Jump to content

Archived

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

SFDanny

R+L=J v147

Recommended Posts

And, yes, perceiving the crowning as an insult on Lyanna's part is conforming - that's what the males think. Their sister is betrothed, hence no other man is allowed to express interest in her. For the very life of me, I cannot understand why the sister shouldn't have an agenda of her own and think, screw the manners, I am enjoying this. Kinda like Scarlett dancing with Rhett even though as a widow, she wasn't supposed to.

Well.. It may be, it may be not. Robert, for example, wasn't so furious about the crowning despite the fact he was in love with Lyanna. Of course, it may be just because he is not the most intelligent man in Westeros. But this may also mean that crowning had some hidden meaning, which Starks were supposed to understand, but not others. Again I lean back to possibility that crowning was not an act of love, but part of a ritual Rhaegar was performing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a man tells everyone that the bride-to-be is the queen of love and beauty, the groom-to-be can hardly be offended. He will feel flattered.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always felt that Robert making light of it was just an act, though I have nothing to support it with.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always felt that Robert making light of it was just an act, though I have nothing to support it with.

TWOIAF suggests as much, "As for Robert Baratheon himself, some say he laughed at the prince's gesture, claiming that Rhaegar had done no more than pay Lyanna her due...but those who knew him better say the young lord brooded on the insult, and that his heart hardened toward the Prince of Dragonstone from that day forth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: similarities with Bael the Bard's story:



isn't it peculiar that the Stark maiden's death also took place at a tower, and her tragedy was the same as Lyanna's: her beloved was fighting her family, no good outcome for her.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWOIAF suggests as much, "As for Robert Baratheon himself, some say he laughed at the prince's gesture, claiming that Rhaegar had done no more than pay Lyanna her due...but those who knew him better say the young lord brooded on the insult, and that his heart hardened toward the Prince of Dragonstone from that day forth."

Either that... or it might as well have been written in hindsight, in case Robert's hatred may have started and been noticed after the abduction and been continued long after Rhaegar was already dead as we know. But does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I wouldn't totally reject the possibility, but that's a whole other issue. An interesting hypothesis could be constructed that Rhaegar was intentionally replaying the Bael story, but I don't see much evidence for it other than the closeness of the parallels. I'd consider it far more likely that the Bael story-within-a-story is a literary device Martin used to drop some pretty major hints about the story proper.

Agreed. It seems to me like some forget a simple truth: GRRM wrote about Bael after he wrote about the blue roses Rhaegar gave Lyanna. In universe, Bael happened first. But we can't be sure that GRRM had even conceived of Bael the Bard idea when he wrote AGoT.

Indeed, why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents? I mean, even when one assumes RLJ, the answer is not so clear. Most popular assumption is "he tried to keep boy safe. Robert would kill any remaining Targaryens." Another, not so popular, but still quite discussed in the wild of the forum is "Catelyn would kill him to keep her children safe from wrath of anti-Targaryens." While both options are feasible, they are not rock solid. Of course, there is no need to announce in public "Jon Snow is Jon Targaryen First of His Name" as this could definitely can call enemies attention, but Catelyn is another story. I find it quite surprising that Ned haven't told her anything. Jon's life would been much easier.

There are a pair of thoughts Ned has that basically tell us why he didn't tell Cat about Jon.

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

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a pair of thoughts Ned has that basically tell us why he didn't tell Cat about Jon.

Thank you for the quotes.

It is also a faq that has made its way into the OP:

Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn?

We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then, how do we know Jon wasn't born and living during the war? He could have been alive for some time before Ned picked him up.

Also I thought Ned found Jon at a different place than where he found Lyanna correct?

Lyanna could have given birth to Robert's child Jon during the war. Hidden him away with some other family to keep him safe from Rhaegar. And then asked Ned to promise to protect Jon from the Mad King.

Yes, she could have, see below:

Nope. Jon was born around the time Robert killed Rhaegar on the Trident. Robert did not have sex with Lyanna during the war.

Which means Robert and Lyanna were alive at least nine months earlier to boink.

