Jump to content

Elaena Targaryen

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Elaena Targaryen

  • Rank
    Duchess of Difficult
  • Birthday September 13

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    I don't need any of your shit I'm on a magical journey

Recent Profile Visitors

3,756 profile views
  1. Ah, now I understand the hangup. I see oral storytelling in a different light. Bael is a wildling folk hero, it's their story, to the point Ygritte claims descent and Mance idealizes it. After Jon tells Ygritte that Bael was a liar she says "a bard's truth is different than yours or mine." Embellishments? Yup. To me it's like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Ragnar or Zorro. But Bael is more local and isn't as legendary like that, like the Night's King or Bran the Builder is. These stories are told and retold changing as time and place passes. How many Scottish or Irish folk heroes are there that the English nobility have never heard of? The wildlings tell their story and take pride in it. The north and the Starks don't care and don't believe it. Mance claims to have sung about Bael at the Shadow Tower and I'd imagine rangers have heard it. But why would anyone disrespect the Starks repeating some wildling lies? Nobody can say when or if any of it's true but the north hates the wildlings and wouldn't repeat the tale. Old Nan even tells embellished scary stories about wildlings. There is no proof that Bael existed beyond this ignorant local folk tale. It's a cool story but I question it just like I question Merlin's magical abilities, or how Bran could have lived thousands of years to build so many castles. Exactly! Hi kissdbyfire, good to see you.... and thanks for helping since I'm not around much! First I want to address the confusion of the Knight of the Laughing Tree story. Just because the Reeds couched the KotLT tale as a story to Bran does not mean it's a story being told by everyone. I'm not sure why you think it would be important enough to have a storytelling tradition attached to it? Beyond those directly involved? Of course it was a big deal for Howland but why does that mean Old Nan would know and repeat the events? And I agree Ned wouldn't discuss it because it's painful. However, like the KotLT, I do think you place to much in-story importance on Bael's Tale. As to which Brandon Old Nan cared for, she obviously cared for more than one Brandon (William's Brandon and Artos's Brandon) and you don't have to be old to mix up your babies.... ask any parent.... let alone them having the same name.... But this is all besides the point. Have fun with the stories and place as much importance as you want on them! I still firmly state that it is not possible for the Bael Tale to have taken place so recently - after Old Nan's arrival at Winterfell. So it is not possible that the pregnant woman in Bran's vision is the Bael Maid.
  2. Bael is a legend, oral lore at that. If it really happened at all the timing would be hard to pinpoint. It could have been before or after Aegon's Conquest, it doesn't matter. You are not the first since Dance came out to wonder this and it isn't supported by the text, even before we received a more detailed family tree. So, no the pregnant woman cannot really be the Bael Maid. No matter when (or if) Bael lived it had to be before Old Nan arrived at Winterfell. The pregnant woman was likely one of The She-Wolves of Winterfell and we will get that story in the next Dunk and Egg installment, hopefully! I agree, Ygritte could have learned the story wrong or those details could be clues to the timeline. It's also cherry-picking to suit an idea that you don't need for your analysis. (It wouldn't change a thing to leave this vision out of the OP.) What about Lord Brandon the Daughterless? All it takes is a look at the family tree to see there is no Lord Brandon after Old Nan's arrival at Winterfell, or to see there are no daughters that fit the tale. Or tales about thirty years later (which would place it in Rickard's time) of a King Beyond the Wall marching an army south. We have heard of Raymun Redbeard and the Battle of Long Lake in 226, which is way to early and also the last known KBtW to bring an army south until Mance. I find these items more suggestive of the timing. It's beyond even crackpot if you agree with the order of events, and there is no reason to cling to this idea. I'm all for wild theories and I'll have fun with you (and your thoughts on Rhaegar's crown were very interesting) but the timeline does not work. There are many other great points from the OP to discuss and it all still fits the Bael theme without this and the vision really adds nothing. I think the story of the mystery knight is more personal and easily kept quiet while you can't hide a recent wildling war from them or us. I also feel the details of Lyanna's story would be more painful for Ned than some "Bael Tale" from a generation or two before, they would still be from Stark blood after all. Besides the kids have info on Lyanna. "Robert was betrothed to marry her, but Prince Rhaegar carried her off and raped her," Bran explained. "Robert fought a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar on the Trident with his hammer, but Lyanna died and he never got her back at all." I don't see how the "Bael Tale" would be more painful than kidnapping, rape, war and lost love. Not to mention what the Mad King did to Rickard and Brandon.
  3. I haven't read the thread yet but I thought it was an interesting OP. I like to look at things from a different perspective, even if I have quibbles. However, I do not think this glimpse in Bran's vision is showing a part of Bael's story. It's clear the vision is going back in time "The tree itself was shrinking, growing smaller with each vision,...." and the pregnant woman comes too early in the sequence. She comes in between Lyanna and Benjen playing and what is most likely Nan and Duncan kissing. The Bael story and Brandon the Daughterless should be much older. "After that the glimpses came faster and faster, till Bran was feeling lost and dizzy. He saw no more of his father, nor the girl who looked like Arya, but a woman heavy with child emerged naked and dripping from the black pool, knelt before the tree, and begged the old gods for a son who would avenge her. Then there came a brown-haired girl slender as a spear who stood on the tips of her toes to kiss the lips of a young knight as tall as Hodor. A dark-eyed youth, pale and fierce, sliced three branches off the weirwood and shaped them into arrows. The tree itself was shrinking, growing smaller with each vision, whilst the lesser trees dwindled into saplings and vanished, only to be replaced by other trees that would dwindle and vanish in their turn. And now the lords Bran glimpsed were tall and hard, stern men in fur and chain mail. Some wore faces he remembered from the statues in the crypts, but they were gone before he could put a name to them."
  4. Amazon has picked up the show!!! Jeff Bezos is That Guy!!!
  5. Elaena Targaryen

