De-Romancing the Rose: Bael, Politics, Kinslaying, and Spite

[Sly Wren]

All I'm saying is that you might not want to be so quick to say that the rose has nothing to do with love, because that might be a part of it, even if only from the maid's perspective. Sure, it might not, but the fact that it might would seem to fit in with your belief that it's worthwhile to consider this from all angles.

I agree that it could have been love. And that it should be considered. But also think that since we A: don't have it on page without a disclaimer and B: our given echoes of Lyanna (Sansa and Arya) ultimately do not like being stolen or love their stealers, makes it hard to play with the "love" angle. Especially in a character we get so little info about.

Now, could Lyanna have ended up loving her stealer? Given Arya and Sansa--I'm having a harder time with that. I could see her thinking she was in love and ending up in hell--like Sansa.

But I could see Lyanna loving a rescuer/helper. Like Sansa has been fantasizing a bit (not always nicely) re: the Hound. If any of this pans out and Aerys drove the rose giving--I am currently playing with some echoes in the text that suggest Rhaegar might have tried to get Lyanna out. Love under those circumstances seems (key word is "seems") like it fits better with the Lyanna evidence we get in text and via her echoes--Sansa and Arya.

Not sure. It might have been a dangerous and/or embarrassing secret. For example, the child would almost surely be considered a bastard by Northerners, which could undermine his legitimacy, and therefore possibly the Starks' legitimacy as well. Maybe she was ashamed. I'm just spit balling here.

But how is that political? Bael wasn't the KbtW when he impregnated the Stark girl.

1. Yeah--without more data, spitballing might be all we have re:why the son doesn't know Bael's his father.

2. Well, does Bael have to be king to make a move against a rival/enemy? I was thinking of a broader definition of politics than just king vs. king. . . .

Wait, what? Are you seriously trying to say that Bael the Bard isn't famous for singing? And as for not being a seducer, that's highly dubious as well, with Ygritte mentioning that Bael sang about lots of girls in lots of songs, and they all seemed to love him. At least according to him: “though if truth be told, all the maids love Bael in them songs he wrote.” And even if there was a bit of embellishment there, it's not hard to imagine that a legendary figure, who was first a singer, and later a king, would be popular with the ladies. Whether or not the legends are true, Bael is certainly famous for seducing women, maids even. This is proven by the fact that his deeds live on in song.

Further, I'm not sure how you can say that Bael is not famous for singing or seducing in the books when we learn one of his songs, that just so happens to be about him seducing a girl, in ACoK.

I feel like the above issue really needs to be addressed, so I'm going to stop there for now. Plus, I'm still kind of tired. Just got back home about an hour ago. Happy New Year, btw.

1. Oh, no. Sorry. Not saying Bael isn't famous for singing per se. Am saying his role in the novels, how he's brought up and discussed--those conversations and mentions aren't based on his singing. He's first mentioned in context as a king beyond the Wall. Ygritte's tale focuses on his spite and trickery, ending in a disastrous, knisalying battle. Mance and Jon discuss him as Mance's being inspired to infiltrate Winterfell. And, when Mance fails, Mance again brings him up re: kings beyond the Wall. He's famous in the course of the novel for that.

In that context: Bael in the novels is used as a king and sneak and plotter. His singing is much less significant to that context. Vs. the other singers in the novels. 

2. But is the tale of the Blue Winter Rose about his seduction or his sticking it to an enemy? Really, really, think it's about the latter. Even Ygritte slaps that disclaimer on like it's natural. And until he's in Winterfell and paid with the rose-petal currency, is the daughter even mentioned?

3. Agree it needs to be looked at and addressed--but without more Bael info, we might just have to deal with what the text actually gives us.

4. Take care, get some sleep, and I hope you feel better soon.

[Black Crow]

Just as a general observation, if Aerys was in fact behind the blue rose business he personally didn't need to start off by knowing the significance of the blue roses, not when he has Varys advising him.

[Sly Wren]

Just as a general observation, if Aerys was in fact behind the blue rose business he personally didn't need to start off by knowing the significance of the blue roses, not when he has Varys advising him.

Yup!

And, to go further out on a limb than is remotely good for me: Lysa doesn't understand all of Baelish's plot. Thinks she's doing it to get who/what she wants. And does what he says.

Not in any way saying Aerys was in love with Varys or anyone else (though that would be quite the twist). But can't see any reason why he'd have to understand the significance of the roses to give the insult.

[Minstral]

So far this has been an interesting read.... but I feel there is one question that goes unanswered (or at least I seem confused by the gain in the first place).

We identify the roses as not a point of honor or love but of spitefulness and deceit. They are supposedly petty actions against the Starks, but the premise/ongoing theme here is that it is a petty action against the Starks because of something that they did and/or said to a party. So what was done that rubbed the Targaryens raw, AKA Aerys. THotLT is the only thing that could make plausible sense, but if so then we are certainly not getting the whole story.

[Morrigan's Raven]

@LadyDi and @Slywren, have you looked at Lysa, who is a mother, being thrown from a tower (yes, with help) in the presence of a Stark maiden?

Here we get a glimpse of a lover, punishing the father-figure enemy of the lover's by leaving a child (Sweetrobin), yes? With the death of the mother via air travel, and Petyr considered kinslaying; does this help?

[Sly Wren]

So far this has been an interesting read.... but I feel there is one question that goes unanswered (or at least I seem confused by the gain in the first place).

We identify the roses as not a point of honor or love but of spitefulness and deceit. They are supposedly petty actions against the Starks, but the premise/ongoing theme here is that it is a petty action against the Starks because of something that they did and/or said to a party. So what was done that rubbed the Targaryens raw, AKA Aerys. THotLT is the only thing that could make plausible sense, but if so then we are certainly not getting the whole story.

I agree. I guess the argument could be made that Aerys is innately spiteful. Like Cersei's insistence on killing Lady. But really seems like Aerys' anger is tied to backstory we probably don't have. And even Cersei is taking her spite at Robert and even Ned out on Sansa by killing that wolf.

Aerys' "taking" Jaime is driven by a long bit of history going back before he had rejected Cersei as prospect to marry Rhaegar. It's a long-brewing mistrust of Tywin. So, the idea that the anger at the Starks and the Knight has some backstory for Aerys makes plenty of sense to me.

I've thought it might have something to do with Voice's warg-blocking theory. 

