Jump to content

Was Domeric really Roose's son?


SummerSphinx

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

To understand Domeric, you have to understand Roose. Here is my take, most of it based on circumstantial evidence, mind you:

Roose is the last surviving son of the Night's King, which makes him half-human and either half-Other or half-wight. When Joruman and the KoW slew the NK, they rescued little Roose from being sacrificed the way Craster sacrifices his sons. With the NK being either a Bolton, Roose inherited his lands and titles, namely the Dreadfort. Thus began Roose's 7,000-year existence of fathering sons on human brides, waiting for them to come of age, then killing them, flaying them (hence the sigil) and then donning their skins to form a perfect likeness of the son, except for his eyes which remain pale as milkglass. Then he assumes the role of the new lord of the Dreadfort for a generation, until the next lord comes of age and the process repeats.

This is why Roose never sweats, is virtually hairless and is able to silence loud boisterous louts like the Greatjon with barely a whisper. He also must leach himself constantly or else his hands and feet will turn black from coagulated blood.

There is also a good chance that Roose has managed to become lord of Winterfell on occasion, most recently as Brandon Ice-Eyes.

Which brings us to Dom and Rams. Roose stated that the moment he saw Ramsey's eyes, he knew he was his. So my take from that is that Dom did not have the pale eyes and was most likely Brandon's bastard -- not with Barbrey but Bethany herself. For Roose, that means he is not a candidate for skinning because he can only do this with a direct descendent. Enter Ramsey. I find it inconceivable that, even if Roose is the most cold-hearted evil-prick lord in the history of the 7K, he would not only blithely dismiss the fact that his bastard killed his son and heir -- someone who by all accounts would have made a phenomenal lord and would have greatly enhanced the prestige and fortunes of House Bolton -- and then go on to reward the bastard -- whose blood is so vile that it would kill leeches -- with his name and titles. The only way this makes sense, IMO, is that time is growing short for Roose in his current body and he needs a viable body in line for skinning that also preserves his hold on the Dreadfort.

Again, all this is circumstantial at the moment, and many dismiss it inaccurately as Roose the Vampire or Bolt-on, but if I'm right, then at some point Roose will die and Ramsey's eyes will suddenly appear even paler than they are now, and he will calm down, start speaking in whispers, leeching himself and so on. Then we'll know that the switch has been made.

 

Very interesting! I need some time to process, but this is cool.  I am open to the idea of Domeric being the child of Bethany/Brandon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SummerSphinx said:

 Rhaegar actually wasn't a marvelous jouster, but he did extra, extra well at HH.  He defeated Brandon Stark I believe (who rode as well or almost as well as Lyanna), as well as Barristan Selmy.  

Where did you get this idea? In the Tourney of Lannisport set up by Tywin to celebrate Aerys II birthday, Rhaegar beat dozen knights jousting, amongst them Selmy,but was defeated by Arthur Dayne. He rarely entered the lists, but that doesn't say anything negative about his skill. So, Rhaegar beat Selmy at least twice, and Selmy was a tourney champion even at 57. 

 

1 hour ago, SummerSphinx said:

I don't think Rhaegar was as wonderful a rider as Lyanna  (correct me if I've forgotten something).  If Rhaegar was a great rider, Barristan, Viserys, Connington, Ned, Cercei, or many others could share that info about Rhaegar.

George is hinitng at Rhaegar being a great rider via the Domeric parallel. And by Jaime thinking that jousting skill depends mostly on riding skill when he watches Loras. 

Cersei shares some info on Rhaegar when she thinks back of the tourney at Lannisport. Ned shares info on Rhaegar winning the tournament of Harrenhal. Viserys hardly knew his brother. Per Jaime's jousting argument, Rhaegar could not have won a tourney nor beat certain men, without having the ability to ride.

We are also told that when Rhaegar applied himself to something he did it well. It may not have been his "passion", but he mastered and excelled in whatever he believe he needed to learn.

And Arya-Harwin shows that a girl riding as well as Lyanna can still be caught by someone trained, and Roose tells us that someone like Domeric who in one paragraph reminds us of Rhaegar could outrace Rhaegar.

It does not really matter what you believe the story to have been with KotLT without any literary evidence, or what you believe the kidnapping scenario was like. George is telling us twice that a skilled jouster or rider could catch up and outrace Lyanna. You brought up Rhaegar yourself in connection to Domeric with his harp. So, obviously you noticed a connection there, which you then neglect purely because you have false beliefs about Rhaegar's jousting skills, suddenly require evidence from other characters spelling out to you "Rhaegar was a great rider and jouster", but don't require any mention of rubies or moonstones with regards the KotLT being glamored, and it hasn't got anything to do with Rhaegar discovering Lyanna anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm open to the idea that Domeric may not have been Roose's son... which would be a good enough reason for him to favour the bastard (definitely his own) over the supposedly trueborn... BUT the whole rest of that seems utter hogwash to me. I see no need to look for a magical origin for Roose Bolton, nor magical reasons for his motives, when mundane ones will suffice perfectly well: and surely if Roose Bolton was of origin other than mortal (especially the whole "son of Night's King" theory mentioned above, which would make him thousands of years old), something would have been noted.

