Jump to content

Was Eddard a hostage in the vale?


St Daga

Recommended Posts

On 7/9/2017 at 2:09 PM, St Daga said:

And even if it is the case, of all the families supposedly involved, Ned is the only child that is sent anywhere as a ward, that we know of

You mean, aside from Robert Baratheon?  So... two of the four families involved, which are in fact the only two families to have sons of an age to foster somewhere.

On 7/9/2017 at 2:09 PM, St Daga said:

Plus, the Starks already have connections to the vale, because the Stark's have married into the Arryn family a couple times.

Every family has a blood relation with every other family at some point, because 8,000 years of history makes it almost impossible that they don't.  It's the immediacy that matters - Starks and Arryns haven't intermarried in centuries, or not that we're told of.  The most recent we hear of us Torrhen Stark's daughter and Ronnel Arryn, right after the Conquest.

On 7/9/2017 at 2:09 PM, St Daga said:

This could be the case with Theon and Ned.There are to many parallel's in this story, from one generation to the next, not to suspect everything we see is repeated in a slightly different manner from years before.

No, it isn't.  Well, with Theon it is.  Theon is explicitly fostered as a check on Balon's good behavior.

On 7/9/2017 at 2:51 PM, St Daga said:

Yes, that is the story we are given, but in Dorne, House Martell and House Yronwood have a history like House Stark and Bolton. Enemies and very grudging allies after defeat. No matter the case, I find it doubtful that Houe Stark would send a Stark to the Bolton's as a ward, and I doubt that House Martell sent a Martell to the Yronwood's without great motivation.

This is stupid.  Do you also think the government is spraying us with chemicals trailing out of airplanes?  We're given a story for why Quentyn is in Yronwood, and it's a perfectly reasonable story.  Not every character has to be someone in disguise, and not every story is a coverup.  Maybe Brandon Stark never died, became a Faceless Man, and then replaced Eddard!!!!!

Second, we have little evidence that the Boltons are particular enemies of the Starks.  They were the last of the rival kings to fall, and put up a more spirited defense, perhaps, but that's it.  House Martell and Yronwood are different, because there are significant cultural differences, plus the fact that Yronwood was in the ascendancy until Nymeria boosted a relatively unknown petty king (Martell) to prominence.  And even so, we're told the great motivation; Doran's brother poisons and kills Lord Yronwood!

On 7/9/2017 at 2:51 PM, St Daga said:

but I would not consider the Bolton's and Stark's to be particularly warm and fuzzy, so I don't think the. y w

There is no evidence that the Boltons as a family are any more or less loyal than any other Northern House.

On 7/9/2017 at 2:51 PM, St Daga said:

But I still find it odd that at 19, Ned isn't holding land in either the north for Rickard or in the Vale for Jon Arryn. Why hasn't a marriage at least been contracted for Eddard at this point?

Because it isn't particularly old by Westerosi standards, and besides, there aren't many eligible women for Rickard to have him wed.  It's the same problem that confronts Robert after the Rebellion; Cersei is really the only eligible bachelorette in the Seven Kingdoms at this point for someone with Rickard's dynastic ambitions, and Tywin is holding on to her for a royal match.  Cat is going to Brandon, there are no of-age Tyrells we know of, Lysa is intended for Jaime and then Jon Arryn.  Jon doesn't have daughters.  Doran doesn't have of-age children.  Rickard could well be waiting to see what crops up, or waiting for some of the younger daughters of the great lords to come of age.

On 7/9/2017 at 2:51 PM, St Daga said:

So, if something happened to Jon Arryn's heir, his nephew Elbert, then does that make Ned a likely person that Jon would consider leaving the vale too? It seems a big jump, but maybe ... work considering!

Whole bunch of nopes.  Ned has no blood claim and even IF Jon wanted to, he'd face immediate backlash from his bannermen.  At this point, he has many more living relatives than he does by the time of AGOT.  Ned has no way to hold the Vale together under him.

On 7/9/2017 at 2:58 PM, St Daga said:

If that was the case, why didn't Rickard send his heir Brandon, as Steffon sent his heir Robert, and not his second son Stannis. Something just doesn't add up for me but I admit I could be looking at it too hard!

Because Rickard probably wasn't worried about the king being "mad" when he was deciding where to foster Brandon.  And Stannis was too young for fostering at first, and after, it's putting way too many important eggs in one basket to give his heir and his spare to the Vale, and he's dead anyway.

On 7/9/2017 at 3:13 PM, St Daga said:

So, what if Tywin, or someone else, orchestrated the same fall for Rickard Stark as they did for Lord Darklyn?

Because they would have to convince Rhaegar to kidnap Lyanna, which isn't exactly puppetmaster influencing as much as outright lunacy.  Tywin wanted one thing, and that was for Cersei to be queen.  When Aerys refused his match with Rhaegar, Tywin tried to get rid of Aerys so a more pliable or sane monarch (Rhaegar) could take his place and agree to the match.  He has no reason to wish for Rickard Stark's downfall.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2017 at 11:41 AM, St Daga said:

Was Eddard a hostage in the vale?

It's an interesting idea, but one wonders why. Balon had been in open rebellion, warranting taking Theon, but there was no cause for a ward to be taken from the Starks against their will.

I suppose it's possible that Aerys foresaw enough of the Rebellion in his prophetic dreams to come to understand that the Starks and Baratheons would betray him, and arranged for the Aryns to take hostages from those houses in preparation.  I suppose that would cover the motive (and in a pleasing way, due to the irony of a self-fulfilling prophecy) but I would expect he'd get some pushback. It's one thing if you've just unconditionally surrendered after a failed rebellion (as was the case with Balon) but if the King just irrationally demanded that two of his leige lords give up their sons to another, either for no reason given or because he says he was guided by dreams, I can't imagine they'd just do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Damon_Tor said:

It's an interesting idea, but one wonders why. Balon had been in open rebellion, warranting taking Theon, but there was no cause for a ward to be taken from the Starks against their will.

I suppose it's possible that Aerys foresaw enough of the Rebellion in his prophetic dreams to come to understand that the Starks and Baratheons would betray him, and arranged for the Aryns to take hostages from those houses in preparation.  I suppose that would cover the motive (and in a pleasing way, due to the irony of a self-fulfilling prophecy) but I would expect he'd get some pushback. It's one thing if you've just unconditionally surrendered after a failed rebellion (as was the case with Balon) but if the King just irrationally demanded that two of his leige lords give up their sons to another, either for no reason given or because he says he was guided by dreams, I can't imagine they'd just do it.

It's a silly idea with no basis in text or logic.

The King DID demand the sons of two of his liege lords... and it caused Robert's Rebellion.

And we have no evidence that I can recall stating that Aerys had prophetic dreams.  Maybe he also had a penis that urinated solid gold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I see no evidence that Ned was a hostage. Ned was born in 263 and fostered at age 8, so around 271, and there is absolutely no reason for a Stark to have been a hostage of an Arryn, or a Targaryen, or anyone else in Westeros in 271. Brandon was also fostered, and apparently was still being fostered when he was old enough to take Barbrey's maidenhead. Not sure how long ago his fostering had ended at the time that his betrothal to Cat was announced, and when he hooked up with Barbrey a final time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Damon_Tor said:

He had dreams that drove him insane. To-may-to to-mah-to.

I mean, there's a pretty large leap from "having dreams" to "having dreams that predict the future".

It's more like comparing a house cat to a lion.  As far as I recall, we really only have on instance of prophetic "dreams" and that is what's-his-face from Dunk & Egg, who had the abortive Second Blackfyre Rebellion.  Most of our prophets are either channeling visions from a god (e.g. Melisandre or Patchface), are using some magical hallucingenic drug like shade of the evening (Dany in the HOTU), or use blood magic (Maggy the Frog)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddard may have been visiting the Vale or this may be the more likely scenario  Eddard is a second son I'm sure Rickard loved him ,but the truth is Brandon is Rickard's heir , he gets everything , while Eddard has to make his own way in the world . Perhaps he intends to move to the Vale , Jon Arryn treats him like son , the Vale is still close to the North , he has blood relations in the Vale and most of his best friends are from the Vale. Eddard would have been a link between the Vale and the North .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

You are deeply mistaken. In a pious world were the only real obstacle between the king and absolute power was religion, concubines played a rather important role.  They provided the king with ‘earthly pleasures’ without risking jeopardizing his standing with the church.  

I can see that we are defining need in a different way. The nurse in me, see's human needs in the terms of Maslov's pyramid, and on the bottom of that pyramid are physiological needs such as air, water, food, clothing and shelter. Those are absolute needs for survival.  Once those needs are met, then safety plays a huge role in the next step of the pyramid. Granted, kings are certainly higher than serf's in society, but they are still humans with basic needs. Your idea of concubines fitting into this pyramid to me may fall into the third level, social belonging, but more probably into the forth level, esteem. So, to me, a concubine is not a need, it's a want and a privilege. 

As for basing GRRM's world on the real world, we always can run into difficulty, because GRRM"s world is his own, and while it may be based in human life and certain time periods, it is ultimately what he wants it to be.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

Don’t underestimate such role though. Concubines like Boleyn and Hurrem Sultan grew extremely powerful figures in the kingdom.

I don't disagree with this, though I think the Boleyn's grew more powerful while Anne was legally queen than they ever were, when  Mary (and Anne) was a mistress of the king. I do disagree in how I feel Rickard Stark would have felt about his only daughter becoming a concubine. I don't think he would have stood for it, but that is only my opinion. I question the truth of Lyanna and Rhaegar being together in a way that is commonly accepted, and I think that Rickard knew more of the truth of that, than we still do.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

I cannot agree with you on that. Brandon keeps doing the silly ‘irrational’ thing time and time again.

He is sent to the Rills where he ends up having sex with the Lord’s daughter. No one would bat an eyelid if he did those things with smallfolk but what he did, well, that’s quite a red line. His father might be the most powerful Lord in the North but at the Rills, Lord Ryswell is THE Lord. If Brandon was caught red-handed then he might end up badly before daddy could come to the rescue

He accepted LF duel. We all know that LF is useless with the sword but Brandon can’t be 100% sure of that. If Brandon was killed or hurt by that duel then there would be a rift between the Tullys and the Starks for generations to come. Also god knows how Lord Tully would react that his ward (ie a person with permanent guest rights) ended up killed under his nose.

He went ballistic when Lyanna was crown lady of beauty. Robert is hardly Kessinger in terms of diplomacy but even he allowed that little thing to slide. Rhaegar might have been as delicate in terms of diplomacy as an elephant, however he’s still the crown prince and at a higher standing to both Robert and Brandon

He went confronting Rhaegar in KL. Don’t take me wrong, I think he shouldn’t have died or even kept arrested for long. In my opinion, Brandon provided Aerys with the golden opportunity to bring Rickard to KL and demonstrate, with facts, that no matter how powerful Kings/Wardens can be, they can’t possible be expected to anticipate every silly move their children do.  However, in technical terms Brandon did committed treason.

I cannot agree with you that Brandon kept doing silly, irrational things time and time again. Maybe twice, but not the four times that you mention. I think all of the times that you mention can be argued.

1) taking a lover is not silly or irrational, it's human nature. And we don't really know the truth of this, we only have Barbrey's tale, and I think we both agree that her words and intent are very questionable.

2) LF was the one who issued a duel challenge, and based on the idea of the time, if Brandon had refused, he would have most likely been viewed as a coward. If Brandon for some reason dies in this duel with Petyr, he still has two younger brothers to assume the role of heir to House Stark. Brandon't biggest mistake here is that he didn't kill Petyr Baelish when he had the chance. But that is hindsight, and plays no role in the actions at the time.

3) maybe when Brandon reacted so strongly to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna, this could be viewed as silly or irrational, but I still don't think we have been told the actual truth of why Brandon reacted so strongly. I think this was a threat or lesson that Rhaegar was issuing to House Stark, but I can't prove that, and we won't know more until we get another book.

