Jump to content

Ser Micaelys

Members
  • Content count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ser Micaelys

  • Rank
    Freerider

Recent Profile Visitors

524 profile views
  1. Ser Micaelys

    GRRM swears fealty to Tolkien in this ASOIAF Easter Egg

    perhaps it's my accent, but yes Lord Harroway's Town rolls off the tongue much better. The words don't clash together, the name Harroway is an odd choice by it's self but not al together, perhaps there is a reason George chose it. Then again it doesn't have to evoke the same imagery.
  2. Ser Micaelys

    GRRM swears fealty to Tolkien in this ASOIAF Easter Egg

    But the inn keeper didn't name it, George did, a man who is a fantastic writer. But even in world something sounding good is definitely a motivation for naming your business, you want people to like saying and hearing something, to remember it. Maybe it's due to so many years in speech therapy that the inn of the kneeling king sounds so abhorrent to me, it's the type of sentence I would avoid. Personally I would think that a king kneeling and becoming a lord, demoting himself, is not as meaningful as a reminder that in the end everyone is just human, that Torrhen in that moment was no higher, no better, than all the other men. The inn is in the Riverland's after all, he was not their King nor their lord, with no power over the people of the riverlands, he was just a man who now answered to another man just like them. Inn of the kneeling man sounds more attractive to my ears, and for the meaning above it's a more attractive image to my mind. Imo king sounds bad and not as poetic and lord just sounds and seems stupid. Push comes to shove the story is well known in universe, so it's lucrative anyway for the inn, and again I think my above meaning could have a lucrative symbolism for the people of westeros as well.
  3. Ser Micaelys

    GRRM swears fealty to Tolkien in this ASOIAF Easter Egg

    why in scrabble would we only have the letters for tolkien, you took Tolkien from 'Inn of the kneeling' in no particular order and left over nine letters unused. A place to mark an interesting historical moment that Martin clearly wanted us to know about and remember. I can also make 'knight of lee' with the available letters, perhaps George Martin is a big Stan Lee fan. Is the question why is it the 'inn of the kneeling man' man over 'inn of the kneeling king/lord' really that much of a question, because the obvious answer is pretty simple, especially in my mind from a writer's perspective. Just say them aloud, inn of the kneeling man sounds much better and flows. inn of the kneeling king, sounds terrible, I imagine it's the same reason why Torrhen is remembered as the KIng who knelt not the kneeling king. A lord didn't kneel either, he was a king, and again lord does not flow as well. Some things just sound better.
  4. Ser Micaelys

