Frey family reunion Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 On 1/28/2017 at 5:18 PM, SFDanny said: I couldn't agree more, but I also think that with the unfolding of the story relative to the split between father and son, and the expansion of the information behind the STAB bloc (Southron ambitions, maester's conspiracy, etc.) we are beginning to see the broad outlines of the backstory. I've argued since we only had clues like Rhaegar not being in King's Landing when Brandon calls for him to "come out and die" and when Aerys can't find Rhaegar after he exiles Merryweather all was not well between father and son. I've also argued that the fact we hear nothing of Brandon shouting for his sister's release speaks to possible other reasons for the Stark's anger at Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna and her kidnapping. Now we have much more to suggest this is the case. Two historical examples previous to Robert's Rebellion stand out. and We can add to these examples ones we see in the main story, such as the Frey's reaction to Robb's marriage to Jeyne, Hoster's refusal to talk to his brother when he refuses to marry Bethany Redwyne, and Tywin's reaction when Tyrion marries Tysha without his consent. The theme that runs through all of these is the right of the High Lord to decide who his children will marry and the serious nature of the marriage compact. We even see where it has become custom for the unmarried siblings to be honor bound to fulfill these contracts (Ned Stark after Brandon dies) if the sibling involved dies before the marriage takes place. Now, with all this background, still too many readers only see the personal animosity towards Tywin of Aerys's naming of Jaime to the Kingsguard. Undoubtedly this is present, but the action itself is also an attack on Tywin's rights as a High Lord. Aerys gives Jaime the "honor" but by so doing he also cuts the tie of the Lannisters to the STAB bloc. It is an action aimed not only at Tywin, but also at Rickard's plans. If one leaves all the above out, then Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna, is thought only as the actions of lovestruck prince, or one who lives in a world of prophecy and is unaware of the political ramifications of what he does. It makes no sense. Rhaegar is a leader of minority political faction that grows and fights battles with both his father and the lickspittle lords of the council. And I would argue with Tywin as well when Tywin tries to use him for his own plots. He is described as a highly intelligent man, who understands the world around him. Why then does he crown Lyanna? Because, when you add back in all of those pieces of the puzzle - the context of the political struggles - his action makes sense. Especially so, if Brandon is the man who dishonors Ashara. It is an action done in the same manner of his father - honor on the surface, with another purpose hidden underneath. The beauty of the roses with the thorns hidden by the flowers. It is a move his father understands, and it speaks directly to the long developed plans of the Starks for an alternative power bloc of High Lords to undermine Targaryen power.. Absolutely it is only a theory, but it has much to support it. Martin can change it all whenever he wants to, but with every book he lays out pieces of the puzzle that fill in more of the picture he has only hinted about, and I think we are getting to the place where some of this is coming clear. The beauty of Martin's writing - to me, at least - is in the complex nature of his characters and his plots. So, none of this says there was no love between Rhaegar and Lyanna, or that Rhaegar wasn't pushed by his understanding of prophecy to do things in his life that those who don't know of that vision could not understand. It only means there is also a very complicated political struggle going on at the same time, and that in some of this story if that is not taken into account we lose what is really going on. I think the message is meant to be seen by all - Aerys, the Starks and their allies, as well as Rhaegar's own - and it is meant to deal with the politics that confronts him at Harrenhal. That doesn't mean by publicly uniting with his father against the STAB bloc and their plans that there are no differences there after between father and son. In fact, I think that this status only lasts until the time of the "kidnapping" - if that long. If Rhaegar and Aerys agreed on the kidnapping of Lyanna to strike the next blow against the STAB bloc, then he would have brought Lyanna to King's Landing to be held as hostage to the bloc's future good behavior. He does not, and there is no indication that Aerys even finds out where his son is until some time months later after the Battle of the Bells. So, what I'm arguing for is not an understanding of this as a two sided competition, but rather a multi-sided political struggle in which alliances change. Rhaegar plays his own side. Sometimes that is in concert with his father, and many times he is not. I'm almost with you on this but not quite. Let's assume that Rhaegar knew of the ulterior meaning behind the blue rose for the Stark family. And I agree, Rhaegar is a very learned man, and with Aemon living up in the Wall, Rhaegar may very well have understood the ulterior meaning of the gesture. So you liken Rhaegar's awarding of the crown to Lyanna with Aerys honoring Jaime with a position on the Kingsguard. This is a nice parallel, and I agree this seems like something Martin would focus on. And the thorns under the flower is a nice symbol as well. So far so good. So Aerys gives Jaime an honor, but it's an honor with thorns, it keeps Tywin from arranging a marriage alliance with Jaime. (it also arguably would make the dwarf, Tyrion, as Tywin's heir which would be another kick in the pants for Twyin). But I'm confused as to how Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna serves a similar purpose for his own power alliance (I assume the Dornes and some scattered friendly lords). Granted we have an outward show of honor to Lyanna and thus to her house. But it doesn't prevent the marriage alliance between Lyanna and Robert. Certainly Rhaegar is not in a position to substitute himself for Robert because of the inconvenience of his current marriage. Is it a veiled threat to the Starks? Back off or I'll kidnap Lyanna? It certainly is not something designed to win the Starks over to Rhaegar's faction. So I guess I'm still confused as to how Rhaegar would use this as a political move designed to benefit him and his allies. Or are you arguing that he does this to tell the Starks to back off of Ashara? Or is it some type of revenge move for Brandon or Eddard dishonoring Lyanna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 27 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said: But I'm confused as to how Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna serves a similar purpose for his own power alliance (I assume the Dornes and some scattered friendly lords). Granted we have an outward show of honor to Lyanna and thus to her house. But it doesn't prevent the marriage alliance between Lyanna and Robert. Certainly Rhaegar is not in a position to substitute himself for Robert because of the inconvenience of his current marriage. Is it a veiled threat to the Starks? Back off or I'll kidnap Lyanna? Yes, a warning or threat to the Starks and the rest of the STAB bloc. It says, "proceed with your plans and I will stand with my father to prevent them." It says they cannot take the factional infighting between father and son to mean they will not be united against any attempt to do away with the Targaryen overlordship of Westeros. It means the Crown Prince has an interest in this marriage not going forward. He could have just as easily have crowned Catelyn and sent the same message, but, remember, we know she did not attend the tourney as she had never set eyes on Ned until their wedding night. No, to anything as explicit as a kidnap threat. It's not necessary. Note, that the response of the Starks is to go ahead with Brandon and Catelyn's wedding. If I'm right, they also respond by bringing the date of Robert and Lyanna's wedding forward. Which would explain a Lyanna desperate for help in getting away from Robert and a forced marriage. 27 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said: It certainly is not something designed to win the Starks over to Rhaegar's faction. So I guess I'm still confused as to how Rhaegar would use this as a political move designed to benefit him and his allies. It is not a move to win the Starks to Rhaegar's faction or his plan to replace his father. That is because the Starks have no interest in doing either and have made it known to Rhaegar during the tourney. Especially through Brandon's treatment of Ashara. Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna follows all of this. It is his response to the STAB bloc, through Brandon Stark, delivering their message to Rhaegar. A message I described as "spitting upon his outstretched hand. The benefit is in telling Westeros the Targaryens will not go quietly and divided from power. 27 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said: Or are you arguing that he does this to tell the Starks to back off of Ashara? Or is it some type of revenge move for Brandon or Eddard dishonoring Lyanna. Not revenge, so much as a response. I think a King Rhaegar may contemplate revenge on Lord Brandon, but that would mean having the power of the Iron Throne. I can't see Ned being responsible for Ashara's dishonor. Ser Barristan would never think of him in the way he does if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSeason Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I've been lurking on this thread a few days now and have greatly enjoyed the discussion. I'm in agreement with @SFDanny as to the nature of the Southron Ambitions alliance (I'll borrow "STAB bloc" from you, if I may, for ease of typing). I've never seen anything Targaryen-friendly in the behavior of the High Lords/Maesters arranging the alliance, and most especially not at the Tourney of Harrenhal. There are a few points I'd like to add to the discussion, if I may. It's curious that @SFDanny takes Rickard Stark to be the (primary) mastermind behind the alliance. I had not considered him to be--honestly, due mine own fault(!) as he's not only dead at the beginning of AGoT, but also because we get so little information on him that it's difficult to form a solid opinion upon the kind of man he was and what his goals and motives were, excepting by proxy of his children's reactionary behavior and backstories, as guided by him. For so long I had thought Jon Arryn to be a/the primary mastermind behind the alliance, in part because he was the primary mastermind