Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will

[kissdbyfire]

On 20/06/2017 at 2:56 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Oddly enough, I have never heard that particular argument about Jon's stabbing. It is certainly more logical than some other explanations I have heard, like "Jon only imagined getting stabbed that many times" . I guess it really depends on where they ended up stabbing Jon, and if they continued stabbing him after the chapter ended. For instance, they would probably be able to penetrate deep enough to stab his kidneys through his clothing (I'm not a doctor but I think this is true), but they would have a harder time doing damage to his lungs or aorta. I think the more important questions (which we won't have answered until TWOW) are: 1) will someone (Tormund?) chase off the attackers before they finish killing Jon? Or, alternatively will they simply think they dealt lethal damage when they haven't and run away? and 2) Will Jon receive medical attention quickly? i.e. is there even a capable healer nearby? Since the NW has no skilled healers left at CB (and Clydas could be among those who want him dead anyways), Jon would probably be dependent on a wildling healer being nearby.

Well, yeah, that is the big question for me: did the conspirators kept on stabbing him over and over again, or are the wounds we've "seen" the only ones he's got? I don't think the conspirators would have had the opportunity to keep on stabbing him... Jon notes, just before Wick stabs him, that men were pouring in from all surrounding buildings. The wildlings outnumber the black brothers, and they're not gonna be happy when they see what happened. They will take over CB, and that's a good thing because it means CB will have the purest FM blood available, like in the old days, just as it's supposed to be.

As to healers, we have Val and Morna, the witch warrior, who was conspicuously absent from the Shieldhall. So my bet is she'll be arriving very soon if she's not there already, maybe conferring with Val. We shall see. 

On 20/06/2017 at 2:56 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

It is definitely possible that Jon will survive, but I am personally betting against it. But really, my opinion is more based on where I think the story is headed and the potential foreshadowing for Jon's resurrection. I definitely don't have an expert medical opinion on the lethality of his wounds . I think it will roughly play out like: Jon's mind goes into Ghost and his body is put in an ice cell -> Bran communicates with Jon while he is inside Ghost to give him important info -> Mel gets the (fake) news of Stannis's death, concludes Jon is AAR, and burns Shireen to resurrect him -> Jon's mind is wrenched out of Ghost and back into his body, along with his new knowledge about the Others.

That can happen even if he doesn't die... he can be gravely wounded and while his body is being healed, his consciousness slips into Ghost.

 

On 20/06/2017 at 2:56 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Part 3 of my theory is definitely a doozy . It is mostly highly speculative, but it provides a nice, cohesive framework for all my small-scale conclusions about things like Bloodraven being a nefarious fellow, and the weirwoods actually being tree-people, and the story of Howland Reed's journey to the Isle of Faces and then Harrenhal. A whole 1 person has responded to the original post so far . I have ended up starting smaller threads to discuss specific sections of the theory like what really happened at the HOTU and telepathy in ASOIAF explained, linking back to the main theory as a reference. And I plan on doing this with at least a few more things. Next one will probably be a thread revisiting the discussion surrounding Bran's assassin, now in the context of the whole theory spelled out, and also examining the evidence that it was Mance specifically who carried out the Old Gods' plan to arm the assassin, plant the bag of silver, and set the WF library on fire.

Thank you, I try my best to facilitate fun and enjoyable debates! And yes... I do have a great sense of humor, don't I?   

I haven't had the time to read part III yet, but I will and I'll reply there - you'll have two replies then!

 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

57 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, yeah, that is the big question for me: did the conspirators kept on stabbing him over and over again, or are the wounds we've "seen" the only ones he's got? I don't think the conspirators would have had the opportunity to keep on stabbing him... Jon notes, just before Wick stabs him, that men were pouring in from all surrounding buildings. The wildlings outnumber the black brothers, and they're not gonna be happy when they see what happened. They will take over CB, and that's a good thing because it means CB will have the purest FM blood available, like in the old days, just as it's supposed to be.

Good observation. I definitely won't be surprised if the stab to the back was the final dagger and his attackers ran away quickly after the chapter ended.

58 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As to healers, we have Val and Morna, the witch warrior, who was conspicuously absent from the Shieldhall. So my bet is she'll be arriving very soon if she's not there already, maybe conferring with Val. We shall see. 

That can happen even if he doesn't die... he can be gravely wounded and while his body is being healed, his consciousness slips into Ghost.

I suppose that could all still happen even if he doesn't die, but I have long thought that Shireen is a big innocent container of Chekov's king's blood (since Jon conspicuously sent Aemon and Mance's baby away), and the best reason I can think of for Mel needing some king's blood in the near future would be to resurrect Jon. I feel like she would be much less willing to burn Shireen for, say, a comatose Jon. We will have to wait for TWOW to find out.  

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I haven't had the time to read part III yet, but I will and I'll reply there - you'll have two replies then!

I'm so psyched to have two replies!  

[The Fattest Leech]

54 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Good observation. I definitely won't be surprised if the stab to the back was the final dagger and his attackers ran away quickly after the chapter ended.

I suppose that could all still happen even if he doesn't die, but I have long thought that Shireen is a big innocent container of Chekov's king's blood (since Jon conspicuously sent Aemon and Mance's baby away), and the best reason I can think of for Mel needing some king's blood in the near future would be to resurrect Jon. I feel like she would be much less willing to burn Shireen for, say, a comatose Jon. We will have to wait for TWOW to find out.  

I'm so psyched to have two replies!  

Duuuude. Jon ain't Ned-dead or Cat dead by any means. I'll send you something when I get to my computer. 

[St Daga]

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Not quite correct. You forget that she had two people telling her stories, which both ultimately proved to be lies. Cat's suspicions of the Lannisters began when she received the letter from Lysa blaming them for murdering Jon Arryn.

