R+L=J v.116

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

That one a stark daughter too? No, it is the product of the union that is symbolified by the blue rose. And Bael's child was a son.

----------

"Bael ate at Lord Stark's own table, and played for the lord in his high seat until half the night was gone. The old songs he played, and new ones hed made himself, and he played and sang so well that when he was done, the lord offered to let him name his own reward. 'All I ask is a flower,' Bael answered, 'the fairest flower that blooms in the gardens o' Winterfell.

"Now as it happened the winter roses had only then come into bloom, and no flower is so rare nor precious. So the Stark sent to his glass gardens and commanded that the most beautiful o the winter roses be plucked for the singer's payment. And so it was done. But when morning come, the singer had vanished . . . and so had Lord Brandon's maiden daughter. Her bed they found empty, but for the pale blue rose that Bael had left on the pillow where her head had lain...

"For most a year they searched, till the lord lost heart and took to his bed, and it seemed as though the line o' Starks was at its end. But one night as he lay waiting to die, Lord Brandon heard a child's cry. He followed the sound and found his daughter back in her bedchamber, asleep with a babe at her breast.

"...what's certain is that Bael left the child in payment for the rose he'd plucked unasked, and that the boy grew to be the next Lord Stark."

----------

--> The fairest flower that bloomed in the gardens of Winterfell, the winter rose... was the Stark daughter, not her bastard son.

.

[JonSnow4President]

The equally significant part is that no one ever mentioned that Aegon was disinherited except for this Maester. Nobody. Ever. So it most definitely was either 1. Not disseminated information, or 2. Not accurate information.

Or, Viserys was made the heir solely for practical reasons. Aerys is HIGHLY likely to die, so an heir that can at least make decisions (Aerys) is more important than following the correct bloodlines (baby Aegon)

[The guy from the Vale]

... but her son was worth just as much as the rose, equating the two again.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

A brought up the question in the last thread.

There were six people with Rhaegar. Hightower should take at least a squire. That adds eight people.

Most of us are giving for granted that Rhaegar wouldn't let them come back to KL so that they don't tell Aerys where ToJ was.

When Ned arrived, he just found the three KGs. If the other people were still there, Ned would have been defeated.

No need to talk about military tactics when they had dismissed their forces.

Where had they gone and why?

Rhaegar set out with six companions, per the World Book. However, that doesn't mean they were all still with him when he came upon Lyanna, let alone when they went to the Tower of Joy. Hightower was not necessarily part of that six who went with Rhaegar, as he was sent from King's Landing by Aerys to find Rhaegar since Rhaegar had gone missing. There's something, in the app I believe, that says that Whent and Dayne were with Rhaegar when he "kidnapped" Lyanna. It's plausible that the group split in two at some point in Rhaegar's journey, with only Whent and Dayne staying with Rhaegar. Some have proposed that this second group went back to King's Landing and that Brandon Stark followed them thinking that Rhaegar was with them, which is why he went to the Red Keep expecting Rhaegar there. Rhaegar, Whent and Dayne (and Lyanna, of course) would be the only ones who went to the Tower of Joy.

That still, of course, doesn't tell us how Hightower came upon Rhaegar and the others, nor how Ned found his way to the Tower of Joy. One suspect is Ashara Dayne. The idea being that any supplies or servants or other support the group at the Tower of Joy got would likely have made their way there from Starfall and that Ashara was an accomplice

As for who the rest of Rhaegar's six companions are (the last four, that is), there's been speculation that the World Book pointing out Rhaegar's supporters at court earlier in the same section was no coincidence. That list includes Myles Mooton, Jon Connington, Richard Lonmouth and Lewyn Martell (as well as Arthur Dayne).

[JonSnow4President]

I feel so stupid for not associating this sooner.

So the only non-R, L, or J mention of blue roses is a story where someone kidnaps a daughter of Winterfell (Rheagar and Lyanna...), and eventually the heir of the apparently ending Stark house (present Stark situation) is returned, the son of the kidnapper and the daughter of Winterfell?

[sj4iy]

I feel so stupid for not associating this sooner.

So the only non-R, L, or J mention of blue roses is a story where someone kidnaps a daughter of Winterfell (Rheagar and Lyanna...), and eventually the heir of the apparently ending Stark house (present Stark situation) is returned, the son of the kidnapper and the daughter of Winterfell?

Yup.

And yet some people insist that it's a coincidence.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

... but her son was worth just as much as the rose, equating the two again.

You mean, kinda like a Subway Club is worth $5? So five dollar bills symbolize Subway sandwiches?

[sj4iy]

You mean, kinda like a Subway Club is worth $5? So five dollar bills symbolize Subway sandwiches?

...that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever read.

And I will tell you why:

Do you ONLY associate $5 bills with Subway sandwiches?

No.

Do we ONLY associate the blue rose with specific imagery (R+L=J, Bael the Bard) in this story?

Yes.

See the difference?

[JonSnow4President]

...that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever read.

