Heresy 180

[Black Crow]

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.

There's certainly something more important than a bit of mouldy wedding cake down there, but given what's happening with Bran I'm still beginning to wonder whether its Winterfell itself which is, or perhaps was warded. 

[shizett]

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.

I totally agree with the first two paragraphs. It is the third paragraph that I am not sure about. I Think what you mean something along the line of Redriver's theory about the origin of Winter and I think that is such a cool theory.

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.

 

There's certainly something more important than a bit of mouldy wedding cake down there, but given what's happening with Bran I'm still beginning to wonder whether its Winterfell itself which is, or perhaps was warded. 

I also agree with the idea that Starks are warding something in Winterfell crypts. I read what I had wrote above and I think I gave the impression that I disagree with some form of warding in the crypts, I do not. What I have a problem with is that thing being Winter itself. I think it should more be related to Starks as a family than Winter as a form of grave danger for humanity!

Also, although I don't have much evidence, it seems to me that Winterfell has some form of protection for the Starks. They die like flies outside of it. The same goes for the Wall. If there is magic in the Wall and Winterfell, it is protective of Starks, they flourish in it and die outside of it.

[shizett]

There's certainly something more important than a bit of mouldy wedding cake down there, but given what's happening with Bran I'm still beginning to wonder whether its Winterfell itself which is, or perhaps was warded. 

Thinking more on the relationship between Starks and Winterfell, if Winterfell is the stone chains around Bran, could the reason Ned brought Jon back to Winterfell have something to do with it (Jon having Stark blood) rather than a promise to Lyanna or his nobility?

[Armstark]

There's certainly something more important than a bit of mouldy wedding cake down there, but given what's happening with Bran I'm still beginning to wonder whether its Winterfell itself which is, or perhaps was warded. 

I still think the best theory on what is down there is BranVras' theory that it is the Horn of Winter. It fits with the Stark's role of protectors of the Watch and the Wall and also explains why Mance was so eager to go to Winterfell.

[Black Crow]

Thinking more on the relationship between Starks and Winterfell, if Winterfell is the stone chains around Bran, could the reason Ned brought Jon back to Winterfell have something to do with it (Jon having Stark blood) rather than a promise to Lyanna or his nobility?

I'm more inclined to see the critical factor as being the invitation of the direwolves within the walls - after all its Bran rather than Jon who appears to be the Prince that was promised in Westerosi terms.

[Black Crow]

I still think the best theory on what is down there is BranVras' theory that it is the Horn of Winter. It fits with the Stark's role of protectors of the Watch and the Wall and also explains why Mance was so eager to go to Winterfell.

While not denying the possibility I'm still inclined to look for something bigger - perhaps the reason why the Horn might be down there - or that the Horn itself is a metaphor for something bigger and a single artefact

[Voice]

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.

Possible, but strictly canonically speaking, we are told otherwise.

 

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.

Interesting. They do "burn against the cold" as well.

[Sly Wren]

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.

Interesting. . . any specific reasons for this suspicion?

[Sly Wren]

Possible, but strictly canonically speaking, we are told otherwise.

True--though we are also told things have changed on the Wall. Maybe it's just the natural waning. But maybe something else.

[Ninerings]

Be part of that great work, join in 

I can't speak for Hrokkan, but gathering up the nerve to post something in Heresy is difficult. There are some great minds here that I feel my offerings would pale in comparison.

 

[Melifeather]

I can't speak for Hrokkan, but gathering up the nerve to post something in Heresy is difficult. There are some great minds here that I feel my offerings would pale in comparison.

 

Au contraire, sometimes the freshest theories come from those that are new! Plus, I like to think that Heretics are the friendliest group on Westeros and the most accepting of new ideas.

[Black Crow]

I can't speak for Hrokkan, but gathering up the nerve to post something in Heresy is difficult. There are some great minds here that I feel my offerings would pale in comparison.

 

Welcome to Heresy. 

No matter your confidence or lack of it in your own opinions, simply asking questions will break the ice and unlike some other threads you will neither be patronised nor monstered. As Feather says, we're a friendly lot and welcome fresh perspectives

[Black Crow]

True--though we are also told things have changed on the Wall. Maybe it's just the natural waning. But maybe something else.

I'm always wary of reading too much into these things especially when we have so little text to go on, but if, as the evidence does suggest the Watch originally comprised a small band of gatekeepers at the Nightfort, then they might well have served for say a year and a day in rotation. Then the Nights King was overthrown, the gate was locked, the castles were built and a new order put in place who emphatically did not have any local ties [beyond the token Stark?], family or otherwise and were no longer connected with the old powers beyond.

[Voice]

I'm always wary of reading too much into these things especially when we have so little text to go on, but if, as the evidence does suggest the Watch originally comprised a small band of gatekeepers at the Nightfort, then they might well have served for say a year and a day in rotation. Then the Nights King was overthrown, the gate was locked, the castles were built and a new order put in place who emphatically did not have any local ties [beyond the token Stark?], family or otherwise and were no longer connected with the old powers beyond.

Entirely possible, but...