4) if we discount Jaime's flippant recount to Cat of Brandon's "come out and die", than all we really know is that Brandon rode to King's Landing seeking redress from the crown. This is the right of any vassal to seek redress from his overlord. Now, one could argue that was not Brandon's role to seek redress, but Rickard's, and that Brandon overstepped himself in this place. I think Brandon did overstep in this case, and it caused more problems, because it put him in the hands of the Targaryens. But is is not treason to demand justice! Does is say anywhere in the story that if you threaten a member of house Targaryen, you have committed treason? And we don't even know if Brandon did actually threaten Rhaegar's life, we only have the account of Jaime, a captive who is drunk, weak and a bit of an arsehole trying to rile Catelyn up in his story telling.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

His father might be the most powerful Lord in the North but at the Rills, Lord Ryswell is THE Lord. If Brandon was caught red-handed then he might end up badly before daddy could come to the rescue

As to this line, if you claim that Rhaegar, or a king, has the right to claim any of his vassal's daughters and call them concubine, as with the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then doesn't this situation almost mirror Brandon, the son of the highest lord in the north, claiming a concubine of his fathers vassal? You can't have it both ways. The Stark's are effectively kings in the north, even though that is no longer a title they claim, so they should have the same rights in their territory (the north) as House Targaryen has over their territory (the 7K), the apparent right to a powerful concubine, which Barbrey certainly could be considered.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

I think that the crown was laid in Lyanna’s lap because Rhaegar was obsessed with this ‘prophecy’ thing. The Stark girl was as ice as can come and he would risk losing everything just to have her.

See, I question this interpretation. I have considered it at different times. but we don't really have any clue what Rhaegar thought about the prophecy, or how he interpreted it. We have other peoples thoughts on what they thought Rhaegar thought, but that falls into that tricky unreliable narrator category. We don't know that Rhaegar thought he needed to breed with a house of Ice to produce TPTWP. Actually, but Dany's own vision, it seems that Rhaegar felt like Aegon was the TPTWP, so why would he ever need to breed another? Hell, Rhaegar might have felt like he needed to destroy any heir of ice, or use such a child as a sacrifice. There is so much we don't know, and I am not willing to accept the easy interpretation. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but until we get confirmation in the books of Rhaegar's thoughts, then I am willing to pursue other idea's about what Rhaegar was up to. Or if he was up to anything at all. It would not surprise me at all to find that both Lyanna and Rhaegar were simply pawns in a much bigger game, or to find that their only actual meeting was a Harrenhal, and the rest is all heresy.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

As said before Ned’s assessment of Brandon is right (as said too many people point to the same thing). However I often question whether the quiet wolf has projected his brother into Robert. Throughout the series Ned portrayed Robert as some sort of oaf with no diplomatic skills whose prone to allow rage taking over his better judgement. Yet if we analyse the stag’s action we see that its not the case.

He didn’t fly off the handle when Lyanna was kidnapped.

During the rebellion he forgave and convinced all his former enemies to fight for him. The way he dealt with an injured Selmy is a diplomatic masterstroke.

The way he dealt with the Greyjoy rebellion is something that reminds me of elite Roman diplomacy rather than that of some medieval warlord

He kept Tywin under check, by keeping Jamie in the KG which meant that his son Tommen would have probably inherited CR

He gave the Stormlands to the most diplomatic savvy of all Baratheons which paved the way to an unlikely alliance between Baratheons and Tyrells

These are not the actions of a brute with little IQ and a fiery temper but of a well calculating king whose quite versed in diplomacy.

First of all, I am not mistaking, in my mind or the text, Robert and Brandon. Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that Robert was a bad king. I agree that Robert was smart in a diplomatic type of way, and he did show mercy to attempt to heal the land after the civil war. I think he was average. However, he did drink too much, which caused him to make some poor decisions, left a lot of decisions up to his small council  and it seems he ran through a huge amount of gold in the treasury that the Targaryen's had apparently left quite full of gold.

I think that the Robert of the start of our story is a different man, in many respects, as the man who was just crowned king 14 years before. I am sure the weight of that crown was heavy on his head, and he himself told Ned that the Iron Throne (both the chair and the power) was not a comfortable seat. 

I am not sure he did keep Tywin under check, though. As a matter of fact, by being in debt to House Lannister, Robert allowed Tywin much power over Robert, the Iron Throne, and the realm. Robert let himself be surrounded by Lannisters but had no Baratheon or royal guards of his own. That wasn't probably the best idea. Ned was not wrong to recognize this.

And his naming Renly as overlord of Storm's End might be politically savvy in your eyes, but Renly was a boy, a child of maybe 5 or 6 as the end of the rebellion and in no way could anyone be certain of his diplomatic power in the Storm Lands. 

Also, not every person in House Baratheon was part of an alliance with House Tyrell. Actually, Stannis was quite left out of that whole situation, which caused House Baratheon to split and weaken, which might have cost them a quick end to supplanting House Lannister.

I also think that Robert's lack of reaction to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna at the Harrenhal tourney was because he did not interpret the action like Brandon and Eddard did. Because I think there was much more to the act than Rhaegar crushing on Lyanna and giving her pretty flowers. I think it was meant to be a challenge or a warning that only the Stark's would understand. That is a different interpretation than many have, and only time will tell how it all will actually play out.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

I hate myself for saying it, but unfortunately its not how things work. Rhaegar was a crown prince who was appointed by the gods to one day rule over Westeros. Brandon was just the son of some Lord whom the Targs were kind enough to allow him to administer the land on their behalf. Their standing is completely different. As said in technical terms what Brandon did was treason.

The kings power, or that of his family, cannot go unchecked. That is what the Magna Carta told us in real life history. House Targaryen doesn't get to rule absolutely, they need their vassals to back and support them. Feudalism is two way game!

And again, how was Brandon asking for redress for a supposed insult to his family treason? I don't see it that way. And you have not explained it in a way that I can accept the idea of treason from Brandon toward House Targaryen.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:09 AM, devilish said:

Money would cheapen things up and there’s no way that a medieval high Lord would marry damaged goods.

My plan would allow all houses to leave this sad act with their heads held high while feeling that some sort of justice had been made

With Rhaegar disowned both Martells and the Starks will get their pound of flesh. The Dornish will see their own Aegon becoming king earlier then expected

Lyanna would end up married to a high born of a higher standing to Robert

Robert would be married off to a person that strictly speaking is of higher standing to Lyanna. He can wait because he’s got brothers to succeed him if needed (also he’s 20 not 92 + in 10 years time he would probably be able to marry her)

Jon would be legitimised and given lands and titles fitted to his standing

The Starks are given first preference to marry Aegon (another big plus)

Well, I would hate to "cheapen" any of this business with Rhaegar kidnapping a girl of good standing from a powerful house and effectively turning her into his whore based on the idea of absolute power of a monarchy with unchecked power. House Targaryen started loosing their power when they turned on each other in multiple civil wars and finally lost it when the last of their dragons died. After than, they were scrambling to hold on just like any other human in this story. Also, I think in the real world, medieval lords married "damaged goods" all the time for money or standing or power!

As to the plan you put forth, yes, it could have worked. I myself am spinning some bright tinfoil with this idea of Ned as a political hostage, so I cannot claim that your idea might not have worked. However, even if it could have worked, it is not the way things worked out.

Sorry about the delay in response.  I have been dealing with buying a house, moving, and trying to squeeze some vacation time in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

You mean, aside from Robert Baratheon?  So... two of the four families involved, which are in fact the only two families to have sons of an age to foster somewhere.

Yes, there is Robert. Touche. But House Tully could have placed  either Catelyn or Lysa with a house as a ward. This happened with girls, too, as we see with Myrcella. And while Jon Arryn did not have a son to foster some where, he did have an heir, in his nephew Elbert. And we might yet find out that Elbert Arryn was a ward of some northern house, but we have not been told that in the text yet.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

Starks and Arryns haven't intermarried in centuries, or not that we're told of.

We are certainly only told was GRRM wants us to know, a little reveal at a time. That is correct about directly marrying into House Arryn,  but the Stark's did marry into House Royce (Ned's great aunt married a Royce) and had three children, who married into three powerful vale houses, House Waynwood and House Corbray are named but the third house is left unnamed. It could have been to house Arryn. It could just as easily not have been, but it's a possible connection right there.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

This is stupid.  Do you also think the government is spraying us with chemicals trailing out of airplanes?  We're given a story for why Quentyn is in Yronwood, and it's a perfectly reasonable story.  Not every character has to be someone in disguise, and not every story is a coverup.  Maybe Brandon Stark never died, became a Faceless Man, and then replaced Eddard!!!!!

Well, just because we are given a story, it does not mean it is the truth or we should all blindly accept it. You can, but I won't. I would love for Brandon to be alive as Jaqen, but that is even shinier tinfoil than what I am spinning! I think it's peculiar that Doran placed his eldest son in the house of a rival for power in Dorne. You don't need to think it's odd at all.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

And even so, we're told the great motivation; Doran's brother poisons and kills Lord Yronwood!

This is suspected but never proved. Only rumor's about the poison that might have killed Lord Yronwood. And even if that is the case, does placing his eldest son with this house really make sense to Doran? As a form of pacification?  Maybe, as it seems like he is playing a long, slow game, so his actual motivations and plans are almost a mystery. I know what he tells people, but I am not sure that is even the truth.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

Second, we have little evidence that the Boltons are particular enemies of the Starks.  They were the last of the rival kings to fall, and put up a more spirited defense, perhaps, but that's it.

Well, the text does tell us several times that houses Bolton and Stark have been long time enemies and more recent uneasy allies, but maybe that is open to interpretation. Not by me, but some people might interpret the houses as being rather cozy, I guess.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

There is no evidence that the Boltons as a family are any more or less loyal than any other Northern House.

Except the whole Red Wedding thing!

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

Because it isn't particularly old by Westerosi standards, and besides, there aren't many eligible women for Rickard to have him wed.  It's the same problem that confronts Robert after the Rebellion; Cersei is really the only eligible bachelorette in the Seven Kingdoms at this point for someone with Rickard's dynastic ambitions, and Tywin is holding on to her for a royal match.  Cat is going to Brandon, there are no of-age Tyrells we know of, Lysa is intended for Jaime and then Jon Arryn.  Jon doesn't have daughters.  Doran doesn't have of-age children.  Rickard could well be waiting to see what crops up, or waiting for some of the younger daughters of the great lords to come of age.

This assumes that Rickard wanted a marriage for Ned for political alliance. For all we know, Ned might have been intended for the Nights Watch. I think it's hinted that Benjen listened to a Nights' Watch recruiter at Harrenhal, but we don't know that was what Rickard had intended for his children. The only thing we know are about the two marriages arranged prior to his death,  Brandon to Cat and Lyanna to Robert.

Even if Ned didn't have a marriage lined up, he should by this age, at least been holding a keep or holdfast of his own, and it seems odd to me that he was not.

Lysa was never intended for Jon Arryn. It seems that was a move of necessity, for both Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully. Since the Lysa and Jaime idea never worked out, Hoster could have intended her for Stannis, for all we know, but the war changed things. There are several possibilities that could have worked out.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

Whole bunch of nopes.  Ned has no blood claim and even IF Jon wanted to, he'd face immediate backlash from his bannermen.  At this point, he has many more living relatives than he does by the time of AGOT.  Ned has no way to hold the Vale together under him.

While I agree that Ned has no claim to the vale and would not be named Jon Arryn's heir, I do question why Ned is just hanging out in the vale. He does not strike me as an idle person, prone to fun and games, and wasted time. 

I do disagree with Jon Arryn's relatives. If he felt like any of those relatives would serve as his heir after Elbert died, then why did he make a marriage with Lysa? Did Hoster insist? Or did Jon Arryn feel he needed an heir? It could be both, I suppose, but I don't think he felt very secure in the living relatives that he had at the time.

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

Because Rickard probably wasn't worried about the king being "mad" when he was deciding where to foster Brandon.  And Stannis was too young for fostering at first, and after, it's putting way too many important eggs in one basket to give his heir and his spare to the Vale, and he's dead anyway.

While we don't know what year that Rickard fostered Brandon at Barrowtown, I would think Brandon would have been around 7 or 8. Eddard went to the vale at 8. Brandon and Robert were born the same year, Ned the year after, and Stannis one year after that. All of them were born in a short amount of time, and are roughly the same age.