But I could also see, as has been suggested above, that others' motives might be influencing this, too--Tywin, Varys, etc.

One way or another, I agree that we don't have the whole story.

[Sly Wren]

@LadyDi and @Slywren, have you looked at Lysa, who is a mother, being thrown from a tower (yes, with help) in the presence of a Stark maiden?

Here we get a glimpse of a lover, punishing the father-figure enemy of the lover's by leaving a child (Sweetrobin), yes? With the death of the mother via air travel, and Petyr considered kinslaying; does this help?

I had completely spaced on the child angle in this scene. . . but you're right on that's being a potential twist on the Bael tale.

Like all things with Baelish--this seems to be a twisted version of the original tale. Baelish kills his fellow-plotter because she's not actually who he wants.

Would it be kinslaying if Robin isn't his, though? Weirdly, in this case, Lysa is killed in part because she attempts to kill her kin/Sansa. 

Hmmm. . . I think I need to let this percolate a bit, too. . . 

[Black Crow]

It doesn't necessarily need to require Aerys to start off with a grudge real or imagined. There is in fact a very Varys-like alternative.

We know from the World Book that the real purpose of the tournament was to provide cover for Rhaegar as he sought to unite the great lords for a coup, hence Aerys insisting on turning up. Given the power of the North, Rhaegar needs the Starks on his side. Crowning Lyanna the Queen of Love and Beauty is a signal. Splendid idea says Varys, and better still why not use blue roses... 

[Sly Wren]

It doesn't necessarily need to require Aerys to start off with a grudge real or imagined. There is in fact a very Varys-like alternative.

We know from the World Book that the real purpose of the tournament was to provide cover for Rhaegar as he sought to unite the great lords for a coup, hence Aerys insisting on turning up. Given the power of the North, Rhaegar needs the Starks on his side. Crowning Lyanna the Queen of Love and Beauty is a signal. Splendid idea says Varys, and better still why not use blue roses... 

I agree that it wouldn't take a grudge--but we do have Meera's tale re: the king was wroth.

That said--the idea that the Knight was a threat? Why so "wroth" Aerys? Could see that's being spurred on by others. Even Bael--"word got back" to him of the insult. So, who was giving "word" to Aerys re: the Starks or the Knight?

On the crowning--the above would be very Varys-ish. But, seems like there's at least a chance Rhaegar might realize it would be a problem. Still--if he didn't, if he was trying to extend an olive branch and Varys or other mucked it up with thorns and petals. . . it fits.

And echoes what Baelish does later with the Starks. . . A "friend" who "sings" whatever song you want to hear, then stabs you in the back and steals your daughter.

[Julia H.]

It is a very interesting thread and the research that Sly Wren put in the OP is very impressive (as usual). The point where I disagree is that the Bael the Bard story is exclusively about political manipulation and that the "love" aspect is excluded there. Let me start by saying that I don't equate love with romance. The Bael the Bard story is a myth, and love in a myth is usually more than or different from a simple romance. 

I can see the Aerys as a manipulator angle (stealing a child from someone he wants to punish), but I totally don't see how it follows that Jon's father may be Arthur rather than Rhaegar. In the Bael the Bard story, the father is definitely Bael - bard and warrior and future king. By saying that Rhaegar is only a bard and Aerys is the king and that is what counts (though Bael is not a king when he fathers a son in Winterfell), you merely split the Bael character into two - I don't see where Arthur comes in, unless you say he is Bael's warrior aspect, but then nothing indicates that it was Bael the warrior who fathered the Stark girl's son rather than Bael the Bard (which is the title of the story) or Bael the (future) king. 

Now let me add my thoughts on various ideas brought up on this thread:

If the story of Bael was widespread enough to be known by Starks in general and even by someone in the South (Aerys or Varys), it is quite strange that Jon had never heard it before Ygritte told him. Of course, it is possible that the story was forbidden in Winterfell after the Lyanna incident. Still, from the book, I had the impression that it was primarily a wildling legend about a wildling hero, not something that generations of Starks would tell their children or record in chronicles so Varys could find it. The Starks don't look good in the story, and if there is any historical truth in it, then it must have been hushed up long ago. Yet, if the winter rose crown was a message from Aerys (or Varys), it was a very specific symbol, unlikely to be just a lucky (or unlucky) guess. 

Re: why the Stark girl didn't tell her child who his father was: Come on, how do we know that she remained unmarried for her whole life? Her father may well have found a way to have a poor nobleman marry her, a man who would officially accept the son as his and would agree to adopt the Stark name in return for all the advantages the marriage meant to him. That could be a way of preserving the Stark name (not just the bloodline) in Winterfell, and in this case the boy grew up believing this other man to be his father. Lord Stark probably did everything in his power to remove the taint of bastardry from his grandchild, which was demanded by the family’s honor and interest (if the boy had been regarded as a bastard, some non-Stark relatives might have turned up as would-be heirs). We don’t know that it happened exactly that way, but finding some sort of husband when a noble girl became pregnant was one of the standard solutions in real life history as well. Given the fact that the boy became the next Lord Stark, it is absolutely plausible that there was an ‘official” version of who his father was, and his mother couldn’t tell him the truth without taking some serious risks - even if she loved his father. 

That Lyanna loved blue winter roses is emphatically asserted in the text. She was still clutching the rose petals as she was dying. Ned took flowers to her grave, even her statue had a crown of winter roses. This detail cannot be put aside just by saying that one may still love roses even if they were once used against her. This is a novel and the writer would not emphasize how she loved those roses even after the crowning incident, that she was clutching rose petals while dying if it had no significance. Not to mention that Ned would never allow Lyanna’s statue to be crowned with winter roses if those roses meant insult and enmity. Blue winter roses are grown in Winterfell. They are described as rare and precious. We have the image of the blue flower growing from the ice. None of this makes sense if the blue winter roses are merely a symbol of insult and malevolence.