Oh, I didn't forget Lysa's letter. I just don't necessarily trust what Catelyn said the letter said.  Cat allowed no one else to read it, she reports to Ned and Luwin what the letter said, but they never get the chance to look at it. There is something very nefarious in Cat's burning the letter (that was supposedly in a secret language that only she and Lysa could understand, so why the need to burn it?). I am not saying Cat completely lied about the letter's message, but it is highly suspicious that something else is going on. Catelyn already sensed that Ned was not wanting to go south with Robert, so she needed to manipulate him to leave Winterfell. That letter from Lysa has a foul odor about it, and I think that stink is shared equally between Lysa and Cat. It probably smelled like bad fish!

Catelyn was very good at manipulating Ned. We see her and Luwin manipulate him very smoothly in the case of getting Jon Snow sent to the watch, just as easily as she manipulated him to take the position as Robert's hand.

However, I think Catelyn has pretty good instincts when looking out for her own self and children. She was probably correct to fear Jon's claim to Winterfell, but I don't know if she was right to act on those fears in the ways that she did, and everything she therefore sets into motion to protect her children's claim over "Ned's bastard's" claim will ultimately backfire on her. I think Cat has a bit of the sight, and I think Sansa has it too. Maybe it's the Whent/Lothston blood? I think Sansa's dream are important. We see Sansa's instincts kick in when she is near Ilyn Payne. I wonder if this feeling of dread might be similar to how Cat felt about Jon stealing what she seen as her children's rightful inheritance?

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I am impressed by the amount of research you did into the use of "bastard"  

Though time consuming, it was very much fun! Like a whirlwind through the novels! Every time I read Alliser Thorne calling Jon a bastard, I couldn't help but mimic the voice of Ser Alliser's actor from the show. Very entertaining for myself.

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I agree with most of your observations, but I disagree with your interpretation of Robett's statement.

Quote

"The evil is in his blood," said Robett Glover. "He is a bastard born of rape. A Snow, no matter what the boy king says."

If he had just said the first half, then I would agree it is too vague to infer an accurate connotation of bastard in this context. But then he followed it up with A Snow. This means he is directly associating Ramsay's evil nature with his bastard blood specifically. If he just thought Ramsay had evil in his blood because of rape, he wouldn't have said that last part rebuking Ramsay's legitimization from Tommen.

It's a tricky statement, I agree. But I interpret that line as Robett merely denying Tommen's legitimization of Ramsay Snow. Politically, it seems like Robett and Lord Manderly attribute this legitimization to be directly tied to Roose's betrayal of Robb that culminated with the Red Wedding. If Robett is denying the legitimization, then Ramsay has to be a Snow, not a Bolton. The Snow line in no way correlates to "evil in his blood" line. That paragraph by Robett contains three separate sentences.

1)The evil is in his blood - could just be that pesky Bolton blood. It seems in this conversation that Robett Glover and Lord Manderly in no way trust Roose, his story, or his actions. Bad blood. Roose even says himself several times that Ramsay has "tainted blood" and since Roose sits around bleeding himself to balance his "humors", I think it's clear that the bad blood is from Roose, and no one doubts his legitimacy.

2)He is a bastard born of rape - I addressed this in my earlier post. Robett's line seems to indicate that he thinks a bastard born of rape is a problem. Since we don't know if Jon or Larence Snow was born of rape, we don't know if this line pertains to them. We do know that Ramsay was born of rape, as Roose mentions in the text, which his type of droll, chilling humor!

3)A Snow, no matter what the boy king says - simply denying the legitimization of Ramsay by Tommen/Cersei. This line in no way ties all Snow's to rape or evil blood.

Larence Snow, the bastard of Hornwood, has been living at Deepwood Motte under the guardianship of the Glovers. As I pointed out earlier, the steward of the Glover's spoke highly of the young bastard Larence Snow. That steward did not seem to hold Larence's bastard birth against him, praising his wits and courage. It is reasonable to think that the rest of the Glover's also felt highly of young Larence. This does not directly tie the steward or Larence to Robett, but Robett is his brother Galbart's heir, and Robett and his wife Sybelle, seem to live at Deepwood Motte (I am basing this on Sybelle being placed in charge of Deepwood Motte when the Glover brother's march south with Robb), therefore I would think that Robett and Sybelle are familiar with the character of Larence Snow. Now, maybe I am wrong, and Robett Glover thinks that Larence Snow is a smarmy, untrustworthy villain based on his bastard birth, but there is no indication of that in the text.

I just don't think there is nearly as much anti-bastard sentiment in the north as you seem to think. The oathbreaker thing, is probably more tricky. I haven't looked into it, but off the top of my head, I believe dear Neddard himself tells Bran that there is no one more dangerous than an oathbreaker. I think this conversation happens in the first chapter, when we (and Bran) witness Ned executing Gared, an oathbreaker. I have a hard time arguing with the Neddard himself, though I certainly question some of his decisions.

I don't think that the northern people have much complaint with bastards (although Ramsay's brutal behavior may change some peoples ways of thinking) but I do think the oathbreaker think is more damning, and would have worse consequences for Jon than his bastard birth. Of course, whether Jon is an oathbreaker or not is debatable. He see's himself this way, but do many others? Some do, no doubt.

Every man of the Night's Watch that visits a whore in Mole's Town is an oathbreaker, too!  It seems there are a fair amount of men that do that! If I remember correctly, before Mormont's great ranging north, the ladies of Mole's Town were busy!

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

They would have lost dozens of men instead of thousands.

Well, Rickard Karstark had already lost two sons in battle a third son captured and certainly wanted vengeance. Hard to say what Ned would have done if he was released. He very much felt like Stannis was Robert's  true heir, and I see no reason that he would not have committed the north to Stannis' cause. That is why I don't think the Lannisters would have released Ned. He was far more valuable to them as a hostage. And many more than dozens were already killed when Roose's forces met Tywin's forces at the battle on the Green Fork, several thousand men were lost, including important Lords of northern houses, such as the Lord of Hornwood, and other important men were captured. Certainly Ned's death cemented the cause for war, but even without that, I have a hard time seeing how the northern forces would have just so easily marched back north. I guess we will never know what might have happened, we only know what did happen.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

That can happen even if he doesn't die... he can be gravely wounded and while his body is being healed, his consciousness slips into Ghost.