Again the easy way is to refer to the Chronology SSM where GRRM basically says Jon was born more or less around the time of the Sack of King's Landing - that's what happens right before Ned leaves to relieve Storm's End from siege.

In the text it is a bit more difficult to show. In the omission from my above post, at the time of the siege, there was the Battle of the Bells at Stony Sept. Shortly after that Ned marries Catelyn and Robb Stark is concieved, will be born 9 months later.

We learn that Robb and Jon are pretty much of an age. That's all we have got.

Why do you think so? Some esteemed posters imagined it may have been so but have so far failed to show hints in the books.

No, the SSM says this: All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts.

GRRM never places either birth in relation to any event in that SSM.

I know Jon's birth around-ish the time of the Sack is based on Dany repeating Viserys's story that she was conceived before Rhaella fled for Dragonstone and born nine months later there, which is then combined from the semi-canon SSM from 16 years ago. Take that how you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't Jon be one of Robert Baratheon's bastards?

Or why isn't Jon the child of Robert Baratheon and Lyanna?

Because Jon is too good to be a child of a Baratheon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: similarities with Bael the Bard's story:

isn't it peculiar that the Stark maiden's death also took place at a tower, and her tragedy was the same as Lyanna's: her beloved was fighting her family, no good outcome for her.

Good points.

Also, Wolfmaid said this earlier: From the Bael story the Blue rose doen't signify a baby or a maiden.At it's core it signifies exactly what Bael took which was the Stark girl's Maiden head. Which like the Winter rose was rare because she was the only daughter and only child.He didn't kidnap her because per Ygritte's story she never left the castle.The only thing he took was her virginity.

If we are to put real world applications to this There's a reason why taking a girl's viginity in and out of the story is called "deflowering" it comes from the fact that before a girl's Hymen is broken it looks like and inverted flower.Flowers in and out of myth is a very sexual symbol when it comes to females its that particular connection.

We have now a base meaning and cultural relevance within the story which is futher validated by Brandon and Ned's reaction at the tourney. The blue rose of its own means many things to us outside the story yes, but when it comes to the story and this particular family what does it mean to them?What does it mean to the Starks but a daughter that was deflowered.

“, but the old chronicles of Winterfell say nothing of him (Bael). Whether this was due to the defeats and humiliation he was said to have visited upon them (including, according to one improbable story deflowering a Stark maiden and getting her with child) WB pg, 149.”

- Link

So, somehow the tale o' the winter rose is symbolic of Bael deflowering a Stark girl, but Rhaegar placing the crown of winter roses in Lyanna's lap is not symbolic of him doing the same? I don't understand how someone could argue that with a straight face.

Bael leaving a winter rose on the Stark daughter's pillow = Bael took her maidenhead. Rhaegar placing winter roses in Lyanna's lap = Robert/Arthur, etc. took her maidenhead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bael leaving a winter rose on the Stark daughter's pillow = Bael took her maidenhead. Rhaegar placing winter roses in Lyanna's lap = Robert/Arthur, etc. took her maidenhead?

Aye, that's the point. Rhaegar told Starks he is planning to deflower their sister. For the reasons unknown. I mean reasons for publicity, not reasons to deflower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, that's the point. Rhaegar told Starks he is planning to deflower their sister. For the reasons unknown. I mean reasons for publicity, not reasons to deflower.

I'd like to hear what you think Rhaegar's motivations were for publicly declaring he was going to bed Lyanna. And for pissing off his own family, Stark, Martell, Baratheon, Arryn and most other people who witnessed it. ALL the smiles died, according to Barristan.

Why would he do that? Wouldn't that ensure the Starks kept a very careful eye on Lyanna from then on? But then he just happens across her? Was she not guarded despite Rhaegar pretty much saying he wanted to do the dirty deed?

eta not saying I believe any of that, but based on your response, would like to hear your take on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty’s laurel in Lyanna’s lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost. - AGoT, Eddard XV


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, there hasn't been any new information on the discrepancy between the HotU vision and the account of the duel (sank to his knees x fought on their destriers), has there?

