R+L=J v147

[TheSmallOther]

Of course Hightower had a choice. He, and the rest of the KG, are not robots. Given what little we know about Hightower, it seems very unlikely that he would have fought and died alongside Dayne had Arthur broken his KG vows.

Also, as Lucifer means Lightbringer pointed out in the previous thread: the symbolism points to RLJ and none of the alternatives even come close to adequately explaining the blue rose symbolism.

Pff... We are not talking about soccer players in the school team where one player leaves the team because he doesn't like another one. These are military things and your choices are often between obeying the orders or suffering punishment, most likely by death. We are talking about the guys who didn't raise a finger when Rickard Stark was roasted while his son watched. Because their king decided this needs to be done and KG do not question king's orders, doesn't matter if there is any sanity in them. If Rhaegar left them an order "protect the tower" (which I highly doubt, but let's use it as an example), it's not the time to discuss inner relationship between KG with him.

[Sly Wren]

Also, as Lucifer means Lightbringer pointed out in the previous thread: the symbolism points to RLJ and none of the alternatives even come close to adequately explaining the blue rose symbolism.

I agree Rhaegar=father is arguably the strongest interp for the blue rose symbol. And said so on the last thread. But that in no way means the rose is a trump card.

Bael the Bard in a nutshell: King steals into Winterfell as bard, steals Stark daughter (teaching Lord Stark a lesson), leaves rose in her place, hides in crypts, leaves baby and daughter after baby is born in her room. Thus, bastard of Stark daughter becomes Lord of Winterfell.

Works with Rhaegar--absolutely, With a few twists, which Martin seems to like.

But also works with Arthur--only need one extra twist. Rhaegar=adbuctor. Then Arthur=lover (or other, depending on interp). Still end up with Stark daughter, bastard child, daughter now in Winterfell crypts, and possibility of bastard son of Stark daughter being Lord of Winterfell. Jon=blue rose at the Wall.

Very rough and imperfect, but it makes the point: until the books are done there is no trump card re: RLJ. Not even this, which I concede works more cleanly with Rhaegar. It just doesn't only work with Rhaegar.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Pff... We are not talking about soccer players in the school team where one player leaves the team because he doesn't like another one. These are military things and your choices are often between obeying the orders or suffering punishment, most likely by death. We are talking about the guys who didn't raise a finger when Rickard Stark was roasted while his son watched. Because their king decided this needs to be done and KG do not question king's orders, doesn't matter if there is any sanity in them. If Rhaegar left them an order "protect the tower" (which I highly doubt, but let's use it as an example), it's not the time to discuss inner relationship between KG with him.

I think the question is what would Hightower do if his "duties" came into conflict. The main issue that seems to be debated on this thread has been dubbed TeamProtect vs. TeamObey. If Jon is viewed as King, then there is no conflict between the two views, as protecting Lyanna and Jon and protecting the heir to the throne would be the same job. The question is what would Hightower do if he had to choose between obeying Rhaegar's orders (guard Lyanna and Jon) -- TeamObey -- and ensuring that the rightful King has KG protection -- TeamProtect. This debate has been going in circles for many versions of this thread.

If one believes that Hightower would choose "obey" over "protect" if they came into conflict, then Jon is not necessarily viewed by Hightower as the rightful king, and he might view Viserys as the rightful king, because Hightower would stay at the tower even if Viserys is viewed as the rightful King. But if one believes (as I do) that given what we know about Hightower, he would choose "protect" over "obey" (under these unique circumstances), then Jon must be viewed by Hightower as the rightful King to explain Hightower's behavior.

[SFDanny]

Also, as Lucifer means Lightbringer pointed out in the previous thread: the symbolism points to RLJ and none of the alternatives even come close to adequately explaining the blue rose symbolism.

As I pointed out in the last thread there are many ways to read the symbolism of the blue rose, not just one. Color me unimpressed with this as the only adequate reading of it.

