40 Thousand Skeletons

Cat is definitely the heir named in Robb's will

351 posts in this topic

On 6/16/2017 at 8:04 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

@40 Thousand Skeletons I just want to say that you have been a gracious thread host. With the large amount of counter-debate to your theory, you have at least been in good spirits about it and have not devolved into name calling and insults. This makes discussion and fandom actually fun :cheers:, even though I still think this idea is crazy  :P

By the way, what battery brand do you use because you are tireless!

:cheers: 

I have exclusively used Duracell batteries ever since this commercial came out:

 

But really, I recently quit my full-time job and have lots of time on my hands at the moment :P 

Quote

I second the motion! :cheers:

I have found, as I have devolved into a full-blown heretic, that my original ideas are often met with condescension, derision, and general disbelief. Many people view my theories in the exact same way that view theories that are completely tinfoil and beyond reason, like "Arya is not Cat's daughter" or something along those lines. I work hard to be amiable and convince people that my ideas are not covered in tinfoil like they appear at first glance. And keeping in good spirits is the only way to enjoy the forum! :D 

No joke though, I have on many occasions written scathing and angry responses to people only to tell myself that submitting such a response will ruin my enjoyable thread, and then I delete the whole thing and write something friendlier. :rofl: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

You are the master of understating. :lmao:

It was treason. She was kept prisoner after that. The "mother folly" sexist defense is only good to avoid a execution, not to exonerate her. Cat herself admits it:

Performing a legally treasonous act and being considered a "traitor" are 2 very different things. Cat didn't betray Robb and go over to the Lannister cause. She simply conducted a hostage exchange without Robb's consent. And Robb did not keep her a prisoner. She made herself a prisoner, right in that quote you referenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 9:43 AM, St Daga said:

I am not sure I would call it developing the idea as much as I just mentioned it as an idea for uniting the north and riverlands, since Jon does have no connection to the riverlands.

The link to the whole thread is here (I hope) :

I think this thread is were @40 Thousand Skeletons might have presented his original idea for Cat as Robb's heir. It is an interesting read, and already well fleshed out idea!

**

And my actual statement in regards to this idea I will put in a spoiler tag, and also highlight. I mention it under the umbrella of "wild speculation", which I do enjoy partaking in!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

**

**

 

 

Yes, that was my original post and I basically copied it and added some clarifications for this thread. That's also why this OP is much more sarcastically arrogant than my typical posts. :D 

On 6/17/2017 at 9:21 AM, St Daga said:

I agree very much. Whether we all agree on the thread points or not, the OP has maintained civility, which is hard to do, when most everyone disagree's with you. The points on both sides are worth pondering!

I'm glad people appreciate how hard it is to maintain civility when most people think you are crazy :P 

On 6/17/2017 at 10:02 AM, St Daga said:

Haha! Bloodraven is everywhere!

LOL please see: my tagline ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Performing a legally treasonous act and being considered a "traitor" are 2 very different things. Cat didn't betray Robb and go over to the Lannister cause. She simply conducted a hostage exchange without Robb's consent. And Robb did not keep her a prisoner. She made herself a prisoner, right in that quote you referenced.

Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto... It could be considered the same thing, except this "hostage exchange" of yours costs Robb the support of his allies in a most critic moment. I think I'll stick with "treason". You do your way. Just keep your hands away from my strategic important prisioners, please ;)

Edited by sgtpimenta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sgtpimenta said:

Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto... It could be considered the same thing, except this "hostage exchange" of yours costs Robb the support of his allies in a most critic moment. I think I'll stick of treason. You do your way. Just keep your hands away from my strategic important prisioners, please ;)

No, actually Robb cutting off Rickard's head is what cost him the Karstark support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

No, actually Robb cutting off Rickard's head is what cost him the Karstark support.

"'How can it be treason to kill Lannisters, when it is not treason to free them?' asked Karstark harshly. 'Has Your Grace forgotten that we are at war with Casterly Rock? In war you kill your enemies. Didn't your father teach you that, boy?'" (aSoS, Catelyn III)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

"'How can it be treason to kill Lannisters, when it is not treason to free them?' asked Karstark harshly. 'Has Your Grace forgotten that we are at war with Casterly Rock? In war you kill your enemies. Didn't your father teach you that, boy?'" (aSoS, Catelyn III)

And your point is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Please show me a single other discussion where either Robb or Cat talk about the importance of the Stark bloodline. As far as I know, there aren't any such discussions. They one line that people always come back to is the one you just referenced, which I already addressed in the OP. As I have already said, that entire conversation is, according to the internal logic of this theory, part of Robb's trap and completely disingenuous. Therefore, that line from Robb can't be used as evidence against this theory. The entire point of this theory is that in his conversation with Cat, ROBB IS LYING! Therefore, it is not "plain" that he wants someone of Stark blood to follow him.

