Jump to content

R + L = J v 70


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Yes, I found her to be so. Sometimes the least vocal wield the most power, though she took a much different approach than did her mother, Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort.

I also found it fascinating that Henry VII seem to genuinely love her. Despite a one-time alleged attraction to another woman, which seems to be as far as it went, he was always a faithful husband, and seemed to fall apart in both body and mind after her death, never marrying again.

And yeah, it appears that Henry VII had that little shits number. (Of course it's not helpful that Henry VIII was also a lot like his grandfather, Edward).

He had invested alot of his aspirations in his eldest son Arthur, envisioning another Camelot.

Yeah, for what was a political marriage between two enemy houses, it seems like they had a genuine love and affection for each other. Le sigh.

Speaking of Margaret Beaufort, if you look at the story of Henry VII's birth and the story of what appears to be Jon's birth, there's a lot of similarity. Other than Margaret lived and Lyanna died. Super isolated castle, difficult birth, child passed off to the protection of his uncle, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, for what was a political marriage between two enemy houses, it seems like they had a genuine love and affection for each other. Le sigh.

Speaking of Margaret Beaufort, if you look at the story of Henry VII's birth and the story of what appears to be Jon's birth, there's a lot of similarity. Other than Margaret lived and Lyanna died. Super isolated castle, difficult birth, child passed off to the protection of his uncle, etc.

I think so, definitely a difficult birth given Beauforts young age, and her husband having died before Henry was born, there are lots of similarities.

I can definitely see GRRM making those parallels.

Henry was a strong ruler, but because of his experiences and outwardly hard nature, he was respected, but he was not mourned when he passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth of York is super fascinating.

The interesting thing is that Henry VII had to claim right of conquest to be in the clear legally. Elizabeth of York was the rightful Yorkist heir in her own right, with Richard III dead (and she should have come before him anyway but Richard argued that Edward IV was legally married to someone before Elizabeth Woodville, so their kids were illegitimate), and Margaret Beaufort, as Henry's mother, was the rightful Lancastrian queen, or close enough that it didn't matter. Margaret, from what I recall, basically ruled through Henry in a lot of ways and shunted Elizabeth of York aside.

And Henry's older brother Arthur was the one groomed to the heir, but he died so it fell to Henry. He was always a little shit. He threw a fit once because his sister Margaret became a queen when she married the Scottish king, which meant she outranked him and he had to follow her in processions and stuff. What a little brat.

And like Maegor the Cruel, he beheaded or divorced many of his wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, GRRM has explicitly called Aegon IV "the Henry VIII of Westeros."

Not so sure about Margaret Beaufort having been a "Lancastrian queen," though. I recall her being a countess, and mother of the king, and religious, and a bitch, but never quite a queen in any real sense.

She was never a queen, no. But she technically would have been the Lancastrian heir before Henry. Henry's Lancastrian claim to the throne was through his mother, she being the great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, Edward III's second son. Meaning, if Margaret was the source of Henry's Lancastrian claim and she was still alive, then her claim "legally" was stronger than his. Just like Elizabeth of York's claim as the oldest surviving child of Edward IV (and Henry went back and made sure her birth was legally noted as legitimate, undoing Richard III's work) could have made her queen as a Yorkist in her own right. So, Henry had to claim conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while it seemed Henry genuinely loved Elizabeth of York, he was also threatened by who she was, which is why he exerted such control over her.

He could have also had a sincerely jealous nature.

It does seem though that Margaret also got on well with Elizabeth and even protected Elizabeths sister, Cecily from a later scandal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like Maegor the Cruel, he beheaded or divorced many of his wives.

They don't have divorce in Westeros, so he just beheaded them, or possibly tried annulments, but his brutality suggests beheading was more the case.

Yeah, for what was a political marriage between two enemy houses, it seems like they had a genuine love and affection for each other. Le sigh.

Speaking of Margaret Beaufort, if you look at the story of Henry VII's birth and the story of what appears to be Jon's birth, there's a lot of similarity. Other than Margaret lived and Lyanna died. Super isolated castle, difficult birth, child passed off to the protection of his uncle, etc.

You mean like being the only child of a teenage mother, having never known his father who died months before his birth and being raised by his uncle?