I think this is very likely, as might be the case with Bran after his fall. I don't think GRRM is telling us that resurrection is a good thing. I am sure that Gregor Clegane would agree!

 

[kissdbyfire]

@St Daga, I agree. Resurrection is definitely not a good thing! Valar Morghulis!

same goes for incest, but that's a different debate, for another thread!

 

[St Daga]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

 

@St Daga, I agree. Resurrection is definitely not a good thing! Valar Morghulis!

same goes for incest, but that's a different debate, for another thread!

 

Haha! Yes, a debate for a different thread. However, I do think we are going to get some more incest, and it's going to hurt! It might not be a good thing but ... doesn't mean it won't happen. I am about 50/50 on Jon not dying (this is my hope) and Jon dying and being resurrected! I think the incest odd's are higher! 

[The Fattest Leech]

 

14 minutes ago, St Daga said:

I think this is very likely, as might be the case with Bran after his fall. I don't think GRRM is telling us that resurrection is a good thing. I am sure that Gregor Clegane would agree!

 

I also agree with this. The (so far) three main characters that are linked with any special world saving qualities (whatever term you want to use), they are all linked by a near death situation that seems to follow the idea that this near death, other-world experience is what opens your talents. Dany in the fire and Bran in his fall. I really think that the whole Berric/LSH sideplot is a diversion and maybe some readers are thinking George is going to use his same trope again for the umpteenth time for a first tier character. I certainly don't think so.

[St Daga]

@kissedbyfire I will say that I have toyed a lot with the idea of Bran dying from his fall from the tower, and him being a resurrected version of himself. I think it's possible, but I am too cowardly to give odds. I also think Daenerys might have died and been reborn in the fire that birthed her dragons. So, maybe the type of resurrection makes a difference, if Bran and Dany died and were reborn, as they both seem to be functioning better than Beric and Stoneheart. (Of course, Beric has died multiple times and Cat was a bloated fish in the river for three days before her resurrection, so that has to have some effect)

 I just reread the Bran assassination chapter and the words of the catspaw "he's dead already" keep playing in my head.

[St Daga]

6 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The (so far) three main characters that are linked with any special world saving qualities (whatever term you want to use), they are all linked by a near death situation that seems to follow the idea that this near death, other-world experience is what opens your talents. Dany in the fire and Bran in his fall. I really think that the whole Berric/LSH sideplot is a diversion and maybe some readers are thinking George is going to use his same trope again for the umpteenth time for a first tier character. I certainly don't think so.

As I just commented to kissedbyfire, I think there is a very small chance that both Bran and Dany have died and been reborn. If that is the case, they are certainly functioning better than Beric (who is dead dead now, I guess) and unCat.

However, I am more inclined to think of Bran's situation, for certain, as being a near death experience. which did help open his third eye. I think this will be the case with Jon, too. We have been told by several skinchangers in the story that they know Jon is powerful but he seems afraid of his gift, or doesn't know how to open his gift (to be fair, he has had no one to teach him). A near death experience makes the most sense for Jon, in my estimation.  

Dany, I am not sure how walking into that fire was near death. Maybe she was simply alive and unburnt, but it's harder for me so see her situation in the same way I interpret Bran's.

[The Fattest Leech]

21 minutes ago, St Daga said:

As I just commented to kissedbyfire, I think there is a very small chance that both Bran and Dany have died and been reborn. If that is the case, they are certainly functioning better than Beric (who is dead dead now, I guess) and unCat.

Missed it. Sorry.

Quote

However, I am more inclined to think of Bran's situation, for certain, as being a near death experience. which did help open his third eye. I think this will be the case with Jon, too. We have been told by several skinchangers in the story that they know Jon is powerful but he seems afraid of his gift, or doesn't know how to open his gift (to be fair, he has had no one to teach him). A near death experience makes the most sense for Jon, in my estimation.  

Agreed.

Quote

Dany, I am not sure how walking into that fire was near death. Maybe she was simply alive and unburnt, but it's harder for me so see her situation in the same way I interpret Bran's.

Many people expected her to die because that is typically what happens when a human walks in to fire (even Targaryens). It was a "miracle" that she did not die. The same with Bran. Many expected a young child to die when falling from that height onto hard earth. But by some "miracle" he did not. In both cases the two defied logic and survived. Also why I am thinking this makes the most sense for Jon.

Sorry, this is way off topic.

Bad Leech

[St Daga]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Sorry, this is way off topic.

I also apologize to the OP for derailing the thread. It certainly wasn't intentional, but discussions take funny paths!

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

13 hours ago, St Daga said:

I also apologize to the OP for derailing the thread. It certainly wasn't intentional, but discussions take funny paths!

No need to apologize! We have had 17 pages of solid and satisfying discussions, I think any sort of "derailing" at this point is totally fair game.  

15 hours ago, St Daga said:

It's a tricky statement, I agree. But I interpret that line as Robett merely denying Tommen's legitimization of Ramsay Snow. Politically, it seems like Robett and Lord Manderly attribute this legitimization to be directly tied to Roose's betrayal of Robb that culminated with the Red Wedding. If Robett is denying the legitimization, then Ramsay has to be a Snow, not a Bolton. The Snow line in no way correlates to "evil in his blood" line. That paragraph by Robett contains three separate sentences.

1)The evil is in his blood - could just be that pesky Bolton blood. It seems in this conversation that Robett Glover and Lord Manderly in no way trust Roose, his story, or his actions. Bad blood. Roose even says himself several times that Ramsay has "tainted blood" and since Roose sits around bleeding himself to balance his "humors", I think it's clear that the bad blood is from Roose, and no one doubts his legitimacy.

