Frey family reunion

I don’t really understand the argument that this is just an artifact of the earlier drafts of AGOT where Dany was originally supposed to be from Tyrosh. This only becomes a mystery because GRRM, starting in ASOS, starts to hit us over the head with two ideas: 1. Lemons are grown in Dorne and 2. Lemons don’t grow in Braavos. So there seems to be a hint that Dany’s memory of a House with a lemon tree outside the window actually took place in Dorne and not in Braavos. Then we learn that when Dany would have just been a wee child, Oberyn travels to Braavos and signs a marriage pact with Willem Darry pledging Arianne to Viserys. Oddly enough, Dany isn’t included in the marriage pact. Why not, for instance, include her in the marriage pact, say to Quentyn? The only possibility that makes any sense to me at least, is that Dany really isn’t a Targaryen princess. But Viserys was tasked with raising her as his sister so one day she can be successfully passed off as a Targaryen princess, in exchange for something, perhaps in exchange for an army. Which is exactly what ends up happening. So my guess is Oberyn didn’t come to Braavos with a lemon tree as a gift, instead he came to Braavos with a very young girl that could pass as a Targaryen princess.

According to this article it was in 2015, well after ADWD. https://winteriscoming.net/2021/05/01/7-intriguing-unsolved-mysteries-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-game-of-thrones/4/

accidental repost

Apart from the issue of eye color, something you think Tyrion would have noticed, there's one more issue. Varys tells Kevan that "Aegon" was raised and taught by a Septa. No particular reason for Varys to lie to Kevan about that, so it's unliukely that Lemore is just someone pretending to be a Septa. She's probably actually a septa, or was a septa. And we don't have any particular reason to believe that Ashara was or became a Septa.

@Sandy Clegg Nice. Certainly interesting parallels. I'd add one more. Septa Lemore's goal is to crown Young Griff. When we last see Lady Stoneheart she is caressing Robb's crown. Now she obviously can't put Robb on the throne in the North, but I do wonder if she ends up trying to crown her oldest daughter. Or perhaps her youngest son if they're ever reunited. That might be a closer parallel to "Aegon" two characters allegedly back after Westeros believed they died.

Yea, the Corsucant bit didn't really work for me. I think the Mandalorian really needs to stick with it's strengths. Which is good, fun, unpretentious, but tightly written episodic television which does a good job of exploring and having fun with the Star Wars mythos.

I thought it was an awkwardly paced episode.

I agree that Jaime doesn't grieve for Aerys, who would? I do think however, that this dream does perhaps reinforce the notion that Jaime does have guilt for killing the king he made a solemn vow to protect. Regardless of who the king was. Those are two very different things. In his waking moments he even regrets keeping his white cloak on when he did the deed. So at some level Jaime grieves over his loss of honor. And if you read the description of Jaime's recollection of how he killed Aerys, I'm not sure that GRRM really is trying to convey to the readers that Jaime at that moment acted to protect King's Landing. He certainly did so when he killed Rossart, but everything about Jaime's memory of the King, was that he was already a beaten pathetic man. His bowels loosening as in a mad panic he tried crawling up to the throne, as Lannister forces were sweeping through the Keep. And then Jaime cutting his throat like he was killing a pig. Now since we have zero sympathy for Aerys, it's easy to forgive Jaime for this act. But I'm not so sure Eddard is easily forgiving. Even if he knew the whole story. Because despite Eddard's hatred of Aerys, he still gives great weight to solemen oaths and vows. And Eddard himself has his own nightmares perhaps about solemn promises that he has broken. And further reflected in Jaime's dreams, is that Jaime's justifications may even be hollow in his own subconcious. When his wraiths approach, he justifies killing Aerys because he tried to burn down King's Landing. Then he justifies the fact that he didn't protect Rhaegar's children because he didn't think that his father's troops would harm them, and then the flame on his sword dims. Then again the wraiths converage blaming him for killing the king he was sworn to protect, and that's when the flame on Jaime's sword completely extinguishes. Now maybe this is just some weirwood induced dream that doesn't reflect Jaime's true subconcious. Or maybe it does, it's hard to say. My gut feeling is that you really can't seperate Jaime's subconcious from his nightmares even if they are induced by a collective consciousness.