Please do tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like being the only child of a teenage mother, having never known his father who died months before his birth and being raised by his uncle?

Please do tell.

Er, yes. Margaret gave birth out in Wales (read: Dorne), she was a very young teenager and had a difficult birth. It didn't kill her but it left her unable to have any more children. Henry's father Edmund Tudor died fighting for the Lancastrians (read: Targs) before Henry was born. Henry ended up being raised largely by his uncle, Jasper Tudor, for his own safety. There are some differences (Henry's claim was through his mother, not his father, and he was raised by a paternal uncle, not a maternal one), but all the same, the basics are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what family tree are you using to determine that Alys was a descendant of Bael? :P

The Brandon Stark in the Bael story was probably King in the North more than a thousand years before Robert's Rebellion. I believe this because his grandson (Bael's son) was a lord of Winterfell who faced an invasion of wildlings who made it over the Wall and because he was flayed by a Bolton. We know that the flaying at least hasn't happened in a thousand years.

There are some who believe that Brandon was a Lord of Wintefell after Aegon's conquest because in the story Ygritte mentions the king's road and the king's road was built after the conquest.

The issue is that these two "facts" in the Bael story are inconsistent -- they can't both be true. So Ygritte is either mistaken about how Bael's son died or about the name of the road Bael took from the Wall to Winterfell. I believe it is more likely she is mistaken about the name of the road, since that is an irrelevant detail. Others apparently believe that Ygritte was mistaken about how the guy died, but that is a much more important detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the analogies to the Wars of the Roses, if you think Aegon is a Blackfyre (which I don't) then he is the best candidate to play the role of Henry VII. His claim originates with a legitimized bastard and passes through the female line. Also, he can marry Daenerys (Elizabeth of York) to heal the Targaryen (Yorkist) versus Blackfyre (Lancastrian) fued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the analogies to the Wars of the Roses, if you think Aegon is a Blackfyre (which I don't) then he is the best candidate to play the role of Henry VII. His claim originates with a legitimized bastard and passes through the female line. Also, he can marry Daenerys (Elizabeth of York) to heal the Targaryen (Yorkist) versus Blackfyre (Lancastrian) fued.

And it would be his mother, whomever she is, that is behind the scenes playing Margaret B., as in Illryio and Serra, (Blackfyre).

Martin does play at hybrids in combining the fantasy and historical, and Aegon could just as easily be Perkin Warbeck to Jons Henry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it would be his mother, whomever she is, that is behind the scenes playing Margaret B., as in Illryio and Serra, (Blackfyre).

Martin does play at hybrids in combining the fantasy and historical, and Aegon could just as easily be Perkin Warbeck to Jons Henry

Yes, you are absolutely correct. It is also possible that either Jon or Aegon will play James Stewart, the Old Pretender, who was the legitimate son of James II. His sister claimed, falsely, that he was switched at birth and was, therefore a fake. He never sat the throne.

Or Jon could come to resemble the Duke of Monmouth, an illegitimate son of Charles II whose (unsuccessful) claim to the throne rested on his (probably false) assertion that his mother had secretly married the Prince of Wales and that he possessed some sort of proof. His claim was squashed by his father's sibling, James II -- a role that could be played by Daenerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are absolutely correct. It is also possible that either Jon or Aegon will play James Stewart, the Old Pretender, who was the legitimate son of James II. His sister claimed, falsely, that he was switched at birth and was, therefore a fake. He never sat the throne.

Or Jon could come to resemble the Duke of Monmouth, an illegitimate son of Charles II whose (unsuccessful) claim to the throne rested on his (probably false) assertion that his mother had secretly married the Prince of Wales and that he possessed some sort of proof. His claim was squashed by his father's sibling, James II -- a role that could be played by Daenerys.

Agreed.

History, the human experience, as well as the classics are a big influencer for GRRM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brandon Stark in the Bael story was probably King in the North more than a thousand years before Robert's Rebellion. I believe this because his grandson (Bael's son) was a lord of Winterfell who faced an invasion of wildlings who made it over the Wall and because he was flayed by a Bolton. We know that the flaying at least hasn't happened in a thousand years.

There are some who believe that Brandon was a Lord of Wintefell after Aegon's conquest because in the story Ygritte mentions the king's road and the king's road was built after the conquest.