behind the (Robert's) Rebellion and following reign of the Baratheon Dynasty prior to AGoT. It's fine to consider Rickard Stark as another option here. (Though, I admit, I have a bit of bias against them both. Although Ned Stark's PoV lends itself to viewing Jon Arryn as a kindly old fatherly figure, when I dissect his actions I cannot help but find a scheming, manipulative, hypocritical, lying monster behind the wizard's green curtain. Similarly, what little information I have on Rickard Stark gives the impression of a more-or-less absentee but controlling, manipulative, and selfish father... very much in line with Tywin Lannister. The irony of the tragedy of circumstance seems to me very well cultivated with this interpretation--that despite this current generation of Starks being the primary PoV protagonists of the series, the Stark family, with, of course, the aid of their allies and extended family members, would be the belligerent party in starting the last few horrific wars that tore Westeros apart, only to be remembered as... "the good guys". That is, of course, not stripping responsibility from other belligerent parties that escalated violence or stirred chaos for their own profit... However, it begs a few interesting questions, nevertheless.) If Rickard Stark was, as you argue, the primary mover (if not the primary motivator, leaving room for Maesters to have an effect upon the political climate) in the alliance, it then makes a bit of sense that, upon his death, Ned's second father figure, Jon Arryn, picked up the reins of power to drive the Rebellion and its aftermath. It would explain that moment of floundering the STAB bloc experienced, in the immediate aftermath of the deaths of Rickard and Brandon Stark, alongside their allies (excepting, of course Ethan Glover--more on this in a moment), when it seemed the Targaryens had a chance to win the war on the back of Aerys II's extreme violence (and Hoster was tempted to withdraw utterly from the alliance, with Tywin teetering on the edge of turning to Rhaegar once again), until Jon Arryn rallied Ned and Robert as the new leaders of the power bloc, and roped Hoster back into the fold with the double wedding. This moment of floundering would have been, indeed, the Targaryens' best chance to grind their foes under heel, if not for the ineffective leadership in King's Landing (Aerys II, Merryweather--I believe--and other lickspittles) in Rhaegar's absence. If only Aerys II could have made a gesture of peace to his son instead of further antagonizing him during this time (by--at some point--taking his wife and children hostage to his good behavior), a united Targaryen front could have broken the reorganized power bloc in its infancy (and I do have some thoughts on Rhaegar's work during this time which I may share later; I don't believe he was sitting idle at all, and think we see evidence of what he was up to in the movements of others). That was not to be, however, and time was given for the new young leaders (Robert, Ned) to gain their footing and build bridges. Another thought I'd like to share: while recognizing the political motives and importance of Rhaegar's gesture in crowning Lyanna, it is just as important to consider Lyanna's response to this gesture. I think Martin has given us some hints to what might have happened here, despite leaving that information out of the text. I think there is great significance to this seeming invisibility, in fact. While everyone is discussing how the male power players responded to Rhaegar's gesture (Brandon, Ned, Robert, Aerys II, etc.), there is no indication of what the women involved were thinking, feeling, and doing in answer. It seems to me that this is because Lyanna's response would give the game away. First, the hints: I think we can look to Sansa Stark at the Tourney of the Hand for some indication of how Lyanna might have responded to Rhaegar's gesture. Curiously, at this time, Arya (who is an oppositional reflection of Lyanna's character--"songs are stupid" and "some stupid lady flung herself from a tower because her stupid prince was dead" paraphrased) is missing at this event, as well as Sansa's chaperone and her friend, Jeyne Poole (who Septa Mordane had to escort away following the horrific death of Ser Hugh of the Vale), which may further hint at an absence of any restraining influence. During this tourney, Ser Loras Tyrell gives Sansa a red rose (a red rose when other lucky maids had only been given white roses) as she is the daughter of the Hand of the King--at his own tourney, no less--most likely as a gesture to bring honor to house Stark in the hopes that it will reflect well upon his plots with Renly Baratheon to seat his younger sister, Margaery, upon the throne. Sansa, however, as a young girl with a love of songs and chivalry, is utterly oblivious to any ulterior motives behind the gesture--and mistakes it for a romantic gesture! She is later surprised to learn that Ser Loras does not even remember this gesture, which had meant so much to her and carried (chivalric) romantic significance in her mind. She is further shocked by the perfectly polite but rather disinterested treatment she receives from him, because she romanticized this gesture from the tourney. She daydreams of him, and would much prefer to wed the dashing Ser Loras (at this time a Kingsguard knight!) instead of the crippled heir, Willas. As a parallel to Lyanna Stark, it is easy to read hints in Sansa's narrative here. It is not so surprising that Lyanna, a fifteen year old girl, would have some naïve, romantic notions that she misplaces onto the dashing Prince Rhaegar. We are not told what she thought or felt when he placed the floral crown upon her lap with the tip of his lance, but Martin may be guiding us to a certain conclusion by including the similar scenario in Sansa's arc--as opposed to the response Arya Stark may have had to such a gesture, although she could have been as viable an option if Martin required the reader to see the female Stark parallel spurn the gesture. If, as I suspect, Lyanna reacted positively to Rhaegar's gesture at the Tourney of Harrenhal, oblivious to the political threat behind it, it lends even more weight to Brandon Stark's angry (and protective) answer, as well as shines a light upon Stark hypocrisy if, as I also suspect, he is the one who dishonored Ashara Dayne prior to this event. For Brandon then, it is acceptable for him (a High Lord's heir) to use, abuse, manipulate, and dishonor a young (oblivious?) maid for his own ends (whether personal or political makes little matter), but when Rhaegar does the same (showing him how it feels to have his own mistreated) it becomes a matter of life and death. It further evens the playing field a little bit, too. Instead of giving the rebels the moral high ground over the "mad" and "tyrannical" Targaryens, it drags the Starks into the muck with them, giving the reader a more complicated and nuanced narrative to dissect and discuss, and begs questions upon the reader's own morality. As readers, we are overeager to see the narrative in a black-and-white mindset, with chromatic morality. We want to root for "the good guys" and against "the bad guys," and leave little wiggle room for any deviation from the norm, but Martin may be presenting us a complex moral panorama in which we see there may be little-to-no telling "the good guys" from "the bad guys" in terms of the bad behaviors and selfish goals they display. Catelyn Tully, for example, views the world in the same terms as Tywin Lannister--her family is more important than anything and everything else, and she will wreak havoc upon innocents for purely selfish aims (Ned's safety, Robb's safety, is no more important than that of the nameless peasant fathers-and-sons she disdains, that is). Placing Lyanna as the oblivious innocent (for now) in the tug-of-war between power players Brandon and Rhaegar would set the tone with emphasis of this theme. But what might Lyanna say or do in this period of blissful ignorance that might tip the scales (momentarily) in favor of the Targaryens? I think this is another instance where we might look to Sansa Stark for answers. Instead of Loras Tyrell, I'll now focus on Joffrey Baratheon. Throughout AGoT, Sansa is beguiled by Joffrey and the prospect of becoming his queen. She willfully disregards evidence that he is not the man she presumes him to be, and is, in fact, a danger to her and her family (as well as everyone else, truly) in his petty and violent ways. When Ned Stark tells her that he is not worthy of her, and he'll find her a better husband, who will love and cherish her, she even proclaims that she doesn't want that, but wants Joffrey for good or ill. She goes so far as to tell Cersei Lannister of her father's plans to arrange secret transport to Winterfell for the Stark party in King's Landing (thereby thwarting her own--and everyone else's, including her sister's--escape from a deadly hostage situation!). Might Lyanna have done something similar in her youthful ignorance of the deadly power play between the STAB bloc and Targaryen loyalists? She was desperate to escape a marriage (opposite of Sansa, who was desperate to force one) from Robert Baratheon. Who might she have turned to for help to effect this escape? Not her own family, who had arranged the marriage (Rickard) and ignored her concerns (Ned, possibly Brandon, who may himself have been trapped in an unwanted marriage to Catelyn Tully--although, personally, I see little evidence that Barbrey Ryswell's assertions are true, and believe that he was indeed party to his father's ambitions and may have even been happy with his chosen bride) and certainly not Robert (who was looking forward to the wedding, which, as High Lord himself, he retained the right to have a hand in arranging without bothering to seek Lyanna's consent for the betrothal). Benjen was too young to aid her. If she could not turn to her own father, she certainly could not seek the aid of any of the High Lords or Maesters who'd arranged the STAB bloc betrothals without caring for the happiness of the child pawns involved in cementing the alliance. Who then, would have an interest in preventing the wedding she wanted stopped, who might she--in her ignorance--think would even have a personal interest in preventing the union? Rhaegar Targaryen. We are told again and again in ADwD (Jon) that "marriages and inheritance are matters for the king" and we are shown again and again the dangerous business of aiding runaway brides from forced marriages (Asha Greyjoy, Jeyne Poole, Alys Karstark, Dany, Sansa Stark). This, of course, is in addition to the theme of the dangerous business that is breaking a betrothal (Jenny and Duncan, Robb and Jeyne, Sansa and Joffrey--Ned's intentions to break the betrothal would have, and