[idio]

I think the question is what would Hightower do if his "duties" came into conflict. The main issue that seems to be debated on this thread has been dubbed TeamProtect vs. TeamObey. If Jon is viewed as King, then there is no conflict between the two views, as protecting Lyanna and Jon and protecting the heir to the throne would be the same job. The question is what would Hightower do if he had to choose between obeying Rhaegar's orders (guard Lyanna and Jon) -- TeamObey -- and ensuring that the rightful King has KG protection -- TeamProtect. This debate has been going in circles for many versions of this thread.

If one believes that Hightower would choose "obey" over "protect" if they came into conflict, then Jon is not necessarily viewed by Hightower as the rightful king, and he might view Viserys as the rightful king, because Hightower would stay at the tower even if Viserys is viewed as the rightful King. But if one believes (as I do) that given what we know about Hightower, he would choose "protect" over "obey" (under these unique circumstances), then Jon must be viewed by Hightower as the rightful King to explain Hightower's behavior.

Why would they have come in to conflict? There were KG guarding the King in KL at the time Rheagar would have given this hypothetical order.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Why would they have come in to conflict? There were KG guarding the King in KL at the time Rheagar would have given this hypothetical order.

They would not be in conflict initially. Initially, most people seem to agree that the 3 KG were merely following orders at ToJ. The issue becomes after the death of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon -- with Viserys gone to DS and having no KG with Viserys -- do the 3 KG at ToJ -- the only KG left who are loyal to the Targ dynasty -- have an obligation to send at least one KG to DS to be with Viserys IF the 3 KG view Viserys as the new rightful King? The answer to that question is where there seems to be more disagreement.

When Ned asks the 3 KG why they are not on DS with V, they say that they do not flee -- then or now -- because they swore a vow. Some people believe the vow at issue is the vow to Rhaegar to protect Lyanna and the baby. I believe such a vow could not relieve them of the vow of the KG to ensure that the life of the King is protected by the KG -- thus requiring them to send at least one KG to Viserys on DS. Prior to the death of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, no such obligation because Aerys was King and had Jaime, a KG, protecting the King. Calling going to DS as "fleeing" not just "then" (when V first went to DS), but "now" (when all the other royals are dead) only makes sense if V is not the rightful King. And if V is not the rightful King, the only other possible candidate under the circumstances from the point of view of the KG is Jon.

[Ygrain]

As I pointed out in the last thread there are many ways to read the symbolism of the blue rose, not just one. Color me unimpressed with this as the only adequate reading of it.

Let's take a closer look at various Stark maidens' assocation with blue roses:

Sansa: nope

Arya: nope

unnamed Stark daughter: check

Lyanna: check

I fail to see how Stark maidens in general are supposed to be associated with blue roses when the two PoV maiden Stark characters are never, not once, associated with them. But, for the sake of an argument, let us presume that one might argue the case, for a single blue rose, or for blue roses as such. How about a garland(crown) of blue roses, though? The only candidate associated with them is Lyanna, and the only instant connecting her with them is her crowning at HH, thus bringing Rhaegar into the equation.

Also, it might be worth taking a look at the gradual development of Lyanna's connection to the said roses:

roses - blue roses - a garland of blue roses - the QoLaB crown

I tend to think that the general association of Lyanna with blue roses is merely a part of the whole (the garland)

[LmL]

I agree Rhaegar=father is arguably the strongest interp for the blue rose symbol. And said so on the last thread. But that in no way means the rose is a trump card.

Bael the Bard in a nutshell: King steals into Winterfell as bard, steals Stark daughter (teaching Lord Stark a lesson), leaves rose in her place, hides in crypts, leaves baby and daughter after baby is born in her room. Thus, bastard of Stark daughter becomes Lord of Winterfell.

Works with Rhaegar--absolutely, With a few twists, which Martin seems to like.