    Sansa and Cognitive Dissonance

    Great post The Weirwoods Eyes! You did however set my mind on a different path. I knew, from your previous post, that you were going to focus on Sansa's bird association here. So I switched mentally to capture the bird imagery in the passage. The word perched grabbed me in this part. So lovely. The snow-clad summit of the Giant's Lance loomed above her, an immensity of stone and ice that dwarfed the castle perched upon its shoulder. Icicles twenty feet long draped the lip of the precipice where Alyssa's Tears fell in summer. A falcon soared above the frozen waterfall, blue wings spread wide against the morning sky. Would that I had wings as well. It read like Littlefinger is the giant with Sansa as the castle, perched on his shoulder, both using each other. The summer child cried but the giant is teaching her how to strengthen her walls with ice. I loved the idea of a castle being symbolic for Sansa, but I need more time to check into it. It fits with the cognitive dissonance idea and it would be how she protects herself mentally and emotionally. A castle is a fortification, they represent physical defense, a symbol of enclosure, something walled and defended, someplace safe offering protection. Castles symbolize a strong foundation, structure, strategy, sanctuary, and idealism. Princess in the tower fairy tales can be a symbol of awakening of the conscience mind. Castles can also be a symbol of hope and a place where dreams can come true. More personally, castles can speak to our cautious and conservative sides. With castles being well guarded they represent times in our lives when we need to be, as well. They can represent mental barriers and the need for more self defense. I can see how Sansa wants to protect herself with stone and ice, to learn how to go from pawn to player, to build her walls high and to reinforce them. Now I want to reread Sansa's chapters with this psychological defense in mind, just from a cursory glance of what I recall this could have some merit. The main reason this clicked in my head was, in regards to this thread, I was already contemplating a mental barrier Sansa has constructed for self-preservation. Sansa thinks this about Lysa - "She murdered her own lord husband" - but how does she know this? This is what Sansa heard Lysa say - "No need for tears ... but that's not what you said in King's Landing. You told me to put the tears in Jon's wine, and I did. For Robert, and for us! And I wrote Catelyn and told her the Lannisters had killed my lord husband, just as you said. That was so clever ... you were always clever." - and that means Sansa knows it was truly LF. She won't think about it, every time she starts to think in this vein she skews away from thinking LF could have done bad things. I believe she is hiding this from herself because she knows she can't lie well enough to fool LF, yet. So she is lying to herself, hiding the information behind walls, a compartmentalization. People want to see the player, want to see Sansa blatantly think to herself "I know what you did" while speaking lies to him but he would see through it. Twice Tyrion refers to Sansa as a castle. The first time - "Come, wife, time to smash your portcullis. I want to play come-into-the-castle." - it is an in-story sexual metaphor but we see it tied to Sansa's sexual awakening at other times. Then - "You hide behind courtesy as if it were a castle wall." "Courtesy is a lady's armor," Sansa said. - but is armor enough? Sansa needs more than courtesy for a shield. She needs the immensity of stone and ice, strategy and guile. I need to think more about the cloud castle, but - - (I've read a few good interpretations) could it represent Tyrion and Sansa's union, Tyrion has armor too, and ends showing how it is a sham and how he personally can't protect her? I also want to look at her time in Maegor's Holdfast, the castle-within-a-castle, the heart of the Red Keep. Or would she consider the godswood the heart of the castle? The latter I think, and she met Dontos there trying to get home. There is the snow castle passage at the Eryie, which I must read again. I recall LF helping her build it, helping strengthen the walls and the eroticism. And of course - "She wondered where this courage had come from, to speak to him so frankly. From Winterfell, she thought. I am stronger within the walls of Winterfell." - Maybe Robert destroying the castle could symbolize him breaking down her defenses because she will care for him, he will get into the heart of her castle. Robert claims it was not him but the giant that hurt the castle, and Sansa mounts the giant's head on the walls. I would also like to look at the aftermath of the snow castle, the confrontation with Lysa and her death. I remember Sansa harping on building a snow castle, like she couldn't believe all the turmoil it caused. I wonder though if it was more that she felt defenseless in the turmoil and wondered why her castle was not strong enough to protect her. Which brings us to the prophecy. - "I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow." - Maybe the castle does not represent the place but the how, like with the former. The giant will let his guard down and the maid will slay him with cunning. ETA I'm so sorry Springwatch!!! I completely left out your ideas of Sansa's mind as a fortress initially inspiring me!!! I've been so busy lately and this has been marinating in the back of my mind for several days, then the quote of the giant with the castle perched on his shoulder... I rushed my post it was word vomit...
  6. Sorry, that was not meant as a criticism of what you said Lost Melnibonean, I was just thinking on a different track.
  7. I know you are thinking of Sansa but at a superficial glance I would break it down to each bird. Arya is the swan, Bran the crow and maybe Mel for the hawk. I'd have to read the chapter again to see if that fits or matters as symbolism. It is an interesting chapter and I recall Arya struggling with duality throughout. Taking another look at the birds in this light is intriguing. Arya wishes to be the swan because of their serenity, but another part of her wants to eat it. Arya wants peace but fears she might devour it. The hawk was not seen, it's a memory that symbolizes Arya not fitting into societal gender expectations. Arya acknowledges that she is ready for the hawk but she rejects it and knows she would devour it. Arya never thinks about eating the crow, Lommy did and this is the chapter where he dies. Everyone is starving but the crows are feasting. She does notice the crows have eaten the faces off of the dead. A crow betrays her so she gets caught. In a later chapter she wishes to be a crow, to devour her enemies. Finally it's interesting that they were black swans. (If somebody more familiar with symbolism could add their thoughts I'd appreciate it.) I think(?) black swans have some connection with suffering and vulnerability. Arya is surrounded by the suffering in the war-torn Riverlands so she feels laid bare. This is what she thinks right before seeing the swans. She dare not pluck her feathers and make herself more vulnerable. This mentality later on leads her to seek power to protect herself and others. The suffering puts her on the path of vengeance and death. She needs to find a symmetry between the black and white, it comes back to the duality in the chapter. Arya rejected the hawk, being a perfect lady, purity and perfection. So she needs to tame her wild side and it's sad to say but it seems the HoBaW is achieving this. Maybe reuniting with family will bring an equilibrium, there were three black swans - the swan has three heads. :-) Maybe the crow can save her, I recall some folklore where a plucked white swan was given black feathers from a crow. But did the crow set her on the path to being a Faceless Man and is that a good thing? I think so on the former, her chapters are littered with clues which I won't get into now since this whole post already has nothing to do with the op.
  8. Elaena Targaryen