No, I don’t think that’s true, at least not necessarily true. The Kingsguards swore to protect and serve King Aerys until their death, their service to the King they swore to does not necessarily end with the King’s death. So if Aerys gave them a command, or commanded them to follow someone else’s command (say Rhaegar) then they were duty bound to see try and see the command through until that task was over. Even if the ones who originally gave the commands had died. If their last command had been go fight at the Battle of the Trident, after that battle was over, they wouldn’t have had any further orders to see through. As was the case of Ser Barristan. But if their command was something they could still accomplish even if Aerys and Rhaegar had died, then they should have seen it through until they accomplished it or died trying. Or perhaps in the case of Arthur allowing himself to be killed once he realized he couldn’t accomplish it without violating more fundamental vows. Ser Willem Darry acted to protect the royal family. But as the Kingsguards pointed out to Eddard, he wasn’t a Kingsguard.

I’m going to have to disagree. Ned would have approved of Jaime’s killing of Rosart, but not in the killing of Aerys especially in the manner it occurred. Jaime himself wishes he had removed his white cloak before he did the deed. Jaime didn’t kill Aerys to protect King’s Landing. He could have simply held Aerys at the throne until Jaime’s father’s troops came into the room. He killed Aerys out of disgust, out of all the time he had to stand there and view Aerys’ atrocities. I’m sure Eddard did believe that Aerys needed to be killed. Just not by Jaime. And if Jaime did kill him, his next act should have been falling on his sword or voluntarily joining the Night’s Watch. Not agree to keep his white cloak and remain as if nothing had happened. As for Jaime not having any guilt over Aerys’ killing, I’m not so sure. Remember Jaime’s dream:

While I think, we’re not terribly far apart, I still think you have one fundamental flaw when it comes to Ned’s appraisal of Arthur. Ned thinks that Arthur is : I think the key word here is knight. What would Eddard consider a high quality of a knight? Here is Eddard’s problem with Jaime in a nutshell: Ned’s problem with Jaime is that he’s an oath breaker. He can’t be trusted. And no I don’t think, that Eddard spending time in a hot tub with Jaime would have changed his mind. Jaime is a disgrace because he swore an oath to protect Aerys and he betrayed that oath, in the most direct way possible. And of course it doesn’t help that Jaime continued to violate his oath, as he was continually betraying his oath to the second king he was supposed to serve with his relationship with Robert’s queen. So would Eddard have thought that Arthur was the finest knight he knew, if he knew that Arthur had already abandoned Aerys to side with Rhaegar? I think the answer is no, Eddard would have judged Arthur guilty of betraying his oath to serve King Aerys, and Eddard wouldnt’ have thought him as the finest Knight he knew. Maybe a good person, but certainly not a good knight. Knight’s fulfill their solemn vow, as long as they live. That’s not to say that Eddard would have approved of knights robotically following their oath to serve and carry out bad orders from the King. Especially when those orders would violate earlier vows that Knights take, for example to defend the weak. So what can we make of what happened at the tower of joy. Number 1, I think it’s clear that Arthur had not betrayed his fundamental vows to serve and protect King Aerys. The fact that all three Kingsguards make it very clear that they have been good Kingsguards throughout, throughout the Trident, Sack and their presence at the tower of joy. Number 2, I think it’s clear that their Kingsguard vow to Aerys has put them in direct opposition to Eddard, who takes a small, trusted group (that can keep a Stark secret) with him to put a stop to their vow. Number 3., Arthur stands above Hightower, and Whent who died fully trying to fulfill this Kingsguard vow. Which makes me think that Arthur did something that Hightower and Whent did not. Arthur came to the realization that he couldn’t fulfill this vow without betraying his other fundamental vows as a knight. And once he realized he couldn’t continue to serve Aerys though life, he chose death. Dying as a Kingsguard not having to betray his vows, either as a knight or a Kingsguard. Which is what Eddard would have wanted Jaime to do. He would have been impressed had he known Jaime stopped Aerys plans at the King’s Landing. But once Jaime came to the realization that he couldn’t serve Aerys’ desires, Jaime should have fallen on the sword, rather than kill the King he was sworn to protect and then take a pardon from the new King. Whom he quickly betrays as well. My final thought on the issue, is that whatever the Kingsguards’ final vow was to King Aerys, it must have been more complicated than merely some mad command of the King. After all, it also seemed to line up with what Rhaegar desired as well. My guess is that Rhaegar may have had a more justified ends, to the means, than Aerys did. It’s also probably what made Arthur’s decision a complicated one. He wasn’t just following his vow to the King, he was also doing a task that he knew his closest friend thought to be critically important. And perhaps Arthur did as well. But ultimately came to the realization that it came to a cost that was too high, and something he could not in good conscience continue to be a part of. But once he realized he couldn’t continue to serve the King in life, he allowed Ned to kill him, forever cementing his status in Eddard’s mind as the finest Knight.