Bolton lords are known in the north, and have fought under Stark banners before, as well as against them, indeed Boltons were loyal bannermen to the Starks during the war with the Vale over the Sisters, and if they were all the same person handed down through generations, *it would have been noted*.

Roose Bolton's comment about Ramsay, "his blood is so bad it would kill even leeches", is a figure of speech, an admission that he knows his house has an evil reputation, and that his son is terrible even by Bolton standards. Roose Bolton has executed and murdered, he has been a traitor, but interestingly, he is not known to have flayed anyone. (This doesn't mean he hasn't: it only means he is not known to have done so.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of @sweetsunray's observations but I think we differ on some important side issues to this question.

I don't think Domeric was Roose's son , but Brandon's (except with a few added wrinkles) I had an old thread about this from 2013, which I've always meant to update. Some of my opinions have evolved since then and I needed to work around problems arising from a changing wiki and consideration of the time line.

I also find @John Suburbs post interesting but am not sure I see Roose's nature as quite that defined, yet ... maybe...

I think I need to update my own thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have aDwD with me, so I'd appreciate it if you can correct me with the quote.  It's just I remember Rhaegar was described as loving his harp more than his lance. If I recall, Viserys sort of built Rhaegar up in Dany's mind, and Barristan/Arstan politely took him down a notch or two. 

Rhaegar is described as putting his mind to knightly skills after reading about something  (a prophesy?). 

I am not saying he was bad, just not amazingly brilliant, even if he had some big successes. 

It is also difficult to know when the heir to the throne wins at a tournament if it is truly all about ability. Didn't Ned insinuate to Robert that he would win because he was the king?

9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Where did you get this idea? In the Tourney of Lannisport set up by Tywin to celebrate Aerys II birthday, Rhaegar beat dozen knights jousting, amongst them Selmy,but was defeated by Arthur Dayne. He rarely entered the lists, but that doesn't say anything negative about his skill. So, Rhaegar beat Selmy at least twice, and Selmy was a tourney champion even at 57. 

 

George is hinitng at Rhaegar being a great rider via the Domeric parallel. And by Jaime thinking that jousting skill depends mostly on riding skill when he watches Loras. 

Cersei shares some info on Rhaegar when she thinks back of the tourney at Lannisport. Ned shares info on Rhaegar winning the tournament of Harrenhal. Viserys hardly knew his brother. Per Jaime's jousting argument, Rhaegar could not have won a tourney nor beat certain men, without having the ability to ride.

We are also told that when Rhaegar applied himself to something he did it well. It may not have been his "passion", but he mastered and excelled in whatever he believe he needed to learn.

And Arya-Harwin shows that a girl riding as well as Lyanna can still be caught by someone trained, and Roose tells us that someone like Domeric who in one paragraph reminds us of Rhaegar could outrace Rhaegar.

It does not really matter what you believe the story to have been with KotLT without any literary evidence, or what you believe the kidnapping scenario was like. George is telling us twice that a skilled jouster or rider could catch up and outrace Lyanna. You brought up Rhaegar yourself in connection to Domeric with his harp. So, obviously you noticed a connection there, which you then neglect purely because you have false beliefs about Rhaegar's jousting skills, suddenly require evidence from other characters spelling out to you "Rhaegar was a great rider and jouster", but don't require any mention of rubies or moonstones with regards the KotLT being glamored, and it hasn't got anything to do with Rhaegar discovering Lyanna anyway.

 

I don't think the Arya comparison is quite fair, because Arya was younger than Lyanna was (people remember her at an older age with a larger body and more time to develop skills).

I know that nobody else is required to like my theory of KoLT, I simply offered it as an indication of where I am coming from.  I think there was more going on than a straightforward love story.  I believe Rhaegar got really interested in Lyanna's abilities because they tied in to some prophecy he read.

I know there were no rubies mentioned, but maybe that's Mel's thing.  Crannogmen are described as having eerie powers to hide and trick.  If Howland learned something on the island, it probably would be some Old God tree trick, not the same as Mel's rubies.

I do see the parallel between Rhaegar (the harp) and Domeric. However, I don't see Roose's story as necessarily being put in by GRRM to tell us Rhaegar was a great horseman.