You say "internal logic", I say circular logic. You are like Munchhausen, pulling your own hair to fly. If you need your own conclusions to support your theory, it is more than likely that your theory won't sustain itself.

To paraphrase you, can you show a single other discussion where is shown that Robb was lying? Something other than this "trap" argument - after all, if there's anything that this 15-pages thread proves is that the meaning of this "trap" in particular is open to debate.

Afterall, this is your theory, and you know what they say about the burden of the proof...

Edited by sgtpimenta
clarifications and corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I am not trying to draw your eyes away from the motivations of Cat and Robb, quite the opposite. I am trying to point out that Robb was disingenuous in that conversation, and therefore any information pertaining to his motives gleaned from said conversation is not dependable info. And many people are arguing that Robb cares more about the Stark bloodline than the preservation of his kingdom while I am making the point that, outside of that potentially disingenuous conversation, there is no evidence for this.

Sorry, my dear, it's not in Robb's nature to be disingenuous; in fact, his lack of artifice is one of his primary failings.

The only person being 'disingenuous' is you!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

You say "internal logic", I say circular logic. You are like Munchhausen, pulling your own hair to fly.

I say you are wrong. Let's quickly examine my logic and see if it travels in a circle: Robb has successfully executed a kingly trap -> therefore his earlier conversation with Cat, in which all of her answers were easily predictable, was part of his trap and an entirely disingenuous conversation -> therefore the line about Ned having fathered "four sons, not three" is just one more line from Robb in a disingenuous conversation, and we can't know if it reflects Robb's true feelings. See? No circle there.

25 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

If you need your own conclusions to support your theory, it is more than likely that your theory won't sustain itself.

How can anyone possibly have a theory about asoiaf without needing conclusions? This criticism doesn't make any sense.

26 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

To paraphrase you, can you show a single other discussion where is shown that Robb was lying?

I don't need to. I don't think there are any such discussions. It is irrelevant and I don't understand your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Sorry, my dear, it's not in Robb's nature to be disingenuous; in fact, his lack of artifice is one of his primary failings.

The only person being 'disingenuous' is you!  ;)

LOL I'm sorry ravenous, normally you make pretty solid arguments but this is laughable.

This actually is circular logic, unlike all the shit I have said. We have never seen Robb be disingenuous -> therefore he can't be disingenuous in this one scene.

Except what if he was being disingenuous? Then we have direct evidence that it is in his nature and that he can pull off some teenage-level artifice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

LOL I'm sorry ravenous, normally you make pretty solid arguments but this is laughable.

This actually is circular logic, unlike all the shit I have said. We have never seen Robb be disingenuous -> therefore he can't be disingenuous in this one scene.

Except what if he was being disingenuous? Then we have direct evidence that it is in his nature and that he can pull off some teenage-level artifice. 

Your argument is so laughable that not even @Dorian Martell's son took me up on my invitation to lambaste you!  :kiss:

Edited by ravenous reader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I say you are wrong. Let's quickly examine my logic and see if it travels in a circle: Robb has successfully executed a kingly trap -> therefore his earlier conversation with Cat, in which all of her answers were easily predictable, was part of his trap and an entirely disingenuous conversation -> therefore the line about Ned having fathered "four sons, not three" is just one more line from Robb in a disingenuous conversation, and we can't know if it reflects Robb's true feelings. See? No circle there.

Except that you first point is, itself, a conclusion of your own creation. Sure, Cat thinks her son has caught her in a trap, but never says it is this conversation you are implying. It seems to me that lots of fans have different interpretations about that.

15 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

How can anyone possibly have a theory about asoiaf without needing conclusions? This criticism doesn't make any sense.

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

15 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I don't need to. I don't think there are any such discussions. It is irrelevant and I don't understand your point.

There isn't. We can agree with that.

My point is: if you create any kind of theory, you are the one who needs to show proofs. As you can't provide any of such proofs, then... let's call the whole thing off.

Edited by sgtpimenta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

Except that you first point is, itself, a conclusion of your own creation. Sure, Cat thinks her son has caught her in a trap, but never says it is this conversation you are implying. It seems to me that lots of fans have different interpretations about that.

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

Yes, the first point was a "conclusion of my own creation", you know, as in, part of a theory. What is your point? Yes, people have different interpretations. It's just a theory. I don't know if I am right. I think I am probably right on this theory in particular, but I obviously can't know for sure.

This is not circular reasoning, and I hope you go back and read that wikipedia link because you have not articulated how, in fact, what I have presented constitutes circular reasoning. I genuinely don't think you understand what it means.

31 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

My point is: if you create any kind of theory, you are the one who needs to show proofs. As you can't provide any of such proofs, then... let's call the whole thing off.

Did you even read the fucking OP? You don't have to agree with my theoretical conclusions, but I presented the evidence from the text.