did, carried grave consequences--Rhaegar and Cersei--in an example of a "betrothal" that was unrequited but still carried grave consequences, the Pact of Ice and Fire). I believe this theme pertains to the Lyanna and Rhaegar backstory. Lyanna wanted to avoid a forced marriage to Robert Baratheon, and the Iron Throne (by proxy of Rhaegar Targaryen) was the only one with the power to help her... but at a cost. If Lyanna reached out to Rhaegar for aid in her absconding, it may well explain why Brandon 1. went directly to the Red Keep, presuming that Rhaegar was there (only the king had the power to intervene, per Jon ADwD), 2. and did not cry for Lyanna's immediate release (perhaps knowing she was a willing party to her own absconding), and it even may explain why Rhaegar 1. did not flee to the Red Keep (he would not have had his father's consent, but would have been acting as king himself, as we see Jon do in Dance despite tacitly acknowledging Stannis as king), and 2. fled south (more on this later). Before getting too far ahead of myself, I'd like to take a moment to return to the Tourney of Harrenhal in regards to reactions. Now, we know Tywin wasn't present, but he surely would have heard of what happened there. We also know that Rhaegar urged his father to contact Tywin for aid prior to riding off to the Trident. This suggests that Rhaegar believed Tywin Lannister was still a viable ally. Now, if Rhaegar was as politically astute and active as I believe he was, he should know: 1. Tywin preferred him as king at Duskendale, 2. Tywin and Aerys II had fallen out beyond repair when Aerys invested Jaime to the Kingsguard, robbing him of heir, 3. Tywin wanted him (Rhaegar) for son-in-law, but 4. Aerys thwarted this possible alliance between Rhaegar and Tywin Lannister (likely to rob him of strong allies that would help to seat him on the Iron Throne early) with extreme insult, and 5. there was bad blood regarding marriages between Martells and Tywin Lannister (who had insulted them greatly, and was then "insulted" in return when they "stole" Rhaegar from him). If he knows at least some of this, he should be wary of Tywin Lannister's enmity, and yet... he still believed him a viable ally (and, according to Jaime and Tywin, he possibly was "the Trident decided him"). This means that Tywin could not have possibly interpreted the crowning gesture as a romantic interest. If Tywin thought Lyanna Stark had a stronger chance to win the favor of the Iron Throne / King Rhaegar than Cersei Lannister, his enmity would have been assured. Yet he continued to hold Cersei aside for a royal match... for Viserys? Or for King Rhaegar I, as second wife? Either way, it presumes Aerys II would no longer be an obstacle to the match despite the extreme insult already given. I do think there was some contact between Rhaegar and Tywin (perhaps even during the rebellion?) to build a bridge that would lead to Rhaegar's investment upon the Iron Throne. I say this now because I want to address the reasoning (I think) why Rhaegar fled south of King's Landing immediately following the absconding with Lyanna Stark (runaway bride). We learn that Robert Baratheon had to fight three successive Stormlords in the Battle of Summerhall upon his arrival in his homeland to rally his army. We further learn that the survivors of this battle switched allegiances to the STAB bloc following their defeat. We learn that Rhaegar has a significant connection to Summerhall, and visited there alone quite often. (As an aside, let me address the word "alone" before proceeding. As Crown Prince, there is no way that Rhaegar would have traveled from King's Landing / Dragonstone to Summerhall all by his lonesome. What the text actually says is that he slept alone in the ruins. It is entirely possible that Rhaegar traditionally traveled to Summerhall with companions and slept in the ruins alone, whilst his companions stayed elsewhere.) If indeed Rhaegar fled to Summerhall with his companions (now including Lyanna Stark, and any servants she might have brought with her?), then it makes a great deal of sense why the Stormlords decided to meet at Summerhall to begin their assault upon the rebel Baratheons. They would have been rallying to Rhaegar to crush the Baratheon arm of the rebel alliance before swinging back northward (to King's Landing to relieve his father? To the Riverlands to thwart the Northmen coming south? To assault the Vale Lords?). But Rhaegar's army would have been destroyed before it could assemble... how? We further learn that Robert Baratheon learned that the three Stormlords were to ally against him. But how ("Someone told. Someone always tells." according to Areo Hotah and Doran Martell). Who might have told Robert, then? I suspect Ser Richard Lonmouth (Lem Lemoncloak?) is the rat, as he was a possible drinking buddy of Robert Baratheon's. Among Rhaegar's likely companions (Llewyn Martell, Jon Connington, Myles Mooton, Richard Lonmouth, Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent) four died fighting in his name (Martell, Mooton, Dayne, Whent) and one is still fighting in his name despite mistreatment by his father, Aerys II, (Connington). That leaves the likely broken man, Ser Richard Lonmouth who alone appears to have escaped Baratheon retribution, and also--as a member of the Brotherhood without Banners--literally claims to be one of the "king's [King Robert Baratheon's] men." Might we take his word for it that the king he serves and served is Robert Baratheon and not Rhaegar Targaryen? He furthermore shows 1. old familiarity with the Riverlands, where the rebels fled for security from loyalist forces, 2. distaste for Starks: "wolves or lions" are both the same, 3. and familiarity with and hostility to the Ghost of High Heart that others do not display ("what good are dreams?"), which he may have gained at Rhaegar's side. So, I posit that he was the rat in Rhaegar's group of friends--as, I believe there was a rat in Brandon Stark's group too. That would be Ethan Glover, who alone escaped Aerys II's purge (like Richard Lonmouth escaped Baratheon retribution). He was also squire to Brandon as Lonmouth was squire to Rhaegar. He was one of Brandon's few companions on the fateful trip to King's Landing (and Ned's to the ToJ) as Lonmouth likely was Rhaegar's to the Riverlands and Summerhall. Might Ethan Glover be the reason Aerys II called for Robert and Ned's heads? Might he have confessed what he knew of the formation and purpose of the STAB bloc to escape the extreme and cruel punishments that Aerys was known to give traitors? Would that explain the bizarre "execution" of Rickard and Brandon Stark, as the primary mastermind(s) behind the STAB bloc in the first place? The interesting thing about "Mad Aerys" is that despite his paranoia, he sometimes had very good reason for making the choices he made. They really were out to get him, after all (STAB bloc, Tywin, Rhaegar!). They really were traitors! Fancy that. o.O Even as unwitting pawns, Robert, Ned, and Lyanna (as well as Brandon, Catelyn, Lysa, and possibly Jaime and Cersei) were made party to treason by their parents/guardians, and this would have justified to Aerys II--and possibly other stern monarchs--their execution. Now, I do not imagine Ethan Glover knew much. He would have known what Brandon told him of their purpose as well as whatever information he might have overheard or pieced together from Brandon and other parties. But it might have been enough information to make the picture clear. The High Lords were colluding to undermine or outright destroy Targaryen power. The collusion of the STAB bloc generation likely began with their grandparents and parents, those who bucked at the restrictions imposed upon Lords' Rights by the reforms implemented by Aegon V, but the sentiments would have been long in building up... from the reforms imposed by Jaehaerys I and Good Queen Alysanne (Lord's Right to the First Night abolished, The New Gift forcibly awarded to Night's Watch despite Stark protest) to the Conqueror and his sisters (the Rule of Six, the surrendering of the Crown of the King of Winter, the Falcon Crown, the demotion from Kings to Lords, the destruction of the Gardner Kings and Storm Kings, the marriage alliances initiated by Queen Rhaenys despite, again, protest of Stark Lords). When the Greatjon makes his stirring speech at the crowning of the King in the North and King of the Trident, Robb Stark I, perhaps the reader ought to realize this is an old sentiment, a centuries' old hate. It was the dragons we bowed to... but now the dragons are all gone. I see I've gone on and on, so I'll stop here and give others a chance to respond if they please. There were a lot of interesting points brought up already, and I'm really enjoying the discussion. Pardon for the lack of quotes, but I don't really have the time to dig them out right now (and it would make the post that much longer), but if anyone wants a specific quote for the scene I'm referring to, please let me know. I'll try to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 hours ago, TheSeason said: I've been lurking on this thread a few days now and have greatly enjoyed the discussion. I'm in agreement with @SFDanny as to the nature of the Southron Ambitions alliance (I'll borrow "STAB bloc" from you, if I may, for ease of typing). I've never seen anything Targaryen-friendly in the behavior of the High Lords/Maesters arranging the alliance, and most especially not at the Tourney of Harrenhal. There are a few points I'd like to add to the discussion, if I may. The "STAB" acronym was my invention, but I'm glad to see it has caught on. TABS and BATS work too, but not quite as well, especially the former. Though the latter has the benefit of a coincidental connection to HH, where the reigning lords featured a bat on their sigil. I like a lot of @SFDanny's thoughts in this thread. However, I disagree that STAB intended to dissolve the Seven Kingdoms into seven kingdoms. And I think @Macgregor of the North provided a strong argument against Danny's case here, by pointing out that STAB kept the 7K united after winning the rebellion. Of course, it's possible that things had changed, and Danny's arguments do make sense. My guess is that STAB intended to keep the Targaryens on the IT as nominal kings. The Targaryens wouldn't be able to push around that alliance, especially if/when they added the Lannisters to the fold. In fact, it might have been quite the opposite. By maintaining nominal Targaryen rule, STAB(+L) probably would have been able to exert influence over Dorne, the Iron Islands and the Reach via the Targaryen monarch. It would be one thing for those three kingdoms to refuse a demand from a separate kingdom, but it's reason to refuse an order from their king. So, while STAB(+L) could gain a certain