Jump to content

Archived

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

SFDanny

R+L=J v147

Recommended Posts

To my mind, the biggest hint that R+L=J is wrong is not just that GRRM's wife said it was wrong, but that it would mean (if very common coralaries of the theory are true) that Rhaegar ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED in birthing a savior through his wild and reckless, and frankly quite anti-social actions. A character is GRRM's story, trying and actually succeeding in fullfilling prophecy? I don't think so. A person who has full belief in that hasn't been reading the same story that I have.

Unless you believe that Jon will be a villian of sorts but still be Rhaegar's child...a scenario in which Rhaegar's plan totally backfired on him. I suppose that could be. But it is frankly pretty damn close to jumping the shark to me. To lose all that emotional content between Jon and Ned's relationship simply for a shocking (stupid) twist, I don't see it happening that way either.

And for the record though I think WeaselPie is correct on these matters I am not emotionally attached to that theory, brilliant a twist though it is, as it implies certain things and again means Jon is not Ned's son.

When did GRRM's wife say R+L=J is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did GRRM's wife say R+L=J is wrong?

She didn't, really. She did supposedly say:

(7) TREBLA COMMENT OF R&L THEORY TO PARRIS: Trebla proceeded to talk about the R&L theory and how he believes it, hoping for a tidbit.

HER REPLY (paraphrasing): Do you really think George would do something so basic as Jon being the son of R&L? *Trebla's jaw dropping open*

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/ConJose_San_Jose_CA_August_29_September_24

But then keep in mind:

WHAT DOES PARRIS KNOW?

[GRRM is asked if he reveals important information to Parris about the next books. He is also asked if she herself asks him for such information.]

No and no.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/2799

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot more King imagery than Kings under the snow, Ned. There's Corn. King. Jon Snow. Jon Snow Corn King. Mithras. Corn. (just kidding, he doesn't say Mithras. But we do get the "grumpkins to magic up your sword" and the pegasus reference, both of which indicate Mithras lore. (Perseus and Mithras are associated with each other.) And all of the Mithras stuff says "red dragon." "Kings and dragons again." Kings and dragons indeed - Arthur Dayne does not fit either.

Yes, I believe I have uncovered connections between the Daynes and the Asshai dragonlords, but the Dayne's have no red and black, and are not associated with dragons in anyone's minds. So, the magic sword thing could be Dayne, and comet stuff could mean Dayne, but red fire and black ice is an icy version of the Targ sigil, as you yourself pointed out to me.

Corn Code time eh?

While Jon may well become a king, he need not become the king of the 7k.

Magical sword references do nothing to support such a claim either, as no King of Westeros has ever had a flaming sword.

And, we shouldn't forget the Daynes were once kings. The last, KIng Vorian, was the Sword of the Evening and was sent to the Wall by Nymeria, just as Cat sent Jon to the Wall in AGOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I see the source of our confusion about each other's views. You take the bolded "they" to mean only the Stark Maiden and the child. I take it to include Bael. The bolded part in the first paragraph shows that the Starks at least believed Bael to have taken her with him, and that there was no sign in their search of either of them. We know why they didn't find the maid, why did they find no sign of Bael, either? If Bael shagged and ran, how did he know he'd got her pregnant, to be able to leave the child in payment?

Even if you're right and Bael wandered off straight away and was in hiding somewhere else while she hid in the crypts out of shame entirely separately from him, that would still make it an abduction -- just a very short one.

Precisely. Whether she was willing or not, Lyanna was taken from her family. It is not her injury, but the injury to the Stark family that is considered. It might have been Lyanna's idea all along, but it would still be abduction according to Roman law, or English law around the time of the Wars of the Roses, or indeed as a quick google tells me the current law of Greece or the Philippines, for example.

To the first bolded yes.To me If "they" included Bael then he would have been found along with the girl and the child.Did he stick around there with her for a year i doubt.Which would have been another stupid move to hang around.It didn't seem his style and again that would be very very stupid to stay there for a year shagging the Lord's daughter when the Crows are tearing up the place looking for you.If i was the Wildlings i'd kick his butt the moment he showed up for just leaving them hanging.