Edited by 40 Thousand Skeletons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Your argument is so laughable that not even @Dorian Martell's son took me up on my invitation to lambaste you!  :kiss:

I don't understand what you are saying :kiss:

But yes, Dorian Martell's son does normally love to respond to my brilliant ideas with hilarious, baseless, nonsensical criticisms ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

There is some evidence that Jeyne was pregnant by the time Robb left. It is clear that her mother was giving her tansy tea and lying about it, saying it was a fertility potion.

Spoiler

It may the case that Jeyne caught on and stopped taking it and managed to get pregnant. The girl Jaime met may have been her younger sister as she is described as having "narrow hips" and Cat had earlier described Jeyne as having hips good for bearing children, i.e. not narrow. And Jaime never explicitly describes seeing Jeyne together with her sister. He only describes her as being with her family, but he wasn't more specific than that. So Jeyne may have actually been gone by that point and met up with the Blackfish, who was sworn to protect her and would certainly take that oath seriously if she was pregnant.

And GRRM said we would be seeing Jeyne in TWOW, and her being pregnant/giving birth would explain this upcoming appearance.

Good morning!

Could you explain the evidence JW is pregnant, please?

That sounds interesting.

Alas, that ghastly chapter in TWOW comes to mind when I think of any appearance of a pregnant JW in the upcoming books.

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:


This is not a PJ theory. Many people have guessed that Cat was the heir, and PJ has made the observation that "Robb threatening to pick Jon and then picking Jon" would not constitute a trap. But beyond that PJ's logic was silly. It was concise and basically nonsense, probably because he was just trying to quickly get Robb's will off the table so that he could present his theories on what is happening in the north.

Spoiler

 

He didn't spend any time on it or present evidence from the text or even make a totally logical argument. I, on the other hand, actually went back and dissected the conversation from earlier in the chapter and tried to illustrate specifically how Robb's trap played out, as well as touch on the basic objections to the idea of Cat being the heir.

I do not hide the fact that I am a PJ fan, and I give him credit when I steal his ideas. I have even started a couple threads just to discuss the validity of certain PJ theories. But I do not consider this to be one of them. I will give him credit for correctly pointing out that naming Jon heir wouldn't constitute a trap while naming Cat would be a trap, but that is pretty obvious once you pay attention to that line, and I don't need PJ to tell me.

 

 

Do you recall which video of PjJthat was?

I'd like to hear it.

 

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:
Spoiler

 

You are the master of understating. :lmao:

It was treason. She was kept prisoner after that.

 

The "mother folly" sexist defense is only good to avoid a execution, not to exonerate her. Cat herself admits it:

 

Good point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah, the debate carries on ...

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

LOL, I don't personally have a problem with bastards or oathbreakers, but I think it is safe to assume that some northerners would have a problem with a bastard being king, and that even more would have a problem with an oathbreaker/NW deserter being king.

You say you have no problem with bastards and oathbreakers? Let's see.

There is this

On 6/13/2017 at 8:47 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I think the harder part would actually be getting everyone to accept a bastard oathbreaker as their king.

and

On 6/14/2017 at 8:27 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

If I were a northern lord, I would rather have Ned's widow marry someone new and let them have WF than a bastard deserter who has possibly been cursed by the Old Gods for breaking an oath made to them.

You seem to spend a lot of time speaking for the northern lords. This is your opinion, not the opinion of the northern lords. As I said, we all let our personal opinions leak into how we read the text, but at least admit it.

Do any of the northern lords say they would never follow a bastard or an oathbreaker? Since you feel so strongly that they would not, I am asking you for some proof of this in the text.

I won't go so far as to claim that the northern lords would not follow Catelyn, but the Greatjon does refer to her with a "mother's folly", which isn't a sterling recommendation. Maege Mormont seems to sympathize with Cat as a mother, but does that sympathy extend to her as a leader of an independent nation? I see no proof, either way.

*

On 6/13/2017 at 8:47 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Why wouldn't the northern lords accept her as their liege? Do you have some logic for this? Quotes from the text to back it up? What mistakes has she made that would disqualify her from ruling the north? The only person who was even visibly angry that she released Jaime was Rickard Karstark,

Well, let's see about Catelyn's mistakes.

1) She first of all convinced Ned he must leave Winterfell to go south with Robert, and it's pretty obvious the north fell apart without Ned in charge, then she has the audacity to be angry with Ned for not staying in Winterfell after Bran's fall. She had already set those wheel's in motion. Her greed, her ambition set those wheel's in motion. 

2) Cat shut down completely while she was at Bran's bedside. I understand she was caught in her grief, but it is not acceptable to basically abandon her other children, or all the duties that Ned had given her as regent to help Robb rule the north. Hell, if she had appointed a master of the stable, the catspaw would probably had been discovered, and the attempt on Bran's life would not have had the ginormous trickle down effect it did. I am not sure that makes her a good person to place in charge of the north, and Robb witnessed her breakdown and weakness with his own eyes.