Yep, from ASOS:

The reason I keep going back to Eddard, is because Eddard is the one who called Arthur the finest knight he knew. So the question is, what happened at the tower of joy that elevated Arthur above everyone else? My guess is, Eddard would not consider Arthur the finest knight he knew because Arthur had betrayed his oath to Aerys in favor of Rhaegar. So something happened at the tower of joy which very much impressed Eddard as it came to Arthur’s honor. What I think happened is that Arthur found a way around Jaime’s knight dilemma. He knew he couldn’t carry out a vow he made as a Kingsguard without violating a more basic vow he took as a knight. But he also knew he took a vow to Aerys to serve him throughout his life. So as not to violate that vow, he let Eddard kill him. And my guess is in the heat of battle, it was Howland who stepped in and reminded Arthur that he was a knight before he was a Kingsguard, and unlike Gerold and Whent who fought to the death to try and stop Eddard and company from preventing them from carrying out their vow to Aerys, Arthur let Eddard win, died on the sword, and died keeping his honor intact.

This discussion reminds me of an amusing image that got posted, (a while back) showing a five year old Dany frollicking with a velociraptor under a lemon tree.

Yea, that’s not what he said.

If he’s trolling, he’s being very dedicated with it: It’s odd that the author would spend so much valuable real estate in his books “trolling” his readers by bringing up this discrepancy.

Once again, I think you are mistaking GRRM’s moral compass or what he is trying to convey as right or wrong through the story, with the moral compass he has given Eddard. He has made Eddard a sympathetic character, but that’s not the same thing as saying that the author thinks Eddard has all the correct answers for the reader. So when the author has Eddard comment that Arthur was the finest knight he ever knew, we have to look at that through the eyes of Eddard and not necessarily the eyes of the author. As for Jaime, living his life with a clean conscience, I don’t think we’ve read the same story. Jaime has lived his live with utter self-loathing, knowing that his honor is shit. He is a casual murderer, murdering Ned’s guards for revenge for the imprisonment of Tyrion. Casually shoving a child out of a window to keep his and his sister’s secret. A secret where once again we find Jaime casually disregarding his vows as a Kingsguard by betraying the king he is supposed to serve as he secretly continues an affair with his King’s wife, his sister. Nor can Jaime blame all of his faults with King Aerys appointing him to the Kingsguard with an ulterior motive. Especially since Jaime’s main motive for joining the Kingsguard wasn’t a desire to serve and die for the King, but instead so he could keep fucking his sister undisturbed by any unwanted marriage proposals. So no, I don’t think the author is telling us that Jaime has lived his life with a clear conscience.

Is this really that big of an issue? The easy answer, if you believe Lyanna was at the tower of joy on her deathbed, is Howland and Wylla. If you believe she wasn't at the tower of joy, then the answer is probably Howland and Starfall's maester, and/or whoever else was caring for Lyanna at Starfall.