Also, in GoT wasn't it insinuated that Loras used a mare in heat to spook his opponent's horse? If Lyanna could skinchange horses, all she'd really need to do is spook each of the opponents' horses at just the right time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SummerSphinx said:

Can you provide a link? Thank you!

I remember something a bit more negative than this re: Ned's generation >>maybe on video but I don't have time to search.. anyway from these, it at least seems quite unlikely,,,

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1260

http://nobodysuspectsthebutterfly.tumblr.com/post/124742615188/grrm-on-the-starks-warg-talents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. That stuff doesn't really seem to rule it out for Lyanna.  

16 minutes ago, bemused said:

I remember something a bit more negative than this re: Ned's generation >>maybe on video but I don't have time to search.. anyway from these, it at least seems quite unlikely,,,

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1260

http://nobodysuspectsthebutterfly.tumblr.com/post/124742615188/grrm-on-the-starks-warg-talents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SummerSphinx said:

Ok. That stuff doesn't really seem to rule it out for Lyanna.  

 

I'd have to disagree with you, there.. If there had been even a whiff of skinchanging in Ned's generation they would have understood it better when the current generation came along. They had no idea of how to prepare the kids..

With the amount of riding Lyanna did,it surely would have shown up before KoLT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bemused said:

I'd have to disagree with you, there.. If there had been even a whiff of skinchanging in Ned's generation they would have understood it better when the current generation came along. They had no idea of how to prepare the kids..

With the amount of riding Lyanna did,it surely would have shown up before KoLT. 

But even the current generation of Stark kids are not aware of one another's abilities, and GRRM says they have varying levels of ability and awareness. He said Arya doesn't realize, she just thinks she has funny dreams.  They all have it, and yet didn't see it in one another. (Though to be fair, they have been separated most of the series).

All of Ned's kids (and Jon) get direwolves, but there seems to have been little awakening or awareness prior to that. None of them mentioned wolf or dog dreams.  Robb and Jon were fairly old when they met their wolves.

Bran's accident seems to have significantly triggered his abilities, plus he had the three-eyed crow and the Reed kids seeking him out.

I don't get the impression that Ned had much (if any) ability.  Ned and his siblings spent significant time apart (Ned in the Vale, Brandon fostered with Lord Dustin, Lyanna at Winterfell or perhaps visiting other houses).  

Yes, if Ned participated in the KotLT ruse, he may have known Lyanna had something. He may not have been directly involved, though. Even if he knew something,  he may have viewed it as some trick unique to Lyanna and not directly related to his kids' direwolves.

Howland or Rhaegar may have been more aware than the Starks themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SummerSphinx said:

It's just I remember Rhaegar was described as loving his harp more than his lance.

It is correct that it's said he loved his harp more than his lance. That doesn't say anything about his skill, only his passion.

8 hours ago, SummerSphinx said:

and Barristan/Arstan politely took him down a notch or two. 

And Barristan was at least beaten twice in the lists by Rhaegar: at the Tourney of Lannisport and Harrenhal.

Here are some quotes from Whitebeard about Rheagar to Dany:

 
Quote

 

"Did you know my brother Rhaegar as well?"
"It was said that no man ever knew Prince Rhaegar, truly. I had the privilege of seeing him in tourney, though, and often heard him play his harp with its silver strings." (aSoS, Dany I)

 

 
You don't say it's a privilege to see someone in a tourney unless it's someone with skill and talent. Dany then tells how Viserys said Rhaegar was a peerless warrior, only bested by Arthur Dayne.
 
 
Quote

 

Whitebeard bowed his head. "It is not my place to question the words of Prince Viserys."
"King," Dany corrected. "He was a king, though he never reigned. Viserys, the Third of His Name. But what do you mean?" His answer had not been one that she'd expected. "Ser Jorah named Rhaegar the last dragon once. He had to have been a peerless warrior to be called that, surely?"
"Your Grace," said Whitebeard, "the Prince of Dragonstone was a most puissant warrior, but . . ."  [...]The old man leaned upon his hardwood staff, his brow furrowed. "A warrior without peer . . . those are fine words, Your Grace, but words win no battles."
"Swords win battles," Ser Jorah said bluntly. "And Prince Rhaegar knew how to use one."
"He did, ser, but . . . I have seen a hundred tournaments and more wars than I would wish, and however strong or fast or skilled a knight may be, there are others who can match him. A man will win one tourney, and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot in the grass may mean defeat, or what you ate for supper the night before. A change in the wind may bring the gift of victory." He glanced at Ser Jorah. "Or a lady's favor knotted round an arm."