But i agree, perception is everything and from the Starks point of view an abduction did take place. I think between the lines he deflowerd her left the flower (that being the plan all along atleast from the moment he asked for the rose) and bounced,but in the end the shame was hers and her house.She hides in the crypts can't see her down there unaided so someone in the castle must have helped her.

I do see what your saying with the abduction and that may have happened,but i was thinking along the lines of he left her in her room and what happened after was out of his hands and without his knowledge.

As to how he'd know he'd gotten her preggers,that kind of info like Mance finding out King Robert was coming,or Craster finding out Gared was shoret by a head was going to make it across the Wall especially with a man hunt on the way.Its not impossible he stayed there in the crypts with her all this time and banged her until she got preggers and waited until she delivered the babe and then left.He could have been coming and going from the crypts.But with no one seeing him doing that constantly???I don't know all things are possible the reason ehhh???

The latter bolded true,true but it would also be her shame of having been deflowerd and impregnated,even if she was complicit.There's no talk of rape so seducing her by taking advantage of her innocence is an option.

The question here becomes, though, were blue winter roses always Lyanna's favorite? Or did the tourney cause those flowers to become her favorite?

As of yet, the Tourney at Harrenhal is the first time we know of that Lyanna and Rhaegar were in the same location. As far as we know, they had never had the opportunity to meet each other until that Tourney.

The tourney only lasted for 10 days, so if Rhaegar truly was responsible for the crown for the QoLaB, and did indeed decide he wanted to use those roses only after seeing Lyanna, where would he get them from? The North is too far awar to get the roses to Harrenhal in ten days..

I don't know about it being her favorite,but she loved it's smell

"Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, but beneath the pale blue petals the thorns lay hidden. He felt them clawing at his skin, sharp and cruel, ,saw the slow trickle of blood run down his fingers, and woke, trembling, in the dark.

Promise me, Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood. She had loved the scent of winter roses."

In the context of Ned's thought especially the tone of it,i took it to mean Lyanna may have no longer liked them anymore.But it could also mean she had loved them when alive period.

I don't think anyone outside of Lyanna's circle knew she loved Winter roses looking at her personality from the onset that with probably be a thought furthest from the mind.

Lord Whent while putting together the gala could have just asked Rickard for some.I mean Winter had just loosened its grip on the land and i can't think of a better flower to have.

My thought is the tourney was 10days time enough before the last day to get the roses and make a crown which is what i think happened.Do i think Rhaegar intentionally had it made yes,but for the purpose of saying what he wanted to say on the last day.

Hence Martins point about people who try to decipher prophesy- and its not really a positive point he is making as I believe it also plays into issues of fanatacism, religious or otherwise.

This is why when it comes to Rhaegar and prophesy, I treat Rhaegar with as much caution as Mel.

From Dune to other works where prophesy figures heavily, it never works out like one thinks it will. As Delenn from Babylon 5 said, "let prophesy take care of itself."

Loved these shows,i definitely think its time for a Dune redo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corn Code time eh?

While Jon may well become a king, he need not become the king of the 7k.

Magical sword references do nothing to support such a claim either, as no King of Westeros has ever had a flaming sword.

And, we shouldn't forget the Daynes were once kings. The last, KIng Vorian, was the Sword of the Evening and was sent to the Wall by Nymeria, just as Cat sent Jon to the Wall in AGOT.

Come on Voice, don't miss the point intentionally. The point isn't that he's king - the point is that he is Targaryen. The "King" hints point to this, the Mithras (via the dragon imagery) points to this, the red and black point to this, the Lightbringer / Azor Ahai clues point to this. Azor Ahai ("fire dragon"), who is prophesied to wake dragons from stone, is inextricably intertwined with dragons. So when he dreams of being red and black Azor Ahai with a red fire sword... none of that says "Dayne."

