Jump to content

LucyMormont

Members
  • Content count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LucyMormont

  • Rank
    Squire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LucyMormont

    Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

    Wow, the EW article might have given a release date, or at least a deadline in March 2018. That's earlier than I thought. https://ew.com/tv/2018/11/01/game-of-thrones-final-season-ew-cover-story/ Edition: Just realized it was the wrong year,lol.
  2. LucyMormont

    Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

    Thank you. Then I think we can't rule it out. When I first heard Friki's spoiler, I thought that somehow HBO had managed to deceive him. But now I don't know what to think, Javi says he got the same info from 2 different sources, one of them "very good" (in the sense of reliable, I think),and both unrelated to Friki's ones, which confirm Tyrion trial for treason, although his sources didn't give him all the details Friki's ones gave him.
  3. LucyMormont

    Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

    Posibly, but may be there is more to it. I rewatched Friki/Javi vid and they clearly say that the dead Kings Landing's population may be "one of the things" for which Tyrion is on trial, so they think there might be other things too. At the beginning of their vid, in the "speculation" part, they talked about an article Javi wrote recently concerning all the people who know the end of the story, and they touch the topic of this thread . They remembered that George's editor Anne Groell said that Daniel Abraham knows Tyrion's endgame, They think that the famous line of book 1 that Daniel Abraham had left out and later had to include at George's instructions, related to Tyrion's endgame, may very well be the same line Friki's sources told him it was recalled by Bran's testimony in Tyrion's trial, that is "I never bet against my family". Can anyone here confirm that this line is actually included in the graphic novel? I did not read it.
  4. LucyMormont

    Season 8: News, Spoilers And Leaks

    I still fail to see why this is treason ... war crime, mass murder? likely; but treason? Unless Jon or Dany ordered him otherwise and he purposely disobeyed.
  5. LucyMormont

    sansa, arya, and dany

    Lol. And then, "queen" Sansa and queen Dany would put Jon in charge, because he is the most fit to lead in this troubled times. Seriously, all the possible struggles between them for different reasons, and Jon's own identity crisis, won't last long. Or in the worst case,all that things will have to wait till the WW are dealt with. They just do not have time for that kind of narrow-mindedness now. And there is a strong possibility that some or even all of them do not survive, so what's the point?
  6. LucyMormont

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    This exactly. As in real life history, european royal houses who practiced inbreeding for many generations weren't aware of it. The most representative of this were the Habsburg, whose last Spanish king, Charles II, noted for his physical, intellectual, and emotional disabilities, received the surname of The Bewitched (el Hechizado), and was believed of having been victim of a curse by his contemporaries, and as far as we know, that is what he himself believed. Things were so far that when he failed to produce an heir, was subjected to painful rituals of exorcism, which I suppose did not help at all with his mental stability. His sister, Margharet Theresa , a beautiful girl (the princess in the Velazquez's famous painting Las Meninas) and "the joy" of her parents, married her uncle (who was also her first cousin once removed, since was her mother's brother and her father's first cousin). People who give a modern mindset to Planeto's characters, and think those characters would see things as we see them in 2017, just don't have a clue.
  7. LucyMormont

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Yes, and that illustrates that even in our occidental modern world, it's not the same everywhere. Oh, but that is entirely another thing, you are talking about minor abuse here. I was talking about in-law ties involving only adult people, particularly in the ridiculousness of a legislation that allows a niece to marry an uncle, but forbids two adults who meet and fall in love to marry, simply because one's father married a month ago the other's mother, and then they became legally step siblings, even when they are both adults, independent people,who had no longer lived in his/her parent household. Viserys was certainly an abusive brother, a child molester and a prick. Would it be less offensive if the abuser was, let's say, Illyrio instead of Viserys?
  8. LucyMormont

    sansa, arya, and dany

    I agree. And given the dynamics of this and previous seasons, I think this is where the writters are going too. There was too much of a "I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms so you must bend the knee" for not having any consecuence in Dany's mindset when she discovers that it is not her birthright after all. The people who surround her and who came with her to Westeros may have chosen her, but she did not choose herself for thinking that she would be a better ruler. She took upon herself as her destiny to recover what her family was stolen, and as the last member of that family, that birthright is also a duty. So, I think she will offer to "bend the knee" to Jon, and he'll refuse. I also think that Sansa might not be fully ok with Jon and Dany, but not for the Warden title. That does not threaten Sansa's position as Lady of Winterfell, like when Robert took the "Warden of the East" title from Robin Arryn after his father's death didn't change his Paramount Lordship. Robert took the title from him just because he did not consider a boy able to effectively deffend part of the realm. That will be very interesting to see.
  9. LucyMormont