 

 

Viserys' claim of course is too fantastical. Viserys basically claimed that Rhaegar was the second best warrior after Arthur Dayne. It is this peerless ranking that Selmy takes issue with, and that in general. Selmy has seen many tournaments, participated in many tournaments since he was 10 (the first time he entered the lists as mystery knight) and several battles and wars. He knows the reality of tourneys and wars, rather than the romanticised image that Viserys makes of it. He's saying there exists no peerless warrior - No matter how strong, fast or skilled a knight may be, there are always others who can match him.He's saying that even the best of them may be defeated in tourney because of circumstances. And he's saying even the lesser skilled, such as Jorah, can win a tourney because of a fluke or by the favor of a lady. This is sometimes being taken as a parallel that Rhaegar only managed to win Harrenhal because of his admiration for Lyanna, and that he otherwise is not much a skilled knight. But that negates Rhaegar's skill in besting Selmy twice (at Lannisport and Harrenhal).

In reality there would be a class of upper tier skilled knights, but that's not a miniscule group, and most of them are pretty much even matched. They ending up being champion or 2nd or 3rd depends more on chance and circumstances that day, rather than being peerless.

 
Quote

 

Dany turned back to the squire. "I know little of Rhaegar. Only the tales Viserys told, and he was a little boy when our brother died. What was he truly like?"
The old man considered a moment. "Able. That above all. Determined, deliberate, dutiful, single-minded. There is a tale told of him . . . but doubtless Ser Jorah knows it as well." [...] "As you wish," said Whitebeard. "As a young boy, the Prince of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his father's knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. No one knows what it might have been, only that the boy suddenly appeared early one morning in the yard as the knights were donning their steel. He walked up to Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms, and said, 'I will require sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior.'"

 

 
Here's the story of his bookish nature and how he decided he would need to be a warrior after all. This is a story about child-Rhaegar, not the man, and it certainly says nothing of skill. We are given some hints of age:
  • Rhaegar acquired the skill to read earlier than the average lettered child, so early that people basically say he learned to read in the womb already. Most children on average can learn to read their first letters around the age 5-6, and by age 8-9 can begin to read longer texts or small books. For men to make such a remark about Rhaegar being a reader already in the womb, suggest he began to read earlier than that and was still a toddler. So, he was likely about 4 years old when he began to pick up letters and by age 6-7 already at a reading level of an older child.
  • Rhaegar was not interested in joining the play of other children. This prompted the remarks from Aerys' knights (which would be the KG knights) that he was a Baelor born again. Again this suggests an age younger than the squire or page age. Children play in mimication of their interests. Age 5-7 is the age where children begin to play out stories, wars, movies and together. Children younger than that tend to play more by themselves. They might be playing simultaneously, for example both with building blocks, but they're doing their own thing. The interactive play where one child has role A and the other child role B and mutual cooperation is required, starts around elementary school age. And certainly in a heavily gender role society as that of Westeros, the boys' play would involve pretending to be a knight or warrior and lots of stick fights, with the girls pretending to be the princess needing saving. Rhaegar did not engage in that sort of play. 
  • He's still a boy when he appears in the yard with the message that he must become a warrior.

So, around the age 7-8 Rhaegar began to train, determined, deliberate and single-minded.

A mistake often made is that interest = giftedness = excellence. Plenty of people may have an interest or passion for a skill they are not actually gifted with. Plenty of people may have a gift or talent in a skill that actually interests them little. And in acquiring skill, motivation and training is a bigger determining factor of excellence, rather than talent, where the slightly less naturally talented may have an edge over the more naturally talented individual, because the latter may tend to rely on their self-image of talent and may end up training less.

All we therefore can say is that Rhaegar was probably a gifted intellectual, who had no original interest in fighting, but ended up convinced and motivated to become a warrior and had the personality to apply himself to it wholeheartedly. Why he was not interested in it initially may be for several reasons. Those child games involve mimicry and glorification, an idealization, to be like this famous knight, or to best competitors, the mini-Jaimes. And some children, mini-Gregors, just love beating up other children. So, Rhaegar might have shown no interest in the play of other children, because the goals those other boys had in playing at knights and warriors may simply have not appealed to him.

It is ths type of lack of love of the sword-song that Selmy mentions later at Yunkay, when Dany wants to know about the "many" tourneys that Rhaegar won.

Quote

"Prince Rhaegar's prowess was unquestioned, but he seldom entered the lists. He never loved the song of swords the way that Robert did, or Jaime Lannister. It was something he had to do, a task the world had set him. He did it well, for he did everything well. That was his nature. But he took no joy in it. Men said that he loved his harp much better than his lance." (aSoS, Dany IV)

So, Selmy says that Rhaegar competed little, because he was not looking for glory of battle and tourney fame the way Robert and Jaime do. But he did it well. He does everything well. So, he rarely entered the lists, but when he did, he was not unskilled.