But also works with Arthur--only need one extra twist. Rhaegar=adbuctor. Then Arthur=lover (or other, depending on interp). Still end up with Stark daughter, bastard child, daughter now in Winterfell crypts, and possibility of bastard son of Stark daughter being Lord of Winterfell. Jon=blue rose at the Wall.

Very rough and imperfect, but it makes the point: until the books are done there is no trump card re: RLJ. Not even this, which I concede works more cleanly with Rhaegar. It just doesn't only work with Rhaegar.

Disagree. There are many other parallels between Bael and Rhaegar which are not fulfilled by Gerold. The music, for one, and the fact that Rhaegar was the abductor, not Arthur, is kind of a big fly in your ointment there. Bael steals the girl and impregnates her, and the story we have is of Rhaegar stealing and impregnating Lyanna. Arhtur does not enter into any Bael comparisons.

[LmL]

Let's take a closer look at various Stark maidens' assocation with blue roses:

Sansa: nope

Arya: nope

unnamed Stark daughter: check

Lyanna: check

I fail to see how Stark maidens in general are supposed to be associated with blue roses when the two PoV maiden Stark characters are never, not once, associated with them. But, for the sake of an argument, let us presume that one might argue the case, for a single blue rose, or for blue roses as such. How about a garland(crown) of blue roses, though? The only candidate associated with them is Lyanna, and the only instant connecting her with them is her crowning at HH, thus bringing Rhaegar into the equation.

Also, it might be worth taking a look at the gradual development of Lyanna's connection to the said roses:

roses - blue roses - a garland of blue roses - the QoLaB crown

I tend to think that the general association of Lyanna with blue roses is merely a part of the whole (the garland)

:agree: :agree: :agree:

[LmL]

As I pointed out in the last thread there are many ways to read the symbolism of the blue rose, not just one. Color me unimpressed with this as the only adequate reading of it.

I actually wrote a response to you, but the thread got closed:

In our world, the blue rose is a symbol of unattainable love. I see some believe in Martin's world this is somehow reduced to mean Stark women, because of the story Ygritte tells Jon of Bael the Bard and his Stark lover. I think there are more readings than this in Ygritte's tale. If one reads the tale to mean the unattainable, forbidden love between a wildling and a Stark daughter of the King in the North, then we read the rose in the Wall symbol as not a particular Stark woman, or her son, but as the same unattainable and forbidden love the Bael feels for his Stark lover. Because it is Daenerys that sees this vision the straightforward reading of the symbol is that she will meet with her unattainable and forbidden lover at the Wall. That either interpretation points most likely to Jon Snow, does not mean it unimportant to read the symbol in a more general meaning, instead of a specific meaning of a particular Stark woman. It references Lyanna, I believe, in her attraction to Rhaegar, and Rhaegar's attraction to her, and in their families opposites sides of the coming rebellion. It represents to Ygritte, who is telling the tale to Jon, of not only being the same kind of love for her as Bael feels for his love, but also the doomed aspects she feels knowing they will have to leave the cave and face a world where they may end as enemies. It maybe it foreshadows similar problems for Jon and Daenerys.

Now, this is northern tale, and it utilizes northern symbols, but I think it is a mistake to reduce the story to blue roses symbolizing Starks. The key here, for me at least, is the doomed nature of unattainable love. Yes, Daenerys finds her love in Jon Snow. No, it's not going to work for either of the them. Even if they both survive. If you read it the way you do, LmL, I think it strips it of this meaning, and misses the message. So, no, I don't think yours is the only meaning that makes sense, and there can be no other. Yours could, of course, be right, and I hope we find out soon if that's the case, but asserting only your meaning is right isn't helpful.

Ok, fair enough. A different time I said "until I see a convincing explanation for the blue roses" and "I haven't seen a convincing explanation for the blue roses," but the above instance I did forget the very important qualifier, so fair enough to call me out on that.