Saw something on Ifunny the other day. The post was called "Worst analogies written by high schoolers" Among them:

"He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical kind of lame duck, but an actual duck that was lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something"

And

"She grew on him like a colony of E Coli on room temperature canadian bacon."

So, now it's the third worst analogy you've ever read.

[sj4iy]

Saw something on Ifunny the other day. The post was called "Worst analogies written by high schoolers" Among them:

"He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical kind of lame duck, but an actual duck that was lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something"

And

"She grew on him like a colony of E Coli on room temperature canadian bacon."

So, now it's the third worst analogy you've ever read.

Well, as bad as they are, they at least make sense.

"The blue winter rose represents Bael's son/Jon Snow like a $5 bill represents a Subway sandwich" doesn't make any sense at all.

[JonSnow4President]

Well, as bad as they are, they at least make sense.

"The blue rose of Winterfell is to Bael's son/Jon Snow as a $5 bill is to a Subway sandwich" doesn't make any sense at all.

http://ifunny.co/fun/OTYhSZGH2

There's the list I originally read.

[sj4iy]

http://ifunny.co/fun/OTYhSZGH2

There's the list I originally read.

LOL, okay, I'm having fun with this.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

...that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever read.

And I will tell you why:

Do you ONLY associate $5 bills with Subway sandwiches?

No.

Do we ONLY associate the blue rose with specific imagery (R+L=J, Bael the Bard) in this story?

Yes.

See the difference?

I believe the analogy goes more like this:

(1) "Bael left the child in payment for the rose he'd plucked."

(2) Snowfyre left a fiver in payment for the Subway Club he'd ordered.

As theguyfromtheVale points out, the relationship in each case is one of "equal value."

[The guy from the Vale]

"Equivalence" would be the better term, but that actually means "equal value", so...

Either way, what I'm saying is that apparently, a daughter was exchanged for a flower was exchanged for a grandson. Somehow, you seem to ignore the latter part and only focus on the first exchange.

[markg171]

Yup.

And yet some people insist that it's a coincidence.

... Cause the Starks aren't ending at all? There's 4/5 of them still alive.

[The guy from the Vale]

... Cause the Starks aren't ending at all? There's 4/5 of them still alive.

A fact well-known in universe... not.

More to the point, the Starks will need not just a head of their house, but an actual military leader soon, and the only Stark child with the proper age, education, physical capabilities and (in eyes of the Westerosi) gender would be... Jon.

Add in the fact that Robb most probably named Jon his heir, and things start falling into place.

[JNR]

Either way, what I'm saying is that apparently, a daughter was exchanged for a flower was exchanged for a grandson. Somehow, you seem to ignore the latter part and only focus on the first exchange.

The flower was certainly not of equal value to the daughter. It merely symbolized the daughter. That's why Bael requested "the fairest flower" in the first place; he was thinking of the daughter.

The grandson was quite a different matter. He really may have been of equal value to the daughter -- ergo, payment for the daughter -- not just because he was a Stark family member, as opposed to a dead plant, but also because Lord Stark had no male heir until then.

The grandson is not symbolized by the flower (which remains linked to the daughter). Similarly, the daughter is not symbolized by dirty diapers (linked to her son). The R+L=J thread is symbolized by dirty diapers, for reasons which I'm sure require no explication.

[JonSnow4President]

"Equivalence" would be the better term, but that actually means "equal value", so...

Either way, what I'm saying is that apparently, a daughter was exchanged for a flower was exchanged for a grandson. Somehow, you seem to ignore the latter part and only focus on the first exchange.

Actually, it's a one tier exchange. A song for the most prized "flower" in Winterfell, the lone daughter of Winterfell's virginity.

[markg171]

A fact well-known in universe... not.

More to the point, the Starks will need not just a head of their house, but an actual military leader soon, and the only Stark child with the proper age, education, physical capabilities and (in eyes of the Westerosi) gender would be... Jon.

Add in the fact that Robb most probably named Jon his heir, and things start falling into place.

How do things fall into place there at all? In Baels story there was no other Stark but Baels son. They had to accept him. Here we have 4 Starks still alive, and the North are actively seeking out Rickon to rally around him.

The two aren't similar at all.

[The Twinslayer]

The equally significant part is that no one ever mentioned that Aegon was disinherited except for this Maester. Nobody. Ever. So it most definitely was either 1. Not disseminated information, or 2. Not accurate information.

. I don't think Aegon was disinherited. I think he came after Viserys. Either because (1) Targaryen succession follows real-life Norman succession (Aegon the Conqueror being based in part on William the Conqueror) such that the son of a king (Viserys) comes before the son of a dead prince (Aegon); (2) the Great Council that installed Egg (King Maekar's son) before Maegor (Maekar's grandson by Egg's older brother, Aerion Brightflame) set a precedent that placed Viserys ahead of Rhaegar's sons, once Rhaegar predeceaced Aerys; or (3) Aerys proclaimed Viserys to be his heir, without disinheriting Rhaegar's children, which would just mean that Rhaegar's children were behind Viserys and anyone Viserys named as heir.