Ygritte: It is not “just another seduction”. The Ygritte – Jon story contains many important motifs of the Bael the Bard story: Jon is a Stark descendant. Ygritte is Bael’s descendant. That's a parallel. The Stark maiden and Bael: a woman and a man. Ygritte and Jon: A woman and a man. Ygritte invites Jon to run away with her as Bael must have invited the Stark girl to run away with him. Ygritte tells stories and sings to Jon. Together they go to an underground place (the cave) associated with the dead. That parallels the motif that Bael and the Stark maiden went to the crypts in Winterfell. The Stark girl later gave birth to Bael’s son. Ygritte and Jon make love in the cave. Ygritte calls Jon “a maid”. Even the child motif is referenced as “Gendel’s children”. The Stark girl emerged from the crypt in a new role: that of a woman and a mother. Jon’s coming back from the cave is also a symbolic rebirth. Where Jon is the Stark maiden, Ygritte is his Bael. Mance can be Bael in every other way he wants to, that is simply a different casting, as his "Stark maiden" is Jeyne Poole. Jon does not play the role of the Stark maiden in relation to Mance’s Bael. He may play the role of Bael’s son (I think he does) in relation to Mance's Bael, but not the role of the Stark maiden. The Ygritte - Jon story focuses on the love aspect of the original story. How romantic is it? Everyone can decide it for themselves, but I think it is more than just a "romance". 

It is an interesting point that Osha wanted to steal Bran and take him to Mance. It is even more interesting what she ended up doing: She “stole” Bran and Rickon (Stark children) from the new lord of Winterfell (Theon) and hid them in the crypts to save their lives, while the Lord of Winterfell was looking for them in vain, just like in the original Bael story. Doing so, she risked her own life. Osha (another wildling woman) played the role of Bael in this story and saved the next generation of Starks. Whatever Bael’s original intention was, he also made it sure that the Stark family (at the moment on the brink of extinction) continued. Bael died, the mother died, Lord Starks came and died but the family survived. And notice that Bael would not hurt his Stark child. Osha in a Bael role protects the Stark children. Ygritte’s love protects Jon. Abel the Bard wants to steal the fake Stark girl (who is also a “child of Winterfell” in a way, even if not a Stark) from the power of a cruel murderer. In all these cases a former enemy becomes a friend. Regarding Sansa, while I’m sure that Baelish’s intentions are the darkest, ironically, he may still help Sansa survive, and Sansa may well “outgrow” the role he wants her to play and may ultimately use him to her advantage. 

To be continued...

[Black Crow]

 

It is an interesting point that Osha wanted to steal Bran and take him to Mance. It is even more interesting what she ended up doing: She “stole” Bran and Rickon (Stark children) from the new lord of Winterfell (Theon) and hid them in the crypts to save their lives, while the Lord of Winterfell was looking for them in vain, just like in the original Bael story. Doing so, she risked her own life. Osha (another wildling woman) played the role of Bael in this story and saved the next generation of Starks. Whatever Bael’s original intention was, he also made it sure that the Stark family (at the moment on the brink of extinction) continued. Bael died, the mother died, Lord Starks came and died but the family survived. And notice that Bael would not hurt his Stark child. Osha in a Bael role protects the Stark children. Ygritte’s love protects Jon. Abel the Bard wants to steal the fake Stark girl (who is also a “child of Winterfell” in a way, even if not a Stark) from the power of a cruel murderer. In all these cases a former enemy becomes a friend. Regarding Sansa, while I’m sure that Baelish’s intentions are the darkest, ironically, he may still help Sansa survive, and Sansa may well “outgrow” the role he wants her to play and may ultimately use him to her advantage. 

 

Arguably going a little of track, but I like this very much.

[Julia H.]

Ned and Arthur: kinslaying? Nothing indicates that Ned has kinslayer’s guilt. Nothing indicates that killing a man who seduced or raped a maiden in your family (daughter or sister) is regarded as kinslaying in Westeros. Such an approach would certainly encourage mischievous young men – it would be the easiest thing to gain kinship with any family you are interested in. Ashara throwing herself from the tower is an interesting detail with regard to the Bael story, but the parallel is not straight – Ned is not her son, Arthur is not her lover, she is not the blue winter rose – so her suicide seems to be a distant reminder only, not something that points directly at the identity of the Stark maiden’s lover. 

Ned does not die after killing Arthur, only a good fifteen years later, and not in the hand of his bannerman, and there is no mention of flaying. (The “flayed kinslayer” in the actual story seems to be Theon, who is at the same time the “Prince of Winterfell” and the “Ghost of Winterfell”.) The Stark who has a direct conflict with a Bolton and with the idea of flaying is Jon, at the end of ADwD, and he “dies” soon enough. 

Mance as Bael the Bard plays the original story “backwards” or at least in a random order of events. First he is King-Beyond-the-Wall and I would say he becomes an unwitting father figure / mentor to Jon (the Bastard of Winterfell). Then he meets Jon, the Bastard of Winterfell in battle, just as Bael and his son met in battle. We even have the motif of Bael refraining from killing his son when Mance refrains from killing Jon (who deceived him) as Jon is sent to him as an envoy. (Between two "Bael scenes", Mance also plays the role of Rhaegar a bit - he goes off to battle while his son is being born, with the son ending up being guarded and protected - but also stolen - by Jon.) Later Jon symbolically kills Mance (played by fake Mance). Mance symbolically dies by becoming “the Lord of Bones”. Then he gets reborn as Abel the Bard (not a king any more) and goes to Winterfell to steal an alleged Stark child from the Lord of Winterfell. Meanwhile the Stark bastard – symbolically – confronts the flayer Bolton and (symbolically?) dies. 

You don’t have to see the Bael the Bard story as a romantic one, but it is hard to deny that “love” – sexuality, procreation, children, the future generation, personal feelings and family relationships, the dialectic of love and enmity (the latter is very strong in the Ygritte – Jon storyline), death and life and rebirth (new life emerging from the crypts) – are integral parts of the myth. Whatever happened between Lyanna and Rhaegar, it probably wasn’t a Walt Disney romance either, yet, it may have involved some or all of the things that I listed above, things that can be labelled as the “love” aspect of a story. Love is not always a romance. 

[Sly Wren]

It is a very interesting thread and the research that Sly Wren put in the OP is very impressive (as usual). The point where I disagree is that the Bael the Bard story is exclusively about political manipulation and that the "love" aspect is excluded there. Let me start by saying that I don't equate love with romance. The Bael the Bard story is a myth, and love in a myth is usually more than or different from a simple romance. 

I can see the Aerys as a manipulator angle (stealing a child from someone he wants to punish), but I totally don't see how it follows that Jon's father may be Arthur rather than Rhaegar. In the Bael the Bard story, the father is definitely Bael - bard and warrior and future king. By saying that Rhaegar is only a bard and Aerys is the king and that is what counts (though Bael is not a king when he fathers a son in Winterfell), you merely split the Bael character into two - I don't see where Arthur comes in, unless you say he is Bael's warrior aspect, but then nothing indicates that it was Bael the warrior who fathered the Stark girl's son rather than Bael the Bard (which is the title of the story) or Bael the (future) king. 