Not new, but maybe you need to simply re-order that: first they fought on horseback, and later, on their own limbs in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All one need do is look up blue rose and winter rose to see who they are associated with. It is really simple.

look up? where? Link please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not new, but maybe you need to simply re-order that: first they fought on horseback, and later, on their own limbs in the water.

That's what I was implying. Because, a honourable man would dismount (Barristan) if his opponent was knocked down, and Rhaegar fought honourably, and Rhaegar died (Jorah).

Damn, I so want to know if Jorah did see the duel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, couldn't Rhaegar simply have risen from the waters to eventually sink to his knees and die? I expect that the fatal blow threw him out of his saddle, too. His wound was obviously mortal, but that doesn't mean he had a quick or easy death. From what we know Robert killed him with a single strong blow, crushing his chest plate, causing death either by smashing the bones and organs beneath or piercing through it. It may also be that the strength of the blow drove parts of the armor into the flesh damaging lungs, heart, or other major organs. But he would have been rather lucky if that blow killed him more less instantly. Not if he had good armor.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a point in there anywhere? I didn't see one. The blue rose does not symbolize Sam Tarly's because Sam never appears next to or with a blue rose.

Is this the level of analysis you're bringing to the conversation? Really?

It's not about which theory is the most popular - it's about the lack of ANY even slightly popular alternative theory to RLJ. If it exists, put it forward!! But you won't, and you can't, because it isn't out there. The anti-RLJ conversations always end here - with the RLJ crowd asking for an alternative, and the anti-RLJ crowd refusing to provide one.

Yes, I have considered the evidence etc etc. I basically am engaged in a non-stop audiobook re-read of the entire series, ever since I started my astronomy theory five months ago. I also have many great reasons to want Jon to be a Dayne. But there just isn't evidence for it.

All of the alternates die at the altar of the blue rose. I have yet to see anyone show how this rose can mean anything but something specific to Lyanna.

The blue rose does not symbolize Sam Tarly's because Sam never appears next to or with a blue rose.

Symbolize

to be a symbol of; stand for or represent in the manner of a symbol.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbolize?s=t

For one thing to symbolize another does not require proximity

The statue of liberty symbolizes freedom. It is not even possible to be in proximity of an abstract concept.

The causal relationship between a symbol and what the symbol represents being proximity is invalid. So is your evidence.

Is this the level of analysis you're bringing to the conversation? Really?

Is requesting what it would take to find an explanation convincing truly that offensive or beneath you?

If the only way is popular support--- it is best to avoid presenting the case to you before everybody else decides.

If there is an objective standard-- providing it would allow an explanation to follow the guidelines you have established--- or save the time and effort, if the guidelines make providing the example impossible,

t's not about which theory is the most popular - it's about the lack of ANY even slightly popular alternative theory to RLJ.

If popular or slightly popular is a criteria for you to accept a theory.... the theory should not be presented to you first.

If it exists, put it forward!!

Provide the criteria for a convincing theory.... and I will provide the theory if possible.

But you won't, and you can't, because it isn't out there.

Won't or can't play a rigged game.... unless I am the one doing the rigging.

So long as you do not provide the criteria for a convincing theory.... it's existence and the ability to produce it depends solely on your whim.

The anti-RLJ conversations always end here -

Not a member of anti-RLJ....

So far as I can tell the conversation about alternative theory ends here because the game is rigged...

with the RLJ crowd asking for an alternative,

And failing to specify what that means.... leaving them with the power to summarily dismiss a theory... regardless of its objective validity.

and the anti-RLJ crowd refusing to provide one.

Or unable to meet an unspecified and arbitrary standard.

Yes, I have considered the evidence etc etc.

Then it should be no problem for you to specify what the evidence you require to make a theory viable is...

I basically am engaged in a non-stop audiobook re-read of the entire series, ever since I started my astronomy theory five months ago. I also have many great reasons to want Jon to be a Dayne. But there just isn't evidence for it.

What evidence is required... where did you look?

All of the alternates die at the altar of the blue rose.

Is providing an explanation for the blue flower a requirement for a convincing theory?

I have yet to see anyone show how this rose can mean anything but something specific to Lyanna.

so long as the criteria for alternate theories is as solid as air....... you are not likely to see it either.

Share this post


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

×