Heresy 180

[Sly Wren]

I don't think the idea that Jaime will be the one to stand against Dany's destruction is crackpot at all. As mentioned, Jaime saving King's Landing is one of the most selfless acts of heroism we've been privy to in the series. Unlike other heroic acts that are driven by love/need to protect loved ones, self-preservation, or honor, Jaime's thoughts are solely of saving King's Landing. He forsook honor and personal safety to protect the small-folk and nobles alike. When they dubbed him Kingslayer and cursed his name, he didn't fight it. It reminds me a lot of the end of Nolan's Dark Knight (ie - He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.). I'm not claiming that it's an influence on the books, but provides an interesting archetype that it appears Jaime's development shares potential themes with. Although we've met him at a time where he's basically committed to being the monster everyone thinks he already is while his true self retreats deep down, his story has been one of reclaiming the heroic, knightly ideals he had as a young man, before there was a Kingslayer. Through his POV, this notion of his lost ideals comes up quite often:

And me, that boy I was … when did he die, I wonder? When I donned the white cloak? When I opened Aerys’s throat? That boy had wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne, but someplace along the way he had become the Smiling Knight instead.

Agreed--though would also ads that his redemption seems to come in part through Brienne, who has the light-drinking sword. So I can see her being the one to take out the dragon. Either way, there's no more iconic way for a knight to prove his or her worth than slaying the dragon.

Am now imagining Jaime speaking with Christian Bale's Batman voice. 

Moreover, Jaime is also the most logical leader of the forces that would stand against Dany's invasion, since his son and king would be the one he's fighting to keep on the throne by repelling Dany's forces. I can't think of any further suitable candidates on team Lannister that have already been introduced yet that have the fame/infamy along with battle-tested knowledge to successfully lead an army (minus maybe Randyll Tarly). Unless, of course, Jon Connington's forces are forced to engage Dany on behalf of the "true heir", but that wouldn't necessarily equate to a treaty with the Lannisters. 

Good point. Though I'm not sure Tommen's getting out alive. Still, someone to rally the anti-Targs--Jaime has proven some degree of leadership in the Riverlands. 

As for JonCon--I really think that's the second dance. Dany and Aegon. And Dany will "win"--though not sure she will win overall.

Lastly, I think that there's substantial clues that lend some possibility to Jaime being the fabled hero Azor Ahai/Prince that was Promised, or at least tied very closely to him/her (maybe Tommen). Although there are plenty to choose from, my personal favorite also ties into a discussion that was being had previously about mistranslations related to this prophecy. In Valyrian, "Lord of Light" is pronounced "Aeksio Onos". "Golden Hand" is pronounced as "Aeksion Ondos". It's not too crazy to believe that this subtle change could have occurred, particularly when the novels make plain the pitfalls of prophecy. 

Another fair point, though I am coming at it from the viewpoint that the AA story is a conglomeration and even a mongrelization of the story. That AA may not have been much of a hero if he was willing to kill someone for a weapon. But the idea that Jaime, as well as others, have key roles and thus echoes of old stories and histories--yes, that I buy.

The linguistics--good catch!

[Sly Wren]

"walls" not "Wall"...

And happy holiday season Heretics!

Happy holidays to you, too!

As for the "walls"--is this really innately counter to the idea that the portal is contemporary with the Wall? Or is this not your point?

[Voice of the First Men]

Happy holidays to you, too!

As for the "walls"--is this really innately counter to the idea that the portal is contemporary with the Wall? Or is this not your point?

Precisely my point. The Black Gate oath is from a time before the Watchers watched from atop a single great "Wall". Thus, it predates it.

[TheButcherCrow]

For me the significance of the Black Gate is not it's provenance but it's function in the story.  It gives us the echoes of ritual that we were supposed to hear during Bran's trip through.  Think of it, the rightful King of Winter is conveyed by a brother of the NW through a magic talking door to the realms beyond.  The brother in question uses a different (older?) version of the oath to open the door, remembering that the first time Sam said those words he was stood next to Jon Snow in front of a Weirwood somewhere north of Castle Black.  Note that Sam does not accompany Bran across but instead entrusts him to an agent of the CotF.  This is an informal re-enactment of a ritual I believe happened every Winter, a ritual that had been neglected.  If we determine the reasons for that neglect then we may be pretty close to uncovering one of the major inciting incidents that has given us the story we are reading.  