Quote

 

"He won some tourneys surely," said Danny, disappointed.

"When he was young, His Grace rode brilliantly in a tourney at Storm's End, defeating Lord Steffon Baratheon, Lord Jason Mallister, the Red Viper of Dorne, and a mystery knight who proved to be the infamous Simon Toyne, chief of the kingswood outlaws. He broke twelve lances against Ser Arthur Dayne that day."

"Was he the champion, then?"

"No, Your Grace. That honor went to another knight of the Kingsguard, who unhorsed Prince Rhaegar in the final tilt."
Dany did not want to hear about Rhaegar being unhorsed. "But what tourneys did my brother win?"
"Your Grace." The old man hesitated. "He won the greatest tourney of them all." [...] "The tourney Lord Whent staged at Harrenhal beside the Gods Eye, in the year of the false spring. A notable event. Besides the jousting, there was a mêlée in the old style fought between seven teams of knights, as well as archery and axe-throwing, a horse race, a tournament of singers, a mummer show, and many feasts and frolics. Lord Whent was as open handed as he was rich. The lavish purses he proclaimed drew hundreds of challengers. Even your royal father came to Harrenhal, when he had not left the Red Keep for long years. The greatest lords and mightiest champions of the Seven Kingdoms rode in that tourney, and the Prince of Dragonstone bested them all."

 

 
That KG knight was Selmy himself. Selmy won the final tilt against Rhaegar at Storm's End, but we know he lost twice against Rhaegar too. Note how Selmy says that Rhaegar "rode brilliantly". That's not taking him down a notch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SummerSphinx said:

I only have aDwD with me, so I'd appreciate it if you can correct me with the quote.  It's just I remember Rhaegar was described as loving his harp more than his lance. If I recall, Viserys sort of built Rhaegar up in Dany's mind, and Barristan/Arstan politely took him down a notch or two.

Viserys' loose contact with reality notwithstanding, Rhaegar's tourney record could only be called phenomenal.

The tourney at Lannisport: he unhorses at least fifteen opponents ("Two of her [Cerse's] uncles fell before his lance, along with a dozen of her father's finest jousters, the flower of the west"; "Prince Rhaegar, newly knighted, unhorsed both Tygett and Gerion Lannister, and even overcame the gallant Ser Barristan Selmy"). At seventeen.

The tourney at Storm's End: Rhaegar again kicks some famous ass ("When he was young, His Grace rode brilliantly in a tourney at Storm’s End, defeating Lord Steffon Baratheon, Lord Jason Mallister, the Red Viper of Dorne, and a mystery knight who proved to be the infamous Simon Toyne (...), broke twelve lances against Ser Arthur Dayne that day.”), to lose only the final tilt against Ser Barry. And then there's his crowning achievement, the Harrenhal.

So if Rhaegar "wasn't a marvelous jouster", then who was?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JLE said:

I'm open to the idea that Domeric may not have been Roose's son... which would be a good enough reason for him to favour the bastard (definitely his own) over the supposedly trueborn... BUT the whole rest of that seems utter hogwash to me. I see no need to look for a magical origin for Roose Bolton, nor magical reasons for his motives, when mundane ones will suffice perfectly well: and surely if Roose Bolton was of origin other than mortal (especially the whole "son of Night's King" theory mentioned above, which would make him thousands of years old), something would have been noted.

Bolton lords are known in the north, and have fought under Stark banners before, as well as against them, indeed Boltons were loyal bannermen to the Starks during the war with the Vale over the Sisters, and if they were all the same person handed down through generations, *it would have been noted*.

Roose Bolton's comment about Ramsay, "his blood is so bad it would kill even leeches", is a figure of speech, an admission that he knows his house has an evil reputation, and that his son is terrible even by Bolton standards. Roose Bolton has executed and murdered, he has been a traitor, but interestingly, he is not known to have flayed anyone. (This doesn't mean he hasn't: it only means he is not known to have done so.)

Yup, I know it sounds crazy, but I'm throwing the long ball on this one. There are simply too many oddities about Roose to just brush it off as mere strangeness.

And it wouldn't be the same person throughout the generations. It would merely be the son taking over upon the death of the father -- nothing unusual at all.

All I'm saying is: if/when Roose dies, keep an eye on Ramsey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm expecting that the demise of Roose is one thing the TV series *did* get right. In fact, in the "Pink Letter" chapter, I think Ramsay has already murdered Roose, offstage by this time (with no POV witnesses since Theon left Winterfell.)