Your explanation is actually the best thing I've read in that regard - I certainly think the forbidden love is an aspect o the symbolism Martin is implying, so I enjoyed your analysis here. I do however think that if anything, it is evidence in favor if R+L=J, because the blue rose has never been used outside the context of a Stark. It's only been for Lyanna and Bael's Stark maiden, and Lyanna and this stark maiden have direct parallels, as does Bael and Rhaegar. If this wasn't meant to apply specifically to Stark maidens and their legacy (Jon is a remnant of Lyanna blooming on the Wall), we should see the forbidden love rose used for someone else...

The idea that it represents Arya is creative, and certainly can't be ruled out. Still, there are so many other symbols pointing to Jon's Targaryen legacy, so the case for R=L=J does not hinge on the blue rose (although certainly it's the most obvious one). Also, that doesn't account for the heavy blue rose emphasis on Lyanna, with her crown and the presence of the rose petals in Eddard's visions of her.. Arya isn't Lyanna's child, of course, so it doesn't seem like as good of a fit. I do however think that Arya will end up at the Wall, involved in Jon's plot.

[WeaselPie]

Ygritte begins her convo with Jon by reminding him they're kin through Bael. Probably to remind him he would be accursed for kinslaying, but you can make of that what you will.

Bael the Bard breached the Wall and infiltrated Winterfell through trickery/disguise to teach Lord Stark a lesson for insulting him, after what sounds like a protracted conflict between the two. He ate at Lord Stark's table, which we can be fairly sure was a gesture of Guest Right since it is used several times throughout the novels.

Bael receives his gift (which either signals the end of Guest Right [see Manderly and the Freys] or is a further gift from Stark - no matter either way) but then returns the gift. He's rejecting the gesture, and in turn betrays Guest Right by stealing away the Stark maiden to the crypts.

Eventually Bael leaves the child in payment.

The blue rose is an exchange for the maiden and a convolution of Guest Right. The Stark maiden never touches it. She isn't crowned, she doesn't receive it as a gift.

Then we have more of the accursed kinslayer story when young Stark kills his own father unknowingly, the Stark woman kills herself, and the Bolton's flay the young Stark.

The story is about breaching the wall (a chink in the Wall), trickery, prolonged rivalry/conflict, deceit, Guest Right, exchanging the rose for the maiden, the baby being a repayment, a doomed Bastard Lord of Winterfell who unknowingly kills his own father, and kinslaying. None of which I can find in relation to any text regarding Rhaegar.

ETA we actually do have a character who gets possession of a Stark maiden through his own brand of trickery, although Petyr Baelish and Sansa have nothing to do with the Wall so far.

[Ygrain]

- a musician stole Lord Stark's only daughter and fathered a child on her while they were in hiding

- both the musician and the Stark daughter died tragically as a result of their affair

Really no similarity at all?

[LmL]

- a musician stole Lord Stark's only daughter and fathered a child on her while they were in hiding

- both the musician and the Stark daughter died tragically as a result of their affair

Really no similarity at all?

You see that much contortion was needed to make the stories sound dissimilar. At their heart, they are quite similar.

Not only that, but Mance Raydar has much symbolism in common with both Rhagar and Bael the Bard - that's why some people fall for "Mance Rhaegar theory." They are meant to be contrasted symbolically, I believe, which serves to further unite Bael and Rhaegar. All three share common symbolism.

Ygritte begins her convo with Jon by reminding him they're kin through Bael. Probably to remind him he would be accursed for kinslaying, but you can make of that what you will.

Bael the Bard breached the Wall and infiltrated Winterfell through trickery/disguise to teach Lord Stark a lesson for insulting him, after what sounds like a protracted conflict between the two. He ate at Lord Stark's table, which we can be fairly sure was a gesture of Guest Right since it is used several times throughout the novels.

Bael receives his gift (which either signals the end of Guest Right [see Manderly and the Freys] or is a further gift from Stark - no matter either way) but then returns the gift. He's rejecting the gesture, and in turn betrays Guest Right by stealing away the Stark maiden to the crypts.

