Jump to content

Archived

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

SFDanny

R+L=J v147

Recommended Posts

It will lead to war.

Robert and HIS councils will not allow it. Let alone Cersei. Knowing something of Rhaegar and Lyanna survived the war in Jon, will only infuriate her further.

But Cersei and Robert were not married at that point. Ned lied before Robert+Cersei happened. And he said that Robert would not harm his kin.

If Robert had found about Jon there would have been a perfect solution for this whole thing if Robert actually would have felt threatened by a child/boy Eddard Stark claimed to have fathered on some woman (after all, whatever evidence/testimony Robert had would stand against the word of Eddard Stark - and I doubt he would have simply admitted the truth just because somebody accused him of lying): Force the boy to join the Night's Watch. A solution Eddard Stark himself decided to take without any real pressure on the truth coming out.

Even if we assume Robert would decide to murder Eddard Stark's nephew and Lyanna's son - which I don't believe - he could never go through with that. Viserys and Daenerys were exiles without visible support from Westeros who actually were on the way of becoming a severe threat. Jon Snow would just have been a helpless boy in the care of a great lord who was closely allied with another great lord, and friends with another. Any move against Ned would lead to another rebellion, one he might actually lose. He would behave exactly like Aerys.

Not sure why the Lannisters would target Jon Snow, either. Tywin didn't murder Elia and her children because he hated them, he did so to prove that he had forsaken House Targaryen forever and was actually jumping on the Baratheon bandwagon at the last possible moment. Without such proof it would have been unlikely Robert would have considered taking Cersei to bride (not to mention pardoning Jaime).

There would have been little reason to consider a child raised as a bastard as strong threat to Joffrey and Tommen.

but then what is

Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust.

all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Cersei and Robert were not married at that point. Ned lied before Robert+Cersei happened. And he said that Robert would not harm his kin.

Huh?

They married shortly after Robert became king. 284 AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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...

...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...

So, GRRM told Alfie Allen who J parents are, but not his wife?

The thing with Parris happened 10 years ago, so maybe he changed his mind. But it is strange, that he would so easily revealed J parents to Alfie Allen and not to his wife...

Sophie Turner also said that RLJ is too obvious and she also said they were discussing J parentage on set and she was filming with Alfie Allen when she said that. So I guess she knows. And she doesn't believe RLJ. Those who are close to GRRM don't believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not the same though.

Dany and especially Viserys were threats atleast in Robert's mind to his reign.

Lady was to placate Cersie's nagging.

Others made the choice for Robert so he could hide behind it in a sense.He blamed Cersie and as you brought up with Dany he had to rely on yes men council to make that choice.

If Jon was Rheagar's he was no threat.The Targs were essentially done for,he is king and Jon would have most likely been left to Ned.This isn't a case of him being a Dragonseed.It's Lyanna's baby and his best friend's nephew------He is of her blood,Robert wouldn't have killed Jon.There's just noway.

I agree with a lot of this. And I think Ned probably would have kept Jon's identity if Lyanna asked him to, regardless of the reason.

But I can see Jon's being a theoretical threat even if Robert's feeling generous. While it didn't work out for Viserys, there was at least a possibility of his being a rallying point for a future rebellion. Jon could theoretically have been the same. Just because it never worked out for Viserys (am thinking his fabulous personality might have played a role in this failure) doesn't mean anyone who knew about him wouldn't worry about it. It's at least theoretically possible for Jon as well. Could see it as being at least a concern.

That being said--as I said above, I think Ned would keep the secret for Lyanna regardless. Just don't think the practical reasons for keeping Jon=Targ a secret are completely unfounded.

Oversimplified and overcomplicated both. Figuring what parts of the theory are cruft and which parts leave intriguing holes to fill is what's fun about it.

Amen! :cheers:

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.

There are more Ice imagery around Jon. Yes, he had a dream about fire and flaming sword, but he still has more Ice imagery around him. In text Jon is more connected to the First man and Others as well. His AA imaginary could just mean he is AA, no need to drag Targs along. GRRM is throwing Dawn, Daynes, Sword of the morning, parallels between Dawn and Lightbringer at us. If he is a Dayne he can get a sword. But how could Targ blood help him in any way?

King hints could foreshadow King in the North position, his end game. Jon said that girls don't get the swords and bastards don't get the arms, and then he gave Arya a sword. Ned said she will marry a king. There is also a mystery of Robb's will...so it could be about North. We also know that Red Keep will be destroyed in ADOS (or TWOW). So there is a likelihood there will be no IT at the end, and the whole point of King foreshadowing is about North or like you said King of Winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By now, Ygrain, I think you know what I think about R+L=J. I haven't exactly made a secret of my support of this theory since the second thread on the topic. I just think ruling out alternatives with the wave of a hand gives those of us do support the theory a bad rep. Discuss the evidence and say why you think it means what you believe. That's all I ask. Add a little respect for other's views and we might actually learn new things from each other.