2)He is a bastard born of rape - I addressed this in my earlier post. Robett's line seems to indicate that he thinks a bastard born of rape is a problem. Since we don't know if Jon or Larence Snow was born of rape, we don't know if this line pertains to them. We do know that Ramsay was born of rape, as Roose mentions in the text, which his type of droll, chilling humor!

3)A Snow, no matter what the boy king says - simply denying the legitimization of Ramsay by Tommen/Cersei. This line in no way ties all Snow's to rape or evil blood.

Larence Snow, the bastard of Hornwood, has been living at Deepwood Motte under the guardianship of the Glovers. As I pointed out earlier, the steward of the Glover's spoke highly of the young bastard Larence Snow. That steward did not seem to hold Larence's bastard birth against him, praising his wits and courage. It is reasonable to think that the rest of the Glover's also felt highly of young Larence. This does not directly tie the steward or Larence to Robett, but Robett is his brother Galbart's heir, and Robett and his wife Sybelle, seem to live at Deepwood Motte (I am basing this on Sybelle being placed in charge of Deepwood Motte when the Glover brother's march south with Robb), therefore I would think that Robett and Sybelle are familiar with the character of Larence Snow. Now, maybe I am wrong, and Robett Glover thinks that Larence Snow is a smarmy, untrustworthy villain based on his bastard birth, but there is no indication of that in the text.

I just don't think there is nearly as much anti-bastard sentiment in the north as you seem to think. The oathbreaker thing, is probably more tricky. I haven't looked into it, but off the top of my head, I believe dear Neddard himself tells Bran that there is no one more dangerous than an oathbreaker. I think this conversation happens in the first chapter, when we (and Bran) witness Ned executing Gared, an oathbreaker. I have a hard time arguing with the Neddard himself, though I certainly question some of his decisions.

LOL I think you are trying a bit too hard to parse that line from Glover. They are three separate but sequential sentences, spoken in succession. When he said A Snow, he was definitely referring to the comments he had made 1 second earlier.  

But yes, I agree there is generally a lot more info on southerners' opinions of bastards, and northerners certainly seem to take a bigger issue with oathbreaking. 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Missed it. Sorry.

Agreed.

Many people expected her to die because that is typically what happens when a human walks in to fire (even Targaryens). It was a "miracle" that she did not die. The same with Bran. Many expected a young child to die when falling from that height onto hard earth. But by some "miracle" he did not. In both cases the two defied logic and survived. Also why I am thinking this makes the most sense for Jon.

Sorry, this is way off topic.

Bad Leech

I definitely agree with the idea of near-death experiences enhancing telepathic abilities, as I have described in detail in this thread.

I think Dany was able to walk into the fire because it was an intense emotional experience, and because she believed she could do it (partly due to those crazy dreams she had been having, which were probably sent by Quaithe). However, in contrast with Bran, she was only sort of manipulated into the situation, while Bran was effectively forced to use his powers to survive.

In addition to the fact that Bran was facing imminent death, he was also in momentary freefall, which together may have allowed him to use telekinesis for the first time and cushion his fall. Because gravity makes it difficult to use telekinesis, at least in Nightflyers. It is, in fact, a key part of the plot. 100% credit to PJ on that one 

[Prof. Cecily]

On 6/20/2017 at 10:42 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Spoiler

 

Yes, I guess that conspiracy only got a brief mention in that video. In my mind I conflated those 2 videos with PJ's analysis of TWOW Theon I. If you get a chance, I highly recommend watching that series as well. He talks about all sorts of things going on in the north.

Long story short, Stannis is part of the conspiracy and has agreed to eventually return Theon to House Harlaw. First off, we know he has been working with Mance, who snuck into WF as Manderly's singer and facilitated the Theon escape. Then we have the mystery of the "wrong way rangers". Stannis sent Richard Horpe and Justin Massey south in ADWD for some reason, and this reason may have been to form diplomatic alliances with Manderly and Umber, and to get tactical information about the land around WF. It seems that rather than his current snow-bound predicament being an accident, Stannis is in the midst of executing an absolutely brilliant plan to take WF, one truly worthy of the greatest military commander in Westeros. Stannis knows he cannot siege WF. He doesn't have the resources or the numbers, and the weather ends up making a siege unfathomable. No, Stannis must cunningly lure his opponents into the field and kill them outside WF's walls.

So what does he do? Well, first he sends a letter to Jon from Deepwood Motte with information about his army that is almost certainly counter-intelligence. We know this because Roose later quotes the information contained in the letter when describing Stannis's forces, and Stannis isn't an idiot when it comes to military matters. Jon may be relatively trustworthy, but Clydas certainly isn't. Side note - he also somehow "ransomed" the Ironborn hostages from Sybelle Glover, even though she was specifically holding Ironborn hostages in the hopes she would be able to trade them for her family back, implying that the ransom Stannis paid was to facilitate a deal that will, in fact, get her family back from the House Harlaw (probably in exchange for Theon). Next, his crony/ally Mance (and the spearwives) murders a bunch of people, causing massive tension inside the castle, making Roose's situation untenable. Even without the timely death of Big Walder and the ensuing fight (which I blame Ramsay for and not Stannis), Roose had already been forced into a position where he had to send men out to fight at his first chance to avoid them fighting inside the castle. So in the context of this planned chaos, Stannis deceitfully allows the Bolton maester (who was brought along by Karstark) to send Roose a map with Stannis's location (the parchment we see in Roose's hand when he sends all the men out to fight Stannis), another excellent piece of counter-intel, considering Stannis almost certainly knew early on that the maester was working for Roose. Finally, Stannis drills waaaaayyy too many holes in the ice on the small lakes around the village and keeps a beacon fire burning 24/7.