Did so much change in the one year between when Rickard sent Brandon to Barrowtown and he sent Ned to the vale? What did Aerys do in that one year that made such a huge impact on Rickard's thought process? It doesn't line up with Duskendale, and that is when people started to see differences in Aerys behavior.  I just think something seems off in this idea of fostering who, when and where. Maybe I am thinking to hard about it? It's possible but it doesn't hurt to ask questions.

And if Stannis and Ned are so close in age, why not send Stannis to the vale to foster instead of Robert. It might have done Robert some good to be fostered in the Stormland's and made some alliances. Maybe then he would not have need to battle his own bannermen to support him during the rebellion. 

There are many questions and I don't know if we will ever get the answers that will make it definite in our minds. The argument might continue forever!

On 7/12/2017 at 1:58 PM, cpg2016 said:

Because they would have to convince Rhaegar to kidnap Lyanna, which isn't exactly puppetmaster influencing as much as outright lunacy.  Tywin wanted one thing, and that was for Cersei to be queen.  When Aerys refused his match with Rhaegar, Tywin tried to get rid of Aerys so a more pliable or sane monarch (Rhaegar) could take his place and agree to the match.  He has no reason to wish for Rickard Stark's downfall.

Well, Tywin is either crafty enough to influence people to do his bidding, or he isn't. Rhaegar could be pliable enough to fall for Tywin's plans or not. I don't know, but either is possible.

I think it is possible that at one time Tywin wanted his daughter to be queen, but I think he became jaded and angry enough with Targaryen rule, he might have just wanted the throne for himself, or for Jaime. And Jaime could have had it; He sat on that throne after deposing the king, claiming the iron throne. It was his until he gave it up to Ned. Just as Ned could have claimed it, as well, but he gave it up to Robert. 

But if Jaime had not relented to Ned, House Lannister might have claimed the throne at that time. It would have meant at least one more battle, between Ned's forces and Tywin's, but I bet Tywin would have gambled on his Lannister army. Tywin's gave the order to kill Rhaegar's children, he didn't want any Targaryen's left to challenge the throne. But Jaime gave up the throne and therefore the opportunity.   And so Tywin made the best of the situation, which was marrying Cersei to Robert and claiming the throne through his blood.  Tywin is an ambitious man, I don't think this idea is out of range for him.

On 7/13/2017 at 11:31 AM, cpg2016 said:

And we have no evidence that I can recall stating that Aerys had prophetic dreams.  Maybe he also had a penis that urinated solid gold?

Maybe that super power is why Aerys left the treasury overflowing with gold?

On 7/14/2017 at 10:27 AM, cpg2016 said:

As far as I recall, we really only have on instance of prophetic "dreams" and that is what's-his-face from Dunk & Egg, who had the abortive Second Blackfyre Rebellion.  Most of our prophets are either channeling visions from a god (e.g. Melisandre or Patchface), are using some magical hallucingenic drug like shade of the evening (Dany in the HOTU), or use blood magic (Maggy the Frog)

Does it matter how you have the dreams, as long as you think they are prophetic and act on them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 5:53 PM, Damon_Tor said:

It's an interesting idea, but one wonders why. Balon had been in open rebellion, warranting taking Theon, but there was no cause for a ward to be taken from the Starks against their will.

I have to say I don't even know if I  believe the theory I have lined out, but I think it's possible and  I think there are some odd things that are worth asking a few questions. We have not been told that Aerys worried about the Stark's, but we do know that Targaryen's, such as Jaehaerys and Alysanne have done their best to weaken House Stark in the past. I think maybe House Targaryen always worried about House Stark, and it might be related to the 'prophetic dreams" of Targayen's in the past, even so far back as Daenys the Dreamer. Maybe holding a child of House Stark is just another way of exerting power, a subtle threat, not unlike the Targaryen's taking 6 dragons's to Winterfell. It's seems like a quaint visit but it is a very subtle show of power.

On 7/12/2017 at 5:53 PM, Damon_Tor said:

I suppose it's possible that Aerys foresaw enough of the Rebellion in his prophetic dreams to come to understand that the Starks and Baratheons would betray him, and arranged for the Aryns to take hostages from those houses in preparation.  I suppose that would cover the motive (and in a pleasing way, due to the irony of a self-fulfilling prophecy) but I would expect he'd get some pushback. It's one thing if you've just unconditionally surrendered after a failed rebellion (as was the case with Balon) but if the King just irrationally demanded that two of his leige lords give up their sons to another, either for no reason given or because he says he was guided by dreams, I can't imagine they'd just do it.

The only reason I could see for House Stark agreeing to send a child to be held as a hostage would be as an act of good faith, to show that you do not need to fear us, as we are loyal to you. Certainly, Rickard did not send his eldest son for this role, and we don't actually know that he might not have been able to send Brandon. Brandon and Ned are only a year apart, and we have no timeline to when Brandon might have gone to Barrowtown.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2017 at 1:19 PM, Bael's Bastard said:

No, I see no evidence that Ned was a hostage. Ned was born in 263 and fostered at age 8, so around 271, and there is absolutely no reason for a Stark to have been a hostage of an Arryn, or a Targaryen, or anyone else in Westeros in 271. Brandon was also fostered, and apparently was still being fostered when he was old enough to take Barbrey's maidenhead. Not sure how long ago his fostering had ended at the time that his betrothal to Cat was announced, and when he hooked up with Barbrey a final time.

No, there is not really any evidence for house Targaryen not wanting to trust house Stark, but some of the wording used is subtle and interesting to me. GRRM is tricky and subtle, and really is a wordsmith. I see questions in the text. I don't see answers, hence the reason this is only a theory, and, I admit, a pretty "cracked pot" theory, at that.

As for when Brandon's age when he might have taken Barbrey's maidenhead, it is pretty vague. Catelyn tells us she was 12 when she was betrothed to Brandon. Brandon was born in 262, Ned in 263, and Catelyn in 264 or 265. (these dates are according to the wiki) I actually always imagined Cat as the same age as Ned or maybe a year older, but we can go with the wiki dates. So that makes Cat 2 or 3 years younger than Brandon. So if the betrothal was announced when she was 12, then Brandon was 14 or 15. I would guess that Brandon could have become Barbrey's lover by this time, or even before. From Barbrey's story, she was his lover before she heard about his betrothal to Catelyn, and she probably heard not long after it was officially announced. It is possible Barbrey did not learn about the betrothal for years, but unlikely. Now, how long Brandon and Barbrey's affair might have lasted is hard to say. It could have ended almost as soon as it started or it could have lasted several years, and been going on right until Brandon rode of for his marriage to Cat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2017 at 1:02 PM, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

Eddard may have been visiting the Vale or this may be the more likely scenario  Eddard is a second son I'm sure Rickard loved him ,but the truth is Brandon is Rickard's heir , he gets everything , while Eddard has to make his own way in the world . Perhaps he intends to move to the Vale , Jon Arryn treats him like son , the Vale is still close to the North , he has blood relations in the Vale and most of his best friends are from the Vale. Eddard would have been a link between the Vale and the North .

Yes, it is possible that Ned was visiting the vale at the time of Aerys demands for his head, and had been visiting just before the tournament at Harrenhall, approx a year before. But that is quite a bit of time, making Ned the guest that never leaves. It is also possible that Ned had hoped to be granted a holdfast in the vale. But the fact that he is 19, and holds neither lands in the vale for Jon Arryn or in the north for his father is particular to me. At 19, Ned is certainly considered a man by Westerosi standards, so why is he just hanging around in the vale. Maybe we will find out that Ned did hold a keep prior to all of this, either in the north or the vale, but I guess until we are told that in the text, I am left to question just what Ned was still doing in the vale, long after the age one would assume his fostering would end, at the age of 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Invalid Date at 6:26 PM, St Daga said:

I

 

I can see that we are defining need in a different way. The nurse in me, see's human needs in the terms of Maslov's pyramid, and on the bottom of that pyramid are physiological needs such as air, water, food, clothing and shelter. Those are absolute needs for survival.  Once those needs are met, then safety plays a huge role in the next step of the pyramid. Granted, kings are certainly higher than serf's in society, but they are still humans with basic needs. Your idea of concubines fitting into this pyramid to me may fall into the third level, social belonging, but more probably into the forth level, esteem. So, to me, a concubine is not a need, it's a want and a privilege. 

As for basing GRRM's world on the real world, we always can run into difficulty, because GRRM"s world is his own, and while it may be based in human life and certain time periods, it is ultimately what he wants it to be.

A- Having a concubine around was a want (not necessarily a privilege though, as plenty of women would willingly have had sex with the most powerful man in the land) but having a concubine who knew her role and was able to keep the king’s integrity intact was indeed a need. As Boleyn showed, a concubine that overstepped can lead to schism and a crusade in a generation time. The king needed the right concubines around and he was prepared to give a lot of concessions/bribes to pay for it.

I agree regarding GRRM interpretation of things. However, it doesn’t vary too much to the medieval mindset. For example, Lady Falena Stokeworth was married off to Lucas Lothson whom in turn was given the Lordship of Harrenhal. Barba Bracken’s father was named hand of the King until he overextended himself a bit too much. I bet the warden of the North could get much better conditions then a Stokeworth and a Bracken especially considering that Rhaegar is not Aegon the unworthy.

I don't disagree with this, though I think the Boleyn's grew more powerful while Anne was legally queen than they ever were, when  Mary (and Anne) was a mistress of the king. I do disagree in how I feel Rickard Stark would have felt about his only daughter becoming a concubine. I don't think he would have stood for it, but that is only my opinion. I question the truth of Lyanna and Rhaegar being together in a way that is commonly accepted, and I think that Rickard knew more of the truth of that, than we still do.

Rickard would of course be pissed off. However, what could he possibly do at that point? His daughter was now damaged goods. Also prior to Aerys going full killer machine giving Arryn no choice but to rebel, the kingdom was still pretty loyal to him. Even Robert refrained to go against his own cousin up until his own cousin demanded his head on a plate.

Lyanna’s kidnap was a diplomatic mess which Brandon made it simple to sort when he barged in KL demanding Rhaegar’s head. Aerys could have simply taken Brandon hostage, ask Rickard to come to KL and settle a deal in exchange for a pardon for his son. Instead he fudged it big time by killing Rickard + Brandon and ordering Arryn to do the same with Ned and Robert.

I cannot agree with you that Brandon kept doing silly, irrational things time and time again. Maybe twice, but not the four times that you mention. I think all of the times that you mention can be argued.

1) taking a lover is not silly or irrational, it's human nature. And we don't really know the truth of this, we only have Barbrey's tale, and I think we both agree that her words and intent are very questionable.

2) LF was the one who issued a duel challenge, and based on the idea of the time, if Brandon had refused, he would have most likely been viewed as a coward. If Brandon for some reason dies in this duel with Petyr, he still has two younger brothers to assume the role of heir to House Stark. Brandon't biggest mistake here is that he didn't kill Petyr Baelish when he had the chance. But that is hindsight, and plays no role in the actions at the time.

3) maybe when Brandon reacted so strongly to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna, this could be viewed as silly or irrational, but I still don't think we have been told the actual truth of why Brandon reacted so strongly. I think this was a threat or lesson that Rhaegar was issuing to House Stark, but I can't prove that, and we won't know more until we get another book.

4) if we discount Jaime's flippant recount to Cat of Brandon's "come out and die", than all we really know is that Brandon rode to King's Landing seeking redress from the crown. This is the right of any vassal to seek redress from his overlord. Now, one could argue that was not Brandon's role to seek redress, but Rickard's, and that Brandon overstepped himself in this place. I think Brandon did overstep in this case, and it caused more problems, because it put him in the hands of the Targaryens. But is is not treason to demand justice! Does is say anywhere in the story that if you threaten a member of house Targaryen, you have committed treason? And we don't even know if Brandon did actually threaten Rhaegar's life, we only have the account of Jaime, a captive who is drunk, weak and a bit of an arsehole trying to rile Catelyn up in his story telling.

