold on to the crackpot as long as you want. If this was a graded class you would fail. Simple as that. I don't want to bore you with logic, but you fail to grasp the concept that the burden of proof is on you to show it did happen, not on other people to prove conclusively that it didn't happen. Take a logic 101 class when you get to college. it will help you a ton in future conversations like this.  that is me contributing. 

9 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

 Whoa where did this one crawl from!

We need a warning for this topic...

This is what happens then there is half a decade between books in a beloved fantasy series

7 hours ago, Gwindor said:

Thanks. Personally, I'd prefer them both to just stay dead, but if something gets resurrected in Cat's body, it better be something incredible. Compared to the revelation that Littlefinger and Lysa were behind Jon Arryn's death just a chapter earlier, the twist with Catelyn's resurrection in ASOS epilogue looked kind of bleak.

Again, your personal feelings/opinions on a part of the story does not change what the author has written.  You do not like what GRRM has written, good for you. It does not mean that the author meant something different just because you did not like it. As the story is told, Stoneheart is a resurrected catlyn stark. When other characters are resurrected, they lose part of themselves. Beric has forgotten his whole life save for the fight in the riverlands. Thoros refused to giver her the kiss because she had been dead for days, Beric did, and what came back was a horrible monster bent on revenge. The character does not need the warged spirit of Robb Stark as the driving force behind stoneheart.   It is as simple as that, and if you don't like it, write your own epic 7 book fantasy series. 

[Dorian Martell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

This whole thread is what is considered "An argument from Ignorance"  which is a logical fallacy you will learn about in your future logic 101 class you will take in college.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
 

[Brianstorm]

Well it's interesting to think what happened with Robb after GW was killed. Seems more likely if he did survive, he warged into Nymeria (which is why he saved Cat)

[aquintus]

37 minutes ago, Dorian Martell said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

This whole thread is what is considered "An argument from Ignorance"  which is a logical fallacy you will learn about in your future logic 101 class you will take in college.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
 

This post would fit in almost every "theory" thread on these boards. 

[Dorian Martell]

2 minutes ago, aquintus said:

This post would fit in almost every "theory" thread on these boards. 

Yes, unless the OP presents t as crackpot/tinfoil 

[Eden-Mackenzie]

8 minutes ago, Brianstorm said:

Well it's interesting to think what happened with Robb after GW was killed. Seems more likely if he did survive, he warged into Nymeria (which is why he saved Cat)

Arya had warged Nymeria when Catelyn's body was pulled from the river, as evidenced by her wolf dream.  This was also foreshadowed early in AGOT: Jon and Arya were discussing Joffrey's double sigil of stag and lion, and Jon told Arya she could combine her parents' sigils, and she responded with a comment about a trout in a wolf's mouth and how silly that would look. 

[Gwindor]

Dorian Martell, you are absolutely right. My theory is totally crackpot, and definitely not worth any notice, as would be obvious to anyone taking the briefest of looks upon it, as it does not follow directly from any explicitly stated material in the books! The very idea of using imagination to formulate theories is repugnant. Even more so, the murderous dwelling in uncertainties! It either is, or it isn't! There isn't and cannot possibly be any place for any middle-ground in forum discussions!

I would like to especially criticize myself for following the seeming parallel between Catelyn and Thistle, an unworthy example of superstitious reliance on the so called 'hints', a repelling practice, a relic of old which we should all put our best efforts to eradicate.

One can only imagine in horror what this heretic speculation might have led to, if not for the valiant Dorian Martell, ever vigilant in his unending struggle against The Crackpot.

[Eden-Mackenzie]

Dorian may have been a bit brusque, but that does not mean he is wrong. You presented an interesting idea, people discussed it, some of them agreed with you while others did not. Agreement with the original premise is not the only way to contribute to a thread, and the threads with actual discussion over the various aspects of a premise and their merits are far more interesting to read (in my opinion) than the threads were everyone agrees with each other and nothing is questioned or critiqued. You have posed several interesting ideas recently, but if you are seeking universal agreement, an Internet forum is not the place for you.