    GRRM WoW Twist

    What else are we to do while we wait for Winds? Let's visit this again. What do you think the twist could be? April 2015 - Martin says he just came up with a big, revealing twist on a long-time character that he never previously considered. “This is going to drive your readers crazy,” he teased, “but I love it. I’m still weighing whether to go that direction or not. It’s a great twist. It’s easy to do things that are shocking or unexpected, but they have to grow out of characters. They have to grow out of situations. Otherwise, it’s just being shocking for being shocking. But this is something that seems very organic and natural, and I could see how it would happen. And with the various three, four characters involved … it all makes sense. But it’s nothing I’ve ever thought of before. And it’s nothing they can do in the show, because the show has already — on this particular character — made a couple decisions that will preclude it, where in my case I have not made those decisions.” February 2016 - “I have decided to do that, yes,” Martin said in the new interview when asked about his previous quote. “Will you know it? I don’t know. It’s fairly obvious because it is something that involves a couple of characters, one of whom is dead on the show, but not dead in the books. So the show can’t do it, because they have killed a character I have not killed. But that doesn’t narrow it down much because at this point there are like 15 characters who are dead on the show who are still alive on the books.” http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/25/george-rr-martins-game-thrones-twist/ The key points 1. revealing 2. long-time character 3. never previously considered 4. GRRM loves it 5. took time to decide ( weigh ) whether or not to do it 6. it's organic and natural 7. three or four characters involved 8. show can't do it since it has made a couple of decisions with a particular character 9. it will be obvious 10. character alive in books but dead in show 11. mention of fifteen characters alive vs dead My thoughts on the key points 1. Barristan seems suited to reveal something important but do we even know if GRRM used this term or was it the writer of the article? Hibberd used it the first time in 2015 but not the second time in 2016. 2. They are all pretty much long-time characters, but does it mean a long-time show character? They are all important to GRRM. This twist does seem like something that could effect the plot in a major way, for that reason, I would think it has to be a character with the weight to do so. 3. I think this helps rule out some forum theories solely for the twist. Like Jeyne Westerling being pregnant, I don't believe that GRRM would have never considered that. Maybe even any Lannister's being Aerys get. Not that these theories aren't possible, they just don't fit this twist. 4. It's likely something horrible if GRRM loves it, at the least, shocking and unexpected. So that should rule out some things too. No Jojen Paste though, it doesn't have a big enough impact imo. 5. If he had to weigh it that says to me it was weighed against something else. That again, imo, sounds major. "It's a great twist." Of the techniques he likes to use could it be a flashback, an unreliable narrator reveal or a reversal of fortune? 6. If it's organic it's guessable and may have already been discussed on the forum. But I seriously doubt it's been foreshadowed. Some crackpots can rejoice. 7. I think, with the timing of the interview ( at this time GRRM thought he could turn the book in within five months ), it's likely that this twist takes place later in Winds and we won't know who will still be near each other. It's easy to say Stoneheart, Brienne and Jaime, but if the twist is later in the book their situation could be resolved too early to qualify as the three or four characters involved. Unless this is why Winds is taking so long, rewriting. 