1- It was silly if you’re a noble man, heir to a powerful house and whose lover happens to also be of noble blood, daughter of a powerful house. We’ve already seen how Walder took Robb’s slight. Don’t forget that Robb was a king not a Warden’s son, he didn’t touched Roslin and the Freys value honour far less than the Rywells

It gets even sillier if you’re part of a house that sees honour as their cornerstone. Rickard could have ended up taking his own son’s head just to prove a point. Worse still he could force Brandon to marry Barbrey which would lead to burning bridges with the Tullys.

Brandon could have had all the single common folk women in all Westeros. Instead he dared touching Barbrey, a silly action which had repercussions at least a generation later (ie the lady in question only sent a token force to aid Robb)

2- The Wild Wolf knew nothing about LF. For all he knew he could be as good with the sword as Selmy is. Also he was a guest at Riverrun. Engaging into a duel with another guest is stupid especially since he was risking his life in a needless way. If by some miracle LF killed Brandon than he would have put the Riverlands and the North into a stupid situation (the North remembers and all that)

3- Brandon was 100% correct in how he felt. But being so impulsive, with no idea of how diplomacy worked he acted on emotions, forgetting completely that the Starks weren’t kings anymore but simply land administrators appointed by the Targs. Don’t take me wrong he shouldn’t have lost his life for it. Children are stupid and Aerys should have sympathised with that considering what his first born had just done. A wiser king would have bartered Brandon’s pardon with Rhaegar’s pardon (from the North) and then settle for a deal. However, his actions were stupid.

4- His father is warden of the North not Brandon. Until his dad was alive, Brandon was a nobody. Robb only marched to KL because daddy was arrested. If he dared even to raise one finger against the crown without Ned’s consent then he would probably end up been spanked back to Winterfell by his own dad.

As to this line, if you claim that Rhaegar, or a king, has the right to claim any of his vassal's daughters and call them concubine, as with the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then doesn't this situation almost mirror Brandon, the son of the highest lord in the north, claiming a concubine of his fathers vassal? You can't have it both ways. The Stark's are effectively kings in the north, even though that is no longer a title they claim, so they should have the same rights in their territory (the north) as House Targaryen has over their territory (the 7K), the apparent right to a powerful concubine, which Barbrey certainly could be considered.

That’s totally unrelated to the quote you quoted. So let’s use similar terms. If Rhaegar dared kidnapping Lyanna while she was in Winterfell then he would have lost his head long before daddy could come to the rescue.

I don’t think Rhaegar had the right to kidnap anyone. However, there’s a good way and a bad way in doing things. Allowing adults/Wardens/Kings to settle scores in a sobre and diplomatic fashion is the good way. Having this Lord’s son with no lands of his own barging in KL and treating Rhaegar like some average dude who scratched his car is not. Rhaegar is the crown prince and the crown prince can only be judged by the king himself.

And no, the Starks aren’t kings of anything. They are administrators of the North and the King has every right to take that honour and handle it to someone else (as Joffrey did with Roose and LF)

See, I question this interpretation. I have considered it at different times. but we don't really have any clue what Rhaegar thought about the prophecy, or how he interpreted it. We have other peoples thoughts on what they thought Rhaegar thought, but that falls into that tricky unreliable narrator category. We don't know that Rhaegar thought he needed to breed with a house of Ice to produce TPTWP. Actually, but Dany's own vision, it seems that Rhaegar felt like Aegon was the TPTWP, so why would he ever need to breed another? Hell, Rhaegar might have felt like he needed to destroy any heir of ice, or use such a child as a sacrifice. There is so much we don't know, and I am not willing to accept the easy interpretation. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but until we get confirmation in the books of Rhaegar's thoughts, then I am willing to pursue other idea's about what Rhaegar was up to. Or if he was up to anything at all. It would not surprise me at all to find that both Lyanna and Rhaegar were simply pawns in a much bigger game, or to find that their only actual meeting was a Harrenhal, and the rest is all heresy.

There’s plenty of indications that show that Rhaegar grew obsessed about such prophecy. GRRM has a weird way of portraying prophecy. In an earlier work (the Armageddon Rag), the protagonist was given a ‘prophecy of doom’ but which doom was only averted by the protagonist inaction (ie refusing to kill the possessed singer). He plays the same game with Cersei’s prophecy were inaction (ie be a dutiful wife for Robert) would have probably avoided her ruin. I think that Rhaegar became victim of the very prophecy he tried to avoid at all cost.

First of all, I am not mistaking, in my mind or the text, Robert and Brandon. Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that Robert was a bad king. I agree that Robert was smart in a diplomatic type of way, and he did show mercy to attempt to heal the land after the civil war. I think he was average. However, he did drink too much, which caused him to make some poor decisions, left a lot of decisions up to his small council  and it seems he ran through a huge amount of gold in the treasury that the Targaryen's had apparently left quite full of gold.

I think that the Robert of the start of our story is a different man, in many respects, as the man who was just crowned king 14 years before. I am sure the weight of that crown was heavy on his head, and he himself told Ned that the Iron Throne (both the chair and the power) was not a comfortable seat. 

I am not sure he did keep Tywin under check, though. As a matter of fact, by being in debt to House Lannister, Robert allowed Tywin much power over Robert, the Iron Throne, and the realm. Robert let himself be surrounded by Lannisters but had no Baratheon or royal guards of his own. That wasn't probably the best idea. Ned was not wrong to recognize this.

And his naming Renly as overlord of Storm's End might be politically savvy in your eyes, but Renly was a boy, a child of maybe 5 or 6 as the end of the rebellion and in no way could anyone be certain of his diplomatic power in the Storm Lands. 

Also, not every person in House Baratheon was part of an alliance with House Tyrell. Actually, Stannis was quite left out of that whole situation, which caused House Baratheon to split and weaken, which might have cost them a quick end to supplanting House Lannister.

I also think that Robert's lack of reaction to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna at the Harrenhal tourney was because he did not interpret the action like Brandon and Eddard did. Because I think there was much more to the act than Rhaegar crushing on Lyanna and giving her pretty flowers. I think it was meant to be a challenge or a warning that only the Stark's would understand. That is a different interpretation than many have, and only time will tell how it all will actually play out.

By the beginning of GOT, Robert was weak. There again, I cant possibly see how he could possibly avoided it. He was a former LP of one of the smallest regions in Westeros, a region that barely turned out to back him up, in his time of need (half of the Stormlands was Targ loyalist). He was starting a new dynasty (those are always weak) and lets face it, administration wise, Robert was horrible.

There again, apart from the fact that his children weren’t his I think he held the fort well. By not allowing Jamie leave, his ‘children’ were set to inherit the Westerlands. Meanwhile his brother Renly, was able to seal great friendship ties to the superpower of Westeros and his son was going to marry Sansa ie the Warden of the North’s daughter, the LP of the Riverlands grand daughter and the Warden of the East’s cousin. That allowed him two children to spare. That’s good management diplomatically wise

Anyway my initial point is that Ned’s assessment of Robert (ie the impulsive guy who will lose his cool in a fit of rage) was more of a projection towards Brandon rather then what Robert truly was. There’s nothing that suggest that Robert was that type of person.

The kings power, or that of his family, cannot go unchecked. That is what the Magna Carta told us in real life history. House Targaryen doesn't get to rule absolutely, they need their vassals to back and support them. Feudalism is two way game!

And again, how was Brandon asking for redress for a supposed insult to his family treason? I don't see it that way. And you have not explained it in a way that I can accept the idea of treason from Brandon toward House Targaryen.

I fully agree on the first part. However, in pure technical sense what Brandon did was indeed treason. No Lord would dare barging in a king’s court, challenging the king’s son without suffer repercussions. Henry Tudor would probably have him hanged, drawn and quartered by lunch.

There are other more subtle ways to seek judgement and get some sort of compensation for the insult suffered. Something only an experienced Warden and head of his house would probably know and be able to negotiate.

Well, I would hate to "cheapen" any of this business with Rhaegar kidnapping a girl of good standing from a powerful house and effectively turning her into his whore based on the idea of absolute power of a monarchy with unchecked power. House Targaryen started loosing their power when they turned on each other in multiple civil wars and finally lost it when the last of their dragons died. After than, they were scrambling to hold on just like any other human in this story. Also, I think in the real world, medieval lords married "damaged goods" all the time for money or standing or power!

As to the plan you put forth, yes, it could have worked. I myself am spinning some bright tinfoil with this idea of Ned as a political hostage, so I cannot claim that your idea might not have worked. However, even if it could have worked, it is not the way things worked out.

Sorry about the delay in response.  I have been dealing with buying a house, moving, and trying to squeeze some vacation time in. 

I agree, the Targ rule, like any rule relying on absolute power was bound to end especially after losing its nukes (that’s why the crazy one in North Korea still rules). Having said that, I find it hard to see how Robert could accept Lyanna back after cuckolding him with Rhaegar and tbf I struggle to see how a spoiled zealot like Rhaegar would willingly give his new toy back without a fight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that we are defining need in a different way. The nurse in me, see's human needs in the terms of Maslov's pyramid, and on the bottom of that pyramid are physiological needs such as air, water, food, clothing and shelter. Those are absolute needs for survival.  Once those needs are met, then safety plays a huge role in the next step of the pyramid. Granted, kings are certainly higher than serf's in society, but they are still humans with basic needs. Your idea of concubines fitting into this pyramid to me may fall into the third level, social belonging, but more probably into the forth level, esteem. So, to me, a concubine is not a need, it's a want and a privilege. 

As for basing GRRM's world on the real world, we always can run into difficulty, because GRRM"s world is his own, and while it may be based in human life and certain time periods, it is ultimately what he wants it to be.

A- Having a concubine around was a want (not necessarily a privilege though, as plenty of women would willingly have had sex with the most powerful man in the land) but having a concubine who knew her role and was able to keep the king’s integrity intact was indeed a need. As Boleyn showed, a concubine that overstepped can lead to schism and a crusade in a generation time. The king needed the right concubines around and he was prepared to give a lot of concessions/bribes to pay for it.

I agree regarding GRRM interpretation of things. However, it doesn’t vary too much to the medieval mindset. For example, Lady Falena Stokeworth was married off to Lucas Lothson whom in turn was given the Lordship of Harrenhal. Barba Bracken’s father was named hand of the King until he overextended himself a bit too much. I bet the warden of the North could get much better conditions then a Stokeworth and a Bracken especially considering that Rhaegar is not Aegon the unworthy.

I don't disagree with this, though I think the Boleyn's grew more powerful while Anne was legally queen than they ever were, when  Mary (and Anne) was a mistress of the king. I do disagree in how I feel Rickard Stark would have felt about his only daughter becoming a concubine. I don't think he would have stood for it, but that is only my opinion. I question the truth of Lyanna and Rhaegar being together in a way that is commonly accepted, and I think that Rickard knew more of the truth of that, than we still do.

Rickard would of course be pissed off. However, what could he possibly do at that point? His daughter was now damaged goods. Also prior to Aerys going full killer machine giving Arryn no choice but to rebel, the kingdom was still pretty loyal to him. Even Robert refrained to go against his own cousin up until his own cousin demanded his head on a plate.

Lyanna’s kidnap was a diplomatic mess which Brandon made it simple to sort when he barged in KL demanding Rhaegar’s head. Aerys could have simply taken Brandon hostage, ask Rickard to come to KL and settle a deal in exchange for a pardon for his son. Instead he fudged it big time by killing Rickard + Brandon and ordering Arryn to do the same with Ned and Robert.

I cannot agree with you that Brandon kept doing silly, irrational things time and time again. Maybe twice, but not the four times that you mention. I think all of the times that you mention can be argued.

1) taking a lover is not silly or irrational, it's human nature. And we don't really know the truth of this, we only have Barbrey's tale, and I think we both agree that her words and intent are very questionable.

2) LF was the one who issued a duel challenge, and based on the idea of the time, if Brandon had refused, he would have most likely been viewed as a coward. If Brandon for some reason dies in this duel with Petyr, he still has two younger brothers to assume the role of heir to House Stark. Brandon't biggest mistake here is that he didn't kill Petyr Baelish when he had the chance. But that is hindsight, and plays no role in the actions at the time.