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    There is a whole list of forbidden "sexual relations" in the biblical texts, but those prohibitions are not exclusively related to consanguinity, in addition to the closest by-blood ties, you have also: ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father." ‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. ‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her. ‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother. So, it seems that a major concern was, in such a patriarchal society where women were property, to set rules in order to mantain a peaceful coexistence, so you should "not offend" the males of the family by having sex with their wives, almost in the same sense that it was wrong, let's say, to rob them some sheep of their flock. Outside of the list of banned sexual intercourse, on the contrary cousin marriage seems to have been encouraged Strangely, those "prohibitions" seem to have survived till many modern law systems, where along the list of "forbidden" incestuous relationships based on blood ties, you have also banned in-law ties in many countries that have no biological reason to exist. The legislation of my country is very liberal, but paradoxically it also includes those legal ties. Marriage between ascendants / descendants of the same line, no matter the grade, and no matter whether by blood or in-law, and between siblings or half siblings (again, no matter whether by blood or by law), is prohibited. Everything else is allowed (avuncular, first cousin, etc.). But the prohibitions only refers to legal marriage, incest per se is not punished, because our Constitution states that "The private actions of men who in no way offend public order, nor harm a third part, are reserved only to God, and exempt from the authority of the magistrates"... so, what you do inside your own home is your own business and nobody can intervene. Then, here you can marry your aunt/uncle , but not a stepsibling, or an adoptive sibling with whom you have no blood tie at all.. Recently a widower who wanted to marry the daughter of his deceased spouse and was denied permission, went to Court, and obtained a first ruling in favor (saying that our incest laws are outdated and are unconstitutional) , the Office of the Civil Registry appealed, and the case is now in the Supreme Court on hold of the final decision.
  10. LucyMormont

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Wow, that is quite a story. I think it perfectly illustrates that our taboos are not rational, and that the social conditioning we receive in our early years can be stronger than anything else, even religion.
  11. LucyMormont

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    After reading the 10 pages on this thread, it seems to me that the overall positions are 1) Incest is a very bad thing, aunt-nephew romantic/sexual relationship is incest; they should be severely troubled by it and, either they will end it or it will be doomed by circumstances outside them. 2) Incest is a bad thing, but aunt-nephiew is not viewed as incest. So, they'll go on after the initial shock. I am mostly in the 2) position, but my problem with 1) is not that they disagree, my main problem is basically that its proponents want this series to become some sort of Aesop's Fable, that teaches the reader/viewer about right and wrong, and to lecture the audience in the direction of their particular mindset/point of view. Geez, this is a fantasy world, and a fictional story! WHY would anyone want that?? I certainly do not want that, I am perfectly happy with a fictional world with its own rules, mindset and worldview. That's why, while I am a fervent opponent to the death penalty and certainly would not admire anybody who defends it in real life, and I strongly feel nothing but disgust for a person who administers a lethal dose to another human being (however impersonal the process), still Ned Stark is my favorite character of this whole series, and mi admiration for him does not diminish because he beheads people considered criminals in that worldview. And while I abhor real war, real murders, real beheadings, rapes, backstabbing, treason, etc., (most of those things far, far worse than real-life incest); I can sit and somehow enjoy watching a gorgeous fake dragon torching a bunch of fictional people or a well filmed battle secuence. I have not seen any of those in real life, but sure as hell I would not like them a little bit. But hey, to each his own.
  12. LucyMormont

    Can we talk about Jon?