[Neds Secret]

4 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

Dorian may have been a bit brusque, but that does not mean he is wrong. You presented an interesting idea, people discussed it, some of them agreed with you while others did not. Agreement with the original premise is not the only way to contribute to a thread, and the threads with actual discussion over the various aspects of a premise and their merits are far more interesting to read (in my opinion) than the threads were everyone agrees with each other and nothing is questioned or critiqued. You have posed several interesting ideas recently, but if you are seeking universal agreement, an Internet forum is not the place for you.

It does not seem to me that @Gwindor is seeking universal agreement but just a place to speculate on a theory that they believe is possible and is seeking for other posters ideas and feedback with regards to the op. It appears to me that some people are behaving as if they are somehow threatened by the exposition of this theory and are now trying to subject gwindor to burdens of proof that I have not really encountered  before on this forum. I mean we are all speculating on events that occur in a fantasy novel work of fiction and as such I believe it would be near impossible to prove that almost anything had happened. 

[Gwindor]

2 hours ago, Neds Secret said:

6 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

Dorian may have been a bit brusque, but that does not mean he is wrong. You presented an interesting idea, people discussed it, some of them agreed with you while others did not. Agreement with the original premise is not the only way to contribute to a thread, and the threads with actual discussion over the various aspects of a premise and their merits are far more interesting to read (in my opinion) than the threads were everyone agrees with each other and nothing is questioned or critiqued. You have posed several interesting ideas recently, but if you are seeking universal agreement, an Internet forum is not the place for you.

It does not seem to me that @Gwindor is seeking universal agreement but just a place to speculate on a theory that they believe is possible and is seeking for other posters ideas and feedback with regards to the op. It appears to me that some people are behaving as if they are somehow threatened by the exposition of this theory and are now trying to subject gwindor to burdens of proof that I have not really encountered  before on this forum. I mean we are all speculating on events that occur in a fantasy novel work of fiction and as such I believe it would be near impossible to prove that almost anything had happened. 

Dorian might not have been wrong, but he's not right either. "Well, you can't prove your theory conclusively, so it's definitely wrong. Prove it, or shut up, you idiot" - what kind of an argument is that?

True, I'm not interested in universal agreement. I am grateful to everyone in this thread who has contributed anything constructive, whether they agree with me or not. But 'burden of proof'? We are not in a court of law, so that kind of talk is ridiculously out of place.

[Neds Secret]

9 minutes ago, Gwindor said:

Dorian might not have been wrong, but he's not right either. "Well, you can't prove your theory conclusively, so it's definitely wrong. Prove it, or shut up, you idiot" - what kind of an argument is that?

True, I'm not interested in universal agreement. I am grateful to everyone in this thread who has contributed anything constructive, whether they agree with me or not. But 'burden of proof'? We are not in a court of law, so that kind of talk is ridiculously out of place.

I agree, that's what I'm trying to suggest

[Gwindor]

8 minutes ago, Neds Secret said:

I agree, that's what I'm trying to suggest

Yeah, I know  Thanks for understanding!

I wasn't arguing with you, just adding a comment to your words.  

[Eden-Mackenzie]

6 hours ago, Gwindor said:

 

9 hours ago, Neds Secret said:

It does not seem to me that @Gwindor is seeking universal agreement but just a place to speculate on a theory that they believe is possible and is seeking for other posters ideas and feedback with regards to the op. It appears to me that some people are behaving as if they are somehow threatened by the exposition of this theory and are now trying to subject gwindor to burdens of proof that I have not really encountered  before on this forum. I mean we are all speculating on events that occur in a fantasy novel work of fiction and as such I believe it would be near impossible to prove that almost anything had happened. 

Dorian might not have been wrong, but he's not right either. "Well, you can't prove your theory conclusively, so it's definitely wrong. Prove it, or shut up, you idiot" - what kind of an argument is that?

True, I'm not interested in universal agreement. I am grateful to everyone in this thread who has contributed anything constructive, whether they agree with me or not. But 'burden of proof'? We are not in a court of law, so that kind of talk is ridiculously out of place.

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to play universal peacemaker or anything, I love a good argument as much as the next person. I just think it's important to remember everyone has their own methods for arguing and assessing information, and of course everyone has their own interpretation of the events of the books, which is the whole reason for having a discussion forum to begin with. There has been a lot of what I can only describe as hysterical territorialism with some threads, where people become so married to an idea that any disagreement is treated as a personal attack and reasoned discussion about the idea becomes impossible, and it seemed like this thread was in danger of devolving that way. 