The issue of the Targaryen claim to the throne is STILL being contested, and it's been a main focus of the story. To say that king hints refer to Vorian Dayne is a huuuuuuuge stretch. Surely you must admit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the alternate theories to RLJ die when tested by "Why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents?"

Not true Mithas. There are explanations about why Ned would hide the truth from Catelyn and Jon if Jon's mother is someone other than Lyanna. You may not like them or be convinced of them, but that is matter for discussion, not for preemptive dismissal.

If Ashara Dayne is Jon's mother then the glaring reason Ned has for not telling anyone is that he committed treason by having an affair with Ashara during the midst of the rebellion and not only did he do so, but he lied to his king about the truth of Jon's mother's identity. That he does not wish to share this danger with Catelyn and Jon is understandable, especially if the meeting of the two involved more than just two lovers getting together. What ever it was, the action is treason.

No need because Ned did not admit Wylla was the mother there. Plus, if Wylla was the mother, why the hell did he not tell anybody, Jon most of all?

This is rather disingenuous. The way Ned answers Robert's question is indeed an example of how Ned lies only to the extent he needs to, but one has to also ask from reading the dialogue what did Ned tell Robert all those years ago? Clearly the name of Wylla wasn't something Robert was searching for out of context. He is looking for the name Ned told him was the name of Jon's mother.

Can you explain how this is true and how RLJ passes?

Ned didnot tell anyone who Jon's mother was. So, he hid the truth about at least Jon's mother. The question is, why did he do that?

RLJ passes this test perfectly because revealing that Jon is a son of Rhaegar would put his life into great danger. Even if Robert would let Jon be, the Lannisters would certainly not. That is why Ned had to hide the truth of Jon's parents and lie.

Ned did tell Robert of Wylla when he tells Robert he has an bastard son. Most likely when they are reunited in grief when Ned tells Robert of Lyanna's death. That he renames her when they are riding to King's Landing is also true, even if he does so in a way to lie in the least amount he can get by with.

As to why Ned would not tell Jon and Catelyn about Wylla? That one is harder. I think one has to reimagine Ned's character to do so. I think one has to think of a Ned who places his own embarrassment over a liaison with a low born woman above his commitments to both Jon and Catelyn as the reason for his doing so. Perhaps there is more of a stain on his honor in the details of the encounter than we know. One can just put the Fisherman's daughter in the same place as Wylla and come to the same conclusions, I think.

While I agree the reasons for Ned hiding the truth, if that truth is Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child, are much more compelling and fit the story better than with other candidates, but that doesn't mean reasonable explanations are not there for the alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. I was 100% Cersei killed Jon Arryn and I still think RLJ is a very strong theory.

I started reading ASOIAF more than a decade ago and last week I was arguing with someone on reddit that Arthur Dayne as a father doesn't make any sense. But Parris statement about RLJ was bugging me for years. And there's something about Daynes. So I was not 100% on RLJ, but I was still pretty much convinced. But this week I read something about Dany, Jon and Stannis that made me think about the whole thing. And I was a firm believer in RLJ for 10 years! And now I am not sure. I still believe R+L=J makes more sense then alternative. We have more text about it. But that doesn't mean R+L=J is a fact. There are alternatives, and RLJ could be a red herring. Just like Cersei killing Jon Arryn was a red herring.

I was in much the same boat. And now, the holes in RLJ are simply too big and damning to give it more weight than the alternatives.

Wisecracker Jojen saws the seeds of doubt that the knight was a crannogman even before Meera is allowed to take off with her storytelling and Jojen sticks to it.

One tiny comment... Seeds are not typically sawed, they are sown.

Come on Voice, don't miss the point intentionally. The point isn't that he's king - the point is that he is Targaryen. The "King" hints point to this, the Mithras (via the dragon imagery) points to this, the red and black point to this, the Lightbringer / Azor Ahai clues point to this. Azor Ahai ("fire dragon"), who is prophesied to wake dragons from stone, is inextricably intertwined with dragons. So when he dreams of being red and black Azor Ahai with a red fire sword... none of that says "Dayne."