He believes he has won the important battle - he believes Stannis is dead (he may be incorrect in this belief: since it is hinted in the TWOW preview "Theon" chapter that Stannis is already planning to fake his own death - he tells Massey "you may hear rumours of my death, they may even be true", which seems to be to be implying that they also may NOT be true, and he points out to Theon that Ramsay does not know Stannis any more than Stannis knows Ramsay): and he has captured Mance and skinned the six spearwives, and Mance has told Ramsay everything he knows under torture.

With no foes left in the North except the possibility of Jon, who has hardly any men under his command and will either stay at his post (and be no threat) or desert (and be murdered by his own men), Ramsay would have reason to believe he can safely do away with Roose and take over House Bolton and the North himself. While his father believed that the North would not accept Ramsay, with Jon out of the picture and Stannis dead (Ramsay believes), there is no credible candidate for them to unite behind, and the opposition can be dealt with piecemeal.

(What he's not expecting, of course, is for one of the two possible opposition figures he thinks are gone, namely Stannis or Jon, to make a comeback: either Stannis because he is not dead at all, having faked his death, or Jon because he manages to come back from beyond death - though unlike in the TV series I believe someone else will have to die in his place to bring him back. Possibly two people: "two kings to wake the dragon", and there just happen to be two uncrownable kings in the north right now, namely Stannis and Theon... which is why I think Stannis will survive the encounters with Ramsay. Besides, only by beating Ramsay is it possible to set up a scene where Stannis is faced with the choice as to whether or not to burn his daughter at Melisandre's command - and I am sure this scene must happen, the setting up of his *choice* - although whether he makes the same choice as in the TV series and actually goes through with the sacrifice, is another question entirely.)

One other problem remains: the official seal of House Bolton is missing, hidden either by Roose or the maesters so Ramsay cannot find it (with a historical reminiscence: when King James II was deposed from England and forced to flee, he dropped the Great Royal Seal into the Thames, and it has never been found to this day.) Ramsay has been forced to make do with a smear of pink wax to seal the letter with, being unable to actually stamp the house seal into the wax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Viserys' loose contact with reality notwithstanding, Rhaegar's tourney record could only be called phenomenal.

The tourney at Lannisport: he unhorses at least fifteen opponents ("Two of her [Cerse's] uncles fell before his lance, along with a dozen of her father's finest jousters, the flower of the west"; "Prince Rhaegar, newly knighted, unhorsed both Tygett and Gerion Lannister, and even overcame the gallant Ser Barristan Selmy"). At seventeen.

The tourney at Storm's End: Rhaegar again kicks some famous ass ("When he was young, His Grace rode brilliantly in a tourney at Storm’s End, defeating Lord Steffon Baratheon, Lord Jason Mallister, the Red Viper of Dorne, and a mystery knight who proved to be the infamous Simon Toyne (...), broke twelve lances against Ser Arthur Dayne that day.”), to lose only the final tilt against Ser Barry. And then there's his crowning achievement, the Harrenhal.

So if Rhaegar "wasn't a marvelous jouster", then who was?

 

Right. So, Rhaegar was in the first class rank of jousters. The only tournament he is down as actually *winning* was Harrenhal, though. Breaking twelve lances against Arthur Dayne at Storm's End - and presumably eventually defeating him, because he lost the final tilt against another Kingsguard knight (almost certainly Barristan). At Lannisport (let's call this the First Tourney, to distinguish it from the Second, won by Jorah Mormont), he beat Selmy but Dayne beat him. Of the other people he beat, Tygett and Gerion Lannister's own jousting prowess is not known, although the other dozen knights of the Westerlands were "her father's finest jousters" - in Cersei's eyes: whether they were good, or the Westerlands was having a general bad year that year, isn't certain, but the fact that he was able to beat Barristan shows that Rhaegar was good, regardless of the strength of the opposition. So, that's one known victory and two known second-places for Rhaegar: it's not clear how many other tourneys he entered (though assumably not many). But he would have been expected, at least, to place well in most of them when he did, though there's no report of his winning any others but Harrenhall. I think we can probably call him a top-ten jousting knight.

Robert Baratheon, by contrast, is remembered by Cersei as an indifferent jouster - no more being said about him than "he won more than he lost", but then that would be true of anyone who could defeat just two knights before being unhorsed. By comparison with the modern day, someone who reaches the third round of Wimbledon tennis tournament (seven rounds from first to final) has won two matches and only lost one, qualifying for "won more than they lost", but is still an also-ran and a journeyman - that's Robert's approximate rank in jousting: top hundred, maybe pushing top fifty at his best, definitely not top twenty. On the other hand Robert was a regular champion of the melee - there is no report of Rhaegar entering a melee at all. Whether he did or not, perhaps it's not so surprising that when the two finally met in a proper battle, Robert was the victor at the Trident...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you so much @sweetsunray for all of the time you spent looking up quotes. I have recently moved, and my books are in disarray. Just found them! I appreciate it. I agree with @JLE characterizing him as a "top-ten" or a top tier jouster, but I disagree with @Ferocious Veldt Roarercalling him "phenomenal."