3) Cat left Winterfell, when she was supposed to be helping Robb rule, and headed to Kings Landing. She left her 14 year old in charge of a kingdom, basically. And she did it with one old man to guard her, knowing the danger's of the road. Whether she is a queen or a regent acting for a high lord, I see little difference, in her poor choice of guard.

4) She trusted LIttlefinger with information about Bran's murder attempt, and worse, she encouraged Ned to trust Baelish. (My secret hope is that it is Lady Stoneheart that get's her hands on Littlefinger before the end of our story).

5) She kidnapped Tyrion, naively having believed the shit that LF had told her about the dagger without even looking into it a little bit.

6) Oh, yes, after making such a huge error in kidnapping Tyrion, she then makes the situation much worse by losing him as a hostage. It's easy to blame that on Lysa, but at any time Catelyn could have said, No, to that stupid trial. Claimed that Tyrion was her prisoner, not Lysa's, and kept him. Even if Lysa keeps Cat and Tyrion as prisoner's in the Eyrie, it's better than losing Tyrion, after having poked a stick at the beast that is Tywin Lannister.

7) Her attempt to talk some sense into Stannis and Renly only proceeded to anger one and humor the other. Actually, I blame this on Robb, as he never should have given her this duty, but I think he just wanted her away from him, as she was undermining his attempts to rule! This is a shared mistake by Robb and Catelyn. (this does help your argument in a way, showing that Robb is capable of poor judgment, which is what he was showing if he named his mother, a woman ruled by "folly" as his heir)

8) Releasing Jaime! It hurt Robb's war effort irreparably. In spite of your opinion that Jaime wasn't of much worth as a hostage, he was worth more as a hostage in Riverrun than lost in the riverlands. And Cat really put her trust in Tyrion, who was hand at that time, to honor the trade of Jaime for Sansa and Arya. Tyrion was the man she unjustly kidnapped, and then nearly got killed, and she hopes he will do her a kindness by releasing her daughters. What the hell, Cat?

Several of these moves cannot be ignored. I can't speak for the northern lords like you like too do, but it seems like those same northern lords must have been aware of what Catelyn had caused and cost them, and would be cautious of her as their leader.

Your yourself say that the Greatjon said Catelyn was guilty of a mothers folly, but would a man like the Greatjon really allow his king to name an heir that is continuously guilty of "a mother's folly"? And to follow her rule? I guess time will tell!

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Please show me a single other discussion where either Robb or Cat talk about the importance of the Stark bloodline. As far as I know, there aren't any such discussions. They one line that people always come back to is the one you just referenced, which I already addressed in the OP. As I have already said, that entire conversation is, according to the internal logic of this theory, part of Robb's trap and completely disingenuous. Therefore, that line from Robb can't be used as evidence against this theory. The entire point of this theory is that in his conversation with Cat, ROBB IS LYING! Therefore, it is not "plain" that he wants someone of Stark blood to follow him.

This is tricky, because this conversation is textual proof that Robb and Catelyn discussed Robb's heir needing to be from the Stark blood line, but you claim that since Robb was lying, then the whole conversation and the things discussed between Robb and Catelyn doesn't matter. 

Your are shown textual evidence, your refute it as a lie. You cannot be convinced with textual proof yet you cannot textually prove why you think Robb is lying. It's like a dog chasing it's tail in a circle!  I read your OP, but that doesn't have a lick of proof that Robb was lying, only that you think Robb was lying, based on his asking Cat to name their current location when you insist he must have already known their location. More dog, more tail chasing! Maybe so, maybe not!.  I think it's fair to say that neither of us will ever convince the other on this point, so let us agree to disagree! If we all agreed on the story, then what fun would we have talking about it?

To be fair, I think there is something odd about the way Robb goes about this heir naming thing. If he truly named Jon, as both he and the text imply, then why the vagueness about it in later books? I think that he did name Jon, but there is some rather horrible twist. I think that twist could involve a marriage between Jon and Cat! Even if Robb did name Catelyn, which I find very, very unlikely, her death makes the whole naming her heir pointless!

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Why try to have a child with Jeyne? What are you talking about?

You claim that Robb doesn't care about the Stark blood line, and that he would rather name his mother, who has no Stark blood, than his half brother Jon, who has an equal amount of Stark blood as Robb himself. You say that Robb doesn't care about the Stark blood line, and so I say, if that is so, then why would Robb even want to have a child with Jeyne, in an attempt to carry on the Stark blood line? He could just name any old person heir as long as they marry someone who might have some Stark blood and try to have an heir. That is your logic, I am just trying to roll with it! ;)

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Personally, I think Cat was just a pawn of Bloodraven and I don't blame her for anything. Every "bad decision" on her part was a nefarious setup.

I nearly shot Sprite out of my nose when I read this!

So, nobody in this story has any free will? Or is Catelyn the only pawn of Bloodraven's game?

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

My point was that based on the text, I think the northerners in the story would prefer Ned's widow to a bastard NW deserter possibly cursed by the Old Gods.