And to speculate about TWOW, Stannis will probably take Arnolf Karstark (pretending he is Theon, in yet another Stannis execution identity fake out) and cut off his head with a glowing/flaming Lightbringer on the island in the middle of the lake with the weirwood. The Frey cavalry will charge Stannis and break through the ice, mostly drowning in the lake while the survivors are picked off by the hostile Manderly forces coming up behind them. We will see if this actually happens!  

 

PJ's reason does not destroy the reasons for the northern lords participating in the trap, because at time of the signing of Robb's will, they had not yet learned that Bran and Rickon were alive.

Are you quite sure of that?

If it was as clear as, say: the oldest versions contained "narrow hips" and then at some point GRRM corrected the mistake and all the editions since then did not contain "narrow hips", then I would take that as evidence. And I would take it as proof if GRRM publicly acknowledged the mistake on his blog or something. But the editions are a weird mixed bag, and GRRM has never offered clarification. I have 3 different editions of AFFC, all with "narrow hips" in them, including the ebook on Google. I would think/hope that if this was a legit mistake that had been corrected, that Google Books would have the up-to-date and corrected version. After all, they have the ability to upload a new edition anytime they want, as far as I know.

You have a point there. I would not be surprised to find JW pregnant and killed in TWOW, reminiscent of the fates of  Alexander the Great's widows. And Philip of Macedon's widow. 

Most Targ loyalists are not in Essos. Like... everyone who fought on the losing side in Robert's Rebellion.  

Didn't Septon Merribald give an analysis of of fighting men and outlaws?

Quote

There are many sorts of outlaws, just as there are many sorts of birds. A sandpiper and a sea eagle both have wings, but they are not the same. The singers love to sing of good men forced to go outside the law to fight some wicked lord, but most outlaws are more like this ravening Hound than they are the lightning lord. They are evil men, driven by greed, soured by malice, despising the gods and caring only for themselves. Broken men are more deserving of our pity, though they may be just as dangerous. Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war. Poorly shod and poorly clad, they march away beneath his banners, ofttimes with no better arms than a sickle or a sharpened hoe, or a maul they made themselves by lashing a stone to a stick with strips of hide. Brothers march with brothers, sons with fathers, friends with friends. They've heard the songs and stories, so they go off with eager hearts, dreaming of the wonders they will see, of the wealth and glory they will win. War seems a fine adventure, the greatest most of them will ever know.

"Then they get a taste of battle.

"For some, that one taste is enough to break them. Others go on for years, until they lose count of all the battles they have fought in, but even a man who has survived a hundred fights can break in his hundred-and-first. Brothers watch their brothers die, fathers lose their sons, friends see their friends trying to hold their entrails in after they've been gutted by an axe.

"They see the lord who led them there cut down, and some other lord shouts that they are his now. They take a wound, and when that's still half-healed they take another. There is never enough to eat, their shoes fall to pieces from the marching, their clothes are torn and rotting, and half of them are shitting in their breeches from drinking bad water.

"If they want new boots or a warmer cloak or maybe a rusted iron halfhelm, they need to take them from a corpse, and before long they are stealing from the living too, from the smallfolk whose lands they're fighting in, men very like the men they used to be. They slaughter their sheep and steal their chickens, and from there it's just a short step to carrying off their daughters too. And one day they look around and realize all their friends and kin are gone, that they are fighting beside strangers beneath a banner that they hardly recognize. They don't know where they are or how to get back home and the lord they're fighting for does not know their names, yet here he comes, shouting for them to form up, to make a line with their spears and scythes and sharpened hoes, to stand their ground. And the knights come down on them, faceless men clad all in steel, and the iron thunder of their charge seems to fill the world . . .

"And the man breaks.

A Feast for Crows - Brienne V

Still, we'll see exactly who the Westerosi loyalist to House Targaryen are as Aegon's campaign continues its course.

More importantly, most people blame his lack of marriage acceptance on being gay, but that doesn't make much sense. In a feudal society, where power is gained through marriages, you are generally marrying someone for purely political reasons, regardless of sexual orientation. Just look at Renly, or Laenor Velaryon. While being gay is technically a possible explanation, it would make more sense if the Blackfish refused the marriage offers for political reasons. In other words, he didn't want to marry into a "rebel" house like Cat and Lysa were forced to do.

That's an interesting take on the Blackfish. 

Considering Sansa never consummated her marriage (and has her virginity intact as proof of the fact) and also has the potential option of marrying someone as Alayne Baelish the Lady of Harrenhal, she could definitely marry someone with Tyrion still alive. The main little bit of foreshadowing is from The Hedge Knight. At the end of the first day of jousting, the 5 champions remaining are a Baratheon, a Tyrell, a Lannister, a Hardyng, and a Targaryen. Sansa has so far been betrothed to Joffrey Baratheon, Willas Tyrell, Tyrion Lannister, and Harry Hardyng. So if that really is GRRM being super sneaky and not just a strange coincidence, the implication is that Sansa's next betrothal will be to a Targaryen, which would most certainly be Aegon, someone who is currently conquering Westeros and has need of a politically powerful wife to replace Dany. And this could potentially set up a situation where Tyrion kills Aegon to get his wife Sansa back, which I think would be hilarious.  

Those are amusing possibilities. It'll be fun to see where GRRM takes the story. And an Aegon/Arianne alliance?

Edited to add:

I've rewatched the PJ video and he  states the lords knew about Rickon being alive at the time Robb made his Will. Whether this is true or not I'm not able to say. He cites the encounter with the Liddle folk as how this news has gotten about. Food for thought?

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I definitely agree with the idea of near-death experiences enhancing telepathic abilities, as I have described in detail in this thread.

I think Dany was able to walk into the fire because it was an intense emotional experience, and because she believed she could do it (partly due to those crazy dreams she had been having, which were probably sent by Quaithe). However, in contrast with Bran, she was only sort of manipulated into the situation, while Bran was effectively forced to use his powers to survive.