I'm having a little "lightbulb moment" so bear with me.  Two particular Stark family incidents have long bothered many a poster on this forum;

1. Why did Rickard Stark ride to King's Landing with such a token force ?
2. Why did Torrhen Stark kneel to Aegon?

What if the two are connected ?  It's my gut feeling that Torrhen Stark knew, or had been forewarned/foretold that the dragons were coming and that he knelt because "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell".  The rub is that I believe that there was a price for Torrhen's surrender and that price was guaranteed dominion of the north for House Stark for as long as House Targaryen ruled Westeros.  Now, we have discussed before the possibility that Aegon himself believed he was a figure of prophecy, that is unclear, what is clear is that he had access to prophecies, visions, forewarnings etc, as detailed in his ancestor Daenys' book.  If we accept the possibility that Torrhen was waiting for Aegon then it's perhaps not too much of a a stretch to imagine Aegon knew he would be meeting Torrhen and he knew how he would deal with that meeting.  One important codicil, I believe at the time the agreement between Torrhen & Aegon was reached, a further agreement that no union would take place between House Stark & House Targaryen was also put in place.

So how does that relate to my first question about Rickard ?  Well if an ancient agreement was in place between HS + HT with regard the dominion of the north, an agreement known only to the heads of the houses, passed from father to son (with maesters as insurance in case a father died without passing on the knowledge) is it too much to imagine that Rickard went to KL with the (erroneous) assumption he would be able to fall back on this ancient accord  ?

[Morrigan's Raven]

For me the significance of the Black Gate is not it's provenance but it's function in the story.  It gives us the echoes of ritual that we were supposed to hear during Bran's trip through.  Think of it, the rightful King of Winter is conveyed by a brother of the NW through a magic talking door to the realms beyond.  The brother in question uses a different (older?) version of the oath to open the door, remembering that the first time Sam said those words he was stood next to Jon Snow in front of a Weirwood somewhere north of Castle Black.  Note that Sam does not accompany Bran across but instead entrusts him to an agent of the CotF.  This is an informal re-enactment of a ritual I believe happened every Winter, a ritual that had been neglected.  If we determine the reasons for that neglect then we may be pretty close to uncovering one of the major inciting incidents that has given us the story we are reading.  

I'm having a little "lightbulb moment" so bear with me.  Two particular Stark family incidents have long bothered many a poster on this forum;

1. Why did Rickard Stark ride to King's Landing with such a token force ?
2. Why did Torrhen Stark kneel to Aegon?

What if the two are connected ?  It's my gut feeling that Torrhen Stark knew, or had been forewarned/foretold that the dragons were coming and that he knelt because "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell".  The rub is that I believe that there was a price for Torrhen's surrender and that price was guaranteed dominion of the north for House Stark for as long as House Targaryen ruled Westeros.  Now, we have discussed before the possibility that Aegon himself believed he was a figure of prophecy, that is unclear, what is clear is that he had access to prophecies, visions, forewarnings etc, as detailed in his ancestor Daenys' book.  If we accept the possibility that Torrhen was waiting for Aegon then it's perhaps not too much of a a stretch to imagine Aegon knew he would be meeting Torrhen and he knew how he would deal with that meeting.  One important codicil, I believe at the time the agreement between Torrhen & Aegon was reached, a further agreement that no union would take place between House Stark & House Targaryen was also put in place.

So how does that relate to my first question about Rickard ?  Well if an ancient agreement was in place between HS + HT with regard the dominion of the north, an agreement known only to the heads of the houses, passed from father to son (with maesters as insurance in case a father died without passing on the knowledge) is it too much to imagine that Rickard went to KL with the (erroneous) assumption he would be able to fall back on this ancient accord  ?

As you see it, would that accord mean that Rickard didn't think Lyanna was with Rhaegar? Just was going to bring back his hot-headed son, one King to another? No illicit breeding going on around here! Hmmm, I wonder then if Aerys might have thought the Starks snared his son?

[TheButcherCrow]

As you see it, would that accord mean that Rickard didn't think Lyanna was with Rhaegar? Just was going to bring back his hot-headed son, one King to another? No illicit breeding going on around here! Hmmm, I wonder then if Aerys might have thought the Starks snared his son?