8. It sounds like more decisions effects this than killing the character off. That could help narrow the suspects too. If Mago or Grenn could fit the twist did their deviations in the show really effect anything like with say Mance or Xaro? 9. GRRM thinks we should be able to identify this when we read the book. Again that makes it sound like this twist will be no small thing. 10. That doesn't really help as much as you'd think, as of season 6 there are like more than 65 characters that fit this criteria. You can even add Arthur Dayne and Gerold Hightower to the list because we have not "seen" their deaths in the books yet like we have in the show, so in theory GRRM could add a twist that Bran could reveal. And yes season 6 fits the timeline. Martin first mentioned the twist in April 2015, the show stared filming s6 in July 2015, he would have known what they planned. That being said I'm still leaning towards a death from an earlier season. 11. This is why I said the latter on point ten. Why would he say in 2016 that there are only 15 characters alive vs dead? There are more than 15 at the end of season 2 ( all in Essos ), with the only one of any real consequence through season 4 being Catelyn. Season 5 adds eight more, most with more significance like Stannis. While this may be an exercise in futility until we get the book it's something to do while on Watch. I can't even begin to guess, especially if s6 characters are factored in, so I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts. I will put support behind it being Lady Stoneheart, from Martin's constant mentions of her not being in the show, and not because I have any idea what the twist could involve. GRRM brings up her being cut all the time and how much he wishes she was in the show. I've not seen such consistent comments with other characters. ⦁ 2015 - Lady Stoneheart does have a role in the books. Whether it’s sufficient or interesting enough… I think it is, or I wouldn’t have put her in. One of the things I wanted to show with her is that the death she suffered changes you. ⦁ 2016 - [An Italian fan] then asked George if Lady Stoneheart was going to appear on the show. George said no, that she’d been cut. He said if he were involved in the show things would be different, but he’s busy trying to finish books. ⦁ 2017 - At some points, when [show-runners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss] and I had discussions about what way we should go in, I would always favor sticking with the books, while they would favor making changes. I think one of the biggest ones would probably be when they made the decision not to bring Catelyn Stark back as Lady Stoneheart. That was probably the first major diversion of the show from the books and, you know, I argued against that, and David and Dan made that decision ⦁ 2017 - In the book, characters can be resurrected. After Catelyn is resurrected as Lady Stoneheart, she becomes a vengeful, heartless killer. In the sixth book, I still continue to write her. She is an important character in the set of books. [Keeping her character] is the change I most wish I could make in the [show]. Here are some mentions of other characters from GRRM that I've found but I would love it if someone has found more. It reminds me not to be biased towards Westerosi characters. ⦁ 2011 - “So Mago is not dead in the books. And, in fact, he’s going to be a recurring character in Winds of Winter. He’s a particularly nasty bloodrider to one of the other Khals that’s broken away after Drogo dies.” ⦁ 2013 - If they are alive in the books, they are alive in the books, and may well turn up again. Irri (and Jhiqui) is still serving as Dany’s handmaid, Rakharo remains one of her bloodriders. ⦁ 2016 - Just consider. Mago, Irri, Rakharo, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Pyat Pree, Pyp, Grenn, Ser Barristan Selmy, Queen Selyse, Princess Shireen, Princess Myrcella, Mance Rayder, and King Stannis are all dead in the show, alive in the books. Some of them will die in the books as well, yes... but not all of them, and some may die at different times in different ways. ⦁ 2016 - You will learn the fate of Pyat Pree in WINDS. The Thirteen are still one of the factions contending for power in Qarth.
  9. Elaena Targaryen