3) maybe when Brandon reacted so strongly to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna, this could be viewed as silly or irrational, but I still don't think we have been told the actual truth of why Brandon reacted so strongly. I think this was a threat or lesson that Rhaegar was issuing to House Stark, but I can't prove that, and we won't know more until we get another book.

4) if we discount Jaime's flippant recount to Cat of Brandon's "come out and die", than all we really know is that Brandon rode to King's Landing seeking redress from the crown. This is the right of any vassal to seek redress from his overlord. Now, one could argue that was not Brandon's role to seek redress, but Rickard's, and that Brandon overstepped himself in this place. I think Brandon did overstep in this case, and it caused more problems, because it put him in the hands of the Targaryens. But is is not treason to demand justice! Does is say anywhere in the story that if you threaten a member of house Targaryen, you have committed treason? And we don't even know if Brandon did actually threaten Rhaegar's life, we only have the account of Jaime, a captive who is drunk, weak and a bit of an arsehole trying to rile Catelyn up in his story telling. [/quote]

1- It was silly if you’re a noble man, heir to a powerful house and whose lover happens to also be of noble blood, daughter of a powerful house. We’ve already seen how Walder took Robb’s slight. Don’t forget that Robb was a king not a Warden’s son, he didn’t touched Roslin and the Freys value honour far less than the Rywells

It gets even sillier if you’re part of a house that sees honour as their cornerstone. Rickard could have ended up taking his own son’s head just to prove a point. Worse still he could force Brandon to marry Barbrey which would lead to burning bridges with the Tullys.

Brandon could have had all the single common folk women in all Westeros. Instead he dared touching Barbrey, a silly action which had repercussions at least a generation later (ie the lady in question only sent a token force to aid Robb)

2- The Wild Wolf knew nothing about LF. For all he knew he could be as good with the sword as Selmy is. Also he was a guest at Riverrun. Engaging into a duel with another guest is stupid especially since he was risking his life in a needless way. If by some miracle LF killed Brandon than he would have put the Riverlands and the North into a stupid situation (the North remembers and all that)

3- Brandon was 100% correct in how he felt. But being so impulsive, with no idea of how diplomacy worked he acted on emotions, forgetting completely that the Starks weren’t kings anymore but simply land administrators appointed by the Targs. Don’t take me wrong he shouldn’t have lost his life for it. Children are stupid and Aerys should have sympathised with that considering what his first born had just done. A wiser king would have bartered Brandon’s pardon with Rhaegar’s pardon (from the North) and then settle for a deal. However, his actions were stupid.

4- His father is warden of the North not Brandon. Until his dad was alive, Brandon was a nobody. Robb only marched to KL because daddy was arrested. If he dared even to raise one finger against the crown without Ned’s consent then he would probably end up been spanked back to Winterfell by his own dad.

As to this line, if you claim that Rhaegar, or a king, has the right to claim any of his vassal's daughters and call them concubine, as with the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then doesn't this situation almost mirror Brandon, the son of the highest lord in the north, claiming a concubine of his fathers vassal? You can't have it both ways. The Stark's are effectively kings in the north, even though that is no longer a title they claim, so they should have the same rights in their territory (the north) as House Targaryen has over their territory (the 7K), the apparent right to a powerful concubine, which Barbrey certainly could be considered.

That’s totally unrelated to the quote you quoted. So let’s use similar terms. If Rhaegar dared kidnapping Lyanna while she was in Winterfell then he would have lost his head long before daddy could come to the rescue.

I don’t think Rhaegar had the right to kidnap anyone. However, there’s a good way and a bad way in doing things. Allowing adults/Wardens/Kings to settle scores in a sobre and diplomatic fashion is the good way. Having this Lord’s son with no lands of his own barging in KL and treating Rhaegar like some average dude who scratched his car is not. Rhaegar is the crown prince and the crown prince can only be judged by the king himself.

And no, the Starks aren’t kings of anything. They are administrators of the North and the King has every right to take that honour and handle it to someone else (as Joffrey did with Roose and LF)

See, I question this interpretation. I have considered it at different times. but we don't really have any clue what Rhaegar thought about the prophecy, or how he interpreted it. We have other peoples thoughts on what they thought Rhaegar thought, but that falls into that tricky unreliable narrator category. We don't know that Rhaegar thought he needed to breed with a house of Ice to produce TPTWP. Actually, but Dany's own vision, it seems that Rhaegar felt like Aegon was the TPTWP, so why would he ever need to breed another? Hell, Rhaegar might have felt like he needed to destroy any heir of ice, or use such a child as a sacrifice. There is so much we don't know, and I am not willing to accept the easy interpretation. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but until we get confirmation in the books of Rhaegar's thoughts, then I am willing to pursue other idea's about what Rhaegar was up to. Or if he was up to anything at all. It would not surprise me at all to find that both Lyanna and Rhaegar were simply pawns in a much bigger game, or to find that their only actual meeting was a Harrenhal, and the rest is all heresy.

There’s plenty of indications that show that Rhaegar grew obsessed about such prophecy. GRRM has a weird way of portraying prophecy. In an earlier work (the Armageddon Rag), the protagonist was given a ‘prophecy of doom’ but which doom was only averted by the protagonist inaction (ie refusing to kill the possessed singer). He plays the same game with Cersei’s prophecy were inaction (ie be a dutiful wife for Robert) would have probably avoided her ruin. I think that Rhaegar became victim of the very prophecy he tried to avoid at all cost.

First of all, I am not mistaking, in my mind or the text, Robert and Brandon. Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that Robert was a bad king. I agree that Robert was smart in a diplomatic type of way, and he did show mercy to attempt to heal the land after the civil war. I think he was average. However, he did drink too much, which caused him to make some poor decisions, left a lot of decisions up to his small council  and it seems he ran through a huge amount of gold in the treasury that the Targaryen's had apparently left quite full of gold.

I think that the Robert of the start of our story is a different man, in many respects, as the man who was just crowned king 14 years before. I am sure the weight of that crown was heavy on his head, and he himself told Ned that the Iron Throne (both the chair and the power) was not a comfortable seat. 

I am not sure he did keep Tywin under check, though. As a matter of fact, by being in debt to House Lannister, Robert allowed Tywin much power over Robert, the Iron Throne, and the realm. Robert let himself be surrounded by Lannisters but had no Baratheon or royal guards of his own. That wasn't probably the best idea. Ned was not wrong to recognize this.

And his naming Renly as overlord of Storm's End might be politically savvy in your eyes, but Renly was a boy, a child of maybe 5 or 6 as the end of the rebellion and in no way could anyone be certain of his diplomatic power in the Storm Lands. 

Also, not every person in House Baratheon was part of an alliance with House Tyrell. Actually, Stannis was quite left out of that whole situation, which caused House Baratheon to split and weaken, which might have cost them a quick end to supplanting House Lannister.

I also think that Robert's lack of reaction to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna at the Harrenhal tourney was because he did not interpret the action like Brandon and Eddard did. Because I think there was much more to the act than Rhaegar crushing on Lyanna and giving her pretty flowers. I think it was meant to be a challenge or a warning that only the Stark's would understand. That is a different interpretation than many have, and only time will tell how it all will actually play out.

By the beginning of GOT, Robert was weak. There again, I cant possibly see how he could possibly avoided it. He was a former LP of one of the smallest regions in Westeros, a region that barely turned out to back him up, in his time of need (half of the Stormlands was Targ loyalist). He was starting a new dynasty (those are always weak) and lets face it, administration wise, Robert was horrible.

There again, apart from the fact that his children weren’t his I think he held the fort well. By not allowing Jamie leave, his ‘children’ were set to inherit the Westerlands. Meanwhile his brother Renly, was able to seal great friendship ties to the superpower of Westeros and his son was going to marry Sansa ie the Warden of the North’s daughter, the LP of the Riverlands grand daughter and the Warden of the East’s cousin. That allowed him two children to spare. That’s good management diplomatically wise

Anyway my initial point is that Ned’s assessment of Robert (ie the impulsive guy who will lose his cool in a fit of rage) was more of a projection towards Brandon rather then what Robert truly was. There’s nothing that suggest that Robert was that type of person.

The kings power, or that of his family, cannot go unchecked. That is what the Magna Carta told us in real life history. House Targaryen doesn't get to rule absolutely, they need their vassals to back and support them. Feudalism is two way game!

And again, how was Brandon asking for redress for a supposed insult to his family treason? I don't see it that way. And you have not explained it in a way that I can accept the idea of treason from Brandon toward House Targaryen.

I fully agree on the first part. However, in pure technical sense what Brandon did was indeed treason. No Lord would dare barging in a king’s court, challenging the king’s son without suffer repercussions. Henry Tudor would probably have him hanged, drawn and quartered by lunch.

There are other more subtle ways to seek judgement and get some sort of compensation for the insult suffered. Something only an experienced Warden and head of his house would probably know and be able to negotiate.

Well, I would hate to "cheapen" any of this business with Rhaegar kidnapping a girl of good standing from a powerful house and effectively turning her into his whore based on the idea of absolute power of a monarchy with unchecked power. House Targaryen started loosing their power when they turned on each other in multiple civil wars and finally lost it when the last of their dragons died. After than, they were scrambling to hold on just like any other human in this story. Also, I think in the real world, medieval lords married "damaged goods" all the time for money or standing or power!

As to the plan you put forth, yes, it could have worked. I myself am spinning some bright tinfoil with this idea of Ned as a political hostage, so I cannot claim that your idea might not have worked. However, even if it could have worked, it is not the way things worked out.

Sorry about the delay in response.  I have been dealing with buying a house, moving, and trying to squeeze some vacation time in. 

I agree, the Targ rule, like any rule relying on absolute power was bound to end especially after losing its nukes (that’s why the crazy one in North Korea still rules). Having said that, I find it hard to see how Robert could accept Lyanna back after cuckolding him with Rhaegar and tbf I struggle to see how a spoiled zealot like Rhaegar would willingly give his new toy back without a fight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that we are defining need in a different way. The nurse in me, see's human needs in the terms of Maslov's pyramid, and on the bottom of that pyramid are physiological needs such as air, water, food, clothing and shelter. Those are absolute needs for survival.  Once those needs are met, then safety plays a huge role in the next step of the pyramid. Granted, kings are certainly higher than serf's in society, but they are still humans with basic needs. Your idea of concubines fitting into this pyramid to me may fall into the third level, social belonging, but more probably into the forth level, esteem. So, to me, a concubine is not a need, it's a want and a privilege. 

As for basing GRRM's world on the real world, we always can run into difficulty, because GRRM"s world is his own, and while it may be based in human life and certain time periods, it is ultimately what he wants it to be.

A- Having a concubine around was a want (not necessarily a privilege though, as plenty of women would willingly have had sex with the most powerful man in the land) but having a concubine who knew her role and was able to keep the king’s integrity intact was indeed a need. As Boleyn showed, a concubine that overstepped can lead to schism and a crusade in a generation time. The king needed the right concubines around and he was prepared to give a lot of concessions/bribes to pay for it.

I agree regarding GRRM interpretation of things. However, it doesn’t vary too much to the medieval mindset. For example, Lady Falena Stokeworth was married off to Lucas Lothson whom in turn was given the Lordship of Harrenhal. Barba Bracken’s father was named hand of the King until he overextended himself a bit too much. I bet the warden of the North could get much better conditions then a Stokeworth and a Bracken especially considering that Rhaegar is not Aegon the unworthy.

I don't disagree with this, though I think the Boleyn's grew more powerful while Anne was legally queen than they ever were, when  Mary (and Anne) was a mistress of the king. I do disagree in how I feel Rickard Stark would have felt about his only daughter becoming a concubine. I don't think he would have stood for it, but that is only my opinion. I question the truth of Lyanna and Rhaegar being together in a way that is commonly accepted, and I think that Rickard knew more of the truth of that, than we still do.

Rickard would of course be pissed off. However, what could he possibly do at that point? His daughter was now damaged goods. Also prior to Aerys going full killer machine giving Arryn no choice but to rebel, the kingdom was still pretty loyal to him. Even Robert refrained to go against his own cousin up until his own cousin demanded his head on a plate.