Who knows, maybe this will be one of the question that can be definitively answered when we get to read the series end in twenty or thirty years . Until that day though, I stand by my opinion Lady Stoneheart is Catelyn's vengeance personified, and a zombie fueled by hatred of those who have murdered or betrayed her children is good enough for me. 

[Gwindor]

2 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

There has been a lot of what I can only describe as hysterical territorialism with some threads, where people become so married to an idea that any disagreement is treated as a personal attack and reasoned discussion about the idea becomes impossible, and it seemed like this thread was in danger of devolving that way.

I'm really sorry if anything I've said has led anyone to believe that was the case.

In fact, a reaction like this:

2 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

Who knows, maybe this will be one of the question that can be definitively answered when we get to read the series end in twenty or thirty years . Until that day though, I stand by my opinion Lady Stoneheart is Catelyn's vengeance personified, and a zombie fueled by hatred of those who have murdered or betrayed her children is good enough for me. 

is no less than I was hoping for. 

[Evolett]

So, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand. I for one am interested in finding out if there are  hints in the narrative besides Varamyr’s attempted seizing of Thistle’s body that might point to a hidden theme of humans skinchanging other humans or of human souls warging into other animals after the human’s death. I’ll present a few thoughts for discussion:

 

Human souls warging into an animal

1. Varamyr is number one on the list here. We have his point of view and we explicitly read about him warging into his wolf to begin his second life.

2. Ramsay’s ‘girls’: Ramsay’s idea of a good hunt is to capture a girl, give her an opportunity to run away and then hunt her down with his hounds (his girls) as trackers. Once caught, the girls are raped, flayed and killed. But we also read that the girls who please him by giving him a good hunt are shown some kind of ‘mercy’ – these he kills first and flays them afterwards.

 

Quote

Ben Bones, who liked the dogs better than their master, had told Reek they were all named after peasant girls Ramsay had hunted, raped, and killed back when he’d still been a bastard, running with the first Reek. “The ones who give him good sport, anywise. The ones who weep and beg and won’t run don’t get to come back as bitches.” The next litter to come out of the Dreadfort’s kennels would include a Kyra, Reek did not doubt.

 

Further, the girls who give him good sport get to come back as bitches. Ramsay does not appear to keep any male dogs. He’s famous for his female bitches and they are all named after girls he has hunted, killed and flayed. Ramsay takes the skins of the unfortunate girls and reincarnates them in his female hounds. Kyra gave him good sport and she eventually gets to ‘come back’ as a dog. It’s too bad the author does not give us a description of Kyra’s hair, which is odd in itself considering that he describes most characters, even minor characters in detail. Hair, eyes, height, small breasts, large breasts, three fingers, clubfoot you name it. If I had to guess, I'd say she was a red-head. 

 

Whatever the case, the notion of taking someone’s skin evokes skinchanging (Bran slips his skin to take Summer’s skin etc.) and renaming a dog after a dead woman evokes a reincarnation of sorts if only in name. To me, the hidden implication is that the girl’s souls are reincarnated in the dogs they are named after. Haggon also tells us that because dogs are close to men, they are the easiest to bond with.

 

Quote

Dogs were the easiest beasts to bond with; they lived so close to men that they were almost human. Slipping into a dog’s skin was like putting on an old boot, its leather softened by wear.

We never actually read of anyone skinchanging a dog but it is obviously done by some skinchangers, otherwise Haggon would not mention it. It’s also easy. The question remains – are Ramsay’s hounds easy to skinchange and are the souls of the women thus horribly killed subsequently reborn in his ‘girls’?

 

Humans skinchanging humans

3. Ben Bones continues by informing Theon that Ramsay has trained his hounds to kill wolves as well.

 

Quote

 

 

“He’s trained ’em to kill wolves as well,” Ben Bones had confided. Reek said nothing. He knew which wolves the girls were meant to kill, but he had no wish to watch the girls fighting over his severed toe.

