Jump to content

Black Crow

Members
  • Posts

    21,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Black Crow

  1. I'm not convinced that the wights are an "enemy". That requires a consciousness and intelligence they clearly don't have. Rather the "enemy" is the cold, which raises them. I'm not even convinced anent the walkers. Yes, they are Nazgul, riding those cold winds and so associated with the wights, but that aint the same thing as raising and controlling them A real life parallel might be herds of bison/buffaloes. The size of a herd is dangerous, trampling all in its past. Native American warriors can pass through it for concealment, and they can direct it to some extent, but that's not the same thing at all as acting as generals and by the same token I don't see Walkers "commanding" armies of wights.
  2. The problem with that scenario is Joffery Joffrey being the Joffrey we all knew and loved is just not someone who has that sort of contact with someone so far down the social scale.
  3. That's why I think that it is simple Somebody thought it would be a good idea to kill Bran. The intended assassin could have done it with a common kitchen knife or strangled him, or suffocated him, or bashed his head in with a half brick Instead he attempted to use a Valyrian dagger which was quickly traced back to the Royal household. Clearly it was intended to be found at the crime-scene
  4. Looking at this sensibly. We have a low-born, anonymous would-be killer. He doesn't look, sound or behave like a faceless man. There's no reason to believe that he isn't the loser he appears to be. Whoever he is/was, somebody hired him and provided him with an expensive dagger. Why? Bran wasn't reckoned to be able to fight him. A cheap knife, which he would have anyway, to cut food or whatever would have sufficed Instead he is given the murder weapon. He's not going to flee with it in his possession - and get caught And then there's the unexpected appearance to Catelyn The answer is actually ridiculously simple Bran was to be discovered - dead And the dagger was to be found sticking in his corpse - hence the reason for the dagger instead of a common [anonymous] kitchen-knife.
  5. Indeed. The whole purpose of the exercise was to leave an incriminating dagger at the crime scene. There was no point in the catspaw having it otherwise and we can see this in the text by the discussion anent its origin and ownership
  6. Another mark against Joffery being [directly] responsible, is that fact that he's now dead. If there was any point to Joffrey having dunnit it would have been revealed before he died. There may well have been some involvement by Joffrey in the plot [Tommen is far too young], after all the dagger had to come from somewhere, but he wasn't the instigator.
  7. Only up to a point. Joffrey never had the intelligence to plot something like this, far less deal directly with the catspaw. I'd be more inclined to see this as somebody unseen suggesting to Joffrey that it would be an absolutely splendid idea and that using a dagger belonging to the King would give the deed the royal imprimatur. So who then was best placed to suggest it to Joffrey ?
  8. Who needs wights? Others aint dead Seriously though, there is a point here that while Mel [ignorant until Davos enlightened her] might be looking for the battle to begin up north and the faithful are looking for her to do her stuff and summon Azor Ahai as portrayed in the Mummers' version, I think that she and the faithful are going to get a shock
  9. "Melisandre is at the Wall looking for Azor Ahai" Mel [rapturously on seeing Jon Snow walk in]: "My Lord! You are truly Azor Ahai come again to light the fire..." Jon [flashing his blue eyes] "Not today, My Lady..."
  10. I agree. When Aemon [Targaryen as was] talks to Mel, she spouts the Azor Ahai stuff and he responds that she's talking about the Battle for the Dawn. The clear implication is that he knows about it and links it into common Westerosi mythology and that they are one and the same - not a Targaryen family secret. The only family secret he appears to reference is when he insists that Jon Snow must take command of the Wall, because he is a son of Winterfell and it must be him or none. Idly digressing, of course, if R+L=J was true and meant what the Faithful claim, this would be the time for Aemon to reveal all - but instead he sends Jon in a different direction
  11. I think its a an obvious matter of misdirection The assassin, whether or not he succeeded, was clearly doomed, therefore it was important that his weapon pointed to someone
  12. It wouldn't surprise me in the least and if I'm right about Jon's next step, then Sansa is indeed destined to be the next Lady of Winterfell There is of course another precedent going slightly further back in that Bael's son became Lord of Winterfell through his mother.
  13. Oh there's long been pretty wide agreement among we miserable heretics that Jon's fate rests with Winterfell and Ice rather than with the Iron Throne and Fire. My post was entirely a matter of addressing Melifeather's questions anent real world succession
  14. Returning to Feather's questions yesterday anent King Charles III there is as I suggested a direct parallel. Without digging into the very complicated past, Charles has gained the Throne through his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth rather than from his father Prince Philip. In Westerosi terms it suggests that in terms of fate Jon Snow is primarily a son of Winterfell through his mother Lyanna Stark rather than anything his father [whether or not he was Rhaegar Targaryen] might bring to the mix