Lyanna’s kidnap was a diplomatic mess which Brandon made it simple to sort when he barged in KL demanding Rhaegar’s head. Aerys could have simply taken Brandon hostage, ask Rickard to come to KL and settle a deal in exchange for a pardon for his son. Instead he fudged it big time by killing Rickard + Brandon and ordering Arryn to do the same with Ned and Robert.

I cannot agree with you that Brandon kept doing silly, irrational things time and time again. Maybe twice, but not the four times that you mention. I think all of the times that you mention can be argued.

1) taking a lover is not silly or irrational, it's human nature. And we don't really know the truth of this, we only have Barbrey's tale, and I think we both agree that her words and intent are very questionable.

2) LF was the one who issued a duel challenge, and based on the idea of the time, if Brandon had refused, he would have most likely been viewed as a coward. If Brandon for some reason dies in this duel with Petyr, he still has two younger brothers to assume the role of heir to House Stark. Brandon't biggest mistake here is that he didn't kill Petyr Baelish when he had the chance. But that is hindsight, and plays no role in the actions at the time.

3) maybe when Brandon reacted so strongly to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna, this could be viewed as silly or irrational, but I still don't think we have been told the actual truth of why Brandon reacted so strongly. I think this was a threat or lesson that Rhaegar was issuing to House Stark, but I can't prove that, and we won't know more until we get another book.

4) if we discount Jaime's flippant recount to Cat of Brandon's "come out and die", than all we really know is that Brandon rode to King's Landing seeking redress from the crown. This is the right of any vassal to seek redress from his overlord. Now, one could argue that was not Brandon's role to seek redress, but Rickard's, and that Brandon overstepped himself in this place. I think Brandon did overstep in this case, and it caused more problems, because it put him in the hands of the Targaryens. But is is not treason to demand justice! Does is say anywhere in the story that if you threaten a member of house Targaryen, you have committed treason? And we don't even know if Brandon did actually threaten Rhaegar's life, we only have the account of Jaime, a captive who is drunk, weak and a bit of an arsehole trying to rile Catelyn up in his story telling. [/quote]

1- It was silly if you’re a noble man, heir to a powerful house and whose lover happens to also be of noble blood, daughter of a powerful house. We’ve already seen how Walder took Robb’s slight. Don’t forget that Robb was a king not a Warden’s son, he didn’t touched Roslin and the Freys value honour far less than the Rywells

It gets even sillier if you’re part of a house that sees honour as their cornerstone. Rickard could have ended up taking his own son’s head just to prove a point. Worse still he could force Brandon to marry Barbrey which would lead to burning bridges with the Tullys.

Brandon could have had all the single common folk women in all Westeros. Instead he dared touching Barbrey, a silly action which had repercussions at least a generation later (ie the lady in question only sent a token force to aid Robb)

2- The Wild Wolf knew nothing about LF. For all he knew he could be as good with the sword as Selmy is. Also he was a guest at Riverrun. Engaging into a duel with another guest is stupid especially since he was risking his life in a needless way. If by some miracle LF killed Brandon than he would have put the Riverlands and the North into a stupid situation (the North remembers and all that)

3- Brandon was 100% correct in how he felt. But being so impulsive, with no idea of how diplomacy worked he acted on emotions, forgetting completely that the Starks weren’t kings anymore but simply land administrators appointed by the Targs. Don’t take me wrong he shouldn’t have lost his life for it. Children are stupid and Aerys should have sympathised with that considering what his first born had just done. A wiser king would have bartered Brandon’s pardon with Rhaegar’s pardon (from the North) and then settle for a deal. However, his actions were stupid.

4- His father is warden of the North not Brandon. Until his dad was alive, Brandon was a nobody. Robb only marched to KL because daddy was arrested. If he dared even to raise one finger against the crown without Ned’s consent then he would probably end up been spanked back to Winterfell by his own dad.

As to this line, if you claim that Rhaegar, or a king, has the right to claim any of his vassal's daughters and call them concubine, as with the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then doesn't this situation almost mirror Brandon, the son of the highest lord in the north, claiming a concubine of his fathers vassal? You can't have it both ways. The Stark's are effectively kings in the north, even though that is no longer a title they claim, so they should have the same rights in their territory (the north) as House Targaryen has over their territory (the 7K), the apparent right to a powerful concubine, which Barbrey certainly could be considered.

That’s totally unrelated to the quote you quoted. So let’s use similar terms. If Rhaegar dared kidnapping Lyanna while she was in Winterfell then he would have lost his head long before daddy could come to the rescue.

I don’t think Rhaegar had the right to kidnap anyone. However, there’s a good way and a bad way in doing things. Allowing adults/Wardens/Kings to settle scores in a sobre and diplomatic fashion is the good way. Having this Lord’s son with no lands of his own barging in KL and treating Rhaegar like some average dude who scratched his car is not. Rhaegar is the crown prince and the crown prince can only be judged by the king himself.

And no, the Starks aren’t kings of anything. They are administrators of the North and the King has every right to take that honour and handle it to someone else (as Joffrey did with Roose and LF)

See, I question this interpretation. I have considered it at different times. but we don't really have any clue what Rhaegar thought about the prophecy, or how he interpreted it. We have other peoples thoughts on what they thought Rhaegar thought, but that falls into that tricky unreliable narrator category. We don't know that Rhaegar thought he needed to breed with a house of Ice to produce TPTWP. Actually, but Dany's own vision, it seems that Rhaegar felt like Aegon was the TPTWP, so why would he ever need to breed another? Hell, Rhaegar might have felt like he needed to destroy any heir of ice, or use such a child as a sacrifice. There is so much we don't know, and I am not willing to accept the easy interpretation. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but until we get confirmation in the books of Rhaegar's thoughts, then I am willing to pursue other idea's about what Rhaegar was up to. Or if he was up to anything at all. It would not surprise me at all to find that both Lyanna and Rhaegar were simply pawns in a much bigger game, or to find that their only actual meeting was a Harrenhal, and the rest is all heresy.

There’s plenty of indications that show that Rhaegar grew obsessed about such prophecy. GRRM has a weird way of portraying prophecy. In an earlier work (the Armageddon Rag), the protagonist was given a ‘prophecy of doom’ but which doom was only averted by the protagonist inaction (ie refusing to kill the possessed singer). He plays the same game with Cersei’s prophecy were inaction (ie be a dutiful wife for Robert) would have probably avoided her ruin. I think that Rhaegar became victim of the very prophecy he tried to avoid at all cost.

First of all, I am not mistaking, in my mind or the text, Robert and Brandon. Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that Robert was a bad king. I agree that Robert was smart in a diplomatic type of way, and he did show mercy to attempt to heal the land after the civil war. I think he was average. However, he did drink too much, which caused him to make some poor decisions, left a lot of decisions up to his small council  and it seems he ran through a huge amount of gold in the treasury that the Targaryen's had apparently left quite full of gold.

I think that the Robert of the start of our story is a different man, in many respects, as the man who was just crowned king 14 years before. I am sure the weight of that crown was heavy on his head, and he himself told Ned that the Iron Throne (both the chair and the power) was not a comfortable seat. 

I am not sure he did keep Tywin under check, though. As a matter of fact, by being in debt to House Lannister, Robert allowed Tywin much power over Robert, the Iron Throne, and the realm. Robert let himself be surrounded by Lannisters but had no Baratheon or royal guards of his own. That wasn't probably the best idea. Ned was not wrong to recognize this.

And his naming Renly as overlord of Storm's End might be politically savvy in your eyes, but Renly was a boy, a child of maybe 5 or 6 as the end of the rebellion and in no way could anyone be certain of his diplomatic power in the Storm Lands. 

Also, not every person in House Baratheon was part of an alliance with House Tyrell. Actually, Stannis was quite left out of that whole situation, which caused House Baratheon to split and weaken, which might have cost them a quick end to supplanting House Lannister.

I also think that Robert's lack of reaction to Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna at the Harrenhal tourney was because he did not interpret the action like Brandon and Eddard did. Because I think there was much more to the act than Rhaegar crushing on Lyanna and giving her pretty flowers. I think it was meant to be a challenge or a warning that only the Stark's would understand. That is a different interpretation than many have, and only time will tell how it all will actually play out.

By the beginning of GOT, Robert was weak. There again, I cant possibly see how he could possibly avoided it. He was a former LP of one of the smallest regions in Westeros, a region that barely turned out to back him up, in his time of need (half of the Stormlands was Targ loyalist). He was starting a new dynasty (those are always weak) and lets face it, administration wise, Robert was horrible.

There again, apart from the fact that his children weren’t his I think he held the fort well. By not allowing Jamie leave, his ‘children’ were set to inherit the Westerlands. Meanwhile his brother Renly, was able to seal great friendship ties to the superpower of Westeros and his son was going to marry Sansa ie the Warden of the North’s daughter, the LP of the Riverlands grand daughter and the Warden of the East’s cousin. That allowed him two children to spare. That’s good management diplomatically wise

Anyway my initial point is that Ned’s assessment of Robert (ie the impulsive guy who will lose his cool in a fit of rage) was more of a projection towards Brandon rather then what Robert truly was. There’s nothing that suggest that Robert was that type of person.

The kings power, or that of his family, cannot go unchecked. That is what the Magna Carta told us in real life history. House Targaryen doesn't get to rule absolutely, they need their vassals to back and support them. Feudalism is two way game!

And again, how was Brandon asking for redress for a supposed insult to his family treason? I don't see it that way. And you have not explained it in a way that I can accept the idea of treason from Brandon toward House Targaryen.

I fully agree on the first part. However, in pure technical sense what Brandon did was indeed treason. No Lord would dare barging in a king’s court, challenging the king’s son without suffer repercussions. Henry Tudor would probably have him hanged, drawn and quartered by lunch.

There are other more subtle ways to seek judgement and get some sort of compensation for the insult suffered. Something only an experienced Warden and head of his house would probably know and be able to negotiate.

Well, I would hate to "cheapen" any of this business with Rhaegar kidnapping a girl of good standing from a powerful house and effectively turning her into his whore based on the idea of absolute power of a monarchy with unchecked power. House Targaryen started loosing their power when they turned on each other in multiple civil wars and finally lost it when the last of their dragons died. After than, they were scrambling to hold on just like any other human in this story. Also, I think in the real world, medieval lords married "damaged goods" all the time for money or standing or power!

As to the plan you put forth, yes, it could have worked. I myself am spinning some bright tinfoil with this idea of Ned as a political hostage, so I cannot claim that your idea might not have worked. However, even if it could have worked, it is not the way things worked out.

Sorry about the delay in response.  I have been dealing with buying a house, moving, and trying to squeeze some vacation time in. 

I agree, the Targ rule, like any rule relying on absolute power was bound to end especially after losing its nukes (that’s why the crazy one in North Korea still rules). Having said that, I find it hard to see how Robert could accept Lyanna back after cuckolding him with Rhaegar and tbf I struggle to see how a spoiled zealot like Rhaegar would willingly give his new toy back without a fight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@devilish I think we will just have to agree to disagree about Brandon and his actions. Time and more books will tell us a few more details about Brandon Stark and his actions, and until then ...

5 hours ago, devilish said:

Having a concubine around was a want (not necessarily a privilege though, as plenty of women would willingly have had sex with the most powerful man in the land) but having a concubine who knew her role and was able to keep the king’s integrity intact was indeed a need. As Boleyn showed, a concubine that overstepped can lead to schism and a crusade in a generation time. The king needed the right concubines around and he was prepared to give a lot of concessions/bribes to pay for it.

In this sense, having a concubine would almost be a prearranged, prepicked arrangement. with a girl groomed for her role, not unlike the placage system of precival war New Orleans. That certainly doesn't fit the story we have been lead to believe about Rhaegar and Lyanna. And even if it did, I really doubt that Lyanna would have fit the role of concubine as you are presenting it. A girl who picks up tourney swords and who can knock the tar out of three squires is probably not going to be the most diplomatic match for a prince if she is supposed to fly under the radar at court.