 

Theon knows which kind of wolf the girls were meant to kill and so do we. The Boltons have a past history of warring against the Starks. The World Book states they flayed the Stark princes they killed and wore their skins as cloaks. Many have speculated on what this might mean. Theories such as the Bolton’s wanting the Stark’s inherent ability to warg are high up on the list. But flaying means actually taking the skin of another person. Taking the body of another person, rather like the Faceless Men who obviously flay the faces of the dead to acquire the skin. By means of a blood ritual, they then wear these flayed skin faces to take on the appearance of the dead.
Apply this now to the Boltons and their flaying practice: they take the skins of the flayed Starks in order to take on the appearance of the Stark. Put that together and you have another way of saying that the Boltons seize the bodies of dead Stark princes. In other words, it is implied that the Boltons were ‘highly qualified’ skinchangers who succeeded in skinchanging their victim's bodies, taking them over and wearing their appearance in the same way as Varamyr planned to do with Thistle. A Bolton living his second life in the body of a Stark, lol. 

 

As far as I am concerned, the implication is there, the possibility exists and the likelyhood that generally, certain people are easier to seize than others (further implication of the girls that give Ramsay 'good sport') is high. The latter group may include red-haired people and persons of diminished mental capacity such as Hodor and Patchface. 

[Dorian Martell]

19 hours ago, Gwindor said:

Dorian Martell, you are absolutely right. My theory is totally crackpot, and definitely not worth any notice, as would be obvious to anyone taking the briefest of looks upon it, as it does not follow directly from any explicitly stated material in the books! The very idea of using imagination to formulate theories is repugnant. Even more so, the murderous dwelling in uncertainties! It either is, or it isn't! There isn't and cannot possibly be any place for any middle-ground in forum discussions!

I would like to especially criticize myself for following the seeming parallel between Catelyn and Thistle, an unworthy example of superstitious reliance on the so called 'hints', a repelling practice, a relic of old which we should all put our best efforts to eradicate.

One can only imagine in horror what this heretic speculation might have led to, if not for the valiant Dorian Martell, ever vigilant in his unending struggle against The Crackpot.

Woah there. no need to be so self deprecating. It seems you are really threatened by disagreement.  You should take some advice from Eden below.  Forum licenses are not expensive. you could start one that is private/invite only, where nobody is allowed to challenge your theories. 

18 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

Dorian may have been a bit brusque, but that does not mean he is wrong. You presented an interesting idea, people discussed it, some of them agreed with you while others did not. Agreement with the original premise is not the only way to contribute to a thread, and the threads with actual discussion over the various aspects of a premise and their merits are far more interesting to read (in my opinion) than the threads were everyone agrees with each other and nothing is questioned or critiqued. You have posed several interesting ideas recently, but if you are seeking universal agreement, an Internet forum is not the place for you.

13 hours ago, Neds Secret said:

It does not seem to me that @Gwindor is seeking universal agreement but just a place to speculate on a theory that they believe is possible and is seeking for other posters ideas and feedback with regards to the op. It appears to me that some people are behaving as if they are somehow threatened by the exposition of this theory and are now trying to subject gwindor to burdens of proof that I have not really encountered  before on this forum. I mean we are all speculating on events that occur in a fantasy novel work of fiction and as such I believe it would be near impossible to prove that almost anything had happened. 

We are discussing a work of literature. It is someone's work, and they have a detailed plan, with plots and foreshadowing. This is where the logic comes in. The premise of "well, you can't prove it wrong, so it must be legit"  is untenable in discussions. Especially if you are on these forums to have legit discussions about a story you love.

11 hours ago, Gwindor said:

Dorian might not have been wrong, but he's not right either. "Well, you can't prove your theory conclusively, so it's definitely wrong. Prove it, or shut up, you idiot" - what kind of an argument is that?

True, I'm not interested in universal agreement. I am grateful to everyone in this thread who has contributed anything constructive, whether they agree with me or not. But 'burden of proof'? We are not in a court of law, so that kind of talk is ridiculously out of place.

I am so glad you have voiced public support for the theory that the great other is the bastard child of megatron and optimus prime. After all, you can't prove it isn't true, so it must be. I appreciate your support and therefore I must support your totally not crackpot theory that adds nothing to the story. 

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

Yeah, nope, sorry. @sweetsunray has the right end of this.