The issue of the Targaryen claim to the throne is STILL being contested, and it's been a main focus of the story. To say that king hints refer to Vorian Dayne is a huuuuuuuge stretch. Surely you must admit that.

I'm not saying King refers to Vorian, but I am saying the hidden king references do not imply RLJ. Rhaegar was not a king, and his children were passed over in favor of Viserys.

Are you claiming Azor Ahai was a member of the Targaryen family? Because otherwise, Arthur Dayne as Jon's father alters Jon=AAR not one bit. Instead, it gives Jon his father's sword of heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R+L=J probably is oversimplified...

...in the first book of a planned trilogy? I agree. R+L=J hints are very strong in AGOT. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did GRRM's wife say R+L=J is wrong?

Post by Werthead back in 2006:

http://asoiaf.wester...n-thread/page-3

Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:01 PM

So during the BwB London meet-up earlier this evening, GRRM's Significant Other, Parris, turned up (possibly one of the nicest people you will ever meet). During discussions about the series, she reiterated a point that she has made before, that R+L=J is an extremely obvious thing to do in the series, and George doesn't do obvious, leaving the likelihood of that theory being correct much reduced.

and;

Posted 07 May 2006 - 06:20 AM

Riiiiight. I see that that that point sparked some interesting discussion, so here's what I remember (whilst recalling a large amount of alcohol was consumed in the interim).

Parris doesn't get to see the finished book much before anyone else. She is George's first reader, so sees the finished product before even the editors and makes comments on it, but that is it. That said, they do discuss the storyline and some directions the story is taking ahead of time, but as for reading the written product...not before George has finished it. Apparently the sole exception to this was The Armageddon Rag, where George needed her advice on what songs to put in the book, as she was a bit more familiar with the 1960s rock 'n' roll scene.

According to Parris, she did come up with a few alternative suggestions for Jon's parentage that George wouldn't comment on, but apparently one suggestion did provoke one of George's 'evil smiles' (apparently deployed whenever he has come up with an extremely cunning plot twist). However, absolutely no amount of persuasion or bribery would get her to reveal what that theory was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in much the same boat. And now, the holes in RLJ are simply too big and damning to give it more weight than the alternatives.

One tiny comment... Seeds are not typically sawed, they are sown.

I'm not saying King refers to Vorian, but I am saying the hidden king references do not imply RLJ. Rhaegar was not a king, and his children were passed over in favor of Viserys.

Are you claiming Azor Ahai was a member of the Targaryen family? Because otherwise, Arthur Dayne as Jon's father alters Jon=AAR not one bit. Instead, it gives Jon his father's sword of heroes.

I disagree, the king references can only mean RLJ, in my opinion. Suggesting Vorian Dayne does not prove that any other interpretation of king makes any sense. The Targs are the cast-down monarchs for the entire series. There are no other recently deposed kings with an active claim on the throne that these hints would be referring to, except the Targaryen dynasty which is bent on retaking the throne for the entire series.

You are ignoring the wealth of red and black imagery around his dragon symbols. Those do not make sense in the context of Jon Dayne. Also, no dragons have ever been associated with House Dayne in the story, so it would not make sense for George to be trying to imply a Dayne ancestry with red and black dragon symbolism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about it being her favorite,but she loved it's smell

"Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, but beneath the pale blue petals the thorns lay hidden. He felt them clawing at his skin, sharp and cruel, ,saw the slow trickle of blood run down his fingers, and woke, trembling, in the dark.

Promise me, Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood. She had loved the scent of winter roses."

In the context of Ned's thought especially the tone of it,i took it to mean Lyanna may have no longer liked them anymore.But it could also mean she had loved them when alive period.

I don't think anyone outside of Lyanna's circle knew she loved Winter roses looking at her personality from the onset that with probably be a thought furthest from the mind.