    Great lord wards

    House Stark, where the gap seems to be with the great lords and fostering, I would prob imagine the following: Robb - prob best to keep Robb at Winterfell under Ned, and close to Jon to keep them as close as brothers. Sansa - to Kings Landing with the royal family (without knowing how f'd up they all are) Arya - keep in Winterfell Bran - to the Manderly's Rickon - eventually to Glover's, Umber's or Karstark's. And bring a Mormont to Winterfell, Lyanna perhaps.
  5. okay, this is the other thread I was getting mixed up with so moving my comments here. As to the existence of Bael, it's strange to discuss if a mythical hero in a fictional world really existed in the histories of the fictional world. But I think King Arthur as a comparison is the best one. A mythical King passed on down in folklore, his existence (and date of possible said existence) debated and studied, various things attributed to him that did in fact happen. You know what else goes hand in hand with the legend of King Arthur, Camelot and the round table? Guinevere and Lancelot, which is not an original part of the legend, Lancelot was a much later add on, yet these days try to have any Arthurian story which doesn't include Lancelot and Guinevere's romance, a romance which just so happens to have many similarities to the story of Tristan and Iseult. Somebody said you cannot compare Arthur to Bael, yet it's proof how even our society can be confused on our history and if someone existed or not. How that folktale absorbs others, twists facts and fiction. So if it can happen in real life, why is it not possible in a fictional world which happens to be inspired by the same region where it's from. Another big part of the King Arthur legend - his enemy was his bastard son who eventually killed him in battle. Hmm. Even if he did really exist in the histories of ASOIAF that doesn't mean everything about his tale is true, did he ever go to winterfell, did he ever steal a Stark maiden, did she give birth to his son, did his son become the King or Lord of winterfell, did this son kill him? he is called Bael the Bard both North and South of the wall, not King Bael or something of the like but Bael the bard . What is in a name? what does his whole name tell us. Perhaps that he is a storyteller. Why wouldn't the south know about bard but yet they do know about him. Well clearly his songs have made it down to the south, perhaps he existed or some basis to his myth, enough that the south knows of him. Was there a conspiracy or cover up, or just the fans of the hero bolstering up their folk hero. The Starks aren't the only ones who may have motive to change the facts. Perhaps Bael's demise at the hands of the son he refused to kill is more romantic than he got his arse kicked and they were all pushed back to beyond the wall. A legend that he 'plucked a rose' from the Stark's and planted his seed was to mock their southern enemies, some propaganda, that the Stark's have Wildling blood through Bael to add prestige to the wildlings or diminish them in their eyes. When it comes to the time line of if Bael was pre or post conquest, I lean towards pre. The tale's of the freefolk vs the lack of records south of the wall speaks more of folk story of the past getting added to as time goes on. The south has no reason to cover up that sort of thing, the Stark's maybe, but post conquest I don't see the point of covering up a bastard and then raising him as heir and then lord. Kind of defeats the purpose of a cover up. A Bolton skinning a Lord of Winterfel also seems unlikely to have been unrecorded or covered up, Bolton is a much lesser house compared to Stark, killing and flaying a Warden of the North would be a huge thing. Pre conquest though it's not a problem, these houses and many others were always at war, Kings themselves, no higher King needs to seek retribution. Also I would think pre conquest it would be much, much more likely that if the freefolk tales are true or could be true, for a bastard Stark to become the actual King/Lord. Legitimising a bastard and said bastard inheriting and not having other claimants fighting over it would be a lot harder post conquest when the Targaryens would need to be involved, perfect time for others to stake their own claim or a power grab from another house. If the Stark maiden in the Bael legend did in fact remarry and have other children, other sons, those legitimate heirs could easily have inherited instead and would have had the backing of their father's family to help stake the claim. Let's say Bael did take the Stark Maid, did impregnate her and leave his son behind, well then whose to say the Wildings and their songs are correct about that child being th e future lord and the one who killed Bael. They're North of the Wall, that could be a huge assumption on their and Bael's side, he thinks his son, the eldest Stark grandson, is the Lord and leader, his big enemy, meets him in battle and cannot kill him but it's actually his own son's legitimate half brother (who could be as young as only one year younger than Bael's son and at a fighting age a year or two or three or more might be impossible to tell), or second cousin, or some other distant relative who has risen to that position, while his bastard is somewhere else in the fight, hell he might have already slain him, or he is back home, or he was fostered off to another house, or left to freeze one hard winter. From the Targaryen reign we see how inheritance works, so post conquest definitely lowers the chance of Bael's bastard inheriting the highest position in the North without any records. Or is there insinuation that Bael didn't knock up a stark but queen alysanne, in which case there's obviously many flaws in the wildling legends and they are totally unreliable, it doesn't even make sense for the freefolk to cover up for the targs, hiding