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    That's great! Ah, I see, I can fence sit on both! I admit I do have more sympathy for Jon than Marsh. Did Jon betray his vows to the Watch to save his sister? Hadn't fArya already escaped when he decided to march against Ramsay? Yes, yes, but as an organization they have more options available to them than a traditional liege relationship. Certainly something more elegant than assassination. Some avenues may be more difficult with divided loyalties but they are seriously risking external imposition with two killings of a LC in so short a span, a time of war. It's not hard to talk to people, they like to have a say. Oh, that's right I forgot about that. Thanks Shouldve Taken The Black! I was thinking about the Marsh and co. conspiracy. Wasn't there a theory with possible letters going back and forth with KL? And maybe they didn't want Jon to help Stannis or to hurt the Boltons? Essentially taking the side of the crown. One side question, how much is the crown allowed to interfere with the NW? Like they kill deserters in the king's name but did they have the right to kill Yoren?
  10. Elaena Targaryen

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    Thank you for your reply Lord Varys. I did worry that I've been reading too many historical novels lately and that would influence my opinion. I hoped you could site some in-story cases but I still find it unclear. We are all spinning our wheels in this thread but does anyone in Winterfell consider the murders to be breaking guest right? Hosteen accused Wyman of ordering murders not of breaking guest right. “My lord,” boomed Hosteen Frey. “We know the man who did this. Killed this boy and all the rest. Not by his own hand, no. He is too fat and craven to do his own killing. But by his word.” He turned to Wyman Manderly. “Do you deny it?” The Rat Cook is a legend, a moral tale; Guest right is sacred. A simple cook slaying a royal guest, tsk tsk. A king is the avatar of the gods, see the gods punishment. See it's proof the Watch should take no part. And so on. Even if it was based on truth we don't know who the cook was, I doubt it but, he could have been the Lord Commander. He could have been the host, since it reads to me that the king was coming to check on and gloat over the cook. It was also said the cook had a right to vengeance against the king and only a high lord would presume that. We don't even know that the guests were royal, or who this king was, it could have been Wat with his brother Wat. I disagree that it's so black and white. Mere attendance I'll grant you, I need to research more. I just don't think if Roose offers guest right that it means all of his retainers become proxy hosts, or hired help are considered guests. They don't need to since they cannot disobey their lord, they would treat his lordship's person and guests well anyway, most are oathsworn. The lord is responsible for their behavior. Service has it's own separate contract including shelter and protection, temporary or not. What commoner would dishonor any lord, or disrespect them? Sorry, but you are conflating matters here to support your view. Dunk ate Osgrey's food as a form of payment. Osgrey owes Dunk meals under terms of service. Guest status does not enter into the equation. Decency was a factor for Dunk staying, not status. He ate four of the eggs. Ser Eustace owed him that much, as he saw it. “I slept beneath your roof, and ate your eggs this morning. I owe you some service still. I won’t go slinking off with my tail between my legs. My sword’s still here.” This is Cat and Brienne "Then I am yours, my lady. Your liege man, or . . . whatever you would have me be. I will shield your back and keep your counsel and give my life for yours, if need be. I swear it by the old gods and the new." "And I vow that you shall always have a place by my hearth and meat and mead at my table, and pledge to ask no service of you that might bring you into dishonor. I swear it by the old gods and the new. Arise." Yep, I am totally going to have to read The Mystery Knight again, it's been several years since I have and guest right was the last thing on my mind. It may be the best precedent, with a lowborn pov at a wedding of the highborn, not to mention the subtle rebellion. Yes, it seems breaking guest right is it's own violation separate from the act that breaks it. House Frey seems accused of breaking guest right by betraying House Stark while simultaneously being called murders. In legal terms murder is punishable by men but is the same true for breaking guest right? I don't think so. Per the Rat Cook fable the gods hold only the violator responsible. The cook must have some host status but in what context? Who offered the protection? Was it a blanket coverage from the organization? Was the Lord Commander punished or shunned? Look at the Red Wedding, who is blamed? The Freys, not the Freys and minions. It happened on the orders of the presiding lords. Is that who the gods would blame? Who is the host, who broke custom, who killed? I don't find it all so clear cut but we know who society blames. Was this breaking guest right? Guest against guest? Ser Hosteen Frey ripped his longsword from its scabbard and leapt toward Wyman Manderly. The Lord of White Harbor tried to jerk away, but the tabletop pinned him to his chair. The blade slashed through three of his four chins in a spray of bright red blood. Lady Walda gave a shriek and clutched at her lord husband's arm. "Stop," Roose Bolton shouted. "Stop this madness." His own men rushed forward as the Manderlys vaulted over the benches to get at the Freys. One lunged at Ser Hosteen with a dagger, but the big knight pivoted and took his arm off at the shoulder. Lord Wyman pushed to his feet, only to collapse. Old Lord Locke was shouting for a maester as Manderly flopped on the floor like a clubbed walrus in a spreading pool of blood. Around him dogs fought over sausages. It took two score Dreadfort spearmen to part the combatants and put an end to the carnage. By that time six White Harbor men and two Freys lay dead upon the floor. A dozen more were wounded and one of the Bastard's Boys, Luton, was dying noisily, crying for his mother as he tried to shove a fistful of slimy entrails back through a gaping belly wound. Lord Ramsay silenced him, yanking a spear from one of Steelshanks's men and driving it down through Luton's chest. Even then the rafters still rang with shouts and prayers and curses, the shrieks of terrified horses and the growls of Ramsay's bitches. Steelshanks Walton had to slam the butt of his spear against the floor a dozen times before the hall quieted enough for Roose Bolton to be heard. I really should decide where I stand on Jon but... even though I like him he's boring. I may have to since I do not believe Marsh was legally justified. The Watch is military order, you can't kill your commander with impunity. Warden, in story, means war leader. The LC is like a Warden of the Wall. But, the difference is the Watch has a voting system, there could be alternatives to murderous mutiny. Wasn't there also something about Cersei trying to get someone to kill Jon on the sly too? I really should look into this more....
  11. Elaena Targaryen