In addition to the fact that Bran was facing imminent death, he was also in momentary freefall, which together may have allowed him to use telekinesis for the first time and cushion his fall. Because gravity makes it difficult to use telekinesis, at least in Nightflyers. It is, in fact, a key part of the plot. 100% credit to PJ on that one 

Whaaaat. Sent by Quaithe and NOT Bloodraven?

[Red Man Racey]

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Whaaaat. Sent by Quaithe and NOT Bloodraven?

Well it's common knowledge that Bloodraven is skinchanging Quaithe so that's the reason that Quaithe sent the dreams to Dany.

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, Red Man Racey said:

Well it's common knowledge that Bloodraven is skinchanging Quaithe so that's the reason that Quaithe sent the dreams to Dany.

That makes perfect sense. Tks for the explanation!

 

[The Fattest Leech]

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I definitely agree with the idea of near-death experiences enhancing telepathic abilities, as I have described in detail in this thread.

I think Dany was able to walk into the fire because it was an intense emotional experience, and because she believed she could do it (partly due to those crazy dreams she had been having, which were probably sent by Quaithe).

Aah, Quaithraven! I don't think this is how GRRM has explained it before. She didn't burn because she believed? I know power resides where people think it does, but there are physical restrictions to this concept. Dany does get burned and blistered later. And this means anyone can survive fire if they believe. Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this because it seems like that line parents tell their kids when they are tired of answering 10,000 questions 

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

However, in contrast with Bran, she was only sort of manipulated into the situation, while Bran was effectively forced to use his powers to survive.

In addition to the fact that Bran was facing imminent death, he was also in momentary freefall, which together may have allowed him to use telekinesis for the first time and cushion his fall. Because gravity makes it difficult to use telekinesis, at least in Nightflyers. It is, in fact, a key part of the plot. 100% credit to PJ on that one 

Preston Jacooobs! *shakes fist at sky* 

This opens up a can of worms, too, but since I'm on my phone and have not had coffee yet, I will read the link above and reply after that. 

Also, Royd felt intense pain when then gravity was turned on. So yeah, the gravity issue in Nightflyers is important. 

[St Daga]

8 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

LOL I think you are trying a bit too hard to parse that line from Glover. They are three separate but sequential sentences, spoken in succession. When he said A Snow, he was definitely referring to the comments he had made 1 second earlier.  

I am stubborn to the point of being ridiculous sometimes, I admit! Not one of my better traits!  And I enjoy a good argument. As I said before, it is a tricky statement, (or collection of statements) by Robett, and can be looked at several ways. In my weird mental math from a previous point, I did give it 1/2 point! 

I need to look into the oathbreaker thing, although I think we will find that people both from the north and south do not appreciate oathbreakers. I guess the discussion might better include what exactly constitutes oathbreaking!

 

[Elaena Targaryen]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:51 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Yes, I think he would. His only other choice is Jon, and many people would view House Stark via Jon as illegitimate for the rest of time because Jon would be a bastard, oathbreaking, NW deserter. Robb might as well pass his dynasty on to his mother, probably the person he respects most in the world, and then let the dynasty pass on to her future children.

So you truly believe Robb is completely fine with being the last of his eight thousand year line and ending his house? I feel the books themselves and the history they are based on fully prove otherwise.

We all read and analyze the books through a lens and while it's productive to do this from a modern perspective it's also enlightening, and at times essential, to examine the perspective of the time period. We all have our own opinions but really opinions can be anywhere from an educated opinion to flights of fancy, not that I don't enjoy and participate in the whole spectrum myself.  

Quote

And as you said, laws of inheritance are murky. Cat has been the lady of WF for almost 2 decades. It makes perfect sense for her to take control of House Stark and then marry a northerner, or some distant Stark relation (like the Vale cousins). This certainly makes more sense politically than giving Jeyne Westerling a teenage girl from the Westerlands, authority to choose the new ruler of the north.

Yes laws of inheritance are murky because there can be multiple claimants. Claim is the key word. It means being in the line of succession, a right to the rank. Cat can't be the heir since inheritance does not run backwards. Cat can't be the heir because Robb was crowned a dynastic king and Cat is not a queen. (also that House Tully was never a royal house and they have taken House Stark as their liege lord) Cat even says she was taught that the gods make kings. Cat is not even considered the Queen Mother since she was never married to a king, never crowned queen and because inheritance does not run backwards. (Not to mention jumping to a different tree entirely.)

Now regarding Jeyne... don't assume I think it's likely she will have a say in northern politics but she does have a right. Jeyne Westerling married King Robb Stark and was crowned his Queen. Jeyne is now the Dowager Queen since she is Robb's widow. The precedent cited in this thread is Lady Hornwood - which isn't a royal house like Robb's case and it's only a minor vassal that the liege lord had not yet made a ruling on the case - would equate with Jeyne before Cat since Jeyne is Robb's widow. Also Lady Hornwood most likely would have to name an heir of Hornwood blood and there are two choices, the bastard or a nephew - so if Jeyne did end up with a choice of Jon or a Vale cousin who would she choose knowing Robb's feelings on the matter? Again not that I believe it will ever come to that for Jeyne,  anymore than Cat, only that the right to do so can be argued.

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 11:44 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

 Cat finds him standing over the grave of King Tristifer IV Mudd. The exchange starts with Robb possibly feigning ignorance about the locale:

Really Robb? You don't know what castle you're at? You haven't known for days what castle you would be arriving at on your slow march to the Twins? You haven't been looking at a map every single day to chart the progress of your army and be ready for an attack? Maybe... But I think Robb is probably feigning ignorance here, and it continues, when Robb... springs the trap! This seemingly innocuous question gets the ball rolling:

I think you read this part incorrectly. Robb did know they were at Oldstones and he was merely asking if Cat knew the real name of the castle but it has been forgotten and lost to time.