amount of independence from dissolving the 7K, they probably would wield a great deal more power by keeping them together, and ruling them all from the shadows. @Rippounet and I had both separately come to the conclusion that Rhaegar's motivation for kidnapping Lyanna may have been political. With many of the same ideas and themes that have been discussed in this thread. Here is the Link to my original posts on this topic, and here is the Link to Rippounet's. I thought those posts and discussions might be of some interest to the participants of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 36 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: The "STAB" acronym was my invention, but I'm glad to see it has caught on. TABS and BATS work too, but not quite as well, especially the former. Though the latter has the benefit of a coincidental connection to HH, where the reigning lords featured a bat on their sigil. I'm glad to know you invented the acronym. I've never claimed to have done so, but if I ever finish my essay on the subjects in this thread I will give you proper credit for the widely used acronym to refer to the Stark-Tully-Arryn-Baratheon alliance. As to you and @Rippounet coming to the same conclusion that politics may have been involved in Lyanna's kidnapping, let me just say the more the merrier. However, this is an idea that predates my arrival her in 2007, and something I've argued since then. Note the discussions in the R+L=J threads over the political differences between Aerys and Rhaegar, the motive for Brandon not calling for the release of his sister, the use of Elia and her children as hostages, the similarities of Frey's objections to the breaking of marriage contracts to the Starks, the Lannisters, Tullys, and Baratheons, and much, much more. Neither of the two of you can lay claim to bringing politics to this analysis. Not that I think Rippounet claims to have done so. I'm surprised if that is what you are claiming of your own posts. I can assure you, my thoughts are my own and have been since I've begun posting. Pardon me, if I'm misinterpreting your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 14 hours ago, SFDanny said: We are all the hero of our own tale. When you get to read a chapter from a character's point of view it is critical to remember that maxim. So, when we read the prologue of A Clash of Kings and see old Maester Cressen give his life in order to protect his beloved Stannis from the influence of the evil sorceress Melisandre, it is a mistake, in my opinion, to take his story at face value. That does not mean we can learn nothing from his chapter. Far from it. We learn Cressen's motive for trying to kill the foreign interloper into Stannis's council. What then is this madness that must be stopped at the cost of Cressen's own life? Prophecies tied to Daenerys's comet. Dragon's breath in the sky and dragons coming back to life? Maester Cressen dies trying to stopped Melisandre and her madness of magic, prophecy, and dragons reborn. But it is important to remember that he not only gives his life in order to do so, but he is also willing to kill her to stop her. Where do we hear of this same view and willingness to kill to stop these same things? From Archmaester Marwyn in Samwell's final chapter, two books later. and, It is like Martin to give us a prime example of the maester's conspiracy before he tells us it exists. It would be too easy for the reader to spot if he reversed the order. Indeed, when we read Marwyn warning Sam not to talk of magic, prophecy, and dragons lest he have poison put in his breakfast, some do not easily remember the detailed example of a maester who commits the exact crime, excepting wine instead of porridge, which Marwyn predicts. So, is it a coincidence? Nonsense. Cressen is the most likely candidate for a member of the maester's conspiracy that exists in the series, and what does that tell us about his role in furthering the goals of the STAB bloc? A political bloc formed not only of Rickard Stark's political ambitions, but through the plans in which the Maester of Winterfell, Walys, is said to have played a critical role in developing? Goals which converge in the need to do away with the Targaryens. I think it means we have to pay attention to not only the designs of the High Lords of the STAB bloc in understanding its goals, but that it would be stupid to ignore the role of each Lord's maester in fostering this plot. To me, at least, it makes one want to know more about Maesters Walys, Cressen, Kym, and whoever held that post in the Vale, and the Rock, at the same time. I got all that parts SFD. I don't doubt the Maesters plans, they can't really be denied in the books. What I'm talking about is that during all Cressens reminiscing, there is not one clue or sneaky mention that he completely instigated the fostering of Robert in the Vale as part of a future plan to overthrow Targaryens, although it's very likely he did play the main role. I see no harm in Cressen mentioning some part in it, leaving out the Targ removal plot bit, but GRRM has him totally silent on the matter. I don't mean by that of course though that he wasn't the instigator. I'm confident Steffon had no great scheme against Aerys but of course some advice from Cressen that seems harmless (to send Robert to the Vale) could have easily seen Steffon send Robert off to learn from a great Lord. I was simply mentioning the lack of a hint in Cressens Prologue, which I don't think wouldve done any great harm by GRRM to the Maesters conspiracy plot in general if Cressen has simply just said briefly that he counselled Steffon to send the young Robert to the Vale, but left the Targ removal stuff out as that would have been quite a heavy piece of info for us early on in the story. But a brief mention of his role in the fostering would have been a cool wee clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Double post, sorry guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, SFDanny said: I'm glad to know you invented the acronym. I've never claimed to have done so, but if I ever finish my essay on the subjects in this thread I will give you proper credit for the widely used acronym to refer to the Stark-Tully-Arryn-Baratheon alliance. Thanks. That's rather kind of you. I certainly wasn't implying that you were claiming credit for what is a rather minor contribution in the grand scheme of things. One invented for the sake of convenience. (Sort of like my naming Bael the Bard's Stark girl Baelette, which I've seen used here and there.) Nor was I implying any ill intent on the part of @TheSeason. No harm, no foul. Just a simple misunderstanding. Perhaps I came off as clamoring for attention, but that wasn't my intention either. "STAB" belongs to the community—that's what we're here for, to share our ideas—but if credit is going to be given, it ought to be given where it's due. 31 minutes ago, SFDanny said: Neither of the two of you can lay claim to bringing politics to this analysis. Not that I think Rippounet claims to have done so. I'm surprised if that is what you are claiming of your own posts. I can assure you, my thoughts are my own and have been since I've begun posting. Pardon me, if I'm misinterpreting your post. Indeed, you are misinterpreting my post. I was simply trying to add a bit to the discussion. It's easier to post links than re-type what is already written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: Thanks. That's rather kind of you. I certainly wasn't implying that you were claiming credit for what is a rather minor contribution in the grand scheme of things. One invented for the sake of convenience. (Sort of like my naming Bael the Bard's Stark girl Baelette, which I've seen used here and there.) Nor was I implying any ill intent on the part of @TheSeason. No harm, no foul. Just a simple misunderstanding. Perhaps I came off as clamoring for attention, but that wasn't my intention either. "STAB" belongs to the community—that's what we're here for, to share our ideas—but if credit is going to be given, it ought to be given where it's due. Indeed, you are misinterpreting my post. I was simply trying to add a bit to the discussion. It's easier to post links than re-type what is already written. All good then. And my apologies for misunderstanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 @J. Stargaryen, I see a mention back thread, thanks for the comment, I think I laid out a strong enough case against Robert spearheading some plot at the Tourney to replace Targ rule with Seven Kingdoms again. I'm not quite sure what the actual original plan was in all its detail, but I'll leave it there anyway, I'll drift back to the OP. I'll pose the same question to yourself I did to @SFDanny, do you guys think Rhaegar was a man who had a mind for politics more than Prophecy in his overall actions?. I cant seem to see where SFDanny is coming from with the crowning as a political "message". If Rhaegar is as smart as we all think, why would he think he could send a message to the laughing Storm reborn Lord of Storms End, and the Wild Wolf heir to Winterfell that they would heed in any political sense, especially when it's known throughout the realm that Targ power is on the wane due to father and son issues. I think any smart person would know that would come across as hollow and weak and may even incite a rebellion right off the bat, or see Robert wife Lyanna within days/weeks instead of months as an action to keep her safe and send a counter message back to Rhaegar. I think a message like that is a silly move basically. If Rhaegar was indeed dealing with a power bloc that was intent on removing his family from power and restoring seven Kingdoms, which is serious shit really isn't it, then a crowning message and letting them all leave with their heads, is a weak and silly move. The only real option would be to take Lyanna then. If the STAB power bloc are intent on removing Targ rule anyway what's a "message" going to do?. There is no strength behind that action in my personal opinion. Now, if the action was never meant as a political message, but rather Rhaegars own Prophecy driven plans, then I think the action has a less hollow feel, and something more purposeful and in line with his character about the whole thing. I think sometimes that the most used line of thinking gets tossed sometimes simply because we all tire of hearing about it so we look for other angles. Basically, I haven't been convinced that Rhaegars crowning of Lyanna was anything other than something driven by his belief in the Dragon needing three heads for his Prophecy, as opposed to sending a political message against a power bloc that contains a young Lord and heir who don't really do "political" messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 