While the Black Gate vow appears to predate the Wall, per canon, the Night's King does not.

ASOS, Bran IV:

As the sun began to set the shadows of the towers lengthened and the wind blew harder, sending gusts of dry dead leaves rattling through the yards. The gathering gloom put Bran in mind of another of Old Nan's stories, the tale of Night's King. He had been the thirteenth man to lead the Night's Watch, she said; a warrior who knew no fear. "And that was the fault in him," she would add, "for all men must know fear." A woman was his downfall; a woman glimpsed from atop the Wall, with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars. Fearing nothing, he chased her and caught her and loved her, though her skin was cold as ice, and when he gave his seed to her he gave his soul as well.

[Black Crow]

 

Entirely possible, but...

While the Black Gate vow appears to predate the Wall, per canon, the Night's King does not.

ASOS, Bran IV:

I'm still of the mind that the Black Gate being as "old as the Wall" is not merely canon but means exactly what it says; it is as old as the Wall not older than the Wall.

Therefore there is nothing inherently unlikely in the gatekeeper looking out from atop the Wall over the gate, and whilst its assumed in listening to Old Nan that he was looking north, the World Book does introduce that intriguing possibility of a connection to the Barrow Kings - in the other direction entirely.

[MaesterSam]

Wasn't it the asshole Targ from the Hedge Knight who died from drinking wildfire? Daeron the Drunken dies from a pox.
Here's the Mystery Knight's reference to his dream, as well as a prophecy:

Egg lowered his voice. "Someday the dragons will return. My brother Daeron's dreamed of it, and King Aerys read it in a prophecy. Maybe it will be my egg that hatches. That would be splendid."

"Would it?" Dunk had his doubts.
_____

So, Daeron didn't specifically dream TPTWP prophecy, but King Aerys did read a prophecy about the dragons returning. Which is still odd, especially if the prophecy is Valyrian in origin.

Why would the Valyrians prophecy some promised day when the dragons would return, when they never disappeared from Valyria in the first place? Well, until the Doom, at which point there was nobody left in Valyria to do much in the way of prophesizing.

Similarly, the Targaryens had dragons until the reign of Aegon III, so does this mean that they foresaw the death and rebirth of the dragons? Or, alternately, is the TPTWP prophecy less than 150 years old, or not Valyrian in origin?

I have spent a lot of time poring over these questions, and have come to the conclusion that the wording in the prophecy spoke of The Last Dragon. IMO, this fits with all the info we have about this prophecy:

- Male vs female is ambiguous. Most would automatically assume a male of Valyrian descent, but that is not clear from the language. It would also make sense that the translation would refer to a prince, as the dragonlords were royalty in Valyria. 

- If the prophecy spoke of The Last Dragon riding an actual dragon to defeat the Darkness (or whatever else), this would indirectly prophecy the return of the dragons, but wouldn't require the original prophet to have known that the dragons would temporarily disappear. 

- Rhaegar was referred to as The Last Dragon, and we know he also saw himself as TPTWP. It is weird that he would go by TLD at a time when several other Targaryens were still alive, unless it was a title that meant something other than "the last Targ standing".

- Dany's dream about the Trident: She dreams of Rhaegar, but when she opens his visor she realizes it is her who is there to fight, and that she is The Last Dragon. She then rides her dragon to defeat the icy army on the Trident, thinking this is how it was meant to be.  In other words: The Last Dragon was meant to fight the Others while riding a dragon. This could easily be misinterpreted/translated into A Targ Prince is promised, who will have a dragon (so they must return) and win a big battle.  

- Rhaegar's attitude going into the Trident battle: Jaime tells us that it seemed as though Rhaegar was quite sure he would win, that he treated the battle almost as an afterthought while planning political changes for after the war. If Rhaegar had had a similar dream to Dany's [or read a prophecy based on a similar dream], this would explain his lack of concern going into this fight. 

So in summary, I believe that a long time ago (after the LN, probably), somebody prophesied that one day in the future, a red comet will be seen and then The Last Dragon will battle an ancient enemy, possibly on the Trident, and win. It is likely that Dany was not the first to have this particular dream, and if others had it that would explain the desperate attempts to hatch dragons by otherwise reasonable people like Egg; the dream was seen as proof that dragons would return, and that they would be required for winning the ultimate battle one day. 

Lastly, I want to point out that I don't actually believe the story will end with Dany defeating the WWs. She saw only a glimpse of the battle, and at that time, it was going well for her. But we don't know how it ends, nor whether Dany winning would be a good thing. 

[MaesterSam]

 

 

Very interesting. I wonder if it was also once read by previous inhabitants of Harrenhal, namely the Whents, and the close friend of one particular Whent, one Ray Ray Targers.

 

 

Interesting idea. Another question that occurs to me is, where did the book originally come from? It seems to be quite ancient, but Harrenhal is only about 300 years old. So was this book brought from the Iron Islands originally? And if so, do its contents in any way affect Roose's actions, such as keeping Theon around well after he appears to have no more use for him?

Thank you for the reply. I haven't read the world book, so thanks for clarifying the issue, I was very confused.