I think we are not quite as far apart as it might seem. 

The Green Bay Packers (Go Pack!) beat the Dallas Cowboys today, even though the odds were on Dallas.  Perhaps what I ought to have said originally was this: I don't get the impression that Rhaegar was the strong favorite to win at Harrenhall before the jousting started. Good enough to be in the top-tier? Yes. But not the indisputable favorite. Not peerless. Not Ser Arthur Dayne's peer...that is what Viserys had told Dany, and that was one of the things Selmy wouldn't assent to. 

"The Sword of the Morning!" said Dany, delighted. "Viserys used to talk about his wondrous white blade. He said Ser Arthur was the only knight in the realm who was our brother's peer."

Whitebeard bowed his head. "It is not my place to question the words of Prince Viserys." ...

It sounds as though Selmy thinks Rhaegar was not Dayne’s peer, or that there were others who were Rhaegar's peer (or better), or both.

In determining Rhaegar's reputation prior to Harrenhall, we cannot use his performance at Harrenhall. Also, if Lyanna helped him in some way (the idea I was floating) that would mean Rhaegar's performance at Harrenhall cannot be used as evidence of his prowess.

In re-rereading Selmy's words now that I have my books back:

1. Selmy spent years working for egomaniacs and narcissists who wielded the power to kill people who said something they didn't like (Mad King Aerys, Robert, Joff).  He certainly didn't want this young queen he had only recently met (in the Arstan chapters) to accuse him of insulting the royal family. So he says things like "I had the privilege of seeing him in tourney," but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot about Rhaegar's skill...it is evidence of Selmy's courtesy, his awareness that royalty doesn't always want the truth, and his practical tendency to couch less positive comments between gracious tact. He also responded to Dany's question about her father: "Did you find him good and gentle?" ..."His grace was...often pleasant."  When he says Rhaegar rode "brilliantly" at Storm's End, there is an ambiguity. "Brilliantly" compared to the other elites? Or "brilliantly for Rhaegar"? Does that mean he didn't usually ride that brilliantly? And he was not the champion at Storm's End, he was unhorsed. Selmy was always very gracious, but I believed him when he said Rhaegar was able, determined, and puissant.  But he didn't speak of Rhaegar as though he had a "glow about him" the way Ned and others spoke about Arthur Dayne. And GRRM could have just made Selmy say "he was the best horseman I had ever seen," but that isn't what GRRM had him say.

2. I think Selmy also makes a big distinction between a "warrior" and someone who has competed in tournaments.  Some people do both and are good at both. Some people (like Bronn?) might not participate in a lot of tourneys or win jousts, but are warriors you would be happy to have by your side in battle. Others (perhaps Loras in the early books?) might not be proven "warriors," even if they have performed well in tournaments.  They have the potential to be great warriors, but being a "peerless warrior" is not something you can say about someone who has not significantly distinguished himself in actual combat. Rhaegar fell to Robert in battle. 

3. In evaluating Rhaegar's performance at Lannisport, we need to remember that Tywin was trying to hook Rhaegar up with Cercei.  So if you are Tywin playing host to the crown prince (who is the son of a cranky, competitive nut job), and you are trying to flatter the prince, and you don't want to be accused of hurting the crown prince by Aerys, perhaps a lot of your Lannister knights are bested.  Not saying it happened that way, but Tywin was shrewd. 

Was Rhaegar better than most people in Westeros? Sure. But was he the favorite to win at Harrenhall? I still don't think so.  