1. 

2. Not trying to say politics are the only aspects to the variations on the Bael Tale. But that that Bale Tale as told in the text, and in the context given in the text, is driven by spite, grudges, teaching enemies a lesson. The only love mentioned? Ygritte slaps a disclaimer on it. That should hold some weight.

But I agree that love could be a factor in other elements. One of my main points in writing this is that when I went back and finally re-read the books after being on the boards, I realized that Bael has a lot of stuff in it that doesn't get discussed, including its context. And a lot of stuff put on the story just isn't in it. So, in trying to get it all straight in my head--this happened.

If the story of Bael was widespread enough to be known by Starks in general and even by someone in the South (Aerys or Varys), it is quite strange that Jon had never heard it before Ygritte told him. Of course, it is possible that the story was forbidden in Winterfell after the Lyanna incident. Still, from the book, I had the impression that it was primarily a wildling legend about a wildling hero, not something that generations of Starks would tell their children or record in chronicles so Varys could find it. The Starks don't look good in the story, and if there is any historical truth in it, then it must have been hushed up long ago. Yet, if the winter rose crown was a message from Aerys (or Varys), it was a very specific symbol, unlikely to be just a lucky (or unlucky) guess.

Agreed--while I think that it would be interesting if someone in the south knew the potential impact of blue roses, I can't see as it's necessary. We do have Ned withholding stories re: family. But shutting up a legend. . . . have we seen him do such a thing? Seems like the children would have heard the story from Nan.

Seems like there's a good chance the story is given for readers to draw connections and see echoes. 

Re: why the Stark girl didn't tell her child who his father was: Come on, how do we know that she remained unmarried for her whole life?  <snip>

All of the above, including the snipped, are not forbidden by the text. But the text doesn't give us any of that, either. As I said to J. Stargaryen--without more data, can't see how on earth we answer it. What we know: Lord Stark and his daughter knew the boy's father was Bael. Lord Stark named the boy his heir. The heir went to battle against Bael and killed him, apparently unknowing. And his mother killed herself. The rest? Lots is possible. But, given what we are given, asserting a love story vs. the blatant, clear grudge match and vengeance asserted by Bael in the Tale--hard.

That Lyanna loved blue winter roses is emphatically asserted in the text. She was still clutching the rose petals as she was dying. Ned took flowers to her grave, even her statue had a crown of winter roses. This detail cannot be put aside just by saying that one may still love roses even if they were once used against her. This is a novel and the writer would not emphasize how she loved those roses even after the crowning incident, that she was clutching rose petals while dying if it had no significance. Not to mention that Ned would never allow Lyanna’s statue to be crowned with winter roses if those roses meant insult and enmity. Blue winter roses are grown in Winterfell. They are described as rare and precious. We have the image of the blue flower growing from the ice. None of this makes sense if the blue winter roses are merely a symbol of insult and malevolence.

1. Lyanna did love blue roses. But we don't know what roses she was clutching when she died--text doesn't specify even the original color of the now black petals 

2. Errm--unless I'm gravely mistaken (bad pun), Lyanna's statue doesn't have the rose crown. Ned's nightmare has her in the rose crown, with her eyes bleeding. No mention of a rose crown is made when Ned and Robert are in the tomb. Only in Ned's nightmare.

3. Agree that the roses are rare and precious--and got used to insult Brandon the Daughterless and leave him with a Bael heir. Lyanna loved them AND Ned associates them with sheer horror. AND still brings her flowers. Can't see how all of that's innately contradictory. . . 

4. And the blue rose in the ice--any reason why that can't have started with malevolence? Jon's beginnings, one way or another, weren't pleasant. A blue rose growing in a chink of ice--growing from a rare, contrary, and very difficult beginning. In the same Wall Jon sees with the Sword of the Morning (you know I had to put that in). And it looks like he's rising into a key role re: the Wall and the North.

Ygritte: It is not “just another seduction”. The Ygritte – Jon story contains many important motifs of the Bael the Bard story: Jon is a Stark descendant. Ygritte is Bael’s descendant. That's a parallel. The Stark maiden and Bael: a woman and a man. Ygritte and Jon: A woman and a man. Ygritte invites Jon to run away with her as Bael must have invited the Stark girl to run away with him. Ygritte tells stories and sings to Jon. Together they go to an underground place (the cave) associated with the dead. That parallels the motif that Bael and the Stark maiden went to the crypts in Winterfell. The Stark girl later gave birth to Bael’s son. Ygritte and Jon make love in the cave. Ygritte calls Jon “a maid”. Even the child motif is referenced as “Gendel’s children”. The Stark girl emerged from the crypt in a new role: that of a woman and a mother. Jon’s coming back from the cave is also a symbolic rebirth. Where Jon is the Stark maiden, Ygritte is his Bael. Mance can be Bael in every other way he wants to, that is simply a different casting, as his "Stark maiden" is Jeyne Poole. Jon does not play the role of the Stark maiden in relation to Mance’s Bael. He may play the role of Bael’s son (I think he does) in relation to Mance's Bael, but not the role of the Stark maiden. The Ygritte - Jon story focuses on the love aspect of the original story. How romantic is it? Everyone can decide it for themselves, but I think it is more than just a "romance". 

Agree with a lot of the above. But Ygritte, as I said in the OP, is at best part of a Bael. Vs. the intent CLEARLY stated in the Bael Tale. And set up in Game with Mance and Baelish. And continued in Clash and Storm with Mance and Baelish and the context. And in Feast and Dance.

That part of the Bael context--the manipulation and spite and sticking it to an enemy--that's what Martin keeps constant-ish. Vs. love and seduction--which get a clear disclaimer from Ygritte--at which point she gets back to the point: Bael's plan of spite worked.

Whereas Mance believes Jon will be the Stark weapon he wants--just like Bael used the maid against her father. Mance's bad luck Qhorin knew to use Jon in reverse. 

So yes, more than just a romance with Ygritte and Jon. But not fitting the Bael context kept going throughout the books--that this was about taking spite out on an enemy--with catastrophic results.