Quote

 

And then they argue about the Night's Watch and bastards and the Blackfyres and precedent for a minute, and then we get to the ending of their heated conversation, Cat confronting the realities of Arya being dead and Robb being in charge:

The conversation ends with Robb basically telling Cat, I can name Jon if I want to, I am the King, and you have failed to name a reasonable alternative heir.

 

I think Robb discusses and addresses all of Cat's concerns which leaves her without any argument later at the will signing.

Quote

So let's back up and quickly re-analyze what just happened assuming that Robb knew what castle he was standing in and whose grave he was next to, as well as the fact that King Tristifer IV was failed by his heir. He could have easily asked someone for this info if he didn't know it already. Here we go:

Ok let's back up

Quote

• Robb first initiated the private conversation in that particular locale by wandering off on his own, effectively luring Cat there.
• Then when Cat arrives, Robb asks what castle they are in and whose grave he is standing over, fully knowing that Cat will tell him it is King Tristifer IV, a king who according to legend was failed by his heir.

Maybe but that does also support any alternate theory.

Quote

 

 

 

 

• And then Robb immediately follows it up by saying His heir failed him, and starts lamenting the fact that Jeyne is not yet pregnant, his obviously planned response.

 

 

Robb is equating himself to the heir that failed and lamenting on not having an heir if proof of that. You have to ask yourself "how did Tristifer's heir fail him?" He failed by being the last of his line, by being the end of House Mudd, by being the end of a thousand year old royal dynasty.

Quote

 

• Then he talks about how Tyrion is now in a position to claim Winterfell, something that only recently happened (about 3 weeks prior to this conversation), prompting Cat to start listing off all the most viable heirs. Of course, Robb already knows that he can dismiss any of the closest relatives Cat can name on the basis they are not from Winterfell or even the North, and so he does and says that Jon is the only solution.
• As a last resort, Cat brings up the matter of Arya, and Robb declares Arya to be dead and Cat to be delusional.
• Finally, Cat says she cannot support naming Jon heir, and Robb says he doesn't need her support, he can do what he wants.

Of course, the statement that Robb doesn't need to ask for Cat's support is a bit disingenuous, because although he doesn't need her support to choose any other person in the world, he does need Cat's support to name Cat as his heir. You obviously can't force someone to rule your kingdom for you after you're dead. So ironically, in direct contrast with that statement from Robb, their whole conversation was just a clever trap specifically to get Cat's support.

 

I believe he addresses her issues and that leaves her without argument at the will signing. Point by point Robb breaks down the realities for Cat because let's face it she has become quite irrational and delusional at this point. Then he ends by clearly stating she has no say in the matter.

Robb has been trying to get rid of Cat since the beginning of the campaign and they all know it. He has been tired of her confrontational attitude and now in her grief it's unbearable. I love Cat and she's probably my favorite character, she's tragic and I feel she's a Casandra figure. But this is Robb's perspective we are discussing.

Quote

 

And now, if we take another look at the quote from the signing of the will, everything makes perfect sense. The only other person Robb could possibly name as heir who meets his criteria is Cat. Cat wouldn't have gone along with this decision willingly, but Robb makes it clear through their not-so-spontaneous conversation over the grave of King Tristifer that the only other viable choice in Robb's mind is Jon Snow, a "folly" which Cat, as she vehemently stated, cannot support. Cat has been quite effectively trapped into supporting Robb's choice of Cat as heir. And so to end the chapter, Robb first commands that his new heir be sent to Seagard after the wedding to be kept safe, and then he has his lords sign a document declaring Cat his heir.

Nice trap Robb! You caught a Cat, just like Arya does! I bet that your trap at Moat Cailin would have in fact worked just as well, had you survived to pull it off.

TADA!  

 

No Robb can not just name whoever the fuck he feels like as heir - the heir by definition has to be a claimant. There are claimants and the succession wars would destroy the kingdom.

So the trap.... They all have been having a very hard time and they are losing the war. They have lost family, heirs, castles, vassals and a whole region. They are trudging through the rain to grovel and beg. They finally receive wonderful news - Balon died and Victarion will leave a token force at Moat Cailin so Robb comes up with a great plan to retake it.

Cat's trap was trifold like the plan on MC. Cat has been a downer and quite nasty at times in her grief, which she's aware of. Cat truly was blindsided by being sent to Seagard, she was angered and argued against it but Robb ended it by making it a royal command. Then he pulled out the will (likely naming Jon heir) and Cat was speechless since she did not have an argument against it. Any points she would raise Robb has already shot down and she would look bitter and confrontational again against her sovereign when they finally have something going their way.

Quote

As for the whole "missing Arya" thing (everyone in the other thread was discussing how Arya is "conspicuously left out" of Robb's line regarding his heir). Have you guys considered that Robb may have simply been reiterating the recent events that changed the line of succession and thus lead to him needing to name an heir? Arya went missing and Jon went to the Wall like 10+ months earlier and neither of those changed who the heir was because Bran was the heir the whole time. But the deaths of Bran and Rickon were only about 3 months earlier, and the marriage of Sansa to Tyrion only happened days earlier, and those events actually directly change who the heir is. And until those recent events transpired, Robb would not have "left chaos in his wake" like Balon, because Bran was obviously still the heir. So you could simply interpret Robb's words to mean: Hey guys, now that my heir Bran is dead, and the 2 people directly in line after him are dead/married to Tyrion, I am naming a new heir. I didn't bother to mention Jon or Arya just now, because we had already written them off as candidates a while ago.

It is possible Robb made some provisions for Arya, particularly to appease Cat in her grief. It would explain why Alysane Mormont is with Stannis. We just don't know.

Quote

 

Other random points:

• He was hoping to get his wife pregnant, and Cat becoming regent would be the best way to protect his future child, the regency being an aspect often left out of discussion about Robb's heir.
• Regardless of who was "really" the "best" choice, in Robb's mind Cat was the best choice. Robb wanted WF and the north to be controlled by someone loyal to House Stark. Cat is definitely the most loyal person out of anyone, and she maintains control of the Riverlands if she is regent, AND she is guaranteed to act in the best interest of Robb's child. Additionally, Robb's heir has to be politically practical, and Cat is the only person who would maintain the political status quo in the North. If you name someone like Wyman Manderly as a regent you are both handing him huge power while at the same time pissing off all his rivals.
• Unlike Jon and other northerners, Cat as heir/regent can maintain the Stark-Tully alliance.