Lord Whent while putting together the gala could have just asked Rickard for some.I mean Winter had just loosened its grip on the land and i can't think of a better flower to have.

My thought is the tourney was 10days time enough before the last day to get the roses and make a crown which is what i think happened.Do i think Rhaegar intentionally had it made yes,but for the purpose of saying what he wanted to say on the last day.

Yandel describes the tourney as

This is known: The tourney was first announced by Walter Whent, Lord of Harrenhal, late in the year 280 AC, not long after a visit from his younger brother, Ser Oswell Whent, a knight of the Kingsguard. That this would be an event of unrivaled magnificence was clear from the first, for Lord Whent was offering prizes thrice as large as those given at the great Lannisport tourney of 272 AC, hosted by Lord Tywin Lannister in celebration of Aerys II’s tenth year upon the Iron Throne.

Most took this simply as an attempt by Whent to outdo the former Hand and demonstrate the wealth and splendor of his house. [...]

He then continues about how there was possibly a shadow host for the tourney, but that's not the part I'd like to focus on.

Lord Whent asking Rickard for winter roses for the crown would fit in the line of "an attempt by Whent to outdo the former Hand and demonstrate the wealth and splendor of his house". So that definitly is a possibility.

Yet, if Rhaegar truly was the shadow host, and responsible for the request of winter roses, then the question remains "why?". Do you have any theories on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, the king references can only mean RLJ, in my opinion. Suggesting Vorian Dayne does not prove that any other interpretation of king makes any sense. The Targs are the cast-down monarchs for the entire series. There are no other recently deposed kings with an active claim on the throne that these hints would be referring to, except the Targaryen dynasty which is bent on retaking the throne for the entire series.

You are ignoring the wealth of red and black imagery around his dragon symbols. Those do not make sense in the context of Jon Dayne. Also, no dragons have ever been associated with House Dayne in the story, so it would not make sense for George to be trying to imply a Dayne ancestry with red and black dragon symbolism.

Without Jon being a hidden and eventual heir to the IT, Targaryen ancestry has no bearing on the threat rising from the North. Azor Ahai and the Last Hero both predate the rise of Valyria and the existence of House Targaryen. Interestingly, House Dayne does not present that dilemma...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're changing the subject. The issue is not whether Targaryen ancestry has anything to do with the north. The issue is: what do the king hints foreshadow? Can those hints imply any sort of royal lineage besides Targaryen? Vorian Dayne does not really cut the mustard.

And again, you are ignoring the red and black, blood and fire imagery around Jon, which cannot apply to House Dayne in any sensible way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true Mithas. There are explanations about why Ned would hide the truth from Catelyn and Jon if Jon's mother is someone other than Lyanna. You may not like them or be convinced of them, but that is matter for discussion, not for preemptive dismissal.

If Ashara Dayne is Jon's mother then the glaring reason Ned has for not telling anyone is that he committed treason by having an affair with Ashara during the midst of the rebellion and not only did he do so, but he lied to his king about the truth of Jon's mother's identity. That he does not wish to share this danger with Catelyn and Jon is understandable, especially if the meeting of the two involved more than just two lovers getting together. What ever it was, the action is treason.

This is rather disingenuous. The way Ned answers Robert's question is indeed an example of how Ned lies only to the extent he needs to, but one has to also ask from reading the dialogue what did Ned tell Robert all those years ago? Clearly the name of Wylla wasn't something Robert was searching for out of context. He is looking for the name Ned told him was the name of Jon's mother.

Ned did tell Robert of Wylla when he tells Robert he has an bastard son. Most likely when they are reunited in grief when Ned tells Robert of Lyanna's death. That he renames her when they are riding to King's Landing is also true, even if he does so in a way to lie in the least amount he can get by with.

Do you have any support for a love affair with Ashara being treason, or that Robert would consider it as such? Because I think this is reaching, and faaaar. None of those mentioning the supposed affair think about it in terms of treason.