33 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I got all that parts SFD. I don't doubt the Maesters plans, they can't really be denied in the books. What I'm talking about is that during all Cressens reminiscing, there is not one clue or sneaky mention that he completely instigated the fostering of Robert in the Vale as part of a future plan to overthrow Targaryens, although it's very likely he did play the main role. I see no harm in Cressen mentioning some part in it, leaving out the Targ removal plot bit, but GRRM has him totally silent on the matter. I don't mean by that of course though that he wasn't the instigator. I'm confident Steffon had no great scheme against Aerys but of course some advice from Cressen that seems harmless (to send Robert to the Vale) could have easily seen Steffon send Robert off to learn from a great Lord. I was simply mentioning the lack of a hint in Cressens Prologue, which I don't think wouldve done any great harm by GRRM to the Maesters conspiracy plot in general if Cressen has simply just said briefly that he counselled Steffon to send the young Robert to the Vale, but left the Targ removal stuff out as that would have been quite a heavy piece of info for us early on in the story. But a brief mention of his role in the fostering would have been a cool wee clue. I think you miss the beauty of the reveal here, my friend. No, there is no mention of Cressen role in a maester's conspiracy or his role in any plot against the Targaryens in his chapter. But what we get is a blueprint of the actions of a conspiracy whose aims are laid out later by Marwyn. The way in which it is done helps hide the hints or the significance of Cressen's thoughts on magic, dragons, and prophecy until much later. It's classic GRRM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, SFDanny said: I think you miss the beauty of the reveal here, my friend. No, there is no mention of Cressen role in a maester's conspiracy or his role in any plot against the Targaryens in his chapter. But what we get is a blueprint of the actions of a conspiracy whose aims are laid out later by Marwyn. The way in which it is done helps hide the hints or the significance of Cressen's thoughts on magic, dragons, and prophecy until much later. It's classic GRRM. Classic GRRM in the long run of the whole Maesters conspiracy against the Targs and Dragons etc yes I agree, but I don't mean that Cressen should have mentioned anything about the maesters plans or conspiracies, that would be too heavy and too big a reveal. A wee touch on his part in having Robert sent to the Vale would have been good though as we could have linked that with the conspiracy, but we get nothing on that, even though Cressen does a deal of reminiscing about the Baratheon lads. Its no biggie though, I just think a brief touch on it would have went well with the whole plan of the Maesters conspiracy plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 14 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I cant seem to see where SFDanny is coming from with the crowning as a political "message". If Rhaegar is as smart as we all think, why would he think he could send a message to the laughing Storm reborn Lord of Storms End, and the Wild Wolf heir to Winterfell that they would heed in any political sense, especially when it's known throughout the realm that Targ power is on the wane due to father and son issues. I think any smart person would know that would come across as hollow and weak and may even incite a rebellion right off the bat, or see Robert wife Lyanna within days/weeks instead of months as an action to keep her safe and send a counter message back to Rhaegar. Who would see the threat as hollow when the Targs just did the same thing with Jaime and Lysa's proposed marriage at the start of the Tourney? Does Rhaegar have to say how they will stop these marriages from coming into existence? In fact, not only does Rhaegar's kidnapping accomplish this with Robert and Lyanna's betrothal, but Aerys seizes on Brandon's mistake to do away with both Rickard and and Brandon, not to mention Jon Arryn's heir, and thereby stopping the Brandon - Catelyn marriage as well. So the idea the Targaryens threats are "hollow" really has no basis in the books. Now, Aerys certainly underestimates the response to his murders and his demands. But, hollow threats? No. The more interesting question, I think. Is how else could have the Targaryens intervened without the kidnapping, and the murders? Could they have just declared these marriage pacts void and not resulted in open conflict? I don't think so. And I think that way would have risked all High Lords of the realm being upset by such a decree. Whatever they did had to be tailored to hit only those marriages of the STAB bloc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 43 minutes ago, SFDanny said: Who would see the threat as hollow when the Targs just did the same thing with Jaime and Lysa's proposed marriage at the start of the Tourney? Does Rhaegar have to say how they will stop these marriages from coming into existence? In fact, not only does Rhaegar's kidnapping accomplish this with Robert and Lyanna's betrothal, but Aerys seizes on Brandon's mistake to do away with both Rickard and and Brandon, not to mention Jon Arryn's heir, and thereby stopping the Brandon - Catelyn marriage as well. So the idea the Targaryens threats are "hollow" really has no basis in the books. Now, Aerys certainly underestimates the response to his murders and his demands. But, hollow threats? No. The more interesting question, I think. Is how else could have the Targaryens intervened without the kidnapping, and the murders? Could they have just declared these marriage pacts void and not resulted in open conflict? I don't think so. And I think that way would have risked all High Lords of the realm being upset by such a decree. Whatever they did had to be tailored to hit only those marriages of the STAB bloc. No, Aerys sent a clear message to those that were savvy enough to catch it, the Targs as a unified father and son team didn't. And if I'm honest, Brandon and Robert may have been too busy to even see Aerys' "message" knowing their characters. Jon Arryn may have needed to point that one out to the womanising young hotheads of the group, but he would have had he needed to. That's neither here nor there though. And you still seem to be equating Aerys actions with Jaime as the same as the crowning of Lyanna. I explained the gaping difference I see in these actions earlier but you chose not to reply. It's cool this is a busy thread with lots going back and forth. I have to ask a question also. Do you think that Rhaegar moved quickly to "kidnap" Lyanna, to prevent her marriage to Robert?. There's actually months before that happens, the weddings could easily have went ahead a month- month and a half after the Tourney in direct response to any perceived joint unified Targaryen "political threat message" sent at the Tourney. And if you think Rhaegar moved to kidnap Lyanna to stop the marriage going ahead then the smarter move would have been to fall upon Lyanna after the Tourney ended. The STAB power bloc never has any army at the Tourney, there were men in their entourage yes, but no huge great force to contend with Royal forces. And going back to the hollowness of Rhaegars "political threat message". At the Tourney, Robert is a Lord and one of the strongest men in the realm, confidence brewing. Brandon has all the confidence a man could want. They see Aerys and Rhaegars bond crumbling, and also Aerys and Tywins bond near enough crumbled to pieces. The STAB power bloc have arrangements in place that will shore up most armies in the seven Kingdoms. If the crowning was meant as a political threat message, why wouldn't these powerful bunch of people see it as anything less than hollow?, they have alliances in place that make them stronger than the crown and Rhaegar, being a smart cookie, would have known this, which is why I think your idea of his "message" is false as if he really believed they were plotting to overthrow the Targs, a message like that isn't gonna stop or stall them, Infact it could do the complete opposite. Now if they took Lyanna there and then, that would have had some back bone to it. This crowning has not scared the STAB bloc at all. There's nothing that shows they were cowed by the Targs, or even that they made any massive steps to rush the weddings forward due to Rhaegars actions. This may even be an indicator that GRRM actually never had it in mind to make Rhaegars actions a political message to the STAB power bloc. Sorry, I'm still not convinced for Rhaegars actions being politically driven as opposed to Prophecy driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: @J. Stargaryen, I see a mention back thread, thanks for the comment, I think I laid out a strong enough case against Robert spearheading some plot at the Tourney to replace Targ rule with Seven Kingdoms again. I'm not quite sure what the actual original plan was in all its detail, but I'll leave it there anyway, I'll drift back to the OP. As I mentioned, I especially liked the point about what actually happened after RR ended. Namely, that the rebels did not disband the 7K. In fact, keeping them together seemed to be a top priority, as evidenced by Jon Arryn's urging Robert to marry Cersei. 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I'll pose the same question to yourself I did to @SFDanny, do you guys think Rhaegar was a man who had a mind for politics more than Prophecy in his overall actions?. I don't think it has to be that he was more focused on politics than prophecy. In fact, one of the arguments I made somewhere along the way in those discussions I linked, was that Rhaegar could have been motivated by prophecy to play at politics. 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I cant seem to see where SFDanny is coming from with the crowning as a political "message". If Rhaegar is as smart as we all think, why would he think he could send a message to the laughing Storm reborn Lord of Storms End, and the Wild Wolf heir to Winterfell that they would heed in any political sense, especially when it's known throughout the realm that Targ power is on the wane due to father and son issues. Keeping in mind all you say, Robert and Brandon have more to fear from Rhaegar than vice versa. He's still a Targaryen prince, which places him above them in the kingdom's pecking order. 