Eventually Bael leaves the child in payment.

The blue rose is an exchange for the maiden and a convolution of Guest Right. The Stark maiden never touches it. She isn't crowned, she doesn't receive it as a gift.

Then we have more of the accursed kinslayer story when young Stark kills his own father unknowingly, the Stark woman kills herself, and the Bolton's flay the young Stark.

The story is about breaching the wall (a chink in the Wall), trickery, prolonged rivalry/conflict, deceit, Guest Right, exchanging the rose for the maiden, the baby being a repayment, a doomed Bastard Lord of Winterfell who unknowingly kills his own father, and kinslaying. None of which I can find in relation to any text regarding Rhaegar.

ETA we actually do have a character who gets possession of a Stark maiden through his own brand of trickery, although Petyr Baelish and Sansa have nothing to do with the Wall so far.

...and who has nothing to due with blue roses. If blue roses signified stealing a Stark maiden through trickery, or chinks in the Wall, as opposed to RLJ specific things about Lyanna, then we should see a blue rose in other places, especially here. You have disproven your own point.

[WeaselPie]

You see that much contortion was needed to make the stories sound dissimilar. At their heart, they are quite similar.

Not only that, but Mance Raydar has much symbolism in common with both Rhagar and Bael the Bard - that's why some people fall for "Mance Rhaegar theory." They are meant to be contrasted symbolically, I believe, which serves to further unite Bael and Rhaegar. All three share common symbolism.

...and who has nothing to due with blue roses. If blue roses signified stealing a Stark maiden through trickery, or chinks in the Wall, as opposed to RLJ specific things about Lyanna, then we should see a blue rose in other places, especially here. You have disproven your own point.

What contortion? That's literally what the story says. The only part I interpreted were the Guest Right gestures, but the kinslaying is brought up by Ygritte. And yes actually, Mance has far more parallels to the story than Rhaegar, now that you mention it.

ETA Petyr Baelish and Sansa were only an example, and a reminder the story isn't finished. GRRM named Petyr Baelish, not me.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Or, are you trying to say that Jaime considers himself to be a better man than Hightower?

There are no men like me. There's only me

- Jaimie to Catelyn--aCoK

Jamie considering himself in relation to any man is a comparison between apples and oranges. That adds to the irony of his statement that Hightower was a better man...

I think it passing odd that I am loved by one for a kindness I never did, and reviled by so many for my finest act.

- Jaimie to Catelyn--aCoK

Jamie's self described finest act was the act Hightower used in calling Jamie his false brother.... thanks for providing that quote. The disparity of the views on the killing of Aerys lends further irony to Jamie's statement.

It was that white cloak that soiled me, not the other way around.

Jaime to Brienne--aSoS

The cloak that Hightower put on Jamie soiled him.... adding further irony to his statement of Hightower being a better man..

And it is not just Jaime, by the way. Ned's dream as well, paints a picture of Hightower's loyalty.

Sorry for including the definition of irony.... you seem to be pretty aware of it...

Not being present when the king was killed is a sign of loyalty and keeping the rules

or

Boasting what would have happend--had he been present to protect the king he swore to protect.-- is Loyalty

Knowing who is not a member of the kingsguard is loyalty?

or

Not fleeing is loyalty?

If his vow was to not be present when Aerys was murdered, boast about what would have happened if he had been, know who is not kingsguard, and not flee---- Hightower was loyal to the bone.

Somehow none of those things are present in the kingsguard vow... I wonder why they left them out.

By the by.... the kingsguard have "vows" plural... there are more than one. Apparently counting or remembering the additional vows was not important to Hightower...

Actually, if we take away protect the king and the royal family... it does limit the amount of vows in the kingsguard... now all you need to do is figure out which other vows Hightower discarded to come up with the single remaining "vow".....