The problem is all three Kingsguards are united that they have all remained good Kingsguards not just because of the Trident and the Sack, but during the Trident and the Sack. Even though they weren't there to fight the war or defend King Aerys. So it doens't appear to be the case that they only resumed their loyalty to Aerys because of the events of the Sack and the Trident. If you want to dismiss the conversation because it was in the context of a fever dream, that's fine. But there is corroboration to their belief that they have remained loyal to King Aerys. The Worldbook has indicated that near the end the only persons that Aerys still trusted were his Kingsguards (save Jaime). It's very doubtful that the ever paranoid Aerys would have maintained this trust if Whent and Arthur disappeared with Rhaegar without Aerys' permission, or that Gerold simply never returned after fetching Rhaegar without Aerys' leave. So what is one to make of this? I think the answer is fairly simple even if it doesn't necessarily jive with a lot of the readers' current assumptions. Whent and Arthur accompanied Rhaegar with the blessing of King Aerys. Aerys apparently knew how to summon Rhaegar when he needed him, thus Aerys knew where to find Rhaegar. If Aerys did indeed send Gerold out to summon Rhaegar, then Gerold only stayed behind to take Rhaegar's place, because Aerys ordered him to do so. So if these three Kingsguards all remained loyal Kingsguards throughout, what else does that tell us? It tells us that despite the whisperings of Aerys inner circle, the tourney at Harrenhal was probably not an attempt to remove Aerys from power. After all, when Rhaegar says that he had considered calling a Great Council (presumably to remove Aerys), he indicated that it was a road he never ended up taking. Which seems to imply that Harrenhal was not Rhaegar's attempt at putting together a Great Council. So the question to ask is what else was motivating Rhaegar during this time period? And we already know the answer to that. He was motivated by the Prince that Was Promised prophecy. And according to Aemon, the Prince that was Promised Prophecy dealt with the Battle for the Dawn, and dragons. So it stands to reason, if Rhaegar was pulling the strings at Harrenhal, and he was doing so in secret, then he was probably doing it for reasons to fulfill a prophecy. He was preparing for the Battle for the Dawn.

The problem is you're kind of assuming that characters who are reputed to be "virtuous" in the Westeros setting are considered virtuous based on your moral code. But it doesn't seem that everyone operates in the same way. Obviously Eddard had every reason to hate and want to kill Aerys Targaryen. Despite this, Eddard despises Jaime because he sees Jaime as an oathbreaker. Jaime should have been defending Aerys, not killing him, because he swore an oath. Eddard, personally, executes another man, a man completely broken, because he violated his oath and abandoned the Night's Watch. For Eddard it didn't matter why he deserted, the fact that he did desert subjected him to the death penalty. So now, the reader is relying on Eddard's POV, when Eddard says that Arthur is the most honorable knight he knew. It's doubtful based on Eddard's moral compass, that he would have given Arthur that honor, if Arthur had already abandoned his vow to Aerys and knowingly betrayed Aerys. So the question remains, how does a Kingsguard stay loyal to his solemn vow to a King, yet still maintain his earlier, more basic vows to protect the weak and the innocent? So I can see that you're espousing the Qhorin is secretly Arthur theory. Which to be honest, I find fairly silly. But I understand how you came to the conclusion. I think GRRM has intentionally created parallel between the two characters. Now just because he has created a parallel, doesn't mean he's hinting at a secret identity. So if GRRM wants us to equate Qhorin with Arthur, perhaps he also wants to create a parallel in how each character met his fate. That he allowed a "Stark" to kill him.

I’m sure deep down Arthur was aware of the conflict in serving under King Aerys, but the issue is how does one, who’s entire life is based on honor and fulfilling one’s vows, navigate the waters when various vows conflict with each other. Jaime sure never figured it out. Even Barristan, realizes that his sworn service to Aerys was problematic: But what really makes it problematic is if Arthur knew that Aerys orders also coincided with Rhaegar’s wishes. Because it seems that Arthur very much loved and respected Rhaegar.

I’m not so sure that the rebels victory would end it. At least not for these Kingsguards. Especially if they swore a vow that had not yet been fulfilled. ETA: nevermind, I see what you’re saying now, at least I think I do. Yes, there was factionalism within the Targaryens, but the fact that the Kingsguards seem so self-assured that they had been acting as good Kingsguards throughout, even though they weren’t there to fight the Battle at the Trident, or at King’s Landing to protect the king, means that whatever they were doing was something that Aerys explicitly wanted them to do. So I think whatever issues were occurring between Rhaegar and Aerys, at least for what the Kingsguards were assigned to do, Rhaegar and Aerys were in accord.

Sort of. I think it’s probably more complicated than that. But yes, the crux of the matter is that Arthur took a vow that would have led to the harm of an innocent life. And Howland pointed out the Knight’s dilemma to Arthur, which is the impetus that caused Arthur to allow Eddard to kill him, rather than Arthur willfully violate his sworn vow.