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    Hey kissbyfire! Thank you and it's great to see you too! Was guest right clearly broken though Lord Varys? I'm not sure that we have quite enough textual evidence to be positive, when I give the matter further thought. I agree, kings are at the top of the pyramid. The lords are above ordinary men too, except for their liege. Mance was posing as a common bard. I don't think a high lord would ever condescend to give a peasant or servant guest right. I couldn't imagine the audacity of a commoner expecting it either. Castles aren't hotels where anyone can stay just for asking, the smallfolk stay when they provide a service and that's a different, subservient, contract. Lowborn don't get to enjoy the company of the elite while dining, they serve or entertain while the lords feast. I could be wrong I suppose, but I just can't reconcile the privilege of guest status and the expectation of obedient service. That's another interesting thing, what is a punishable crime? Is breaking guest right a crime? It seems more culturally forbidden than something illegal. Something to be shunned for or mayhaps receive some vigilante retribution, but not something to be arrested for or have a trial for. Of course breaking guest right seems to involve murder and whether or not it was a punishable crime depends on what the liege lord thinks. Did Jon deserve what Marsh did to him? That's not a debate I'm terribly interested in, I've always been uninspired by Jon and ambivalent about his choices. I do wonder if Marsh and co. committed petty treason though. ASoIaF has high treason and in RL this would qualify as petty, lords can't have subordinates betraying their superiors. Lord Varys, you are more familiar with Westeros history than I am, do you know of any other possible petty treason?
  12. Elaena Targaryen