You say

Jamie considering himself in relation to any man is a comparison between apples and oranges.

But that's not what I make of it. Jaime seems to call himself a case different from all others. He's not saying here that you can't compare two people. No apples and oranges here.

You seem to have missed my point, so I'll try again

When Kings Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.

Far away, Ser Gerold said, or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.

Gerold proclaims here that, had he been in KL, Jaime would not have killed Aerys. Aerys would still be King, and Jaime would have been punished. Nowhere did I suggest that keeping away from your king is a profession of loyalty, so let's keep that away, ok?

Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.

Ser Willem is a good man and true, said Ser Oswell.

But not of the Kingsguard, Ser Gerold pointed out. The Kingsguard does not flee.

Nor did I make a point of "knowing who a KG is" is a sign of loyalty.. if you wish to discuss, I suggest we stick to my arguments and discuss those, ok?

Gerold emphazises here that Viserys, while accompanied by Darry, is not accompanied by a KG. He points out that the KG does not flee, and it seems to me that he is referring to himself here.

Then or now, said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

We swore a vow, explained old Ser Gerold.

As I said in my previous post, Gerolds exclamation of "we swore a vow". Do we know which vow? Technically, no, we don't. But in light of the conversation "The Kingsguard does not flee - then or now - we swore a vow") it is heavily implied, IMO, that Gerold is speaking about his KG vow.

If his vow was to not be present when Aerys was murdered, boast about what would have happened if he had been, know who is not kingsguard, and not flee---- Hightower was loyal to the bone.

Somehow none of those things are present in the kingsguard vow... I wonder why they left them out.

Look again at the actual passage

But not of the Kingsguard, Ser Gerold pointed out. The Kingsguard does not flee.

Then or now, said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

We swore a vow, explained old Ser Gerold.

Gerold explains the previous statements by saying "we swore a vow". And I already said that technically, we don't know what vow Gerold is referring to, but as he explains it in regards to "though Ser Willem sailed to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys, we did not, as we are KG and he isn't, and the Kingsguard does not flee", we can reasonably assume that the Kingsguard vow is the one to look for, right?

Yes, the Kingsguard swear multiple vows.. I certainly never said they didn't.

And when Aegon spoke of a grand tourney to choose the first Kingsguard, Visenya dissuaded him, saying he needed more than skill in arms to protect him; he also needed unwavering loyalty.

This, combined to the passage about Willem Darry (a good man and true, but not of the KG) and this passage here above, my guess would be that it concerns loyalty, at least for Hightower, as he's the one making the statements..

From SSM, we know that Rhaegar would also have been allowed to give orders, though I suppose that, where Rhaegar's order would have conflicted with Aerys', Aerys' order would become more important for him.

There have been suggestions here, in the past, that Rhaegar ordered Hightower to remain at the tower, as Aerys' order had only been to get Rhaegar to return, yet he had never specified that Hightower needed to return as well, leaving Rhaegar free to order so. That leaves us with the unknown certainty of when the news of Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon (and possibly Viserys as heir) reached the three KG. We don't know, so several options have been mentioned in the past (and I can't remember them all) on how that could possibly fit.

First, does not consider himself to be a disloyal man or a criminal for killing Aerys. He thinks he has done his duty, after a fashion, as he fulfilled his oath to protect the innocent. While Jaime also stood by and watched many people being burned to death alive he eventually corrected that mistake by slaying the king who made him watch all that.

Hightower, on the other hand, took the easy way out. Another mission far away from KL where he no longer had to smell the tasty smell of cooking human flesh. Jaime clearly resents the fact that the other KG get a pass on all the atrocities they watched and allowed to happen while he is condemned over the Aerys thing. If we go with Jaime sincerely stating that Hightower was a loyal man until the end - and considering a sarcastic layer underneath it - the sentence would presuppose that Jaime considers himself to be a disloyal man which is clearly not how Jaime sees himself.