I will read from the first thread (I started mainly reading from Heresy 50 or so, based on the wolfmaid's a Guide to Heresy and the ensuing discussions), I guess I still need a lot to read before I make other comments, it is a huge body of work, sorry for repetitious comments

Just for the record, what I was arguing for was the wall as some form of fortification, but the kind that a prison is like and the NW as prisoners rather than border police. Or a fence keeping the live-stock in (Sorry for the ugly imagery). Also (English is my 2nd language as you may have guessed already), I understand "Realm of Men" as a defined geographical space rather than an invisible line separating humans from non-humans, in that case Wildlings wouldn't be part of the realm of men. Taking them to the south of the wall would be defined as invasion into otherlands (Like pigs saving other pigs from a farm separated by a fence). I was arguing the wall is WW saying: "any blood on this side of the line is ours, not just the land, but everything".

I like this, and have suggested a similar idea before (a long time ago). The only part that doesn't fit is that it seems as though the WW have been killing rangers for years before AGOT, and well before the wildlings started heading south. 

Of course, it's possible that it's simply time for the octo-millenial slaughter festival, and the role of the NW is to keep the wildlings from escaping once they realize what's going on. In fact, maybe these mass killings occur every so often, and those are the times when kings beyond the wall try to flee with their people. Winterfell repels them and thereby ensures a good harvest for the WW; they then rewrite history to make it seem like the evil wildlings were trying to invade. That would be pretty awesome.

Mayhaps they are, but we've experienced those sacrifices from the tree's POV now. Bran tastes the blood. Trees gain nutrients from the soil, and blood and bone serve as fertilizer. If the sacrifices had resurrected someone, or hatched some dragon eggs, I might be inclined to see the transaction in a more magical light, but otherwise, it seems like two birds with one stone: First Men ridding themselves of the condemned, and giving the trees some tree food.

I have a lot of respect for your theories, Voice, and often agree with you (with that one exception, lol) - but do you honestly believe that weirwood sacrifices are performed for the purpose of fertilizing the trees??? These societies have clearly mastered agriculture, and should know that a load of manure would do a much better job than the occasional few gallons of human blood....

I would suggest that not all sacrifices are done to gain power or perform magic (hatching eggs, resurrection) - they could be performed as offerings to please a deity... as a gift for the gods, so to speak. Craster expects nothing in return but to be left in peace; perhaps Northmen sacrificed to the weirwoods for the same reason. 

[MaesterSam]

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.

Ooooooo I love this!  I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn - this sounds an awful lot like something the red priests would say around their night fires. And it may finally explain something that's been bugging me for years: the continued references to how red things, by night, are black. Dany is always looking for her red door; in Meereen, she looks out across the city, but doesn't see any red doors b/c "by night, all doors were black." There are also multiple quotes of "by night, all cloaks were black." It comes up quite a few times, so it must have meaning... and this theory may be it. Very, very cool. I'll be thinking on this for a while. 

[Black Crow]

I have spent a lot of time poring over these questions, and have come to the conclusion that the wording in the prophecy spoke of The Last Dragon. IMO, this fits with all the info we have about this prophecy....

...Lastly, I want to point out that I don't actually believe the story will end with Dany defeating the WWs. She saw only a glimpse of the battle, and at that time, it was going well for her. But we don't know how it ends, nor whether Dany winning would be a good thing. 

GRRM has repeated stressed both in and out of text how unreliable prophecy is, and how it aint likely to turn out the way people think. Thus I think that you're right and that prince and dragon are one and the same and that there wasn't literally a prophecy that dragons would "return". I also think though that its a reasonable interpretation or rather corollary to the prophecy. The later Targaryens still referred to themselves as dragons, but we also hear of individuals not being true dragons so its likely that deep down they knew that to be a true dragon they needed a beastie and therefore by definition the dragon of prophecy would need to have one.

In that sense too I think that Danaerys the Dragonlord is indeed the Prince that was Promised and that would also be consistent with the synopsis at the head of this thread. I would add a note of caution though that prophesying the return of a hero isn't necessarily the same thing as prophesying the victory of said hero. 

[Black Crow]

Interesting idea. Another question that occurs to me is, where did the book originally come from? It seems to be quite ancient, but Harrenhal is only about 300 years old. So was this book brought from the Iron Islands originally? And if so, do its contents in any way affect Roose's actions, such as keeping Theon around well after he appears to have no more use for him?

 

Depends how ancient is ancient, I don't think there's a problem with it being older than Harrenhal, but would suggest that if it came from the Iron Islands it will probably have been burnt with the rest of the place when the dragons came. It was probably brought to the castle by the Whents, but where they got it from is anybody's guess.

That's not to rule out its having come from the Iron Islands, but as I said earlier its significance seems to lie in containing a particular piece of information useful to Roose Bolton and not improbably relating to the Starks and or Winterfell. I doubt if Theon Greyjoy is himself significant in this respect other than what we see - a means of helping legitimise the false Arya. Where the book may be relevant is in Roose's need for that legitimacy rather than relying on his own position as one of the oldest and most powerful families in the North and the support of the Crown