It is an interesting point that Osha wanted to steal Bran and take him to Mance. It is even more interesting what she ended up doing: She “stole” Bran and Rickon (Stark children) from the new lord of Winterfell (Theon) and hid them in the crypts to save their lives, while the Lord of Winterfell was looking for them in vain, just like in the original Bael story. Doing so, she risked her own life. Osha (another wildling woman) played the role of Bael in this story and saved the next generation of Starks. Whatever Bael’s original intention was, he also made it sure that the Stark family (at the moment on the brink of extinction) continued. Bael died, the mother died, Lord Starks came and died but the family survived. And notice that Bael would not hurt his Stark child. Osha in a Bael role protects the Stark children. Ygritte’s love protects Jon. Abel the Bard wants to steal the fake Stark girl (who is also a “child of Winterfell” in a way, even if not a Stark) from the power of a cruel murderer. In all these cases a former enemy becomes a friend. Regarding Sansa, while I’m sure that Baelish’s intentions are the darkest, ironically, he may still help Sansa survive, and Sansa may well “outgrow” the role he wants her to play and may ultimately use him to her advantage. 

Arguably going a little of track, but I like this very much.

I second BC on this. Very cool

And Osha, to an extent, flips Bael. Ends up a savior. Far as I can see, Bael only wanted to stick it to a Brandon. 

And Abel is flipping things a bit, too--though, still against the current inhabitants of Winterfell. It's a counterfeit, to an extent--like Cersei and Blue Bard are a counterfeit.

But Mance is closer--more of a flip. Though we need to see what's up with the pink letter before ruling out Mance's still be the un-flipped Bael to the Starks. . .. 

On Baelish--he may ironically end up continuing the family line. As Bael did--but as you say--no way his intent is anything other than dark. And self-indulgent. Even darker and more sinister than Bael's plot. Though I strongly suspect it may end in similar disaster. After all, Baelish just pushed his wife out of a tower. . . That can't bode well.

[Sly Wren]

Ned and Arthur: kinslaying? Nothing indicates that Ned has kinslayer’s guilt. Nothing indicates that killing a man who seduced or raped a maiden in your family (daughter or sister) is regarded as kinslaying in Westeros. Such an approach would certainly encourage mischievous young men – it would be the easiest thing to gain kinship with any family you are interested in. Ashara throwing herself from the tower is an interesting detail with regard to the Bael story, but the parallel is not straight – Ned is not her son, Arthur is not her lover, she is not the blue winter rose – so her suicide seems to be a distant reminder only, not something that points directly at the identity of the Stark maiden’s lover. 

1. On the underlined--I agree that we have nothing clear. We do have little boy Bran noticing Ned's sadness--but that could be other things. In the dream fight, Arthur and his amazing sword are the last things Ned sees. He's answering Arthur when he says "now it ends"--and then rush and Lyanna's screaming. There are many ways to debate and read this. But one has to be: Ned hears/connects Lyanna's screams to his fight with Arthur--and the others.

Though, as I said, I am WELL aware there are many ways to read the tower dream. But, Ned's sadness and focus on Arthur vs. the other knights. . . .his refusal to speak of Ashara. Could be something more to it. 

2. Errm--not sure I was suggesting either Arthur or Rhaegar would have raped Lyanna. I have a VERY hard time seeing Rhaegar as rapist given what we've been given. Same with Arthur. I was more thinking the kinslaying angle as "Stark kills father of Stark maid's child"--Jon can't kill his father (barring very unlikely paternity tests). So that part of Bael can't happen. But, if (key word being "if") Arthur were Jon's father--a Stark did kill him (with help from a crannogman). A Stark did bring him sword/trophy back to another place. The Stark maid/mother did die. And a woman does throw herself from a tower.

If Rhaegar is the father--that aspect of the Bael Tale, the focus on "we are all kin and the dangers of killing kin," gets harder to fit. Especially since we are given the Arthur, Lyanna death, Ashara suicide BEFORE we hear the end of the Bael Tale. 

3. Re: Ashara: completely agree that the parallel is not straight. But Martin rarely runs thing straight. Mostly does echoes. But Martin brings up Ashara's suicide by tower in 3 out of 5 books. In another, Cat mentions her as dead. And in the only one without an Ashara mention, you get Arya's statement re: tower suicide. Martin keeps bringing up the specific suicide of a woman we don't meet. Brings to up BEFORE he gives us the same method of death in Bael. It's not just a distant reminder--Martin keeps bringing it up. Seems like we should pay attention.

Ned does not die after killing Arthur, only a good fifteen years later, and not in the hand of his bannerman, and there is no mention of flaying. (The “flayed kinslayer” in the actual story seems to be Theon, who is at the same time the “Prince of Winterfell” and the “Ghost of Winterfell”.) The Stark who has a direct conflict with a Bolton and with the idea of flaying is Jon, at the end of ADwD, and he “dies” soon enough. 

Agreed--Robb's the Stark who gets killed by the man notorious of flaying. Granted, Robb isn't flayed. But he is betrayed by the guy who likes to do so. And both Robb and Ned's deaths are tied to--distantly--to the events of Robert's Rebellion. A continuation of the conflict that originally involved (not saying it's a root cause, just a contributing factor) the stealing of the Stark maid. As you say--the parallels aren't straight. But the echoes are there.

Theon is an interesting twist--since he was Robb's best friend and Ned's de-facto son in many ways. . . 

Mance as Bael the Bard plays the original story “backwards” or at least in a random order of events. First he is King-Beyond-the-Wall and I would say he becomes an unwitting father figure / mentor to Jon (the Bastard of Winterfell). Then he meets Jon, the Bastard of Winterfell in battle, just as Bael and his son met in battle. We even have the motif of Bael refraining from killing his son when Mance refrains from killing Jon (who deceived him) as Jon is sent to him as an envoy. (Between two "Bael scenes", Mance also plays the role of Rhaegar a bit - he goes off to battle while his son is being born, with the son ending up being guarded and protected - but also stolen - by Jon.) Later Jon symbolically kills Mance (played by fake Mance). Mance symbolically dies by becoming “the Lord of Bones”. Then he gets reborn as Abel the Bard (not a king any more) and goes to Winterfell to steal an alleged Stark child from the Lord of Winterfell. Meanwhile the Stark bastard – symbolically – confronts the flayer Bolton and (symbolically?) dies. 

I like this! Though I'm not sure he's an "unwitting" father figure. He accepts Jon because of what Jon says re: where he was seated in the feast. Because Jon sees himself as distant. And his father dead.