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I think any smart person would know that would come across as hollow and weak and may even incite a rebellion right off the bat, or see Robert wife Lyanna within days/weeks instead of months as an action to keep her safe and send a counter message back to Rhaegar. Simply crowning Lyanna isn't enough to start a rebellion. Relatively minor insults from the royal family, including the kind of message sending we're discussing, had to be tolerated by non royals. You're not going to get half of the kingdom to risk literally everything because a handful of lords were insulted, without injury. Also, if you look back at the actual rebellion it becomes clear that even a united STAB was a long shot to overthrow the Targaryens. The rebels were on the brink of losing the war for almost its entire duration, despite only one indecisive loss in the field. On the other hand, the Targaryens were one victory at the Trident away from putting down the rebellion, despite losing battle after battle to them. Rhaegar went to the Trident with the larger army. Again, after losing several battles, and indecisively winning only once. The rebels had to walk a tightrope in order to win, which they did. If Hoster Tully backs out of STAB, the rebels lose. If Storm's End falls, the rebels lose. If Robert dies in battle at any time, the rebels almost surely lose. And as we know, he was injured on at least a couple of occasions. 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I think a message like that is a silly move basically. If Rhaegar was indeed dealing with a power bloc that was intent on removing his family from power and restoring seven Kingdoms, which is serious shit really isn't it, then a crowning message and letting them all leave with their heads, is a weak and silly move. The only real option would be to take Lyanna then. If the STAB power bloc are intent on removing Targ rule anyway what's a "message" going to do?. There is no strength behind that action in my personal opinion. I don't really agree. Especially if you follow @SFDanny's line of thinking. Which is, that Rhaegar was sending a message to STAB that he and his father were united. Because, as I stated above, even a united STAB still had to fear the might of the Targaryens. They no longer had dragons, but they had enough loyal houses to keep them in power. 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: Now, if the action was never meant as a political message, but rather Rhaegars own Prophecy driven plans, then I think the action has a less hollow feel, and something more purposeful and in line with his character about the whole thing. I think the crowning can be political, prophecy related, and for love. Depending on how you look at it. For example, I think the symbolism of Rhaegar using his lance to place the crown in Lyanna's lap is, for the readers, undoubtedly sexual. It's meant to symbolize Rhaegar impregnating Lyanna with Jon. But was that Rhaegar's intent when he crowned her? I highly doubt it. In universe I think there is a fair chance that it was a political statement. I kind of touched upon it above, but my feeling is that Rhaegar was motivated by prophecy to play at politics, which led to his relationship with Lyanna. 42 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I think sometimes that the most used line of thinking gets tossed sometimes simply because we all tire of hearing about it so we look for other angles. Basically, I haven't been convinced that Rhaegars crowning of Lyanna was anything other than something driven by his belief in the Dragon needing three heads for his Prophecy, as opposed to sending a political message against a power bloc that contains a young Lord and heir who don't really do "political" messages. I agree that there is a tendency for us to overthink certain issues here. But it's hard to blame us since the last book came out in 2011. 1 hour ago, SFDanny said: All good then. And my apologies for misunderstanding No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 27 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: I don't think it has to be that he was more focused on politics than prophecy. In fact, one of the arguments I made somewhere along the way in those discussions I linked, was that Rhaegar could have been motivated by prophecy to play at politics. Which is kinda just saying (like I am saying) that Rhaegars actions were Prophecy driven is it not?. 28 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: Keeping in mind all you say, Robert and Brandon have more to fear from Rhaegar than vice versa. He's still a Targaryen prince, which places him above them in the kingdom's pecking order. I'm not so sure I agree in regards to a "threat message" that involved Lyanna. In this instance Rhaegars status as Prince would go out the window and they wouldn't fear him anymore than they would any other man who would send such a message involving Lyanna. Rhaegar would know that I believe. And going by Brandons reaction, I think what im saying is proved true. 34 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: Simply crowning Lyanna isn't enough to start a rebellion. Relatively minor insults from the royal family, including the kind of message sending we're discussing, had to be tolerated by non royals. You're not going to get half of the kingdom to risk literally everything because a handful of lords were insulted, without injury. If Brandon hadn't been calmed down and held back, and confronted the Royal prince violently, or went to engage in physical combat with Rhaegar, then the war/Rebellion would have been kick started early right there and then. So technically, knowing the type of men Robert and Brandon were, crowning Lyanna is exactly the type of reaction that could have started war or rebellion without a doubt. 38 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: I don't really agree. Especially if you follow @SFDanny's line of thinking. Which is, that Rhaegar was sending a message to STAB that he and his father were united. Because, as I stated above, even a united STAB still had to fear the might of the Targaryens. They no longer had dragons, but they had enough loyal houses to keep them in power. Thing is im not in line with SFDannys line of thinking entirely hence the discussion. I don't think that a political threat message involving Lyanna, as a counter to the STAB power bloc rejecting Rhaegars attempt to gain their favour in his own quest for power against his own father (which is SFDannys standpoint) is really gonna work, especially if one minute he is parading around the Tourney one minute trying to curry favour with Lords against his father, then the next crowning Lyanna to try and show how solid he and his father are together, when its clear they are not at that point. I just don't see it and don't think Rhaegar has this in mind with the crowning. 48 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: I kind of touched upon it above, but my feeling is that Rhaegar was motivated by prophecy to play at politics, which led to his relationship with Lyanna. Isnt this just a way to say that Rhaegars actions crowning Lyanna were prophecy driven? It "seems" he was playing some political game but really, he is just following his own plan that is related to the prophecy that is his lifes work. At least that's how I see it. 50 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said: I agree that there is a tendency for us to overthink certain issues here. But it's hard to blame us since the last book came out in 2011. True that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: Which is kinda just saying (like I am saying) that Rhaegars actions were Prophecy driven is it not?. [...] Isnt this just a way to say that Rhaegars actions crowning Lyanna were prophecy driven? It "seems" he was playing some political game but really, he is just following his own plan that is related to the prophecy that is his lifes work. At least that's how I see it. I guess it depends on how you look at it, because what Danny and I are saying includes a political element. Are you excluding that element? If not, then we're just arguing over semantics. But in my experience, people opposite myself in these discussion usually are excluding any political motivations for the crowning and/or kidnapping. To be clear, my posts dealt with the kidnapping more, or rather, than the crowning itself. But for the sake of this discussion, I think we can probably lump them together. I think there might be a distinction though, that's worth discussing. I don't think Rhaegar crowned, and/or kidnapped, Lyanna in order to fulfill a prophecy. I think Rhaegar was attempting to solidify his power, as well as that of House Targaryen, against any threats. So that he, or his offspring, could then fulfill the prophecies at a later time. I think that playing at politics with Lyanna Stark caused him, almost by accident, to fulfill the prophecies he had intended for himself and later his children by Elia. So, I don't think he set out to fulfill the prophecies with Lyanna. At least not at first. However, he may have changed his mind later on. Though I am uncertain to what degree. 21 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: I'm not so sure I agree in regards to a "threat message" that involved Lyanna. In this instance Rhaegars status as Prince would go out the window and they wouldn't fear him anymore than they would any other man who would send such a message involving Lyanna. Rhaegar would know that I believe. And going by Brandons reaction, I think what im saying is proved true. If Brandon had attacked Rhaegar, he would have been arrested or cut down immediately. Remember that six of the seven KG were present. Whether or not Brandon and/or Robert personally feared Rhaegar is irrelevant. This wasn't a matter of a one-on-one battle between the prince and either Brandon or Robert. This was a matter of faction vs. faction. All out civil war. Btw, has it occurred to you that Brandon's reaction is a sign that he received and understood Rhaegar's hypothetical message? Perhaps that was what enraged him so. 25 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: If Brandon hadn't been calmed down and held back, and confronted the Royal prince violently, or went to engage in physical combat with Rhaegar, then the war/Rebellion would have been kick started early right there and then. So technically, knowing the type of men Robert and Brandon were, crowning Lyanna is exactly the type of reaction that could have started war or rebellion without a doubt. I completely disagree. If Brandon had attacked Rhaegar, he would have been in the wrong 100%, and all who gathered at HH would have seen it. Hard to sell your rebellion as noble when it was started by a hotheaded fool who broke the law. Not as convincing a piece of propaganda as Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna, and Aerys murdering Rickard, Brandon, et al. Also, it's entirely possible that if Brandon had attacked Rhaegar that Rhaegar would have defeated him, settling the matter. Or vice versa. No doubt such