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    It seems most here have a much broader definition on guest right than I do. I thought it was a reciprocal relationship solely between guest and host for protection, invoked by the guest eating the host's food under his roof. It's a sacred custom not legislation. If Ramsay feels wronged he, as the "lord", can make demands and try to enforce them, I don't wish him luck. Maybe, if Ramsay experiences hospitality issues, it's karma for not protecting his guests. How can Jon, Mel or Stannis be held responsible? I mean how can someone who is not even there be in breach of the custom? How do you extend the protection to someone who is not there? That's just a nonsensical argument. I really don't think the protection extends beyond the guest and host specifically. I think harm can happen with others, it's just avoided when at all possible so as not to force a confrontation between host and guest. Like when Hosteen cut Wyman, they were both guests and Roose as host ordered his men to stop the melee but, if a Bolton man or family member had initiated the bloodshed it would have been a different matter - depending. So how much latitude does the guest have to cause harm to the host's other guest, family members or retainers? Depends on the host I suppose, and the guest too for that matter. Nope, not seeing anyone particularly protected, just men at arms. Nor any proof that Abel committed the murders himself, or Roose or Ramsay. The washerwomen might be responsible for some so that's on Mance. Call down the wrath of the gods if you wish. I haven't studied the murders to see them as anything other than superficially pointless but, at the least I'm sure there is an interesting narrative purpose. What really has peaked my curiosity is Abel's status. Is he considered a guest? If so who's? Theon said he "was made welcome" but as what to who? I think a singer would be classified as a retainer instead of a guest and certainly not oath sworn. Is a retainer considered a guest? Probably should be but how can they be punished if so? We've seen lords, like Roose and Ramsay, harm men that work for them. No, I think guest right is reserved for an invited visitor not a travelling bard expecting pay. If Abel is a guest he could just as easily be Wyman's, since they joined his musicians, Abel would have to answer to Wyman for any trouble. Then there is the whole thing about the Manderly party bringing all the food and drinks and, we've seen how strictly Wyman follows the laws of hospitality, it could mean there is no protection since the host did not provide the food. I know it's quibbling over details when were talking about murder but, the OP is concerning the unclear specifics of a custom. Finally, concerning taking a woman from a host, I only recall three conflicting instances from the text. Bael the Bard, a singer at Winterfell stole the lords daughter even though the Free Folk are known to follow guest right. Was the bard considered a guest? Are daughters protected under guest right? Did Bael even care if he broke custom? Then when Gilly asked Jon to take her with them - "Black brothers are sworn never to take wives, don't you know that? And we're guests in your father's hall besides." "Not you," she said. "I watched. You never ate at his board, nor slept by his fire. He never gave you guest-right, so you're not bound to him. It's for the baby I have to go." - it involves wildlings again. Maybe a guest really can't take a wife under the laws of hospitality or, maybe Jon was using that as an excuse not to cause trouble since Craster would kill anyone who tried, guest or not. For me it's just as suggestive either way. Maybe it was because of the baby? Maybe a wife is off limits but female relatives are fair game? Depends, I suppose. I do find the "bound" part interesting, what are the terms? Last is when Jon is protecting Alys from Cregan - "You are no guest of mine. You came to the Wall without my leave, armed, to carry off your niece against her will. Lady Alys was given bread and salt. She is a guest. You are a prisoner." - I find the "against her will" to be very interesting. I do doubt that extends to someone's wife even if their betrothal status was in question. Even so it does show Jon feels he has a right to protect his female guest, even from a male family member. Depending, maybe a wife could seek protection. The Silent Sisters for instance or, just someone stronger or higher rank than who she wants protection from.
  13. Elaena Targaryen

    Would Barristan have beaten Sansa?