And I agree re: some of the Rhaegar echo. Mance's helping the fake Stark maid escape--I've wondered it that is a possible echo of Rhaegar's role. We also have Jaime echo Rhaegar--sent by a Mad Queen to seek Arya. Accusing Cersei of being like Aerys re: wildfire. Then thinking about how, when he gets back from the Riverlands, he needs to get Cersei out of power and help Tommen set up a better rule.

So, like Mance getting Jeyne out and Jaime sending an Arthur-Dayne echo (Brienne) after Sansa--did Rhaegar defy his family and help Lyanna get out of the political mess?

You don’t have to see the Bael the Bard story as a romantic one, but it is hard to deny that “love” – sexuality, procreation, children, the future generation, personal feelings and family relationships, the dialectic of love and enmity (the latter is very strong in the Ygritte – Jon storyline), death and life and rebirth (new life emerging from the crypts) – are integral parts of the myth. Whatever happened between Lyanna and Rhaegar, it probably wasn’t a Walt Disney romance either, yet, it may have involved some or all of the things that I listed above, things that can be labelled as the “love” aspect of a story. Love is not always a romance. 

I agree that all of the above are part of the Bael story. Especially the establishment of kin--and the dangers of fighting kin.

But the initial motive is really hard to ignore, since it's focused on and echoed in the context throughout the books. Since the context is established before we even meet Bael.

So, could Rhaegar have initially stolen Lyanna for love? Sure. But, given the echoes we have and the context of Bael--really seems like there was probably a lot of spite and plotting and sticking it to an enemy in the actual motive. Love is not always a romance, as you say. But the Bael Tale doesn't start with love. 

But, as I said above, I could see Rhaegar as getting Lyanna out. Love via rescue, maybe. .  

[J. Stargaryen]

 

1. Oh, no. Sorry. Not saying Bael isn't famous for singing per se. Am saying his role in the novels, how he's brought up and discussed--those conversations and mentions aren't based on his singing. He's first mentioned in context as a king beyond the Wall. Ygritte's tale focuses on his spite and trickery, ending in a disastrous, knisalying battle. Mance and Jon discuss him as Mance's being inspired to infiltrate Winterfell. And, when Mance fails, Mance again brings him up re: kings beyond the Wall. He's famous in the course of the novel for that.

That's just not true. There are six mentions of Bael the Bard in the main books, unless I missed some. In only two of them is he exclusively described as a KBtW. Then there is Ygritte telling Jon about the winter rose, and the rest are references to that. Here are a couple of examples.

“She even claimed we were kin. She told me a story…”
“…of Bael the Bard and the rose of Winterfell. So Stonesnake told me. It happens I know the song. Mance would sing it of old, when he came back from a ranging. He had a passion for wildling music. Aye, and for their women as well.” - ACoK

“Bael the Bard,” said Jon, remembering the tale that Ygritte had told him in the Frostfangs, the night he’d almost killed her.
“Would that I were. I will not deny that Bael’s exploit inspired mine own… but I did not steal either of your sisters that I recall. Bael wrote his own songs, and lived them. I only sing the songs that better men have made. More mead?” - ASoS

Notice the musical references here: song; sing; music; songs; songs. So, six mentions, and four of them are at least references to him singing or a song of his.

In that context: Bael in the novels is used as a king and sneak and plotter. His singing is much less significant to that context. Vs. the other singers in the novels.

Exactly who are you comparing him to here?

2. But is the tale of the Blue Winter Rose about his seduction or his sticking it to an enemy? Really, really, think it's about the latter. Even Ygritte slaps that disclaimer on like it's natural. And until he's in Winterfell and paid with the rose-petal currency, is the daughter even mentioned?

Depends on who you're asking. For the reader I'd say the main point is that the bard/future king left the Stark maid with a son. What did Bael intend though, which is what I think you mean. To stick it to the Stark lord, agreed. Yet, one way or the other, his vehicle for doing so became the daughter, and that daughter ending up giving birth to a son.

Regarding the last sentence specifically I have a feeling that those are the sort of details GRRM probably doesn't want people thinking too hard about. It seems like a case of missing the forest for the trees.

3. Agree it needs to be looked at and addressed--but without more Bael info, we might just have to deal with what the text actually gives us.

Agreed. Which is why I'm puzzled by your characterization of Bael the Bard.

---

Regarding Lyanna's statue, I'm with you on this one. I'm pretty sure that it does not have a winter rose crown on it. The only time that is mentioned is in Ned's dream, and notice the description: "She wore a garland of pale blue roses, and her eyes wept blood." The fact that the roses contain color is a good indication that they were added by Ned's subconscious, I'd say. Also, fwiw, I asked Elio about this on twitter a while back and he agreed that it's a dream addition.

[Sly Wren]

That's just not true. There are six mentions of Bael the Bard in the main books, unless I missed some. In only two of them is he exclusively described as a KBtW. Then there is Ygritte telling Jon about the winter rose, and the rest are references to that. Here are a couple of examples.

Notice the musical references here: song; sing; music; songs; songs. So, six mentions, and four of them are at least references to him singing or a song of his.

1. Right: the first mention of him is Jon--in a list of kings beyond the Wall to Mormont.

2. Second is Ygritte--says the title of the song, then:  "Bael the Bard made it," said Ygritte. "He was King-beyond-the-Wall a long time back. All the free folk know his songs, but might be you don't sing them in the south."

So, yes, he made the song. As a king beyond the Wall. 

3. Next mention, also by Ygritte, in the same conversation as #2:  

"Brave black crow," she mocked. "Well, long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider."

Stonesnake gave a snort. "A murderer, robber, and raper, is what you mean."

Again--his singing is not the focus. And insert bad "Mance Rayder pun" here re: "Bael was a great raider.' A bit cute, but there it is.

Only then do we get down to what's IN the song--the key there is his sticking it to a Stark. His singing is only part of it. The story of the song is the context I've mentioned. Not on his singing per se. What he can do WITH his singing in conjunction to being a sneak and a raider and a future king.

4. Next mention is Qhorin, pointing out how Mance loved wildling music. (Later, we find out why--for the tales in them--Mance is inspired by Bael's exploits). And, in Jon's next POV, Qhorin has Jon flip the Bael Tale--the Stark will be the weapon against the Rayder King beyond the Wall.