a confrontation would lead to hard feelings that could eventually lead to rebellion. But a personal beef between two parties, one of them notoriously hotheaded, doesn't guarantee immediate civil war. 31 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said: Thing is im not in line with SFDannys line of thinking entirely hence the discussion. I don't think that a political threat message involving Lyanna, as a counter to the STAB power bloc rejecting Rhaegars attempt to gain their favour in his own quest for power against his own father (which is SFDannys standpoint) is really gonna work, especially if one minute he is parading around the Tourney one minute trying to curry favour with Lords against his father, then the next crowning Lyanna to try and show how solid he and his father are together, when its clear they are not at that point. I just don't see it and don't think Rhaegar has this in mind with the crowning. Right. But what I'm saying is that the theory itself makes sense. We can disagree on how much sense it makes, but I'm not ready to write it off as silly or weak based on the counter arguments I've seen. Well, it might not be as cut and dry as I stated it. Rhaegar may have crowned Lyanna in order to signal that he knew about STAB, and that he planned to stop it. Not that he was necessarily in lock step with his father again. But by indicating that he planned on stopping the STAB bloc, he would have been indicating that he and his father now had a common cause. That STAB would have to deal with the whole of House Targaryen, rather than just mad Aerys at first, and then maybe later Rhaegar + Dorne. You know, it's possible that STAB intended to allow Rhaegar to eventually become king. But by that time he might have been left with half a kingdom, and/or known as the Toothless Dragon. Recall Aegon V's difficulty in ruling the 7K. Surely Rhaegar would have even less power and success had STAB been allowed to continue to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macgregor of the North Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 @J. Stargaryen, I'm of a different mind to yourself and SFDanny, which is cool, we can't all agree. I think Rhaegars actions are determined by his beliefs for the need of a third head of the Dragon, which is in line with his Prophecy that drives him and has driven him through his life. I think he had already knew in the run up to the Tourney he was facing a very real scenario that he was likely going to have find another mate to birth the third head of the Dragon. Elia was bedridden after the birth of Rhaenys for six whole months, and It seems he tried for Aegon on the strength of seeing the Comet in the Sky as a very strong sign. Strong enough to change the belief that he was the Promised prince, to it then being Aegon. But knowing how poorly Elia was after birthing Rhaenys, he had to entertain the possibility that she may not even live through birthing the baby that would become Aegon, let alone have the strength to give him a third baby, even though of course he hoped that was not the case and she lived on strong and happy. These I think are the thoughts Rhaegar takes to Harrenhal with him, where he "IS" in a political mind frame at first, with his plots against his father, but I think that Prophecy driven thoughts take over and political ideas take the back seat. Lyanna I believe changes all that. I believe he notices her cry at his song, and then turn on her brother, and I also think he catches wind of the squire story and finds out Lyanna acted on that, becoming the KOTLT. These thoughts I believe have enough weight for me to say Rhaegar views Lyanna as absolutely perfect material for the mother of the third head of the Dragon and he begins to entertain the idea that he may seek to use her for this purpose. I am not ruling out a romantic angle completely at this juncture, I am simply saying that while this wild girl may have caught his eye a wee bit in a romantic sense, I think it's her suitability as the mother of his third child in relation to his Prophecy that is driving his thoughts. On top of what I just mentioned, which saw Rhaegar view Lyanna as a beautiful, sensitive yet strong, honourable yet wild young woman and great mother material for the third head, I think there's more. Its all down to theories I fully admit but I think there's a chance the Ghost of High Heart gave Rhaegar symbolic messages in a meeting at Summerhall before the Tourney that he never understood until his first encounters with Lyanna. Things like She Wolf, Laughing tree and blue winter roses may have been mentioned. With all these things together, I think Rhaegar feels he has to make a connection with this girl. That her and his meeting at Harrenhal has to mean something to his Prophecy. I wholeheartedly think these are the thoughts going through Rhaegars mind when crowning Lyanna and that political messages have sort of taken a back seat for him at this juncture. As to Brandon's reaction. I understand where your coming from but I do not think that Brandon's reaction is because he feels that Rhaegar has sent a political threat message through Lyanna to the STAB power bloc that Rhaegar stands strong with his father and will unite with him should they have any lofty ideas and they should all heed that warning. I don't think Brandon is thinking that deeply at the time on the matter and simply sees a slight, though not the politically driven one you mention, which he automatically reacts to with violence in mind. Brandon's reaction, and the other stuff is kind of irrelevant at this point. I see you guys point in the thread for sure, I just differ and stick to my guns that Rhaegar arrived at the Tourney with a mind for politics, which in turn were Prophecy driven (like you touch on) as he wanted a stable realm (as opposed to how things were going under his fathers rule) when it was time to fight the war for the dawn 2.0. But when it came to the end of the final tilt and the crowning, I think Rhaegars mind was filled with his connection with this girl and what that may entail in regards to the Prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrio Mo'Parties Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 On 25/1/2017 at 3:02 PM, King Ned Stark said: Add to it brother... you know more about this than me, you can add to the idea, which for the moment I think is right, that Rhaegar had little choice in what he did. Thx for the response man. You're welcome, but I promise you I don't know more about this than you or anybody else. But I've just read through this whole thread... mostly... and I've got some small, scattered thoughts. But I mostly agree with what everybody else said, even the parts that contradict each other. But first: On 26/1/2017 at 4:01 AM, Sly Wren said: 1. Never apologize for length THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUEEN OF LOVE AND BEAUTY There's a lot we don't know about the etiquette of the Queen of Love and Beauty thing, but I think it's possible there's something more going on with the Harrenhal crowning. As far as we know, everybody took it as an insult - but what's the insult? "I want to fuck you" is presumably the message, so given Westerosi sexual politics it's Robert that ought to be offended - Robert and Elia Martell. We don't know how Elia reacted, but there's no indication that she was offended. And Robert apparently laughed it off. (I know the World Book says otherwise, but isn't it possible that Maester Yandel is including a rumour to justify Robert's vendetta against Rhaegar, in a book written for Robert's son?) (Further, Ned doesn't get offended when Loras gives Sansa a red rose.) But it's the Starks that get the hump. Why is that? I can think of two reasons: (1) Rhaegar was rebuffing some advance the Starks had made to him - returning the winter roses to the Starks as a way of declining some offer or demand they'd made of him; (2) some unknown factor made the gesture offensive. And who the hell knows what that could be? Maybe there was a rumour that Rhaegar'd fucked Lyanna, and by giving the roses he was appearing to confirm such. Or maybe it's something else entirely. In that connection, I wonder if somehow the Stark who Ashara Dayne had "looked to" in Barristan's recollection might've been Lyanna. Perhaps Brandon got Ashara pregnant, Lyanna got her some moon tea, and by crowning her Rhaegar somehow communicated that he knew this. And this pissed off Brandon... and Ned, too, for some reason. Like I said, who the fuck knows. P.S. Surely the blue winter roses would've come from Winterfell. Maybe the tourney was rigged so that Winterfell could send a message or something... looking at the wiki, I note that of the four people Rhaegar unhorsed, three of them would probably have given the crown to Ashara Dayne. This wouldn't be the first time we've seen the lists at a tourney be rigged, nor the first time we see somebody cheat to win. Perhaps Rhaegar caught wind of some Stark plan involving Ashara... So, let's say that... what? There's some shenanigans involving the Starks and Ashara. Ashara confides in Lyanna Stark, who confides in Rhaegar, who makes sure to win the tourney - probably by cheating - and then gives the crown to Lyanna, as a way of saying "Not only did I foil your plan, but I want you to know that I know that you know I foiled your plan. Suck on that little piece of sweetness." Mental, right? Quote But Ashara's daughter had been stillborn, and his fair lady had thrown herself from a tower soon after, mad with grief for the child she had lost, and perhaps for the man who had dishonored her at Harrenhal as well. She died never knowing that Ser Barristan had loved her. How could she? He was a knight of the Kingsguard, sworn to celibacy. No good could have come from telling her his feelings. No good came from silence either. If I had unhorsed Rhaegar and crowned Ashara queen of love and beauty, might she have looked to me instead of Stark? It's written so that "the man" and "Stark" appear to be the same person, but equally, it makes sense if they're not. And he could've easily mentioned which Stark. GRRM isn't above playing these kind of tricks on us, so let's not rule it out. Or, rule it out totally, what do I care. THE S.T.A.B. BLOC I don't believe they aimed to return to 7 independent kingdoms. For a start, I especially can't see how that's in Hoster Tully's interest. The Riverlands are the least defensible kingdom: 2 coasts, no navy, surrounded by stronger enemies, no natural defenses... except the rivers, but they only cover half of the Riverlands... nowhere to retreat to, is what I mean. If I was the Riverlands, I'd be very happy when the Targaryens came along - and indeed we still see lots of Targaryen loyalists in that region. Per Barbrey Dustin, I do think that it's possible that