the truth doesn't need some elaborate lie. It's like Ned Stark, he keeps it simple comes back with a baby says its his and says like nothing else. boom, truth hidden. Or is Bael because of the ae meant to be the targ bastard? i'm lost with vague mentions of queen's crowning at the wall, did she give birth and dump her bastard in the north, what's that got to do the stark's, other than if a targ bael then got targ blood into the stark tree explaining away magical abilities in current starks. or did the stark's claim her bastard and her shame. But with my above paragraph I find anything targ related unlikely due to believing if bael did exist it was pre conquest. A little bit of wording in folk legends and folk songs moving things forward isn't a huge thing, it's what our own history shows us what happens with folk legends and myths and well stories to this day. It's why people seemed to live for thousands of years in old stories, myths and other texts. Think of it as old school rebooting of a franchise. It may be bias but folk songs and stories, even if they are written down later, vs at the time records of a... more advanced society, I'm going for the latter. It's not about bias, it is about what isn't there and is, the conspiracy argument that the losers were defeated so they didn't record it or destroyed their records is so weak. It's weak in the infamous Moses example as it is with Bael. The Starks were the winners, the freefolk were the losers who were defeated, there are records and lots of south of the wall stories and legends about the Starks losing, dying, being defeated, having awesome strong enemies, huge battles, so why the huge cover up with Bael because they did win and continued to shine. And when there are records, or presumed records, it's said Bael isn't mentioned in Winterfell records so imo that means there were records, so it's not that there aren't records of that time even if we the reader don't know their content - we are told what's not there. And certain things would collaborate the story even if there was a conspiracy, the biggest example in the Bael legend is his bastard son being lord of winterfel later flayed (and the fact that north of the wall this would be none post conquest yet apparently didn't get recorded anywhere south of it), things that would be really hard to cover up and for no reason. Stark enemies wouldn't just happily ignore those details. If the logic is that the Stark's had some complicated conspiracy because of shame or defeat (for things that aren't that shameful or an enemy who never defeated them) to hide info, instead of having their own bolstered up version of their real defeat and their own propaganda going on, and that this logic is compelling, wouldn't it be just as logical to look at it from the other side and say that the wildings are the ones in fact doing that, that their Bael the BARD who was killed by the head Stark had his story nip and tucked to cover up the extent of their and his loss. The most obvious reason for such huge discrepancies between Ygritte's tale of Bael and the lack of knowledge and records in the south to collaborate it is that it's simply not true. It's as Jon called it, a lie. Imo, though it means little, it is totally probable for Bael to have existed or to have never existed, each as likely as the other. It's totally possible for him to have not existed or not have lived in the way the freefolk believe yet still vaguely be known south of the wall. It's possible, and in my opinion waaaaay more likely, to have all happened pre conquest despite some wording, and in that case parts of it never having happened or Bael's legend is a combination of feats of various other freefolk, or hugely exaggerated, or a combination of all three. this is way longer that I expected, sorry for babbling and rehashing some points others have said.
  6. apologies, as soon as I pressed submit I realised I was confusing two separate threads I've been reading. the Bael connection and the fact my internet constantly cuts out so I read the already loaded pages of multiple threads and go back and forth. And of course even though I realised my mistake immediately and went to edit you were too quick for me and saw the middle section I had planned to cut out, added that it took so long to edit because my internet kept cutting out.
  7. doesn't your last few posts contradict putting emphasis on Bael's spelling being a hint to valyrian ancestry. It may not be common in non valyrian names but that doesn't make it unique. no it doesn't. In your GRRM quote the words 'tend to' and 'usually' are used, these are not absolutes. There are exceptions to his consistency, his self proclaimed non absolute consistency. It's clear that AE is very, very prevalent in Valyrian first names, where as it's not prevalent in the FM or Andals but not non existent. Though it's not a name, it is a title, but maester predates Andals in Westeros, which if they're not a Valyrian organisation gives further credence to its usage with the first men. I'm curious about how AE should be pronounced, is there a set rule in Valyrian or the common tongue etc. Maege, Maester, Paege, Baelish I always hear the ay sound in my head. With the Targ names its less consistent, in my head and when I hear others say it. Aegon? Eh-gon or Ay-gon, so then how does Daemon, Daeron, Aemon and Aenys get said. What about the female ae is Rhaelle, Daenerys, Rhaenys and Daena. How does Bael sound?
  8. Tywin kept much better control. Robert's reign had an appearance of peace though as said above he was well connected but really in Jon Arryn's hands KL's was corrupt and power given to the wrong people destabilizing things behind the scene. The Lannister's had too much power and the fact his wife had influence over him imo says a lot.
  9. tywin, he wasn't the best but leagues above jon arryn
  10. Ser Micaelys