5. Mance brings Bael up next--about his copying the scaling the Wall and sneaking in. Though NOT stealing a sister. He's copying the tale. Can't sing as well, but the inspiration of the content and context of the tales is the key.

6. Then Ygritte--that's a love/seduction reference in the cave.

7. Then Mance--about how Bael and other kings marched on the Wall and south. But he is defeated and begs shelter from the Wall. Mance as failed king.

So, yes--Bael sang songs. But what's IN the song, what he did IN the songs and his reputation as raider and king and sticking it to Starks--that's where the focus is on Bael. Not on his general singing. Like the Blue Bard. Or Marilliion, Or Alia of Braavos (that Rodrik liked), etc. They are praised for their singing. Bael is focused on for his exploits. And the lessons in them--"we are all kin. And gods hate kinslayers."

Exactly who are you comparing him to here?

Singers like Marillion, Alia of Braavos, the Blue Bard, etc. Who are said to sing well. But people aren't emulating their exploits (that I can think of). Referencing them in stories of triumph over enemies. Or using their exploits as claims of kinship or warnings about kinslaying. Bael is remembered for those exploits--at least in the novels. Ygritte, Mance, Stonesnake, Jon--they focus on that. His singing seems part of the exploit--not the focus.

Depends on who you're asking. For the reader I'd say the main point is that the bard/future king left the Stark maid with a son. What did Bael intend though, which is what I think you mean. To stick it to the Stark lord, agreed. Yet, one way or the other, his vehicle for doing so became the daughter, and that daughter ending up giving birth to a son.

Regarding the last sentence specifically I have a feeling that those are the sort of details GRRM probably doesn't want people thinking too hard about. It seems like a case of missing the forest for the trees.

But the sneaking in is brought up by Mance. The motive is focused on by Ygritte. The king-ness is brought up first by Jon and Mormont. The Bael-ish connection comes before we hear about Bael. The tower suicide is brought up before we hear the Bael Tale. Martin's pushing pretty hard to get us to pay attention to the rest of the context and tale.

If we only are supposed to focus on the son, why give us so much context? So many characters focusing on that context? And the tie to both Bael-ish and Mance? Really seems like we're supposed to look at the whole tale. And the context around it.

As for the daughter--the idea that women are used as pawns in political games is pretty heavily focused on in these novels. It's a hefty part of both Sansa's and Arya's plots. Who are both Stark maids. With echoes of their Auntie Lyanna. So, given that, why wouldn't the fact that the Stark maid isn't mentioned until after she's taken be relevant?

Agreed. Which is why I'm puzzled by your characterization of Bael the Bard.

Touche, ser. 

He is a Bard. But a Bard whose exploits in his tales are more important than his singing--if we go with what's on the page.

Regarding Lyanna's statue, I'm with you on this one. I'm pretty sure that it does not have a winter rose crown on it. The only time that is mentioned is in Ned's dream, and notice the description: "She wore a garland of pale blue roses, and her eyes wept blood." The fact that the roses contain color is a good indication that they were added by Ned's subconscious, I'd say. Also, fwiw, I asked Elio about this on twitter a while back and he agreed that it's a dream addition.

Amen.

[Black Crow]

I think really what this comes down to is that Bael was a raider and ultimately King beyond the Wall who was known for his singing, rather than that he was a bard first and foremost.

You could of course say exactly the same of Rhaegar. Was he a harpist who died a Prince, or was he a Prince who liked to play the harp?

[Julia H.]

 

1. Lyanna did love blue roses. But we don't know what roses she was clutching when she died--text doesn't specify even the original color of the now black petals 

2. Errm--unless I'm gravely mistaken (bad pun), Lyanna's statue doesn't have the rose crown. Ned's nightmare has her in the rose crown, with her eyes bleeding. No mention of a rose crown is made when Ned and Robert are in the tomb. Only in Ned's nightmare.

 

 

 

 

Regarding Lyanna's statue, I'm with you on this one. I'm pretty sure that it does not have a winter rose crown on it. The only time that is mentioned is in Ned's dream, and notice the description: "She wore a garland of pale blue roses, and her eyes wept blood." The fact that the roses contain color is a good indication that they were added by Ned's subconscious, I'd say. Also, fwiw, I asked Elio about this on twitter a while back and he agreed that it's a dream addition.

To be fair, Lyanna’s statue is not described at all in the crypt scene with Ned and Robert. But Ned is not the only one who sees her with a crown of winter roses.

But there were other faces he had never known in real life, faces he had seen only in stone. The slim sad girl who wore a crown of pale blue roses and a white gown spattered with gore could only be Lyanna.

This is from Theon’s dream of the feast of the dead. Interesting coincidence? Statue Lyanna is recalled by two different characters with a crown of blue winter roses (while we never have any other description of the statue.) It is said that Theon has only seen Lyanna carved in stone, and in the dream he sees her with a crown of pale blue roses. (The roses are blue probably because in his dream he doesn't see the statue but the real Lyanna, apparently based on the statue. Or perhaps the statue was sometimes crowned with real roses, who knows? By the way, statues can be painted as well.) I think Theon sees the crown either because he has seen Lyanna’s statue with a crown of winter roses or because Lyanna is so strongly associated with the winter roses that even Theon cannot imagine one without the other. Which is more likely? Anyway, both possibilities indicate that blue roses mean more than just insults against the Starks. (I don’t think the white gown spattered with gore is the same thing though – in this dream Theon sees blood everywhere, which may explain why he sees Lyanna in a gown covered with blood – but he doesn’t see blue roses all over everyone, only on Lyanna’s head.)

Regarding what kind of roses Lyanna may have been clutching on her death bed – Sly Wren, you must be kidding here. If we were meant to think of any other roses than blue winter roses, we would be told. What other roses may have such significance with Lyanna that she would be clutching them in the moment of her death? Again, this is a novel, and those rose petals didn’t get into such a place in the story by accident when Lyanna is associated with blue winter roses all the time. I doubt that Martin just needed an extra sentence there and he just happened to think of some random rose petals without any particular meaning when he had enhanced the blue winter rose with a lot of significance in connection with Lyanna.

I want to address the other points as well, so I'll be back later.

[J. Stargaryen]

1. Right: the first mention of him is Jon--in a list of kings beyond the Wall to Mormont.

2. Second is Ygritte--says the title of the song, then:  "Bael the Bard made it," said Ygritte. "He was King-beyond-the-Wall a long time back. All the free folk know his songs, but might be you don't sing them in the south."