:)

No, Robert uses a headsman. Killing children is not his stile, but having them killed - see Dany - is his style. An not minding them being killed, as in Lady as you brought it up.

But Robert withdrew his hit on Dany. He may have been stubborn about it and waited til his deathbed, but he called it off.

And this.

"Your Grace, I never knew you to fear Rhaegar." Ned fought to keep the scorn out of his voice, and failed. "Have the years so unmanned you that you tremble at the shadow of an unborn child?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The threat level of Jon Snow being rumored to be Rhaegar's son shouldn't be much of a problem. He would have been far away from court under the protection of a great lord. Any wild speculations about Targaryen loyalists trying to use him as a pawn in their plans makes no sense to me. First, they would be fighting/proclaiming for a boy who might be a bastard. Anyone claiming that Jon Snow was Rhaegar's son would have to challenge the word of honorable Eddard Stark. I doubt that many people would (or will) believe Jon's true parentage considering that he looks so much like Eddard Stark.


Secondly, Viserys III was out there, his parentage clear, people could have proclaimed and fought for him. But they did not. Why should anyone believe they would have done so for Jon Snow.



People usually cite Maester Aemon as an example for the danger Jon Snow posed to the Baratheon dynasty but Aemon was a special case. He was Egg's older brother, and Aegon V had a lot of enemies among the lords who did not want him to become king. Robert Baratheon had beaten the Targaryen loyalists into submission. If they would not rise for Viserys III they would certainly not rise for a boy whose parentage was uncertain.



The idea that Ned would ever openly reveal/admit the truth about Jon to the public is hilarious. The man jumped on the first chance to permanently neutralize any claim the boy may have had, and he ensured that he'll never make a claim by keeping the truth from him.



But of course Ned knew that hiding Jon's true identity was necessary. Robert was no threat to the boy, but Robert's heirs and brothers may see the thing differently. Not to mention that Robert would most likely have insisted to make the boy a ward of the Crown instead of handing him over to Ned - assuming it would have been widely known that the boy was Rhaegar's son (if Robert had been with Ned at the tower I imagine they had both cooked up the bastard plan to keep Lyanna's son save).



Other thing I've not sure I've read that could be quite significant:



You may be aware that I've recently began to seriously consider the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna were publicly married. Right now I've asked myself why on earth Ned would claim Jon Snow was his bastard if he could also have gone with him being Lyanna's bastard. I mean, everybody knew that Rhaegar and Lyanna would have had sex. It would not have come as a surprise if there was a child. If there was no marriage this would have been no problem, though. But Ned decides to take the more convoluted way which causes himself and his family much pain by claiming he was his bastard? Why does he do that? If Rhaegar and Lyanna had married publicly then that door was permanently closed...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually crowning has slightly different meaning :cool4: But with the Bael story in mind (which was familiar to Starks all too well) and similarities between Rhaegar's story and Bael's, I lean to the theory that this particular crowning meant deflowering. Future one or the one that already happened - don't know. After Wolfmaid and WeaselPie correctly pointed out on the stupidity of showing future plans in public, I think I agree more with the statement that deflowering had already happened.

I think deflowering is implied for sure, but I'm just not sure if Rhaegar was putting everybody on notice in universe, or if it is symbolism for the benefit of the readers.

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.

This reminds me of all of the Stark/stone connections in the books. Alayne Stone, Arya hides Needle in stone steps in Braavos, Rickon is in Skagos, which means stone in the Old Tongue, Lady Stoneheart, the crypts, etc. If you had no idea about RLJ but knew about Stark/stone, "waking a dragon from stone" would likely cause you to at least consider the possibility that there is a hidden Targaryen among the Starks.

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.

I can see a very narrow scenario where it could be construed as treason, but I'm guessing most would take Cersei's view on the matter. That enemy soldiers do what they please with the women they come across. In other words, Ned would have been entitled to have Ashara, specifically because they were on opposing sides during the war.

If Jon was Rheagar's he was no threat.The Targs were essentially done for,he is king and Jon would have most likely been left to Ned.This isn't a case of him being a Dragonseed.It's Lyanna's baby and his best friend's nephew------He is of her blood,Robert wouldn't have killed Jon.There's just noway.