The dream has nothing to do with that. Hightower can be loyal in a broader sense, too. Just not Aerys but to the royal family in broader sense or to whatever oath he also swore - just as Jaime was.

Jaime believes he kept his vow to protect the innocent and broke his KG vow for that, if I'm not mistaken. Yet for Hightower, we get emphasize on how Willem Darry is not a KG, and Hightower is, and how that would have made a difference.

Jaime was not loyal to his king, but states that Hightower was. That Jaime choose to protect those in KL over Aerys, does not conflict with his statement of Hightower being a better man. Even Ned agrees that Jaime should not have killed Aerys, while he was fighting a war against the man.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@SFDanny, from the previous thread

edit: RT, a question for you, and anyone else who wants to respond. Do you think Ned really meant for Jon to take the black when he does? I ask because when Jon leaves to go North to the Wall his uncle Benjen would have a lot of power among the Watch commanders regarding if Jon would be promoted or not, and, obviously, Benjen would have some influence over what his nephew thinks. Is it likely that what we see here is Ned's method of getting Jon out of Winterfell, keeping him from King's Landing, and under Benjen's watch? The actually joining of the Night's Watch may or may not be in Ned and Benjen's plans for Jon sometime down the road, but it all goes to hell when Benjen disappears.

That's actually a bit of a difficult question.. And a very interesting one.

Ned clearly did not want Jon to go to KL, and prefered the boy to remain at Winterfell. Luwin then suggests the Wall.. First Ned is shocked that Jon came up with the idea on his own, then he begins to worry about Jon's age, speaking of "if he had asked when he was a man grown", despite Jon being only slightly more than a year away from manhood. Ned's voice is also described as "troubled" while he says this. At the end, he agree to speak with Benjen about it..

What's there to speak about? Jon asked, Benjen is aware and spoke Jon's wishes with Luwin, and Ned now gets to make the decision.. So all Ned would have had to do, if it was that simple, was ask Ben to take Jon with him when he leaves..

Yet "I will speak to Ben" and the insistance to tell Jon as late as possible don't make it sounds like Ned was enthusiastic about the idea..

Would Ned have wanted Jon to join the NW around this age? No, I don't think so. His reaction does not suggest that, to me.

[LmL]

What contortion? That's literally what the story says. The only part I interpreted were the Guest Right gestures, but the kinslaying is brought up by Ygritte. And yes actually, Mance has far more parallels to the story than Rhaegar, now that you mention it.

ETA Petyr Baelish and Sansa were only an example, and a reminder the story isn't finished. GRRM named Petyr Baelish, not me.

The broad strokes of the two stories, Bael and Rhaegar, are basically the same, as Ygrain said. What you did was fill in a lot of detail to make them sound different - I called that contortion, but pick whatever word you like. But the fact remains, the broad strokes are the same, and the blue rose ties both very similar stories together.

The Bael in Baelish may well be a shout out to Bael, since the abducting Stark maidens theme is there. That's a good catch, certainly. It would not be the first time (far from it) that George plays upon a story in different ways with different characters. But it still doesn't have anything to do with blue roses... Now, if BAELish had given Sansa a blue rose, then you'd absolutely have a point.

Failing that, the absence of blue roses anywhere except the specific places we find them speaks volumes.

[J. Stargaryen]

Gotta love the Valyrian-like spelling of Bael. GRRM did that, not me.

[LmL]

Maence Baelgar is Jon's father.

MBG + L = J, you heard it here first. (hat-tip J Stargaryen, WeaselPie)

It's all in the blue roses man. Look at the symbolism, man. ;)

[WeaselPie]

Gotta love the Valyrian-like spelling of Bael. GRRM did that, not me.

Maege Mormont. Maester. Margaery Tyrell. I've got a list of 30 more so far but pretty sure anyone could do a search if they're so inclined. Unless you're suggesting Bael and Petyr Baelish are Valyrian?