The issue is that these two "facts" in the Bael story are inconsistent -- they can't both be true. So Ygritte is either mistaken about how Bael's son died or about the name of the road Bael took from the Wall to Winterfell. I believe it is more likely she is mistaken about the name of the road, since that is an irrelevant detail. Others apparently believe that Ygritte was mistaken about how the guy died, but that is a much more important detail.

Irregardless, you are admitting that you do not have the family tree "in hand" to say that Alys is a descendant, while the original line stated it as fact. It is not fact that Alys is a descendant of Bael. There are more inconsistencies in your theory, but let me lay one at your feet. How does Alys visit in anyway equate to "growing" at the Wall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irregardless, you are admitting that you do not have the family tree "in hand" to say that Alys is a descendant, while the original line stated it as fact. It is not fact that Alys is a descendant of Bael. There are more inconsistencies in your theory, but let me lay one at your feet. How does Alys visit in anyway equate to "growing" at the Wall?

I'll add to this. The wording of the story makes it sound like the guy who killed Bael's son was his bannerman. One of his lords. If it had occurred before the Starks fully subjugated the Boltons, then the Boltons would have been kings in their own right and could not accurately be called bannermen of the Starks. Just like it's odd for Ygritte to refer to Brandon as a lord if in fact he had been a king; you'd think the wildlings, who are far less "up" on southern politics, would default to calling the Starks kings, just because that's what they had been for so long. Yet she specifically refers to the title of lord, and the kingsroad, which by northern standards is absolutely modern.

As for this seeming "inconsistency" with the Bolton killing the Stark, it actually makes perfect thematic sense and could even be called foreshadowing. It's easy to write the story off because at that time, Boltons shouldn't have been killing Starks in such a way. (Why you would use that as your hangnail and ignore all the other bits that contradict your idea, I couldn't say.) But perhaps it's a subtle reminder that the Boltons have never been fully loyal and have been known to rise up and rebel even long after they allegedly came under the power of Winterfell. Like, say, Roose Bolton turning on Robb Stark.

I say all of this as someone who thinks the Bael story is just a legend and probably never actually happened. But even if it did, absolutely nothing points to Alys being a descendant of Bael. Even if you do buy that it's a 1,000 years old (and there's more to suggest that it isn't than that it is), the Karstarks split off about 1,000 years ago. So even if it is about some Bolton killing a Stark from 1,000 years ago, there's still absolutely no way to know if it came pre- or post-Karstark split. In which case, arguing that the flower on the Wall is Alys makes even less sense and is even shakier than it already was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add to this. The wording of the story makes it sound like the guy who killed Bael's son was his bannerman. One of his lords. If it had occurred before the Starks fully subjugated the Boltons, then the Boltons would have been kings in their own right and could not accurately be called bannermen of the Starks. Just like it's odd for Ygritte to refer to Brandon as a lord if in fact he had been a king; you'd think the wildlings, who are far less "up" on southern politics, would default to calling the Starks kings, just because that's what they had been for so long. Yet she specifically refers to the title of lord, and the kingsroad, which by northern standards is absolutely modern.

As for this seeming "inconsistency" with the Bolton killing the Stark, it actually makes perfect thematic sense and could even be called foreshadowing. It's easy to write the story off because at that time, Boltons shouldn't have been killing Starks in such a way. (Why you would use that as your hangnail and ignore all the other bits that contradict your idea, I couldn't say.) But perhaps it's a subtle reminder that the Boltons have never been fully loyal and have been known to rise up and rebel even long after they allegedly came under the power of Winterfell. Like, say, Roose Bolton turning on Robb Stark.

I say all of this as someone who thinks the Bael story is just a legend and probably never actually happened. But even if it did, absolutely nothing points to Alys being a descendant of Bael. Even if you do buy that it's a 1,000 years old (and there's more to suggest that it isn't than that it is), the Karstarks split off about 1,000 years ago. So even if it is about some Bolton killing a Stark from 1,000 years ago, there's still absolutely no way to know if it came pre- or post-Karstark split. In which case, arguing that the flower on the Wall is Alys makes even less sense and is even shakier than it already was.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some will go to deny R+L=J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...