If Jon is legitimate, he'd be a real threat to the Baratheon dynasty and the ambitions of House Lannister. Rhaegar's legitimate half-Stark son would carry a fair amount of political capital. Not only was Rhaegar quite popular in his day, but the Stark component could possibly undermine the alliance that overthrew the Targaryens in the first place. Having a Winterfell-raised female-line Stark sit the IT would probably appeal to a lot of Stark bannermen.

This reading misses out a very important detail.

If he left her in her room, why did he leave the flower? Lord Stark gave him "the fairest flower that blooms in the gardens o' Winterfell." He returned the flower, because instead he'd taken a different "fairest flower" with him. There's a very clear implication of replacement -- the daughter had vanished, and Bael had left a flower in her place. Bael took her.

According to the Story, Bael was nowhere to be found until AFTER the Stark Maiden returns, with child. Then he goes back to being King-beyond-the-wall. I think the implication is quite clear that he was hiding out with her until the child was born. We don't need to ask whether this makes any kind of practical, political or logistical sense because it's a folk-story. What is important is what is said to have happened, not what actually did happen.

Small nitpick, but I don't think Bael was yet KBtW when he deflowered the Stark girl.

“Well, long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider.”

“The song ends when they find the babe, but there is a darker end to the story. Thirty years later, when Bael was King-beyond-the-Wall and led the free folk south, it was young Lord Stark who met him at the Frozen Ford… and killed him, for Bael would not harm his own son when they met sword to sword.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Ned would ever openly reveal/admit the truth about Jon to the public is hilarious. The man jumped on the first chance to permanently neutralize any claim the boy may have had, and he ensured that he'll never make a claim by keeping the truth from him.

But of course Ned knew that hiding Jon's true identity was necessary. Robert was no threat to the boy, but Robert's heirs and brothers may see the thing differently. Not to mention that Robert would most likely have insisted to make the boy a ward of the Crown instead of handing him over to Ned - assuming it would have been widely known that the boy was Rhaegar's son (if Robert had been with Ned at the tower I imagine they had both cooked up the bastard plan to keep Lyanna's son save).

Cersei, doesn't think twice to openly threatened Robert's bastard girl coming to court. She would certainly woo Robert to press Ned for answers if there were strong suspicions of Jon's parentage being Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Ned had to sell the story that Jon was his bastard boy. Ned cannot quell the rumors of him and Ashara down at Kingslanding (Cersei presume this theory), but Ned won't allow Cat to presume, she's too close to the truth.

Jon was and is that truth.

His uncle glanced over his shoulder at the raised table at the far end of the hall. “My brother does not seem very festive tonight.”

Jon had noticed that too. A bastard had to learn to notice things, to read the truth that people hid behind their eyes.

Catelyn looked to her husband. “Now we truly have no choice. You must be Robert’s Hand. You must go south with him and learn the truth.”

She saw at once that Ned had reached a very different conclusion. “The only truths I know are here. The south is a nest of adders I would do better to avoid.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This reminds me of all of the Stark/stone connections in the books. Alayne Stone, Arya hides Needle in stone steps in Braavos, Rickon is in Skagos, which means stone in the Old Tongue, Lady Stoneheart, the crypts, etc. If you had no idea about RLJ but knew about Stark/stone, "waking a dragon from stone" would likely cause you to at least consider the possibility that there is a hidden Targaryen among the Starks.

Very interesting angle, J Stargaryen. That had not occurred to me. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could stil be read the way i suggessted......Again the flower he took wasn't her it was her virginity.He 'deflowered' her.So he may not have left the flower for LS,but for her.Now this is just an interpretation so i agree it is a matter of replacement ...the rose for ehem her rose.

I'd say he didn't leave the rose for LS or for her, he left the rose because it wasn't his. He told Lord Stark he was going to take the fairest bloom of Winterfell, but what he meant by that was -- as you say -- her virginity. The story firmly establishes a symbolic equivalence between a blue winter rose and the Stark Maiden's virginity. So when Rhaegar puts blue roses in Lyanna's lap, what's he going to take in return?

Granted, it could still be the way you suggested. The story as Ygritte tells it doesn't make that impossible. She does, technically speaking, say that Bael was in Winterfell all the time, but you can't rely on pronoun agreement always being accurate, particularly in direct speech. It's a possibility, but they do disappear together, neither of them can be found, and Ygritte tells us "They had been in Winterfell all the time". It's a logical conclusion from the way the story is told, and frankly it's a much better story if they hid together and Bael spent a few months right under Lord Stark's nose. Fits nicely with Bael giving himself a false name that means "deceiver" in Skagosi. I can't dispute the possibility of your reading, but I don't see anything to suggest it either. It seems to me that it adds complexity, relies on a grammatical error, and detracts from the story. I'd want a pretty good reason to believe in that.