I question the story about Rhaegar and Lyanna and the kidnapping or eloping that might have occurred. I doubt it's truth, or that it's the total truth. I doubt Rhaegar's obsession  with prophecy and/or with Lyanna. I doubt that Brandon's actions at the Red Keep are what we have been led to believe. I certainly doubt Barbrey Dustins story and her motivation. I don't have a problem with people who do feel that way, as it certainly is what the story has lead us to believe. I just believe that GRRM is trying to lead us down a merry little path of misdirection, and I am hesitant to follow the path without questioning the details we have been given. He is savvy and tricky and smart! And I think he wants us to be surprised, even though we think we have it all figured out, so he can jerk the rug out from under our feet at the end, and in his defense, he can use the text, with never explicitly states many actual facts, but has many details alluded to by unreliable narrators littered throughout the text. The idea of the unreliable narrator may be his greatest tool! And his imagination is his greatest gift! His ability to twist words his greatest asset! No matter how it ends,  I have enjoyed the story he has given us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, St Daga said:

@devilish I think we will just have to agree to disagree about Brandon and his actions. Time and more books will tell us a few more details about Brandon Stark and his actions, and until then ...

In this sense, having a concubine would almost be a prearranged, prepicked arrangement. with a girl groomed for her role, not unlike the placage system of precival war New Orleans. That certainly doesn't fit the story we have been lead to believe about Rhaegar and Lyanna. And even if it did, I really doubt that Lyanna would have fit the role of concubine as you are presenting it. A girl who picks up tourney swords and who can knock the tar out of three squires is probably not going to be the most diplomatic match for a prince if she is supposed to fly under the radar at court.

I question the story about Rhaegar and Lyanna and the kidnapping or eloping that might have occurred. I doubt it's truth, or that it's the total truth. I doubt Rhaegar's obsession  with prophecy and/or with Lyanna. I doubt that Brandon's actions at the Red Keep are what we have been led to believe. I certainly doubt Barbrey Dustins story and her motivation. I don't have a problem with people who do feel that way, as it certainly is what the story has lead us to believe. I just believe that GRRM is trying to lead us down a merry little path of misdirection, and I am hesitant to follow the path without questioning the details we have been given. He is savvy and tricky and smart! And I think he wants us to be surprised, even though we think we have it all figured out, so he can jerk the rug out from under our feet at the end, and in his defense, he can use the text, with never explicitly states many actual facts, but has many details alluded to by unreliable narrators littered throughout the text. The idea of the unreliable narrator may be his greatest tool! And his imagination is his greatest gift! His ability to twist words his greatest asset! No matter how it ends,  I have enjoyed the story he has given us.

Its very difficult to know what happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna. What we can do, is to use scraps of information provided to us by the author and infer educated guesses. 


So lets start from the Rhaegar’s perspective


We know that Egg Targeryan (ie Rhaegar’s ancestor) grew obsessed about dragons after failing to push the reforms he needed. His attempt to resurrect dragons costed him his life and that occurred when Rhaegar was already born. We also know from Arstan that Rhaegar changed his lifestyle from that of a bookworm to that of a warrior after reading some scrolls.


 From correspondence between him and Aemon, we know that Rhaegar thought that the prince to come was Aegon. However, Aemon suggested that the dragon must have 3 heads, which suggest that Rhaegar was also interested in raising dragons too.  
The Tourney of Harrenhal is also a curious subject worth to delve deep.  The prizes splashed in that tournament were way beyond to what the Lord of Harrenhal could or would afford. That strengthens the Spider’s theory that Rhaegar was going to use that tourney to find enough supporters to oust the king. 


So let’s turn to Lyanna for a sec


We know from Ned that Lyanna was fiercely independent and she wasn’t exactly thrilled of marrying Robert Baratheon.  Lyanna was also set to become one of the most powerful Ladies in Westeros. She was Rickard Stark’s daughter, Edmure Tully’s future sister in law and Robert’s future wife. 


Rhaegar seem to have had nothing to fear from Robert. Sure the stag might have loved her but he certainly didn’t seem too pissed off when Rhaegar crowned her Lady of beauty + the Baratheons owed the Targs everything. Robert’s parents died serving the king. He was partially right. Robert didn’t barged into KL to demand justice, something he had every right to do as King’s cousin and as LP. 


Now what are my deductions out of that all.


a-    The Targs were aware that their power was slipping. Egg failed to implement all his reforms and Rhaegar’s own dad was taken hostage in Duskendale. 
b-    Similarly to his own ancestor, Rhaegar seemed interested to raise dragons + fulfil the prophecy. Unfortunately Aemon made him aware that the dragons have 3 heads ie it needs 3 children.
c-    Rhaegar was increasingly getting frustrated by his daddy. That’s fair enough. People were getting burned for the slightest of reasons, his mother was suffering abuse and his own children were being insulted by the mad king.
d-    At Harrenhal he met Lyanna who was also not happy in the way her daddy treated her. They did share common goals. Lyanna had the support of the Starks (and possibly the Tullys) army. She was beautiful and considering that the Starks breed children like rabbits everything suggested that she’s fertile (ie 3rd dragon head). Rhaegar on the other hand was charming (enough for Cersei to exchange Jamie for him) and he was Robert’s senior (ie crown prince).  Surely the stag wouldn’t risk rebellion and kinslaying for a girl (now damaged goods) he barely even met. 
Which suggests that R+L were either naïve or too young to comprehend how crazy their plans were. They had no idea how politics works and they had little idea about how many loose cannons (Aerys, Brandon, Robert) they were surrounded with. TBF their silly plan might have worked if only Brandon didn’t stupidly barged in KL demanding Rhaegar’s head (which kickstarting Aerys murderous frenzy).  The Starks weren't the Brackens and Aerys was set to flip if challenged. Rhaegar simply lacked the knowledge or the maturity to acknowledge that.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

Its very difficult to know what happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Agree!

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

the dragon must have 3 heads, which suggest that Rhaegar was also interested in raising dragons too.  

I don't know if anyone clearly knows what the "three heads" of the "dragon" are. Is this "dragon" an actual dragon or just a powerful Targaryen, who are also called dragons. As to what the "three heads" mean ... another very vague idea.  Are they three dragons hatching at the same time, are they children of a Targaryen, are they dragon riders? Is it something completely different?

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

We know from Ned that Lyanna was fiercely independent and she wasn’t exactly thrilled of marrying Robert Baratheon.

Yes to the independence part, but I am not sure about how she felt about Robert. All we get about her thoughts on Robert in Ned's memories, are that she felt that Robert would not stick to one bed and that his nature would not change. She never expresses that because of this she does not want to marry Robert. 

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

a-    The Targs were aware that their power was slipping. Egg failed to implement all his reforms and Rhaegar’s own dad was taken hostage in Duskendale. 

Yes. The Targaryen power had been slipping since they lost their dragons, and each further generation of Targaryen ruler slipped further away from the power that Aegon I wielded.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

b-    Similarly to his own ancestor, Rhaegar seemed interested to raise dragons + fulfil the prophecy. Unfortunately Aemon made him aware that the dragons have 3 heads ie it needs 3 children.

Again, we don't know what the three heads of the dragon actually means. It might be children, it might not be.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

c-    Rhaegar was increasingly getting frustrated by his daddy. That’s fair enough. People were getting burned for the slightest of reasons, his mother was suffering abuse and his own children were being insulted by the mad king.

It doesn' t much seem like Rhaegar might have ever been close to his father, and it is possible that Rhaegar became feed up with Aerys to finally try to usurp his throne.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

d-    At Harrenhal he met Lyanna who was also not happy in the way her daddy treated her.

We don't  know this anymore than we know that Lyanna didn't want to marry Robert.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

They did share common goals.

Rickard and Lyanna? How do we know they shared common goals?

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

Lyanna had the support of the Starks (and possibly the Tullys) army.

When Lyanna disappeared, neither a Stark or Tully army raised up to find or follow her.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

She was beautiful and considering that the Starks breed children like rabbits everything suggested that she’s fertile

First of all, beauty has nothing to do with being fertile. And we don't know that the Stark's did breed like rabbit's. Ned's generation had 4 children, but Rickard was an only child, and Rickard's father only had one sister, I believe. If there were so many Stark's about, then Robb should not have had difficulty in naming a family member his heir. Catelyn was trying to steer him to distant cousins in the vale. That doesn't sound like a family that breeds heirs like rabbits. No one is proven fertile until they have had a child.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

Rhaegar on the other hand was charming (enough for Cersei to exchange Jamie for him)

Cersei loves Jaime because he is her with a cock. Cersei loved Rhaegar because he was beautiful and was the prince, I doubt she cared if he was charming or not.

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

Surely the stag wouldn’t risk rebellion and kinslaying for a girl (now damaged goods) he barely even met. 

But that is exactly what Robert did. We don't know how well Robert and Lyanna knew each other, just that Ned said that Robert didn't see the iron underneath Lyanna. And it seems from Robert's statements in AGOT, he would have married Lyanna if she hadn't died, and he doesn't seem to care that she was no longer a maid. Certainly he hates Rhaegar for what he assumes was multiple attempts of raping Lyanna. But no where does Robert seem like he was upset about damaged goods. Robert was pretty damaged goods, himself!

On 7/24/2017 at 5:54 AM, devilish said:

Which suggests that R+L were either naïve or too young to comprehend how crazy their plans were.

We really have no idea about what Rhaegar and Lyanna's plans were, just a whole lot of colorful speculation.

In my opinion, the fact that the first idea's we get are about Rhaegar and Lyanna having a sexual relationship, are the very reasons that I doubt they ever were lovers at all. GRRM is telling a story but he is misleading us about the major details the whole time. I used to see the plot in a very clear manner, but then I realized that we know very few facts, and much of those are based the unreliable narrator, and that most of the common thoughts on the story are assumption and speculation.

I realize, I could be very wrong about my interpretation.Only time and another couple books from the King of Misdirection himself will clear that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

But House Tully could have placed  either Catelyn or Lysa with a house as a ward. This happened with girls, too, as we see with Myrcella. And while Jon Arryn did not have a son to foster some where, he did have an heir, in his nephew Elbert. And we might yet find out that Elbert Arryn was a ward of some northern house, but we have not been told that in the text yet.

Myrcella is placed as a ward specifically so she can get to know her future husband.  It's the only example we have.  It's highly likely women weren't placed as wards, because the risk there is that they end up sleeping with someone in that household and ruining their marriage potential.  For Myrcella, the risk is less because it's her future husband. 

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

We are certainly only told was GRRM wants us to know, a little reveal at a time. That is correct about directly marrying into House Arryn,  but the Stark's did marry into House Royce (Ned's great aunt married a Royce) and had three children, who married into three powerful vale houses, House Waynwood and House Corbray are named but the third house is left unnamed. It could have been to house Arryn. It could just as easily not have been, but it's a possible connection right there.

When GRRM wants us to know something, it's in the text in a timely manner.  If we aren't told, we have to assume (a) it didn't happen, or (b) it isn't of importance.  Since knowing that a Stark married into House Arryn would be pretty important (since it gets directly mentioned other times), we can presume it didn't happen.  Maybe the Starks are all secretly from a noble Valyrian family too, right?!?!  GRRM might just be waiting to tell us!

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

This is suspected but never proved. Only rumor's about the poison that might have killed Lord Yronwood. And even if that is the case, does placing his eldest son with this house really make sense to Doran? As a form of pacification?  Maybe, as it seems like he is playing a long, slow game, so his actual motivations and plans are almost a mystery. I know what he tells people, but I am not sure that is even the truth.

Either way, Oberyn kills the guy.  That's all there is to it.  We're given the reason for it.  And yes, it makes perfect sense for Doran to place Quent with Lord Yronwood.  It's classic feudal politics.  Quentyn may never be Prince of Dorne (though it seems as though Lord Yronwood is in on the whole Targaryen Restoration scheme, so he may know Quentyn will be Prince), but he'll be important and highly influential, which gives Lord Yronwood a great deal of future influence.  This is how feudal politics works.  Don't go making up mysteries where none exist.