My thoughts were free-form and not well-developed and I'm willing to throw out any or all of it    It does provoke some interesting thoughts.though.  What if Rickard sent Lyanna to Rhaegar in defiance of the accord and his ride to KL was a failed coup d'etat with Rickard expecting help in KL, help that never came ?   I'm more inclined to lean toward Rickard knowing Lyanna and Rhaegar were together and THAT was the real reason he took off so quickly.  In my scenario he would be looking to get together with Aerys and probably his maester to discuss important things but Rickard fatally misjudged how bonkers Aerys was.

[Sly Wren]

Precisely my point. The Black Gate oath is from a time before the Watchers watched from atop a single great "Wall". Thus, it predates it.

Or--men did a stint at the Wall, then returned home to watch on their home walls. 

In short, lifetime membership of the Watch, but not lifetime residence (or celibacy) at the Wall. 

This would also make it a LOT easier to maintain the connection between the people in Westeros and the Wall--people going back and forth. Telling stories. Vs. men and boys just going to the Wall--and gone.

[Black Crow]

Precisely my point. The Black Gate oath is from a time before the Watchers watched from atop a single great "Wall". Thus, it predates it.

Whilst I'm not sure that I necessarily go along with it, I can remember much debate on the Wall/Walls question long before Heresy started, with much asking around as to how the reference appeared in translation in foreign parts to which the answer was always returned that it was walls plural.

From that there was some thought in heresy that there might thereby be a connection between the Watch and the guards on the Red Temple, tending the fires as they watched for the dawn. That's not to say of course that the Nights Watch and the Red lot were once one and the same but it may point towards a common root.

[shizett]

I'm having a little "lightbulb moment" so bear with me.  Two particular Stark family incidents have long bothered many a poster on this forum;

1. Why did Rickard Stark ride to King's Landing with such a token force ?
2. Why did Torrhen Stark kneel to Aegon?

What if the two are connected ?  It's my gut feeling that Torrhen Stark knew, or had been forewarned/foretold that the dragons were coming and that he knelt because "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell".  The rub is that I believe that there was a price for Torrhen's surrender and that price was guaranteed dominion of the north for House Stark for as long as House Targaryen ruled Westeros.  Now, we have discussed before the possibility that Aegon himself believed he was a figure of prophecy, that is unclear, what is clear is that he had access to prophecies, visions, forewarnings etc, as detailed in his ancestor Daenys' book.  If we accept the possibility that Torrhen was waiting for Aegon then it's perhaps not too much of a a stretch to imagine Aegon knew he would be meeting Torrhen and he knew how he would deal with that meeting.  One important codicil, I believe at the time the agreement between Torrhen & Aegon was reached, a further agreement that no union would take place between House Stark & House Targaryen was also put in place.

So how does that relate to my first question about Rickard ?  Well if an ancient agreement was in place between HS + HT with regard the dominion of the north, an agreement known only to the heads of the houses, passed from father to son (with maesters as insurance in case a father died without passing on the knowledge) is it too much to imagine that Rickard went to KL with the (erroneous) assumption he would be able to fall back on this ancient accord  ?

I think the first point is very interesting. I am not so sure about the 2nd one. If the agreement was between the heads of houses, wouldn't it made more sense for the negotiations to start by the two heads of the families meeting? It always baffled me as to why the heir to Winterfell traveled to KL instead of the head of the family, specially because it came clear later that Rickard was able to travel and was not ill or something. Also, we are told in the story that Brandon was a hotheaded young man, he just seems such a bad choice for a very sensitive political negotiation to another hotheaded man (Aerys).

[TheButcherCrow]

I think the first point is very interesting. I am not so sure about the 2nd one. If the agreement was between the heads of houses, wouldn't it made more sense for the negotiations to start by the two heads of the families meeting? It always baffled me as to why the heir to Winterfell traveled to KL instead of the head of the family, specially because it came clear later that Rickard was able to travel and was not ill or something. Also, we are told in the story that Brandon was a hotheaded young man, he just seems such a bad choice for a very sensitive political negotiation to another hotheaded man (Aerys).

I don't imagine Brandon's visit to KL was in anyway ordered by his father, he just heard what happened, raced off to KL & because he was nearer to begin with he got there first.  Brandon & Rickard were not together when the "news" about Lyanna broke, Rickard had returned to Winterfell with Benjen, while Ned had gone back to the Vale with Jon Arryn and Brandon had headed off to Riverrun to visit with Catelyn.  As far as anyone can tell, after Rickard left Brandon at Harrenhall the next time they saw each other may very well have been Rickard's "trial".