Is there something in the symbolism that makes you favour that reading? You bring up the issue of the Stark Maiden's shame, so I guess you're interested in the idea that Lyanna may have felt some similar shame. I'll leave you with this thought. Mance adopted the anagram Able when going to Winterfell to steal a Stark maiden away from the Lord of Winterfell. He at least then seems to have understood the story to be about stealing Stark Maidens from the Lord of Winterfell, rather than having a night's fun with them while they are there and then leaving without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small nitpick, but I don't think Bael was yet KBtW when he deflowered the Stark girl.

Yep, mea culpa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think deflowering is implied for sure, but I'm just not sure if Rhaegar was putting everybody on notice in universe, or if it is symbolism for the benefit of the readers.

This reminds me of all of the Stark/stone connections in the books. Alayne Stone, Arya hides Needle in stone steps in Braavos, Rickon is in Skagos, which means stone in the Old Tongue, Lady Stoneheart, the crypts, etc. If you had no idea about RLJ but knew about Stark/stone, "waking a dragon from stone" would likely cause you to at least consider the possibility that there is a hidden Targaryen among the Starks.

I can see a very narrow scenario where it could be construed as treason, but I'm guessing most would take Cersei's view on the matter. That enemy soldiers do what they please with the women they come across. In other words, Ned would have been entitled to have Ashara, specifically because they were on opposing sides during the war.

If Jon is legitimate, he'd be a real threat to the Baratheon dynasty and the ambitions of House Lannister. Rhaegar's legitimate half-Stark son would carry a fair amount of political capital. Not only was Rhaegar quite popular in his day, but the Stark component could possibly undermine the alliance that overthrew the Targaryens in the first place. Having a Winterfell-raised female-line Stark sit the IT would probably appeal to a lot of Stark bannermen.

Small nitpick, but I don't think Bael was yet KBtW when he deflowered the Stark girl.

Again the story of Bael the Bard is not a well known one,Rhaegar bookish Rhaegar on the other hand,most likely came across it.I doubt the common person south of the Wall would get that reference. The Starks of Ned's generation probably knew the story and after everything that happened it is not suprising that story would never be one of bed time tales in WF for Jon's generation.

So to reiterate my original point a few days ago only the Starks were meant to get the message and that reference as they did.We have to look at who in that crowd would culturally identify with the story.To eveyone else Rhaegar probably dissed his wife.To the Starks he dissed Lyanna.

If Jon is Rhaegar's son and legitimate? It wouldn't matter he'd be the same boat as Aegon.Unless Bran sends every Lord the answer telepathically no one would care.The small folk would give a hoot either.If Jon wants the throne he'll be just another dog in the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again the story of Bael the Bard is not a well known one,Rhaegar bookish Rhaegar on the other hand,most likely.I doubt the common person south of the Wall would get that reference. The Starks of Ned's probably knew the story and after everything that happened it is not suprising that story would never be one of bed time tales.So to reiterate my original point a few days ago only the Starks were meant to get the message as they did.

I really think the reader is the one who is supposed to understand the symbolism. It's just my opinion, but as for the case of providing evidence in favor of RLJ, neither Rhaegar nor the Starks need understand anything other than Rhaegar was crowning her QoLaB with her favorite flower. The similarities in the Bael and Rhaegar stories itself is sufficient to count in favor of RLJ, even if the reader is the only one who understands them.

That's not to say that there wasn't implied messages and symbols between Rhaegar and the Starks, or that the discussion about that is irrelevant. Not at all. I think it's actually quite interesting. I just wanted to say that only the reader may be intended to notice the similarities. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jon is Rhaegar's son and legitimate? It wouldn't matter he'd be the same boat as Aegon.Unless Bran sends every Lord the answer telepathically no one would care.The small folk would give a hoot either.If Jon wants the throne he'll be just another dog in the fight.

What? of course it would matter.

He would be a strong claimant to the throne. Which throne? I don't know. There's a strong possibility the IT will not exist come A Dream of Spring, likewise, the wall and the NW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more Ice imagery around Jon. Yes, he had a dream about fire and flaming sword, but he still has more Ice imagery around him.

In the same place, no less. "Jon was armored in black ice, but his blade burned red in his fist." Armour of ice, weapon of fire. Interesting, that!

In text Jon is more connected to the First man and Others as well. His AA imaginary could just mean he is AA, no need to drag Targs along. GRRM is throwing Dawn, Daynes, Sword of the morning, parallels between Dawn and Lightbringer at us. If he is a Dayne he can get a sword. But how could Targ blood help him in any way?