If I had to say Jon or Catelyn was cursed by the old gods, as this point in the story, with Catelyn a white-haired, throat-slit, face clawed-off zombie who can barely communicate with the human's around her, I would have to think that Cat might be the one that was cursed by the old gods, not Jon!

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Jaime as a KG was not heir to anything and could not be used to broker a marriage contract. His only real value, as far as trading hostages is concerned, was as a commander. Tywin and Cersei may care personally about Jaime

Jaime was important to Tywin's pride! One of Tywin's own children held captive by the enemy is very important to Tywin. It would be interesting what Tywin would have been willing to trade to have Jaime back. Of course we will never know that, but I can wonder. He was certainly angry enough about it that he gave orders to set the riverlands afire! Tywin was more than a  little upset by Jaime's capture! We see later that Cersei has Joffrey release people from Kingsguard vows, and it's possible that they would have done this with Jaime too. He refused once (later), but would he refuse, again and again. Maybe, as he is certainly stubborn. But maybe not. Jaime was Warden of the East, which is an important position, and in time, as Ned and Robert had discussed, Jaime would have been Warden of the West as well. A man, even if he can't marry, who holds half the nations army's under is control, is a valuable hostage!

I agree that Sansa and Arya are important pawns. Actually, their name is more important than the actual person, as we see with fArya. The Lannister family never held Arya and still have made huge moves in her name. If Jaime had been killed by Rickard Karstark, but no body knew about it, Robb would still have held some cards worth playing, as long as news of Jaime's death wasn't wide spread. As we see with fArya, it's about perception, not about fact! Catelyn took important playing cards out of Robb's hands when she released Jaime, no reason to deny that!

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Woah there. We do actually know that Jon is quite likely to die. He was stabbed at least several times in the torso, and there was no maester nearby. His best hope to survive is to be brought to a wildling healer and also hope that no major organs were badly damaged. Jon reaching out to Ghost after getting stabbed is exactly like when Robb reached out to Grey Wind just before dying. And generally, there is a lot of foreshadowing of people being brought back from the dead, so we shouldn't be surprised if it happens with Jon. If Jon survives and doesn't need to be resurrected I will go buy a hat and eat it.

I suggest having a hat ready to eat, just in case. I am about 50/50 on Jon's death and resurrection versus Jon being merely wounded.

I consider the Varamyr prologue very interesting. I know many people think it indicates what might happen with Jon, but I think it is more. I think it shows us what might have happened with Bran when he fell from the tower, and I think it is showing us other things about our warging Stark siblings. It is showing us important things about skinchangers in general and how their gift works and how they die and live again. Here is some tinfoil for you ... maybe the Varamyr prologue isn't about Jon's future, but it's about Robb. Robb's death scene is very odd, including Catelyn's hysterical laughter and face clawing (very similar to Thistle). Maybe that isn't Cat inside of Lady Stoneheart but Robb. If this turns out to be the case, I suggest we blame it on Bloodraven! ;)

*

Okay, enough debate for the night. The last little bit of tin foil was just for fun! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Good morning!

Could you explain the evidence JW is pregnant, please?

That sounds interesting.

Alas, that ghastly chapter in TWOW comes to mind when I think of any appearance of a pregnant JW in the upcoming books.

Do you recall which video of PjJthat was?

I'd like to hear it.

Mostly just what I alluded to there. There isn't any direct evidence of Jeyne literally being pregnant, i.e. morning sickness or someone witnessing a pregnant Jeyne or something along those lines. There are just a bunch of hints in the text. We know that Tywin instructed Lady Sybell to prevent a pregnancy, and she disguised some sort of pregnancy-preventing drug as a fertility aid:

Quote

"Do," said Catelyn, but when the girl was at the door, she thought of something else. "Jeyne," she called after, "there's one more thing Robb needs from you, though he may not know it yet himself. A king must have an heir."

The girl smiled at that. "My mother says the same. She makes a posset for me, herbs and milk and ale, to help make me fertile. I drink it every morning. I told Robb I'm sure to give him twins. An Eddard and a Brandon. He liked that, I think. We . . . we try most every day, my lady. Sometimes twice or more." The girl blushed very prettily. "I'll be with child soon, I promise. I pray to our Mother Above, every night."

So then the follow up question is: did Jeyne catch on to her mother and stop taking the posset? I think it is at least possible. The big hint that Jeyne was pregnant, and the subject of much controversy, is the difference between Cat's description of Jeyne, and Jaime's description of "Jeyne". Here is Cat's initial impression of Jeyne, and as a bonus, another one of Robb's famous traps in action: 

Quote

Only then came her belated remembrance. Follies done for love? He has bagged me neat as a hare in a snare. I seem to have already forgiven him. Mixed with her annoyance was a rueful admiration; the scene had been staged with the cunning worthy of a master mummer... or a king. Catelyn saw no choice but to take Jeyne Westerling's hands. "I have a new daughter," she said, more stiffly than she'd intended. She kissed the terrified girl on both cheeks. "Be welcome to our hall and hearth."