[shizett]

I don't imagine Brandon's visit to KL was in anyway ordered by his father, he just heard what happened, raced off to KL & because he was nearer to begin with he got there first.  Brandon & Rickard were not together when the "news" about Lyanna broke, Rickard had returned to Winterfell with Benjen, while Ned had gone back to the Vale with Jon Arryn and Brandon had headed off to Riverrun to visit with Catelyn.  As far as anyone can tell, after Rickard left Brandon at Harrenhall the next time they saw each other may very well have been Rickard's "trial".

My bad, sorry

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I don't imagine Brandon's visit to KL was in anyway ordered by his father, he just heard what happened, raced off to KL & because he was nearer to begin with he got there first.  Brandon & Rickard were not together when the "news" about Lyanna broke, Rickard had returned to Winterfell with Benjen, while Ned had gone back to the Vale with Jon Arryn and Brandon had headed off to Riverrun to visit with Catelyn.  As far as anyone can tell, after Rickard left Brandon at Harrenhall the next time they saw each other may very well have been Rickard's "trial".

As far as we've been told, Brandon had met up with the wedding party, including Rickard, and was on his way to Riverrun. We know nothing about Benjen's whereabouts (though we know he spend the war at Winterfell), nor do we know anything about where Ned was.

Nor was Rickard, as far as we can tell, at Harrenhal with his children. 

[Armstark]

What is so odd about Rickard riding to KL with just a "token force"? I don't think his situation would have improved if he showed up with more soldiers. He would still have to face the King unarmed as there are no swords allowed in the presence of the King. If he would have brought an army to KL that would immediately mean war and most likely the execution of Brandon.

So if bringing 10,50 or 500 hundred makes no difference at all, it seems logical to go with just a "token force".

[Armstark]

My theory on why Thorren did kneel is that he learned that the Targaryens are not evil conquerors but that they invaded because of a plea for help by a power the Starks respect: The Order of the Green Men on the Isle of Faces.

[shizett]

Since we are talking about the significance of "The must always be a Stark in Winterfell", don't you find it odd that it is the more private part of the motto and not their official Motto. Their public motto is "Winter is Coming". If it is the case that a Stark being in Winterfell has anything to do with the coming of Winter, shouldn't that be part of the Motto somehow? Telling people that Winter is coming seems rather useless when you could tell them what to do so that it wouldn't.

It is also strange that they keep saying that: "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell", but they are actually a very small family, with a very small and restricted pool of blood. Their family seems to be extremely perishable outside of Winterfell and the Wall.  It just seems to me that whatever this "There must always be Stark in WF" refers to, it must be related to Starks' internal affairs and not related to the Winter. Otherwise, keeping their family so small is more selfish than responsible and sacrificing.

I have another idea that maybe the "There must..." has something to do with the warm weather in Winterfell. Specially if it is the case that the cold is a sentient being, then maybe the always warm Winterfell could help them separate the cold as the drop in temperature from the cold as the presence of THE Winter (with the possible special smell). So, basically it is strategical saying, something along the lines of: "Starks of next generations, hold onto Winterfell as it will be a very important weapon in the coming war against the Winter".

[TheButcherCrow]

My bad, sorry

no, my bad apparently

As far as we've been told, Brandon had met up with the wedding party, including Rickard, and was on his way to Riverrun. We know nothing about Benjen's whereabouts (though we know he spend the war at Winterfell), nor do we know anything about where Ned was.

Nor was Rickard, as far as we can tell, at Harrenhal with his children. 

If this is the case then that explains why he only went with a token force, he wasn't in the north and he was in a hurry

[Black Crow]

Since we are talking about the significance of "The must always be a Stark in Winterfell", don't you find it odd that it is the more private part of the motto and not their official Motto. Their public motto is "Winter is Coming". If it is the case that a Stark being in Winterfell has anything to do with the coming of Winter, shouldn't that be part of the Motto somehow? Telling people that Winter is coming seems rather useless when you could tell them what to do so that it wouldn't.