We know there's a long-awaited hero due to receive a magic sword, who is prophesied to end the night. There's a magic sword which, unlike every other ancestral blade we know of, goes not to each new lord but only to individuals considered highly worthy, heroic even. We know that magic sword is named Dawn, which is of course the end of night. It's described as being "alive with light", even.

It's just so tempting to see the parallel between Dawn and Lightbringer. Lightbringer is supposed to be a fiery sword though, and the best connection you can give between Daynes and fire is that their symbol (and supposedly the source of Dawn) is a falling star, which are pretty fiery things. The Daynes do look rather like Valyrians too, and Valyrians are all about the fire.

Dawn isn't a fiery sword. In fact while it's said to have a unique appearance, that's not entirely true.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

Down in the Shadow Lands beyond Asshai, they say there are oceans of ghost grass, taller than a man on horseback with stalks as pale as milkglass. It murders all other grass and glows in the dark with the spirits of the damned. The Dothraki claim that someday ghost grass will cover the entire world, and then all life will end.

Sam rolled onto his side, eyes wide as the Other shrank and puddled, dissolving away. In twenty heartbeats its flesh was gone, swirling away in a fine white mist. Beneath were bones like milkglass, pale and shiny, and they were melting too.

Shiny / alive with light / glows in the dark, and pale as milkglass. Interesting that Dawn is so clearly linked with things that are all about death and the doom of mankind.

There's only one other mention of milkglass in the books. When Tyrion looks through Pycelle's potions, he remarks on pots, vials, jars and milkglass bottles. The poison that he takes is in a bottle. Not sure what to make of that if anything -- there's no glow after all -- but maybe that's one more association between milkglass and death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read any of my theories, King Monkey? I'm of the opinion that there were two "Lightbinger" or "luminous" swords. Dawn, as you have pointed out, is not only associated with death, but also with icy things and moonlight. Milkglass also appears on the silvered dome of the temple of the moon singers in Bravos. The bones of the Others are of course icy, and although their swords are crystal and transparent, not white as Dawn is, they are described "the pale sword" multiple times.

Thus, I believe, as some do, that Dawn is actually the original Ice of the King of a Winter / first Stark. I do thi it has comet steel, but it's a pale stone we are looking for. One of the other words that means "Lightbringer" besides Lucifer is phosphorus, or eosphorus (Greek). Phosphors is found on comets - indeed, may have first arrived on earth via comets - and is white, bright, and can burns with a bright white flame. So I see Dawn / Ice as an icy comet sword, a Lightbringer in the phosphorus sense.

AA's sword reeks of darkness, shadow, blood sacrifice, dragon magic, etc. I've spent most of my essays devoted to research Azor Ahai and Lightbringer... And everything I find points to a black steel weapon with red and black fire that matches the fire of the black dragons. And of course one of my big conclusions is that Azor Ahai was also known as the Bloodstone Emperor, that he was no hero fighting the darkness, but rather a magical tyrant who may have been associated with the cause, not cure, of the Long Night. AA's Lightbringer would be made from the black stone that fell from the sky, a piece of the destroyed second moon.

So what we would have is a black fire "Nightbringer" and a white Ice "dawnbringer," something like that. The swords got switched after the Battle for the Dawn, with Ice going south in the hands of the Daynes (descended from the proto-Valyrian dragon lords) and Lightbringer going north in the hands of the Last Hero to be known as dragonsteel.

And yes, I have actual text quotes and such to support these ideas. ;) Have you seen any of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see someone else with this thought.I for one definitely believe- the evidence is crystal clear on that one-that the blue rose equates a Stark maiden.I to believe there is foreshadowing for Arya ending up at the Wall and the flower growing out the chink in the Wall is her.

Consider the story of Dany Flint,and that there is girl in the Stark family tree named "Arya Flint" that connection scares me a bit.But,Arya is probably going to pass as a boy to get to the Wall.I would hate to see her go through something shitty there.

She did kill what's his face from the NW and take his boots.I'm not sure she can pull off looking like him,but its a dudes boots.

Yikes! I don't want another incident like that, either. Arya would fit in well with the Spear Wives, however.

I guess I could see Arya returning North and becoming the stark in winterfell.

And I can't help it but I also see

A blue rose, given as a gift to Bael, exchanged for a maiden who hid within her home with Bael, then a baby given in payment to the Lord for having deflowered the Maiden

as very different from

A Prince publicly giving a Stark maiden roses that he did not get as a gift nor exchange for her while hiding within her home and not giving the Lord a payment

Not to mention killing the father thing

Fair enough. Although maybe the parallel is in terms of where the Stark girl is located.

Share this post


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

×