As to why Ned would not tell Jon and Catelyn about Wylla? That one is harder. I think one has to reimagine Ned's character to do so. I think one has to think of a Ned who places his own embarrassment over a liaison with a low born woman above his commitments to both Jon and Catelyn as the reason for his doing so. Perhaps there is more of a stain on his honor in the details of the encounter than we know. One can just put the Fisherman's daughter in the same place as Wylla and come to the same conclusions, I think.

Indeed - out of character for Ned. Therefore, not an option

While I agree the reasons for Ned hiding the truth, if that truth is Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child, are much more compelling and fit the story better than with other candidates, but that doesn't mean reasonable explanations are not there for the alternatives.

Sorry but I definitely wouldn't call the above reasonable. The Wylla part is completely implausible, and Ashara only slightly less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Lyanna confessed to Ned that she and Arthur have married, and that Jon is their son, that would be against all of the things Ned thought about Arthur, the greatest of all the Kingsguards. For Ned, Arthur would be an oathbreaker, not some shining example.

Completely fair. But this is also a problem for why Ned doesn't seem to think overly-negative things about Rhaegar either (his thoughts on Rhaegar are rather limited overall). So, dealing with Ned's opinions on either of these men--or any other candidates--it's a problem Martin has created no matter what. We have to try to come up with scenarios to explain any of it--and that always requires a LOT of speculation.

That being said, I do think that Lyanna's "promise me, Ned" gives Martin a lot of leeway as to what that promise is. If Lyanna asked, "promise me, Ned. Promise me you'll forgive me and Arthur"--Ned seems determined to try to fulfill whatever he promised Lyanna. About Arthur, about Rhaegar, about Jon, about anything. We don't know what promises he made exactly--we have hints, but the actual promises are not spelled out. And, given that Ned thinks about the cost of keeping the promises, it seems fair to assume he might have been willing to keep almost any promise, no matter how hard, no matter how unreasonable.

And there is no reason for Ned to hide Jon's true parentage from him and claiming that he is his son. Something that he certainly wanted to tell Jon when he was locked in the dark cells.

I agree--if Jon is Rhaegar's son, the promise to hide his identity seems more reasonable--at least to me. But the texts never delineate why Ned is lying to people about Jon's mother (and presumably father). The texts never say why Ned withholds information on this topic. So, as reasonable as hiding Rhaegar's son seems to me, doesn't mean Ned couldn't have another motive for staying silent.

Plus, as I said above, if Lyanna asked him to hide Jon's identity and raise Jon as his own--even if it seemed unreasonable to Ned, I think he might still have done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R+L=J probably is oversimplified...

Agreed--but I gotta admit I can't see any other way to come up with a theory about Jon's parentage. Given the amount of info we do have vs. what we don't--can't see how any theory can be "complete" or "comprehensive" for now. Oversimplification seems like a risk no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed--but I gotta admit I can't see any other way to come up with a theory about Jon's parentage. Given the amount of info we do have vs. what we don't--can't see how any theory can be "complete" or "comprehensive" for now. Oversimplification seems like a risk no matter what.

I think there are a couple of twists coming for any who might find RLJ too simple or predictable. First, the ramifications of RLJ are unknown. I think the red herring is the idea that he will press a claim to the throne, where the real importance of RLJ will be his magical lineage or ice and fire.

But even then - what the hell does that mean?

So he's ice and fire... what side does he fight on? If he's to be a mediator, how does that happen? Will he die again, a sacrifice (corn king Jon Snow!) or did he already do that, and his resurrected self will establish some new order? Will he kill Daenerys, lay down his life for Daenerys, or will they find a nice quiet cottage and have very good looking babies? There are so many ways it can play out.

We also don't know what will happen with Others and dragons, or who we will be rooting for, if anyone.

The one other interpretation I buy for the "king" references is the King of Winter. Not the KitN, but the original King of Winter. I do feel that the Starks have a blood connection to the Others in some way, so again the iron throne kingly heritage (which does seem implied) may be a red herring, and it is the King of Winter heritage which Jon will take up. But even then, he's a fiery King of Winter, so that's going to be a new thing... just as he would be a half-icy Azor Ahai, if that is what he is in some sense.