    Weird thread, while it's interesting and complex it still boils down to - if this has an answer what does it prove? Even so, it is thought provoking and I enjoy digging deeper! I find what it might prove seems quite expansive. My answer is no. At first thought I felt Barristan would not hit Sansa himself but would have stood by and watched, I have tentatively changed my mind on the latter. Barristan was the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and that position gave him a seat on the small council. This is during the reign of an underage monarch that was using his personal knights to beat a helpless girl, knights Barristan was in charge of and I do believe he would have addressed it in council. Also Barristan sided against Robert during a small council meeting "Your Grace, there is honor in facing an enemy on the battlefield, but none in killing him in his mother's womb. Forgive me, but I must stand with Lord Eddard." so I do believe he would have at the least questioned it. Part of the KG vows are "to ward the king with all my strength" and "to give my blood for his". Even Jaime points out "show me where it is in our vows that we swear to beat women and children". I just can't see Barristan not appealing to other authorities in these circumstances, he might even consider it his duty to do so. A beating was stopped by the acting Hand and the next LC chastised Meryn for his past participation. They were however both related to the king so that gave them more leeway. Now there are other considerations brought up in this thread I've thought about like Dunk, Aerys, Jaime, Sandor and Cersei. Also Sansa's status as hostage and betrothal to her kingly abuser. I agree with many points from Lord Varys and I have a few others. First Dunk is easy so I'll get it out of the way, no I don't believe he would beat a little girl and I don't believe Egg would have asked him. Which does come back to others on the list. I don't think anyone would have even asked Barristan to hit Sansa, he wasn't the right tool for the job. Joff wouldn't have had any trouble finding someone even if he looked outside of the KG like he should have. Joff used the KG for this because they were convenient, always handy and discreet, but it's a great risk to the reputation of the institution. LV is right that Joff reduced them to common thugs and reputation is everything in a culture like this. The first time Joff has a KG hit Sansa he tells her "My mother tells me that it isn't fitting that a king should strike his wife" so Cersei instilled this into her son likely because Robert hit her. It doesn't really make sense that using the KG instead would be any better but Cersei does know Joff is doing so. "He's never been able to forget that day on the Trident when you saw her shame him, so he shames you in turn. You're stronger than you seem, though- I expect you'll survive a bit of humiliation. I did." She downgrades it to shaming but I feel Sansa was in more danger than Cersei, while Bob was a brute Joff was more twisted. Cersei was at times able to cow Bob and I don't think Sansa would have survived very long with Joff. Would Cersei order the KG to beat Sansa, yes she could but there are too many variables to determine if she would I think. However it never did happen in front of her either. I agree. And would add I don't think they were necessarily troubled that Aerys raped his wife - it was the brutality of it that was disturbing but not enough to interfere. Martin discusses an alien mindset in an interview and I think this is one the types of behavior he meant to touch on - even if he could have taken it further. Westeros isn't medieval England but, from my readings in history, one of the things that impresses you is that the medieval mindset was very different and I'm trying to convey that. I think that is lost in modern fantasy. While they may be riding horses and living in castles, it is a very modern setting. You see peasants sassing princesses, religion being disregarded and lots of things that happen. I can't say I've done a complete medieval mindset. I haven't. In fact, if I had I think it would be too alien. But I've tried to convey some of it. This was just another factor in Sansa's beatings since they were betrothed, almost no one could or would intervene to help her. Again I totally agree. While it is great he doesn't hit Sansa he damn sure isn't The White Knight because of it. Sandor wasn't asked to hit Sansa. Sandor actually did stand by and watch like Barristan is being demeaned for when we don't know he would have. But I think the important point is Sandor didn't want to hit her, because he likes her. If it was some other girl I don't think it would have bothered him a bit since he has admitted to killing women and children. I've learned to like Sandor over the years but I'm honest about what he is and your only safe if he cares about you. I've saved Jaime for last. I don't think Joff would ever ask Jaime to do something like that and I don't think Jaime would ever accept orders like that from his son. Would he have hit Sansa? No, he's made it clear that he would not. "Ser Meryn." Jaime smiled at the sour knight with the rust-red hair and the pouches under his eyes. "I have heard it said that Joffrey made use of you to chastise Sansa Stark." He turned the White Book around one-handed. "Here, show me where it is in our vows that we swear to beat women and children." "I did as His Grace commanded me. We are sworn to obey." "Henceforth you will temper that obedience. My sister is Queen Regent. My father is the King's Hand. I am Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Obey us. None other." Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?" "The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me." But for me that does not let him off the hook, even though I like him. I feel Jaime would not hit Sansa because the circumstances allow for it not because he truly gives a shit. He is arrogant and it's beneath him, he wants to be a true knight for vanity not empathy, his status and family gives him leeway to choose and his oath to Catelyn amuses him. I do believe he truly wants to do good and his reasons for me are irrelevant so long as he continues but I think under other circumstances he most assuredly would hit a little girl. If another king at another time with another girl oh yes he would. I've seen comments that he wouldn't hurt a girl or what about when he pushed Bran - but everyone always forgets the time Jaime spent four days hunting a nine year old girl to maim and kill her... luckily he didn't find her.... oh the things he does for love... "As I was fucking her, Cersei cried, 'I want.' I thought that she meant me, but it was the Stark girl that she wanted, maimed or dead." The things I do for love. "It was only by chance that Stark's own men found the girl before me. If I had come on her first . . ." Yes he is trying to be a different person now but he is very capable of hurting a little girl for very selfish reasons.
  14. Elaena Targaryen

    [Spoiler] EP603

    Yes, we now know he is a thousand years old - in the show. Which is fine but I think in the books that the 3EC being a thousand years old, and not Bloodraven, is as likely as Sansa marring Ramsay. What fan theories? Does "all" mean show, books, both? It's not a theory for the books since Bran calls him Lord Brynden several times. Yea you got a point. It doesn't really matter and it doesn't really hurt anything to change it. Maybe they even have other plans in this case. But what would it hurt to keep it? Season 1 was layered with the history, lore, dialogue that felt like it belongs in this world and it made everyone love the show. Is all these little changes to the atmosphere, causing some dissatisfaction, worth it? Robb did not make Jon his heir in the show. It's just one more of the little things the show changed or dropped from the books. It could have been a good choice to add it since Jon is important, a fan favorite and it adds suspense to his storyline however it could still come up later as a surprise twist but why bother if it doesn't matter, right?