"Thank you, my lady. I shall be a good and true wife to Robb, I swear. And as wise a queen as I can."

Queen. Yes, this pretty little girl is a queen, I must remember that. She was pretty, undeniably, with her chestnut curls and heart-shaped face, and that shy smile. Slender, but with good hips, Catelyn noted. She should have no trouble bearing children, at least.

And then here is the last line of ASOS Catelyn III:

Quote

The girl did seem to have a good heart, just as Robb had said. And good hips, which might be more important.

And here is Jaime's description of "Jeyne". Notice that right before he sees "Jeyne" for the first time, he contemplates the Blackfish's escape (the chapter began with the news of his escape, in fact). And generally, this part of the chapter is hilarious if Jeyne has in fact escaped with the Blackfish and makes Jaime look quite foolish:

Quote

He returned to Hoster Tully’s chair, pulled over the map of the Trident, and flattened it beneath his golden hand. Where would I go, if I were the Blackfish?

“Lord Commander?” A guardsman stood in the open door. “Lady Westerling and her daughter are without, as you commanded.”

Jaime shoved the map aside. "Show them in." At least the girl did not vanish too. Jeyne Westerling had been Robb Stark's queen, the girl who cost him everything. With a wolf in her belly, she could have proved more dangerous than the Blackfish.

She did not look dangerous. Jeyne was a willowy girl, no more than fifteen or sixteen, more awkward than graceful. She had narrow hips, breasts the size of apples, a mop of chestnut curls, and the soft brown eyes of a doe. Pretty enough for a child, Jaime decided, but not a girl to lose a kingdom for. Her face was puffy, and there was a scab on her forehead, half-hidden by a lock of brown hair. "What happened there?" he asked her.

The girl turned her head away. "It is nothing," insisted her mother, a stern-faced woman in a gown of green velvet. A necklace of golden seashells looped about her long, thin neck. "She would not give up the little crown the rebel gave her, and when I tried to take it from her head the willful child fought me."

“It was mine.” Jeyne sobbed. “You had no right. Robb had it made for me. I loved him.”

Her mother made to slap her, but Jaime stepped between them. “None of that,” he warned Lady Sybell. “Sit down, both of you.” The girl curled up in her chair like a frightened animal, but her mother sat stiffly, her head high. “Will you have wine?” he asked them. The girl did not answer. “No, thank you,” said her mother.

“As you will.” Jaime turned to the daughter. “I am sorry for your loss. The boy had courage, I’ll give him that. There is a question I must ask you. Are you carrying his child, my lady?”

Jeyne burst from her chair and would have fled the room if the guard at the door had not seized her by the arm. “She is not,” said Lady Sybell, as her daughter struggled to escape. “I made certain of that, as your lord father bid me.”

Jaime nodded. Tywin Lannister was not a man to overlook such details. “Unhand the girl,” he said, “I’m done with her for now.” As Jeyne fled sobbing down the stairs, he considered her mother.

So basically, the descriptions don't match. Cat twice notes that Jeyne has good hips for bearing children, while Jaime describes "Jeyne's" hips as narrow. And Cat says that Jeyne is "undeniably" pretty, while Jaime only characterizes her as "pretty enough for a child". It seems that this may in fact be Jeyne's younger sister Eleyna, who would probably be 13 at this point and potentially a much better match for Jaime's description. And while Tywin Lannister wouldn't overlook such details, Jaime would. ;) 

And it seems that Eleyna and her mother may be putting on an act to convince Jaime that Eleyna is in fact Jeyne. There is the weird scab on Eleyna's forehead, Sybell goes to slap her during the conversation, and she acts ultra-panicked for some reason at the mention of her possible pregnancy even though her mother confirms she isn't pregnant, and we can see that she isn't pregnant. Later we get Jaime's description of them on the road:

Quote

Jaime had to canter past the Westerlings as he rode down the column on his way back to Riverrun. Lord Gawen nodded gravely as he passed, but Lady Sybell looked through him with eyes like chips of ice. Jeyne never saw him at all. The widow rode with downcast eyes, huddled beneath a hooded cloak. Underneath its heavy folds, her clothes were finely made, but torn. She ripped them herself, as a mark of mourning, Jaime realized. That could not have pleased her mother. He found himself wondering if Cersei would tear her gown if she should ever hear that he was dead.

It seems likely that in fact, she only ripped her clothes as part of an act, an act that her mother was in on. Jaime's assumption, like most assumptions made by pov characters, appears to be wrong. :D 

Here is the PJ vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ1JLlqY7XI&list=PLCsx_OFEYH6v1vu8roFM3MzuU6TT84SpI&index=4#t=01m58s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Ah, the debate carries on ...

You say you have no problem with bastards and oathbreakers? Let's see.