  15. Hi Mace, Welcome back A possible answer to your question. Being British I see some of these things in heraldic terms; as Feather notes above wyverns have two legs and wings, while dragons have four legs and wings. As wryms [worms/snakes] obviously have neither that would suggest a step by step evolutionary path with questions asked anent whether it is a natural evolution or a managed one.
  16. Yes, Gl├╝cksburg, or more properly Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gl├╝cksburg. Related to the Counts of Oldenburg, but that goes back to mediaeval times
  17. Politics and religion. Queen Elizabeth died in 1603 leaving no children, so the English throne passed to James VI of Scotland who was a great-great grandson of Henry VII [via Henry VIII's sister Margaret] James VI was succeeded by Charles I, then his son Charles II, then James VII. The latter was very able, but a Catholic, so got kicked out in a coup and replaced by his Protestant daughter Mary. She died leaving no children so the throne passed to her younger sister Anne, also a Protestant. Anne's children died, so when she died in 1714 the choice was between James VII' son, James [a lamentable lack of imagination in naming children] or George of Brunswick-Luneberg/Hanover. George won because [a] he was Protestant, and [b] he got on the boat first. Some notable squabbling followed of course - the Jacobite Risings - but George and his descendants hung on to the throne Of course I should have mentioned that although Queen Victoria was directly descended from George she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha [another German], so strictly speaking the late Queen Elizabeth follows
  18. Its horrendously complicated, but worth bearing in mind for its possible relevance to Westeros, so sit down quietly and pay attention. You may also want to take notes. Her Majesty the late Queen was a direct descendant of King George I, Duke of Brunswick-Luneberg and Prince Elector of Hanover. [a German] His claim to the throne in 1714 was through his mother Sophia, who was herself a grand-daughter of King James VI of Scotland, [via Frederick of Bohemia], which is where the Stewart connection comes in. However, while the new King, Charles III, has inherited the throne from his mother, his father was Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. When living, the Duke was irreverently known as "Phil the Greek", due to being a sometime member of the Greek royal family, although just to complicate things further they were not ethnic Greeks, but were actually Danish! Therefore, if you want to trace King Charles through the male line, he is of Danish descent and the family name was originally Gluckstein. Now in Westerosi terms it really is a question of whether descent is accounted through the father or the mother. Some quite different results may arise
  19. Nah, not today. Oddly enough I actually come from near Balmoral, but not there today
  20. The conclusion we reached after a lot of discussion was that the raising of the wights wasn't down to individual white walkers but to the cold. Exactly how this might actually work has yet to be established but probably the easiest way to visualise it is a cold mist flowing over the land and raising every dead thing that it touches. The white walkers on the other hand I believe are wargs who can create their own temporary bodies of snow and ice - and perhaps the same cold that raises the wights. It may turn out to be significant of course that those seen in the AGoT prologue look like Starks
  21. Nice summary and all that I'd add at this point is that while Varamyr and his prologue are incredibly useful/important in this interpretation, he's only a skinchanger and has no connection to direwolves. GRRM has been very close-lipped about the difference between skinchangers and wargs and I strongly suspect that we'll discover that its wargs [like Jon] who can still remain free - unlike Varamyr who finishes up being trapped in One Eye. In other words the get out of jail free card when Jon goes to Ghost
  22. There's no doubt at all that White Walkers are dangerous with a capital D. My point is that they aint an army waiting to invade Westeros. They aint the Dothraki and so the nature of the threat is very different
  23. As to the first, they are certainly a long way apart if they are expected to walk [no pun intended] but if riding the cold winds passing between the two locations could take no time at all. As to the second, there is an obscure but very significant SSM explaining... Posted 16 March 2015 - 04:47 PM "In an interruption to our advertised program I'm watching a feature on Sky Atlantic, providing a catch up on the HBO series thus far and featuring interviews with [among others] GRRM, who has just confirmed that when Sam pinked Ser Puddles "he broke the spell holding him together."
  24. Really wouldn't surprise me. Whatever the precise detail of the story eventually turns out to be, the Starks are just as compromised as the Targaryens - but on the other side
  25. We're Heretics because for years we've discussed what might really be going on, looking beyond the simplistic notion of a big bad up north and the world being saved by the return of Azor Ahai and the dragons. Inevitably, as this leads to questioning certain orthodoxies, we've attracted a fair degree of hate over the years. We're used to it.
×
×
  • Create New...