Conspiracy theories exist when the facts and the stated motivations don't match up.  In this instance, everything does; Oberyn kills his brother's most important vassal, causing a potentially disastrous political shitstorm.  To calm it, Doran sends his eldest son to Yronwood as a boon; Anders likes this because now he becomes a foster-father, essentially, to the guy who will one day sit at the right hand of the Princess of Dorne (see how close Ned and Robert are to Jon Arryn).  This gives him a ton of political influence.  Long story short, Doran is giving Lord Yronwood a sign of princely favor and the ability to gain a powerful ally at court in the future as recompense for his brother killing the older Lord Yronwood (whose name I forget).

Maybe not one sentence spoken in the entire novels is true?  Maybe everyone lies, literally all the time?

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

Well, the text does tell us several times that houses Bolton and Stark have been long time enemies and more recent uneasy allies, but maybe that is open to interpretation. Not by me, but some people might interpret the houses as being rather cozy, I guess.

House Stark has been longtime enemies with almost all its vassals, since they were all competing petty kings at one point.  The Boltons held out the longest, but that was thousands of years previously.

And yes, the Red Wedding is one instance of the Boltons being disloyal.  Literally one instance.  Roose is an opportunist dick, to be sure, but one bad apple doesn't ruin the barrel.  We have zero evidence that the Boltons were a particularly disloyal House; in fact, they fight ferociously and loyally for the Starks in the War Across the Water for a long time.  Don't succumb to recency bias.

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

While I agree that Ned has no claim to the vale and would not be named Jon Arryn's heir, I do question why Ned is just hanging out in the vale. He does not strike me as an idle person, prone to fun and games, and wasted time. 

Because the Vale is his home, effectively?  He's spent almost the entire life he can remember there.

And maybe, just maybe, some of his personality stems from the massive personal trauma of losing nearly his entire family in the space of a year when he was 18?  Not to mention, living an enormous lie, sheltering a Targaryen in his midst without telling a soul about it?  I think if you asked most sober, responsible 35 year old men if they act any different than they did as a teen, they'd almost all say yes, and that's without having your family brutally murdered.

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

I do disagree with Jon Arryn's relatives. If he felt like any of those relatives would serve as his heir after Elbert died, then why did he make a marriage with Lysa? Did Hoster insist? Or did Jon Arryn feel he needed an heir? It could be both, I suppose, but I don't think he felt very secure in the living relatives that he had at the time.

I'm not saying he liked the idea of those relatives inheriting, merely that they are far more appropriate and acceptable heirs to the Vale lords than an unrelated Northerner.

And he made the marriage pact with Lysa to bring the Tully's into Robert's Rebellion.  This is explicit in the text.  Hoster is a tough customer and wanted to get as much as possible in return for throwing in with Robert.

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

This assumes that Rickard wanted a marriage for Ned for political alliance. For all we know, Ned might have been intended for the Nights Watch. I think it's hinted that Benjen listened to a Nights' Watch recruiter at Harrenhal, but we don't know that was what Rickard had intended for his children. The only thing we know are about the two marriages arranged prior to his death,  Brandon to Cat and Lyanna to Robert.

It is possible, but highly unlikely, that Ned was meant for the Watch.  It's incredibly risky, dynastically speaking.  "Heir and a spare" is the normal phrase, or "one for the manor, one for the war, one for the Church, and pray for no more" to take an actual saying from real life.  As in, oldest sons inherit, second sons get a commission in the army, third sons become celibate and join the clergy, and you hope for no one else to complicate the inheritance by establishing competing cadet branches.  Ned would be groomed to be the strong right arm of his brother.  This almost certainly includes an advantageous marriage (e.g. Brynden Tully to the Redwyne lady).

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

Even if Ned didn't have a marriage lined up, he should by this age, at least been holding a keep or holdfast of his own, and it seems odd to me that he was not.

He's 18.  It isn't odd at all.  We see plenty of younger sons without holdfasts.  Case in point, the adult Kevan Lannister.  Younger sons don't get their own holds, necessarily.  Or Garlan Tyrell, who is only getting an inheritance because it's being taken by force from the Florents.  Ned is more likely to be groomed to stay in Winterfell and advise his brother, command his armies, etc.

 

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

Lysa was never intended for Jon Arryn. It seems that was a move of necessity, for both Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully. Since the Lysa and Jaime idea never worked out, Hoster could have intended her for Stannis, for all we know, but the war changed things. There are several possibilities that could have worked out.

Right.  Lysa is intended for Jaime.  But he joins the Kingsguard, which scotches that plan, and then the Rebellion breaks out, Jon Arryn loses his heir, and Hoster Tully sees that he has a lot of leverage (the rebels are desperate), and can get a grandson as Lord of the Eyrie to boot.  I'm not sure why you think Ned should have been betrothed to Lysa (which I believe was your point); that's wasteful by Hoster, putting both his daughters in one dynastic basket.

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

Well, Tywin is either crafty enough to influence people to do his bidding, or he isn't. Rhaegar could be pliable enough to fall for Tywin's plans or not. I don't know, but either is possible.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.  Maybe I can convince you to steal a pack of gum from a convenience store.  That isn't the same as convincing you to murder the storeowner and burn the place down, now is it?  Tywin being able to influence Lord Darklyn to present a petition to Aerys, and imply that if he captured the king he'd get what he wanted, is not the same as convincing Rhaegar to abduct Lyanna Stark.  The former case, there is a lot of plausible deniability for Tywin, and moreover, Lord Darklyn is being led one step by reasonable step into treason (and Aerys is being reasonably manipulated into going personally to deal with it).  Straight up asking Rhaegar to commit a crime is a way different story.

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

I think it is possible that at one time Tywin wanted his daughter to be queen, but I think he became jaded and angry enough with Targaryen rule, he might have just wanted the throne for himself, or for Jaime. And Jaime could have had it; He sat on that throne after deposing the king, claiming the iron throne. It was his until he gave it up to Ned. Just as Ned could have claimed it, as well, but he gave it up to Robert. 

I may be done.  Go learn about medieval notions of kingship before you start up with this.  Robert Baratheon is not king because he conquered the Iron Throne; the rebels proclaim him king because of his Targaryen blood!  By any measure, Ned is the party most wronged by the Crown, and the North supports the Rebellion more wholeheartedly than the Stormlands.  So why is Robert's Rebellion and not Eddard's?  Because Robert has a blood claim to the throne.  Which Jaime and Ned don't.

So, one more time - Jaime nor Tywin nor Ned nor Cersei can claim the Iron Throne.  Get over it.  If you own a house and go on vacation, and I squat in the house, it isn't mine - it's still yours, no matter whose possession it's in at the time.

On 7/21/2017 at 2:42 PM, St Daga said:

Does it matter how you have the dreams, as long as you think they are prophetic and act on them?

Are you a native English speaker?  Because if so, this is embarrassing.  There is a difference between a dream and a vision.  Furthermore, whether you think they are prophetic does not make them so.  If I dream of winning the lottery, and go buy a lottery ticket, that doesn't mean I'll win.  It means I'm an idiot following his dreams.

By contrast, things like shade of the evening and weirwood paste are known to induce clairvoyant visions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

When GRRM wants us to know something, it's in the text in a timely manner.  If we aren't told, we have to assume (a) it didn't happen, or (b) it isn't of importance.

I understand that you and I look at the text in different manners, but it's possible that GRRM is giving us information a bit at a time to toy with our perceptions of the story. For instance, we don't get information on the fisherman's daughter until the fifth book in the series. Does that mean it's less important because it was not delivered in the first or second book? I tend to think it's important to the mystery of the children born around the time of the rebellion. Same goes for all the information on Aegon/Young Griff, since this information isn't given to us until the fifth book as well. Does that mean it's less important or isn't of importance at all? It seems to me that GRRM is feeding us history and past events, as part of the mystery of the story, but he is doing it a bit at a time. With two books left, one can imagine he might have a few more tid bit's to reveal.

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Don't go making up mysteries where none exist.

Thanks for telling me how I should think!

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And maybe, just maybe, some of his personality stems from the massive personal trauma of losing nearly his entire family in the space of a year when he was 18?  Not to mention, living an enormous lie, sheltering a Targaryen in his midst without telling a soul about it?  I think if you asked most sober, responsible 35 year old men if they act any different than they did as a teen, they'd almost all say yes, and that's without having your family brutally murdered.

I agree that what happened to Ned's family has probably had an impact on his personality, but we hear in the very first book, that Ned was always staid and not prone to goofing off. Robert tells us when talking to Ned "You are too hard on yourself Ned. You always were." and "You were never the boy you were", both implying that  Ned was probably always sober and responsible, so much that Robert only relates on one time that Ned cut loose, and Robert attributes that moment to Ned fathering Jon. I don't know that the Ned of the beginning of our story is a much different Ned than prior to the rebellion and his families turmoil. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 Ned is more likely to be groomed to stay in Winterfell and advise his brother, command his armies, etc.

So then why isn't he in Winterfell, both at the times of the Tourney of Harrenhal and the death of Rickard and Brandon? I think it's odd, you don't need to.

13 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 I'm not sure why you think Ned should have been betrothed to Lysa (which I believe was your point);

Nope, I don't think that and never said that, so I am not sure why you believe I did.

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

More absurd than time traveling fetus's? I'm just curious.

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Robert Baratheon is not king because he conquered the Iron Throne; the rebels proclaim him king because of his Targaryen blood! 

Of course Robert was made king because he helped conquer the previous monarchy. If there was no war, do you think the lords of the country would have just said, "Gee, Aerys is a dick, Rhaegar is too emo, and his children smell dornish. Maybe we can bypass them all and name a cousin from the storm lands king". It's all related, you can't have one with out the other in this case. If none of the leaders from the rebel army had Targaryen blood, how do you suppose they would have decided who should be king? They would have named somebody.  And Robert might have Targaryen blood, but he is a Baratheon; a stag, not a dragon.

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Get over it.  If you own a house and go on vacation, and I squat in the house, it isn't mine - it's still yours, no matter whose possession it's in at the time.

Come on now. I think current world ownership laws are a bit different than usurping a throne in history. Still if a government or legal system collapses, you may have no claim to any land or homes you hold legally. In Westeros, if you have no power, you will struggle to hold a throne, and a person with more power than you can take it away from you. Aegon created his throne and kingdom with power, not because he was related to someone; with power (dragons) he usurped many thrones to form his great kingdom.

A real world example of that would be Guthrum, who was a danish warlord who became a king after  warring with the anglo-saxons. He consolidated the power of the danish forces that had invaded and he took the thrones of Mercia and Northumberland. He did this because he had power, not because he was related to the previous Kings of Mercia or Northumberland. He made a huge push for the throne of Wessex as well, but he didn't succeed. Power won him his throne and he ruled the Danelaw for years.

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Are you a native English speaker?  Because if so, this is embarrassing.

I am. Sorry my grammar is so embarrassing for you. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

There is a difference between a dream and a vision.  Furthermore, whether you think they are prophetic does not make them so.

Dreams and visions are very similar. As a matter of fact, a vision is defined as an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition. Do you consider Jon's wolf dreams to not be important because he didn't drop some acid before having them? What defines if a dream is prophetic or not, in your opinion? Does it have to come true? Can only certain people have them?

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

By contrast, things like shade of the evening and weirwood paste are known to induce clairvoyant visions.

So, based on this comment, you must feel that the only dreams that Dany has that are clairvoyant are her visions in the house of the undying, because she drank some shade of the evening? Not any of her dragon dreams, or the times she dreams of Quaith.

13 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Maybe the Starks are all secretly from a noble Valyrian family too, right?!?!  GRRM might just be waiting to tell us!

Well, I don't think the Stark's are Valyrian, but it is interesting that the Stark's hold one of the two castles in Westeros that have tower's decorated with gargoyles, the other castle being Dragonstone, which is indeed associated with people descended from Valyria. GRRM might still have a reveal in the story related to that fun fact!

 

You make some good points, but some I am less inclined to agree with.  It's always good to consider other opinions even if you don't agree. Debate is what pushes  idea's forward, to see if we are missing things or if there might be another way the story might fall into place. I always appreciate a polite discussion of the text. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...