There is this

and

You seem to spend a lot of time speaking for the northern lords. This is your opinion, not the opinion of the northern lords. As I said, we all let our personal opinions leak into how we read the text, but at least admit it.

I won't admit it because that's not my opinion.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Do any of the northern lords say they would never follow a bastard or an oathbreaker? Since you feel so strongly that they would not, I am asking you for some proof of this in the text.

I don't think it has come up in conversation yet among the northern lords specifically, but that is still the general impression I get from the dialogue in asoiaf concerning bastards and oathbreakers, which there is much discussion of. Go back, reread asoiaf, and just pay attention to everything people say about bastards and oathbreakers. There is your proof. I'll provide you the most relevant quote at least:

Quote

Tyrion Lannister had claimed that most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it, but Jon was done with denials. He was who he was; Jon Snow, bastard and oathbreaker, motherless, friendless, and damned. For the rest of his life—however long that might be—he would be condemned to be an outsider, the silent man standing in the shadows who dares not speak his true name. Wherever he might go throughout the Seven Kingdoms, he would need to live a lie, lest every man's hand be raised against him. But it made no matter, so long as he lived long enough to take his place by his brother's side and help avenge his father.

 

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I won't go so far as to claim that the northern lords would not follow Catelyn, but the Greatjon does refer to her with a "mother's folly", which isn't a sterling recommendation. Maege Mormont seems to sympathize with Cat as a mother, but does that sympathy extend to her as a leader of an independent nation? I see no proof, either way.

*

Well, let's see about Catelyn's mistakes.

1) She first of all convinced Ned he must leave Winterfell to go south with Robert, and it's pretty obvious the north fell apart without Ned in charge, then she has the audacity to be angry with Ned for not staying in Winterfell after Bran's fall. She had already set those wheel's in motion. Her greed, her ambition set those wheel's in motion. 

2) Cat shut down completely while she was at Bran's bedside. I understand she was caught in her grief, but it is not acceptable to basically abandon her other children, or all the duties that Ned had given her as regent to help Robb rule the north. Hell, if she had appointed a master of the stable, the catspaw would probably had been discovered, and the attempt on Bran's life would not have had the ginormous trickle down effect it did. I am not sure that makes her a good person to place in charge of the north, and Robb witnessed her breakdown and weakness with his own eyes.

3) Cat left Winterfell, when she was supposed to be helping Robb rule, and headed to Kings Landing. She left her 14 year old in charge of a kingdom, basically. And she did it with one old man to guard her, knowing the danger's of the road. Whether she is a queen or a regent acting for a high lord, I see little difference, in her poor choice of guard.

4) She trusted LIttlefinger with information about Bran's murder attempt, and worse, she encouraged Ned to trust Baelish. (My secret hope is that it is Lady Stoneheart that get's her hands on Littlefinger before the end of our story).

5) She kidnapped Tyrion, naively having believed the shit that LF had told her about the dagger without even looking into it a little bit.

6) Oh, yes, after making such a huge error in kidnapping Tyrion, she then makes the situation much worse by losing him as a hostage. It's easy to blame that on Lysa, but at any time Catelyn could have said, No, to that stupid trial. Claimed that Tyrion was her prisoner, not Lysa's, and kept him. Even if Lysa keeps Cat and Tyrion as prisoner's in the Eyrie, it's better than losing Tyrion, after having poked a stick at the beast that is Tywin Lannister.

7) Her attempt to talk some sense into Stannis and Renly only proceeded to anger one and humor the other. Actually, I blame this on Robb, as he never should have given her this duty, but I think he just wanted her away from him, as she was undermining his attempts to rule! This is a shared mistake by Robb and Catelyn. (this does help your argument in a way, showing that Robb is capable of poor judgment, which is what he was showing if he named his mother, a woman ruled by "folly" as his heir)

8) Releasing Jaime! It hurt Robb's war effort irreparably. In spite of your opinion that Jaime wasn't of much worth as a hostage, he was worth more as a hostage in Riverrun than lost in the riverlands. And Cat really put her trust in Tyrion, who was hand at that time, to honor the trade of Jaime for Sansa and Arya. Tyrion was the man she unjustly kidnapped, and then nearly got killed, and she hopes he will do her a kindness by releasing her daughters. What the hell, Cat?

Several of these moves cannot be ignored. I can't speak for the northern lords like you like too do, but it seems like those same northern lords must have been aware of what Catelyn had caused and cost them, and would be cautious of her as their leader.

Your yourself say that the Greatjon said Catelyn was guilty of a mothers folly, but would a man like the Greatjon really allow his king to name an heir that is continuously guilty of "a mother's folly"? And to follow her rule? I guess time will tell!

Honestly, I think the only thing on that list that the northern lords would know/care about is releasing Jaime.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

This is tricky, because this conversation is textual proof that Robb and Catelyn discussed Robb's heir needing to be from the Stark blood line, but you claim that since Robb was lying, then the whole conversation and the things discussed between Robb and Catelyn doesn't matter. 