the STAB bloc are the possibly unwitting dupes of a very very long term plan from House Hightower. The Hightowers seem to have spent centuries very quietly fighting the dragonlords, and if that seeming is accurate then using other lords to kick the Targs out would fit their style. The maesters, in this theory, are their agents, or partners, or dupes. Another idea is that they simply want more power, without overthrowing the monarchy. Martin's read a lot of history, and he seems familiar with the Plantagenet kings, which means of course he knows all about magna carta. Could the STABbers be Westeros's equivalent of King John's barons, trying to leverage their liberties back from a weakened dynasty? I don't see why any of the bloc would want to see any of the others as king. Robert as king seems to have been an improvisation - why not the very idea of replacing the king? Circling back to what I said before, maybe they hoped to get Rhaegar onside and he rebuffed them, leading to their anger at Harrenhal, and then them scrambling to come up with a new plan. STEFFON BARATHEON I like the idea that "finding Rhaegar a bride" was his ulterior motive. But what? And also, we know that magic can control the weather. Could he have been assassinated? I don't think so, that's a dumb idea, just putting it out there. OTHER THINGS I'm sure I had some other thoughts, but I've forgotten. I should've taken notes, there's too many goddamn ideas flying around in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 On 1/27/2017 at 0:38 AM, Macgregor of the North said: @SFDanny I think I see what angle your coming at all this from, if I may take a stab at your reasoning. You view the actions of Rhaegar and Aerys as a similar way of sending a political message at the Tourney of Harrenhal. You equate each action and see them as powerful messages designed to do the same thing. Im sure you expect this but I have to disagree. I do understand the angle your approaching this from but these actions are not really that similar. Aerys honoring Jaime into the KG is a direct smash and grab. There is no question that he is taking the heir from a great rival House and taking him out of the line of inheritance, and also, physically taking the person away from who the threat is intended at. The KG serve for life and serve the King at KL. Infact, he spirits Jaime away right there and then. Poof, he's gone. Under lock and key at KL. That's a powerful message. Rhaegar crowning Lyanna though. The reasons for that aren't even clear cut for a start, in regards to Aerys reasons, hence we are here discussing it. But we can speculate. If we come from your political angle, this message holds nowhere near the same power and intent as Aerys' message which completely and utterly steals away that which is most important to his rival, crippling many of his plans. The simple crowning of Lyanna places no hold over her in the way that Aerys actions with Jaimes do, it doesn't even scare the STAB bloc members as Brandon is ready to engage in combat with Rhaegar right there over it, while Ned is also angry and Robert laughs but is secretly boiling underneath I'll bet. If anything, this message has potentially the complete opposite effect to Aerys message. It could incite war right off the bat (since Brandon and Robert are known hot heads) and can also push Robert to wife Lyanna immediately, for her safety and perhaps a reply message of his own for his distant cousin. So I think to equate these two actions is not really the way to go if this is a strong point for your case that Rhaegar was politically driven in the crowning of Lyanna. May I ask what your views on the Prophecy/mother of the third head angle are?. Do you think Rhaegar had a mind for politics more than Prophecy and saving the world in the Long Night?. Honest question. 12 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said: And you still seem to be equating Aerys actions with Jaime as the same as the crowning of Lyanna. I explained the gaping difference I see in these actions earlier but you chose not to reply. It's cool this is a busy thread with lots going back and forth. I'm assuming the above post is the one you are pointing out I did not respond to - let me know if I'm wrong. Sorry, about getting sidetracked the first go round and not responding. I'll try to do so now. Oh, and @TheSeason excuse me for not being able to respond to your post yet as well. I will do my best to do so soon. Macgregor I have argued that both father and son use the same form of honoring an opponent's child to injure the opponent. I don't know where or how that translates to me saying both actions are identical in effect. I have said that Aerys would understand what Rhaegar does, having just done something similar to start the tourney. I think that is true. I have also said Rhaegar's action in crowning Lyanna signifies his joint interest in stopping the plans of the STAB bloc coming into existence. I think that is true. It is a warning to the Starks, the Tullys, the Arryns, and the Baratheons that if they proceed with these marriages that he will try to stop them, in concert with his father. Let me be specific about what I think are the effects of the events at Harrenhal. I think to understand what happens at Harrenhal one has to understand the politics in play involving many factions. The first action is Aerys's swearing-in of Jaime to the sworn brotherhood of the Kingsguard. Seen by the uninformed as just the great honor done to a young knight by making him the youngest member ever of the Kingsguard, it is much more than that. It starts with using Cersei to seduce Jaime into accepting the King's summons to this service, accomplishes getting Tywin to surrender his office of Hand to the king, and pays back Tywin's hubris by depriving him of his heir. All of this alone would be a master stroke of political intrigue, but it accomplishes one other vital goal of Aerys; it stops the marriage of Jaime to Lysa and the Lannister entry into the STAB bloc. By doing all this in a way that honors Jaime and makes it impossible for his political foes to object it shows the political mind behind the plan to be a master at political in-fighting. Here I don't want to debate if that is to the credit of Aerys or Varys or someone else. But this is the act that is celebrated and consummated at the start of Harrenhal, and to understand what happens there, this first must be understood. This is both an powerful action and a message to Tywin and the Lords of the STAB bloc. The action does all the above. The message is to Tywin to stay in his place. To the STAB bloc it is to stop with these proposed marriage alliances. But this is not Aerys's event. He did not call it, but he would like to sabotage any efforts by Rhaegar to form his own alliances among the attendees. By attending himself, Aerys does accomplish some of this goal. He certainly drives any conversation of replacing him by way of a Great Council underground and at the highest risk of exposure. But he also exposes the degree of his madness to all who attend by his appearance and his constant mood swings. Aerys also experiences some good luck in the form of the interactions between the Starks and the Prince's party. It is my contention that Brandon delivers the bloc's message of non-support for Rhaegar's idea. He also does so in ways that shows contempt for Rhaegar. Specifically in the treatment of Ashara. Brandon is honor bound to marry Catelyn Stark, but he takes the occasion of her absence from Harrenhal to seduce the Lady Ashara, or so it seems. Such conduct is a slap in the face to his Prince. To understand Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna it is my belief one has to understand the meaning of Brandon's "message" and conduct. The effect of Rhaegar's crowning Lyanna is very different than that of Aerys's honoring Jaime. On that much we agree. Rhaegar does not have the power to make decrees, or summon his subjects to court, or to specific duty. He cannot do as Crown Prince, what Aerys does as King. What he can do is warn the bloc that he will unite with his father to stop their plans. The is what he sets out to do, and what the effect of his action represents - a warning. There are some things that should be noted here. First, the warning serves his purpose after it is clear he has insufficient support for his Great Council, in that it speaks to his need to maintain Targaryen overlordship of Westeros beyond his father's reign. Nor does it move any closer to war. If fact, if father and son are both against these marriages it makes it harder to undermine Targaryen rule of Westeros. The Tully response to the beginning of the rebellion, and the Arryn response to the deaths of Rickard and Brandon show this. Neither Tully or Arryn are quick to call their banners. It is only after Aerys calls for Robert and Ned's heads that Lord Arryn does so, and Hoster Tully waits months into the rebellion until his price is met for him to commit his banners. Even Lord Rickard first submits to Aerys's "justice" in order to save his son instead of immediately going to war. This alliance is not, I believe, in the pre-rebellion years designed for war. They are designed to build the bloc to the point they can renounce their oaths of fealty and rule themselves, not as a military bloc to overthrow the Targaryens. It becomes that, no doubt, in response to Aerys's actions because he leaves them no choice but submit to his orders or die. In some cases to submit to his orders AND die. Lastly, let me make something else very clear. Because I am convinced of the need to understand the political struggles of pre-rebellion Westeros in order to understand the actions of all the players, does not mean there are not other things pushing people into action. For instance, while I think the dominant push behind Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna is a political one, doesn't mean there are not other things that happen at Harrenhal that push events as well. I'm convinced of the development of some type of romantic interest between Lyanna and Rhaegar there. I believe this occurs during Lyanna being the mystery knight known of the Knight of the Laughing Tree and her saving Howland form the pages beating. I think Lyanna is moved by the man she hears sing a very sad song, and I think it likely Rhaegar finds out her identity under the KotLT's helm. In fact, I think this romance becomes the driving force in the "kidnapping" which I think is more of the rescue that Dany yearns for herself. But all of that follows Harrenhal. As does Aegon's birth and the news of Elia's inability to successfully give birth to another child. Things change in our story as it unfolds in the present. We should expect that to be true in its past as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.