It is also strange that they keep saying that: "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell", but they are actually a very small family, with a very small and restricted pool of blood. Their family seems to be extremely perishable outside of Winterfell and the Wall.  It just seems to me that whatever this "There must always be Stark in WF" refers to, it must be related to Starks' internal affairs and not related to the Winter. Otherwise, keeping their family so small is more selfish than responsible and sacrificing.

I have another idea that maybe the "There must..." has something to do with the warm weather in Winterfell. Specially if it is the case that the cold is a sentient being, then maybe the always warm Winterfell could help them separate the cold as the drop in temperature from the cold as the presence of THE Winter (with the possible special smell). So, basically it is strategical saying, something along the lines of: "Starks of next generations, hold onto Winterfell as it will be a very important weapon in the coming war against the Winter".

There is a distinct difference in form and function between the two. The slogan Winter is Coming tends to be regarded in these here parts as a war-cry rather than a reminder to lay in some extra firewood; the Starks were after all once Kings of Winter,

The business of there always being a Stark in Winterfell isn't a slogan at all but rather a rule and moreover one which they themselves observe but no longer understand. Its their version of the Musgrave ritual.

There is a theory out there that the Winter storm which has dumped on Stannis' army originates in Winterfell, precisely because there is no longer a Stark there. Whether you want to buy into that is a matter for you, but it may be that the lack of a Stark may see something unleashed or otherwise released that perhaps shouldn't. Although conversely we had some discussion further upthread as to whether Winterfell itself might be the stone chains which Bran the Blessed has escaped.

[Melifeather]

 

As you see it, would that accord mean that Rickard didn't think Lyanna was with Rhaegar? Just was going to bring back his hot-headed son, one King to another? No illicit breeding going on around here! Hmmm, I wonder then if Aerys might have thought the Starks snared his son?

 

You have to take into consideration the events that led up to the kidnapping, and ultimately the Rebellion. Tywin Lannister, Hoster Tully, Rickard Stark, and Jon Arryn were war buddies that were negotiating marriage alliances and exchanging wards. Jaime Lannister was once betrothed to Lysa Tully, Brandon Stark to Catelyn, Robert Baratheon (Jon Arryn's ward) to Lyanna. This all could be preceived as a threat by King Aerys Targaryen, so when Brandon Stark comes riding into Kings Landing demanding Rhaegar to come out and die, it could seem like a trick or a plot, especially when Aerys was already suspicious of Rhaegar. He was concerned that Rhaegar was plotting a coup, so Aerys was testing the loyalty of the Starks and Arryns. He had neutralized the Lannisters as a threat by retaining Jaime as a Kingsguard, or so he thought, breaking the alliance between Lannister and Tully. Little knowing that Jaime would kill him someday. But, the Starks, Arryns, Baratheons, and Rhaegar were all still viewed with suspicion.

 

Since we are talking about the significance of "The must always be a Stark in Winterfell", don't you find it odd that it is the more private part of the motto and not their official Motto. Their public motto is "Winter is Coming". If it is the case that a Stark being in Winterfell has anything to do with the coming of Winter, shouldn't that be part of the Motto somehow? Telling people that Winter is coming seems rather useless when you could tell them what to do so that it wouldn't.

It is also strange that they keep saying that: "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell", but they are actually a very small family, with a very small and restricted pool of blood. Their family seems to be extremely perishable outside of Winterfell and the Wall.  It just seems to me that whatever this "There must always be Stark in WF" refers to, it must be related to Starks' internal affairs and not related to the Winter. Otherwise, keeping their family so small is more selfish than responsible and sacrificing.

I have another idea that maybe the "There must..." has something to do with the warm weather in Winterfell. Specially if it is the case that the cold is a sentient being, then maybe the always warm Winterfell could help them separate the cold as the drop in temperature from the cold as the presence of THE Winter (with the possible special smell). So, basically it is strategical saying, something along the lines of: "Starks of next generations, hold onto Winterfell as it will be a very important weapon in the coming war against the Winter".

 

I agree with Black Crow that having a Stark in Winterfell is a ward of some type, or the family has some inherited trait that makes them especially gifted to control whatever is warded down in the crypts.

 

[Magnar of Skagos]

Damn, I love these posts. I really appreciate all the hardwork put into these, they are really interesting to read. It still astounds me how much people can extrapolate and theorize on from a book series. Truly great work!

[Black Crow]

Be part of that great work, join in