Your are shown textual evidence, your refute it as a lie. You cannot be convinced with textual proof yet you cannot textually prove why you think Robb is lying. It's like a dog chasing it's tail in a circle!  I read your OP, but that doesn't have a lick of proof that Robb was lying, only that you think Robb was lying, based on his asking Cat to name their current location when you insist he must have already known their location. More dog, more tail chasing! Maybe so, maybe not!.

No, this is nonsense, and you (and others) are clearly not understanding me. I am not a dog chasing its tail.

I think Robb was lying because Cat claims that Robb caught her in a kingly trap. When did this trap take place? Literally the only opportunity to setup said trap is that conversation, and then he springs the trap in the tent when Cat is surrounded by all the northern lordsTherefore the opinion expressed by Robb about wanting Jon to be his heir is disingenuous, because IT IS THE KEY PART OF THE FUCKING TRAP! I don't know how to explain this better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I won't admit it because that's not my opinion.

You yourself said:

6 hours ago, St Daga said:

 

On 6/14/2017 at 8:27 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

If I were a northern lord, I would rather have Ned's widow marry someone new and let them have WF than a bastard deserter who has possibly been cursed by the Old Gods for breaking an oath made to them.

 

You yourself said you would rather have Ned's widow over a "bastard deserter" who is "cursed" for "breaking an oath". That is your opinion! You might not personally have anything against bastards and oathbreakers, but in this case, you clearly don't prefer them over a poor widow!

*

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

There is your proof. I'll provide you the most relevant quote at least:

Quote

Tyrion Lannister had claimed that most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it, but Jon was done with denials. He was who he was; Jon Snow, bastard and oathbreaker, motherless, friendless, and damned. For the rest of his life—however long that might be—he would be condemned to be an outsider, the silent man standing in the shadows who dares not speak his true name. Wherever he might go throughout the Seven Kingdoms, he would need to live a lie, lest every man's hand be raised against him. But it made no matter, so long as he lived long enough to take his place by his brother's side and help avenge his father.

 

The one quote you use, comes from Jon himself, who is at one of the lowest times in his young life, torn between his vows to the Watch, and his love and duty he feels for Robb and his need for vengeance for his fathers death. Jon characteristically doesn't feel himself as worthy ever, let alone at this low time in his life, and this emotional moment makes him feel even worse. 

Besides, it's stated multiple times in the text that "Jon Snow knows nothing" so I doubt we should trust his opinion. ;)

Besides, if Bloodraven truly is responsible for everything that happens, you should have just as much sympathy for Jon as you do Catelyn, when it is obvious that Bloodraven is responsible for his (and her) moves in this story!

As I said before, I don't think that is the story that GRRM is telling us, with bastards being "less" than true born people. He gave us two examples of northern "bastards", Jon Snow and Ramsay Snow, to show us how genetic's, development and guidance can very much make two people differ, with far different outcomes (hopefully) in this story. But we know the story has several people that are true born who are just as bad as Ramsay, such as Gregor Clegane or Armory Lorch. 

I certainly know how Catelyn feels about bastards, as she expresses it often enough, about Jon and about Mya Stone. As for the rest of the north, I will be on the look out!

*

5 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Honestly, I think the only thing on that list that the northern lords would know/care about is releasing Jaime.

Seriously, you don't think the northern lords are smart enough to understand that Catelyn  kidnapping Tyrion threw wild fire on a spark, which lead to so many things going wrong for Ned, the Stark's, and the north in general? 

*

5 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

No, this is nonsense, and you (and others) are clearly not understanding me. I am not a dog chasing its tail.

I think Robb was lying because Cat claims that Robb caught her in a kingly trap. When did this trap take place? Literally the only opportunity to setup said trap is that conversation, and then he springs the trap in the tent when Cat is surrounded by all the northern lordsTherefore the opinion expressed by Robb about wanting Jon to be his heir is disingenuous, because IT IS THE KEY PART OF THE FUCKING TRAP! I don't know how to explain this better...

Maybe you will turn out to be right, maybe not. I agree there is something odd about Robb's will. But to claim Robb is lying, (you say disingenuous, which is a polite way of saying lying) with no example of his lying before this, is a stretch to me. Even when Robb tricked Catelyn into excepting Jeyne as his wife, he never lied, he did manipulate the conversation so Cat would look like a hypocrite to protest. Cat refers to this as "the scene had been staged with the cunning worthy of a master mummer . . . or a king". Honestly, Cat and Robb are equally responsible for fooking up the rest of his campaign but Robb never lied.

I understand you are frustrated because you think people are being obtuse but I simply don't see the text in the light that you present it. Maybe you can't explain it any better than you have, and even if you did, people will still not see it the way you do. That doesn't change your opinion or interpretation. It doesn't change my opinion or interpretation. Those things just differ, and as I have said before, if we all agreed on this complicated text, how interesting would that be? Not very!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now