So, even assuming RLJ, we still have no f*cking idea what will happen to Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yandel describes the tourney as

This is known: The tourney was first announced by Walter Whent, Lord of Harrenhal, late in the year 280 AC, not long after a visit from his younger brother, Ser Oswell Whent, a knight of the Kingsguard. That this would be an event of unrivaled magnificence was clear from the first, for Lord Whent was offering prizes thrice as large as those given at the great Lannisport tourney of 272 AC, hosted by Lord Tywin Lannister in celebration of Aerys II’s tenth year upon the Iron Throne.

Most took this simply as an attempt by Whent to outdo the former Hand and demonstrate the wealth and splendor of his house. [...]

He then continues about how there was possibly a shadow host for the tourney, but that's not the part I'd like to focus on.

Lord Whent asking Rickard for winter roses for the crown would fit in the line of "an attempt by Whent to outdo the former Hand and demonstrate the wealth and splendor of his house". So that definitly is a possibility.

Yet, if Rhaegar truly was the shadow host, and responsible for the request of winter roses, then the question remains "why?". Do you have any theories on that?

As i noted above,i do think Rhaegar requested the roses,but i think that request or how ever he procured the roses happened 'during' the 10days.It wasn't something he thought of prior to the tourney but while eveyone was there mingling he arragned this to happen.For the purpose to do exactly as he did on the last day of the tourney.But i will add "his" intentions were not political or romantic,though political machinations were born from what he did.

When i was doing the research for my essay the atmosphere of the Tourney presented itself very differently.It wasn't all this conspiracy stuff.I think there was some of that but among the younger members of the court it was very different.

There’s nothing like a tourney to make the blood run hot, so maybe some words were whispered in a tent of night, words or kisses maybe more, but where’s the harm in that Spring had come-Harwin to Arya-(ASOS,Arya).

"Under Harren's roof he ate and drank with the wolves, and many of their sworn swords besides, barrowdown men and moose and bears and mermen. The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle, but when her pup brother teased her for crying she poured wine over his head. A black brother spoke, asking the knights to join the Night's Watch. The storm lord drank down the knight of skulls and kisses in a wine-cup war.

What was certain is the younger people were having fun.Drinking,dancing crap like that, so as a matter of accuracy they were all intermingling.Lyanna seem to be most comfortable hanging with he boys.

Another thing that was certain is that couples were hooking up.People who may have had a little crush here or there most likely did a little dabbling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a couple of twists coming for any who might find RLJ too simple or predictable. First, the ramifications of RLJ are unknown. I think the red herring is the idea that he will press a claim to the throne, where the real importance of RLJ will be his magical lineage or ice and fire.

But even then - what the hell does that mean?

So he's ice and fire... what side does he fight on? If he's to be a mediator, how does that happen? Will he die again, a sacrifice (corn king Jon Snow!) or did he already do that, and his resurrected self will establish some new order? Will he kill Daenerys, lay down his life for Daenerys, or will they find a nice quiet cottage and have very good looking babies? There are so many ways it can play out.

We also don't know what will happen with Others and dragons, or who we will be rooting for, if anyone.

The one other interpretation I buy for the "king" references is the King of Winter. Not the KitN, but the original King of Winter. I do feel that the Starks have a blood connection to the Others in some way, so again the iron throne kingly heritage (which does seem implied) may be a red herring, and it is the King of Winter heritage which Jon will take up. But even then, he's a fiery King of Winter, so that's going to be a new thing... just as he would be a half-icy Azor Ahai, if that is what he is in some sense.

So, even assuming RLJ, we still have no f*cking idea what will happen to Jon.

All this and more--what being part Targaryen will actually mean to Jon not only practically but also psychologically, and what he'll do with the info--can't assume his "being Targaryen" will go the way we might think. Lots of options--not too predictable at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×