    While some people truly hate Jon and others just dislike him, what the majority of us are doing here is give our opinion about the characters deeds and motivations, and their interactions. This is your opinion, which I share. But it's just an opinion, like everyone elses's one. And again, we are talking about characters interactions. You don't need to hate Jon, to think that at first the northeners won't be happy with him pledging the North to Dany; it's what was forshadowed by the previous dynamic: they didn't want him to go south, not even to bring the needed allies, because not one of them is really aware of the dimension of the threat; and particularly they don't trust the Mad King's daughter. They will not welcome her in the moment they see her, that's for sure. Yet, when they understand that they need her and that Jon did what he did to protect the north , and when she has proven herself worthy, they'll accept her. In show: Condemned by whom? He was the Lord Commander, and the Watch was without a Maester at that moment. How would the Watch implement a trial and reach a verdict? Didn't the three higher rank officers below him participate in his "punishment"? In books: There was no trial, and neither an organized mutiny, but the attack was certainly due because they thought Jon commited (or was about to commit) treason to the Night's Watch when he declared his intentions to lead an army to Winterfell and kill Ramsay Bolton. The Night's Watch oath forbids to take part in the political struggles of the 7 kingdoms. So yes, while is true that in the show letting the wildings enter was no treason and the people who attacked him were just driven by old hatreds and prejudices; in the books he indeed broke his vows. We can debate if in doing so he was right or wrong, and all opinions are valid. In this I agree, except for the bold part. In the book, Jon's death is not conclusive. "He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold ...". Perhaps he just fainted. perhaps his spirit left his body and was safe within Ghost before the fourth knife; there are other possibilities than just death, GRRM wrote the text ambiguously on purpose. D&D did a bad Job: I know he died, I believe that death ended his vows, thus the characters who know that he died consider him free now. BUT many other characters don't know he died, he made sure of that. Then, they NOT thiking he is a traitor and a deserter is a HUGE inconsistency. I love Jon, and I was very pissed off when none of the northeners questioned him for that. Please, this is an english forum; you can at least use google translator and save the forum members of having to do the same to understand what you are saying. Thank you.
  13. LucyMormont

    Can we talk about Jon?

    In mine (Argentina) they are perfectly legal. Legal marriage is forbidden only between relatives of the same line (parents-sons, grandparents-grandsons), full siblings and half siblings. Not that an uncle wedding a niece or an aunt a nephew is a common thing, though.
  14. The problem with this, is that Jon pledged not just himself, but the whole North, without asking anybody's opinion, and that is something the northeners Lords might not be okey with. They will welcome the help against the WW in the moment they get to see the first one of them, but that does not mean that they'll accept Dany as their Queen, or having to eventually go south to fight Cersei. An alliance is a very different thing than giving up the North independency, so to speak. We know as fact, that Sansa wasn't happy at all when she read Jon's scroll about this, and didn't consider the idea of "unnaming"a "named" king out of the possibilities.
  15. LucyMormont

    The Great Debate: Should Jon Have Lied?

    It's my favorite trait too, I love both Ned and Jon for that. But "honor" has more to it than following fiercely and blindly some code to the letter, and disregarding the spirit of it and the greater good. Ned knew this, that is why he LIED to everyone from the moment he had Jon under his care. He had also already "bent the knee" to Robert when he was gifted with a boy he didn't know it existed, and his dying sister asked him to promise something that would imply treason to that king. So, his choices at that moment were 1)I'm so, so sorry, dear sister. I can not promise that, I'm already honor bond to Robert, and this child is Robert's enemy and can threaten his kingship 2) I promise. He chose 2). Then, his options were (a) To say the truth to Robert (and everyone else), give up Jon and deliver him to the king's mercy. Jon most likely would have been slaughtered like his half siblings were. There's no way Robert would have let Rhaegar's trueborn son to live. (b) Say the truth, and tell Robert "Sorry Bob, he is my blood and you can't have him. If you insist, I'll have to rebel and we'll go to war,,, again". Have not his people suffered enough already? He had a duty to his vassals too, noble and smallfolk alike; to his wife and son, to his House. (c) To lie. This is the only option that could somehow, in an imperfect way, balance all of his duties to different people. This was the least wrong thing to do, IMO.
×