 

Why would Robb need to name a regent for his child when his queen would be there? Do you think Cat would not help and offer counsel? Do you think the vassals would completely disregard the Queen Mother? The more important appointment would be the war leader as neither Jeyne or Cat are capable.

 

Quote

 

• Cat ends up with Robb's crown.
• Jon is in the Night's Watch, and many northerners would have viewed him as an oath breaker in addition to being a bastard.
• Any explanation that names a person other than Cat as heir inherently fails to explain what the "trap" is that Cat referred to at the end of the chapter.

 

Cat is also looking for Sansa and Arya.

There is plenty of precedent for bastards to inherit. I also find the oath breaker argument weak at this time but I have not studied it enough to debate yet since I didn't think you could break an oath if you were released from the vow. If you want to argue the Old Gods angle then you have to address why the northerners would have a problem with this and not with making Catelyn Tully follower of the Seven their sovereign.

Just because you disagree with another explanation does not mean it fails. This thread was large in scope with many other debatable points so the "trap" itself hasn't really been addressed seriously.

 

This was all my opinion and interpretation and I have not yet read anything that would sway me but I'm sure you feel the same 40 so good luck.

 

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:18 PM, St Daga said:

Last night, well doing a excellent job of avoiding house work, I looked into the word "bastard" in ASOIAF. In the five published novels, the word bastard is used 546 times.

I was surprised at how few derogatory statements were said of bastards in this story. In was enlightening.

Oh well done! I hope you had fun! I enjoy researching like this too but there is never enough time....

I remember the first thread I made in the old forum was analyzing the treatment of women and bastards in the different regions. If I recall correctly while the women did seem to be treated different depending on location the bastards didn't seem to be, Dorne and Free Folk exceptions for both, and bastards weren't treated as badly as you would first expect.

If you look into this further don't forget the term natural born and sometimes baseborn is used when discussing a bastard, then you have the Bastards of Wherever and searching the surnames.

Quote

Cersei telling us Tywin's opinion on bastards. I guess we can trust this, but it verges close to unreliable narrator territory. Ah, if only Tywin could have commented to Cersei on her own bastards.

 

 

Yes I would have loved to read that but I don't think Tywin could have ever admitted it.

 

Now Cersei is interesting... I recall Cat not seating Jon with the other Starks so he would not offend Cersei and Tyrion worries about Cersei's possible reaction to Oberyn bringing his bastard paramour to the royal wedding and seating her on the salt. But then Cersei names a bastard as the grand admiral with a seat on the council.

 

Culturally the treatment of bastards seems to come down to a matter of convenience.

 

Quote

Stannis does not approve of his daughter marrying Tommen! He uses the word bastard but also throw's incest in there, so it's hard to say which he might object to more. However, he does object!

Davos says "As for the marriage, Tornmen was born of the same incest as Joffrey, and His Grace would sooner see Shireen dead than wed to such." so he seems to think the incest would be the true objection.

From Stannis concerning Edric Storm

 "Did the boy charm you? He has that gift. He got it from his father, with the blood. He knows he is a king's son, but chooses to forget that he is bastard-born. And he worships Robert, as Renly did when he was young. My royal brother played the fond father on his visits to Storm's End, and there were gifts ... swords and ponies and fur-trimmed cloaks. The eunuch's work, every one. The boy would write the Red Keep full of thanks, and Robert would laugh and ask Varys what he'd sent this year. Renly was no better. He left the boy's upbringing to castellans and maesters, and every one fell victim to his charm. Penrose chose to die rather than give him up." The king ground his teeth together. "It still angers me. How could he think I would hurt the boy? I chose Robert, did I not? When that hard day came. I chose blood over honor."

-  and -

"I have told you, no."

 "He is only one baseborn boy, against all the boys of Westeros, and all the girls as well. Against all the children that might ever be born, in all the kingdoms of the world."

 "The boy is innocent."

 "The boy defiled your marriage bed, else you would surely have sons of your own. He shamed you."

 "Robert did that. Not the boy. My daughter has grown fond of him. And he is mine own blood."

Quote

 

Viserys:

This has nothing to do with people in Westeros opinions of bastards, so feel free to ignore it.

Reading this again, it just struck me as odd. Viserys' statement is neither an opinion of the north or the south, but it his own odd mixture of being raised in exile. What I think is odd about it, is that he refers to Dany's unborn child as a bastard. But why? Dany was married, and the ceremony and marriage seem to be accepted, both by the Dothraki, as well as people of Essos and Westeros. So why the bastard statement?

Does he suspect Dany's child of not being Drogo's? If so why? Or does Viserys for some reason just not accept the validity of Dany's marriage to Drogo? I have questioned in the past that Dany had a sexual encounter the night before she wed Drogo that she is blocking or does not remember, and this is going in that pile of tinfoil notes and weirdness I have about that.

 

I've always had the impression that Viserys fully intended to marry Dany and have children with her after he claimed the throne. Drogo was just a means to and end. Viserys did not consider their marriage valid and the child irrelevant. Dany belonged to him.

Quote

 

I have not yet taken much time to look into how the north might feel about oathbreakers, but at a quick glance/search, most of those comments refer to Jaime Lannister, and only a few to Jon (and those are his own opinion).

@40 Thousand SkeletonsI looked into the text and actually found there was less northern negativity to bastards than I had thought. So I thank you for putting me in that direction. The oathbreaker thing might prove more telling, but I am mentally done with research at this time, but will tackle it at some point. 

 

I hope you can research oath breakers as I would love to read it!