    Minor characters you wanna see win and why?

    A lot of good ones already listed. I have a huge soft spot for Rickon, though he is from a major family I would currently class him as having a minor role. He is so young and without time jump I think his options are limited but I don't know at the back of my heart and head I am cheering for little Rickon, hoping if there is a Winterfell when it all ends that Rickon carries on the Stark lineage and rules the north and helps the wildings integrate into society.
  11. some ideas are alright, at least interesting even if you think it's not real. I quickly avoided OotGH videos, I feel they've created their own little background story and it's just way too much guesswork. Push comes to shove they may be against R+L=J and though that theory might have been a more surprising reveal if the books came out quicker, at least that is simple and clean and makes sense, you don't need a whole background to explain it away.
  12. Ser Micaelys

    Where are Tyrion’s bastards?

    i get the impression he only sleeps with prostitutes. they probably don't want to get pregnant and take care of things, they cannot prove the child is a Lannister so what would be the point. I also don't think Tyrion would go for a virgin prostitute, he seems the type who would like an experienced prostitute who is good at pretending and can hide their disgust of him.
  13. different people have different, surely by looking at the real world we see that beautiful women come in all shapes, colours and variety. Different people are attracted to different things and one possible 'flaw' could be insignificant compared tp the rest of them. Some people will look at a person and not find them attractive at all while another will think they are very, very beautiful. Some people think petite and small is more attractive, others like tall women, some like skinny women with little curves others prefer busty women and/or a larger behind. Some like fair skin, some darker, or all those in between. All these beautiful women could all be beautiful with people ranking them differently due to their own tastes, I know many people in real life who are very taken with the dark hair and light eyes (blue, grey) combination. Some people are really attracted to the rare, the opposite, or some people like beauty that reflects themselves. These are books, I don't see how we can argue over who is more attractive and just how attractive they are. It really baffles me that due to a long face description that means apparently someone is a write off, I've seen that expressed a lot on this site. If a longer face is the worse insult that can be thrown at a person I think we should really question how 'ugly' a person is.
  14. Ser Micaelys

    Is unbroken Male descent important in Westeros?

    I really don't understand why you replied this to my post. I could say nuh duh. Perhaps reread my post I get the impression you don't understand it. Nothing you respond says nope to anything I wrote. For example, the Baratheon's are not any less prestigious because they are Baratheon's not Durrandon's, if saying they descend from the Durrandon's through the female line makes them lesser it wouldn't be mentioned, it is mentioned to add status. The same reason the other families claim female descent, it doesn't make them greater than a related family with pure male line, if it did they would have inherited it, it simply makes them greater than what they would have been without the claim, I would think that is patently obvious. It would be less IF there was a ruling male line house but it's the Baratheon's who got the power and then eventually became the Royal family of the seven kingdoms. Whether the claimant is male or female, from a male or female line, if they win the claim and their line succeeds and successfully carries on the house it is not ''lesser" than any other house. The OP is about the status of the house not an individual claimant at times of inheritance or disputes. Is there anything in the story that is patently obvious that the Baratheon, Martell, Lannister or any other house is considered lesser due to female descent over other houses because they have unbroken make descent? Is it ever even specifically mentioned that a house even has an unbroken male line?
  15. Ser Micaelys

    Is unbroken Male descent important in Westeros?

    I think it's important at times of inheritance, it seems the ideal heir is the father's eldest son to his eldest son and so on, mirroring the typical real world preference. Honestly it makes much more sense for bloodlines, inheritance and names to go from the mothers side, mother to daughter and so on, as you always know the biological mother and the father cannot be guaranteed. But I don't think it adds or lessens prestige, just like Prince William isn't any less an heir, royal or special in England because his grandmother is the Queen instead of a grandfather being a King, he will inherit and become King. I think the difference is not being of the male line but the MAIN line. The Starks are the ruling house, they have not taken a different surname and been supplanted by another house whether the blood descent is the same or not. It's my impression the inherited female line keep their surname if they are inheriting and it's more prestigious than their husbands, maybe I have this wrong but isn't even Harry the Heir expected to change to an Arryn if/when he inherits. So what I am getting at is when the houses claim descent through the female line they are ADDING prestige by saying even if the house is officially blah blah blah look at this cool ancestor we have, look at the rights we could have. It's explaining why the last name is different. House Baratheon are from the female Durrandon line and known and said because they are Baratheons not Durrandon's. Even if the Stark's at one point or more times went through the line of a female heir it doesn't matter because the Stark's still rule, it doesn't need to be said their from any Stark line, they don't need to say we descend from the Stark's through the female line it would be redundant. Unless someone has crowed about coming from an unbroken male line it's not important as long as you are the main ruling family, the recent male line is important at specific times of inheritance, it gives you a better claim the closer you are to the seat but there are always other claims and sometimes that direct line is ignored for other reasons eg. Egg (over an infant).
×