My main reason for thinking Lyanna helped him win is not based on his ability, however.  I think he was a tactful enough guy not to name Lyanna the Queen of Love and Beauty in front of his wife and Robert (and a huge crowd of people who witnessed him slighting his wife and Robert) just because he had a crush on her (even if she was the Knight of Laughing Tree). It is kind of like Tyrion's trial for murdering Joff. If he really wanted to murder him, he was way too smart to do it that openly.  I feel like Rhaegar foolishly and naively wanted to acknowledge Lyanna for something that was not so obvious to others, and he only made a gaff like that because it made sense to him in light of what he knew and believed.  If he genuinely just had the hots for Lyanna, nothing more, I think he would have hidden it more. His openness makes me feel like lust/love wasn't his initial motive in crowning her.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but people are often not like their parents. It happens. I don't think theory makes much sense according to how people talk about Domeric at all. Also, as I plan to adopt kids, and I have spoken to others who have adopted including my aunt and unclr (my cousins are adopted) and their kids tend to act like them, I think nature is much less involved in the making of some one's personality than nurture. Perhaps because Domeric was raised by the Dustins and Redforts, he acts more like them than Roose. But again, even with both nuture and nature, a kid can end completely different than their parents or guardians. My friend is one of nicest guys I know, and his parents are self absorbed, conservative, alcoholics. There is no such thing as bad blood, and I think GRRM has tried hard to show in universe, that this is also the case. Take the Stark kids, many of whom don't act like Starks should or Stannis and Robert and Renly, who are all so different, its hard to imagine how they could be brothers (except looks). Or Quentyn and Arianne Martell, or countlss other examples. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SummerSphinx

Quote

I agree with @JLE characterizing him as a "top-ten" or a top tier jouster

If he was a top tier jouster he thus was good at the lance and had to have been a great horserider (for he does not have the built like Gregor or Robert). And thus the trio of lance, riding and harp is a reference to Rhaegar. Roose talks in world about Domeric and compares his riding skills to Lyanna's and how he could outrace her. George is clueing us in that Rhaegar could outrace Lyanna.

George clues the reader in with 3 steps:

  1. vague
  2. less vague
  3. reveal

Arya's riding being compared to Lyanna, but still being caught by Harwin is the vague hint. Domeric-Rhaegar parallel and outracing Lyanna is the less vague hint. In tWoW we should expect either a story or weirnet-vision of Rhaegar racing after Lyanna and catching her.

As for Domeric not being Roose's son. I don't really see the point. The Boltons are the second act issue needing to be overcome in the North. It's more important to the plot to know why someone would want to take them down, rather have a full background family tree like the Targs or the Starks. On top of that we don't have a POV with the Boltons anymore. Whatever info we got about their characters and background was given in aDwD. There will be no reveal about the Boltons, other than who died when, where and how. The story about Domeric serves the obvious plot motive for Barbrey Dustin to hate Ramsay and to see him dead. It gives us just enough amount of background information to doubt Barbrey's assertions in the crypts that she's a Bolton loyalist. The show-down between them will mostly occur off-screen, for we have no POV inside Winterfell anymore. So, I really don't see how it's relevant or George would go this deep into the true father of Domeric.

I also agree with others that George doesn't write sons and daughters to be the copy of their parent. After all, even if it's a plot point that Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella aren't Robert's, it's also noteworthy that Tommen isn't like Joffrey. Cersei knows she's the mother of all three and that Jaime's the father, and she thinks to herself how Myrcella has the sweetness in her that she never had herself. Domeric is the son of two people, and his mother has something to do with it as well. And I also agree that nurture plays its part too.

As for the Boltons and magical stuff: imo George has them do stuff where they try to steal someone else's power, but in a literaly physical way. For example keeping blood genetically pure can be done the way the Targs do it - incest - but it leads to a higher chance of genetic related issues. Roose keeps his "blood pure" with leeches - which doesn't do much in relation to offspring. Another example is how some families or individuals tend to be magical "skinchangers" by being able to get into the mind of an animal and have some type of control over it. Boltons skin people and wear those skins physically as a cloak. It's like they want to be Starks or other people and skinchange them, but they can only do that in a subverted physical way, not the magical way at all. So, the leeching and flaying imo hints that there's actually nothing special about the Boltons at all, that they do'nt have an ounce of magical blood whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please see my edit to OP with a summary of elements. Also, other comments upthread. You only seem to be addressing #6.  In ASOIAF, family traits do matter, more than in real life. Yes, exceptions exist (Sam, etc). Domeric is not described as having any classic Bolton traits, unless "quiet" counts.

8 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Sorry, but people are often not like their parents. It happens. I don't think theory makes much sense according to how people talk about Domeric at all. Also, as I plan to adopt kids, and I have spoken to others who have adopted including my aunt and unclr (my cousins are adopted) and their kids tend to act like them, I think nature is much less involved in the making of some one's personality than nurture. Perhaps because Domeric was raised by the Dustins and Redforts, he acts more like them than Roose. But again, even with both nuture and nature, a kid can end completely different than their parents or guardians. My friend is one of nicest guys I know, and his parents are self absorbed, conservative, alcoholics. There is no such thing as bad blood, and I think GRRM has tried hard to show in universe, that this is also the case. Take the Stark kids, many of whom don't act like Starks should or Stannis and Robert and Renly, who are all so different, its hard to imagine how they could be brothers (except looks). Or Quentyn and Arianne Martell, or countlss other examples. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...