So, yes, he made the song. As a king beyond the Wall. 

How did you come to this conclusion? Bael was a bard long before he was the KBtW. There's no reason to assume he only started writing his own songs once he became king. I'd probably agree that the reason all wildlings know his songs is because he eventually became king, but that's not the same as what you're saying.

And even if he only wrote the song once he was the KBtW, so?

3. Next mention, also by Ygritte, in the same conversation as #2:  

"Brave black crow," she mocked. "Well, long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider."

Stonesnake gave a snort. "A murderer, robber, and raper, is what you mean."

Again--his singing is not the focus. And insert bad "Mance Rayder pun" here re: "Bael was a great raider.' A bit cute, but there it is.

Only then do we get down to what's IN the song--the key there is his sticking it to a Stark. His singing is only part of it. The story of the song is the context I've mentioned. Not on his singing per se. What he can do WITH his singing in conjunction to being a sneak and a raider and a future king.

The telling of the winter rose tale is all one conversation, so I didn't see any reason to split up mentions, or worry about which order they came in. Actually, I think the whole telling really works against your portrayal of him. Bael is part (future)KBtW, part raider, part bard.

And again, to say the singing is not the focus... neither is the raiding. Neither is the future kinging. Neither is the sneaking or plotting. These are all just parts of the story. I think you're substituting what you believe Bael's motivation to be, for what the focus of the story is.

4. Next mention is Qhorin, pointing out how Mance loved wildling music. (Later, we find out why--for the tales in them--Mance is inspired by Bael's exploits). And, in Jon's next POV, Qhorin has Jon flip the Bael Tale--the Stark will be the weapon against the Rayder King beyond the Wall.

5. Mance brings Bael up next--about his copying the scaling the Wall and sneaking in. Though NOT stealing a sister. He's copying the tale. Can't sing as well, but the inspiration of the content and context of the tales is the key.

Okay, but these mentions are about singing, songs, and music.

6. Then Ygritte--that's a love/seduction reference in the cave.

7. Then Mance--about how Bael and other kings marched on the Wall and south. But he is defeated and begs shelter from the Wall. Mance as failed king.

Yes. Ygritte seducing Jon, just like Bael seduced the Stark maid. Fits perfectly with Julia's analysis.

Agreed. The first and last mentions of Bael are exclusively about him being the KBtW who marched on the Wall.

So, yes--Bael sang songs. But what's IN the song, what he did IN the songs and his reputation as raider and king and sticking it to Starks--that's where the focus is on Bael. Not on his general singing. Like the Blue Bard. Or Marilliion, Or Alia of Braavos (that Rodrik liked), etc. They are praised for their singing. Bael is focused on for his exploits. And the lessons in them--"we are all kin. And gods hate kinslayers."

I think you're completely right to pay close attention to the lessons from those stories, but also completely wrong to dismiss the singing/song aspect. I don't see why it's one or the other.

I mean, if you're trying to extrapolate from his actions, in an attempt to fill in the blanks in our current story, I understand that. The fact that he's a singer only tells us so much. To understand more we need to look deeper. I get that. But what you've ended up doing is picking and choosing which data points you agree with based on a preconceived notion. For example, I'd guess you don't like or agree with Julia's analysis about Ygritte and Jon because it re-romanticizes the rose, so to speak.

Singers like Marillion, Alia of Braavos, the Blue Bard, etc. Who are said to sing well. But people aren't emulating their exploits (that I can think of). Referencing them in stories of triumph over enemies. Or using their exploits as claims of kinship or warnings about kinslaying. Bael is remembered for those exploits--at least in the novels. Ygritte, Mance, Stonesnake, Jon--they focus on that. His singing seems part of the exploit--not the focus.

That's what I thought you meant, and that's a mistake on your part. Bael is not just a singer. His obvious recent parallels are Rhaegar and Mance. It's not a surprise that he doesn't seem to compare to someone like Marillion, who enjoys a decent life at the Eyrie for a while by the grace of Lysa. Bael was a raider, and he took what he needed. Aside from singing, they're nothing alike. Bael and Mance or Rhaegar however, different story.

But the sneaking in is brought up by Mance. The motive is focused on by Ygritte. The king-ness is brought up first by Jon and Mormont. The Bael-ish connection comes before we hear about Bael. The tower suicide is brought up before we hear the Bael Tale. Martin's pushing pretty hard to get us to pay attention to the rest of the context and tale.

If we only are supposed to focus on the son, why give us so much context? So many characters focusing on that context? And the tie to both Bael-ish and Mance? Really seems like we're supposed to look at the whole tale. And the context around it.

I never said that. I said the Stark maid giving birth to the son is the main point. Big difference. In fact, my use of "main point" was meant to indicate that I think there are other points.

As for the daughter--the idea that women are used as pawns in political games is pretty heavily focused on in these novels. It's a hefty part of both Sansa's and Arya's plots. Who are both Stark maids. With echoes of their Auntie Lyanna. So, given that, why wouldn't the fact that the Stark maid isn't mentioned until after she's taken be relevant?

I think the idea of Stark maids as political pawns is right. It's definitely a theme we see playing out again and again. Even with fake Stark maids, like Jeyne and Margaery.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I just think you might be getting hung up on details, and letting those distract you from the bigger picture. Then again, maybe not. Let's try this. Perhaps the takeaway, if there is one, is that Bael and Rhaegar meant to stick it to the Starks, and only after they decided to do so, realized that the Stark maid was a fantastic way of accomplishing their goals. If you're looking for an explanation, that one seems plausible to me.

He is a Bard. But a Bard whose exploits in his tales are more important than his singing--if we go with what's on the page.

In what way? In universe, to the reader? His singing is the only reason we know anything about him other than that he was a KBtW. And frankly, how do you reconcile your belief with the fact that one of his exploits involved him singing?

[J. Stargaryen]

 

To be fair, Lyanna’s statue is not described at all in the crypt scene with Ned and Robert. But Ned is not the only one who sees her with a crown of winter roses.

But there were other faces he had never known in real life, faces he had seen only in stone. The slim sad girl who wore a crown of pale blue roses and a white gown spattered with gore could only be Lyanna.

This is from Theon’s dream of the feast of the dead. Interesting coincidence? Statue Lyanna is recalled by two different characters with a crown of blue winter roses (while we never have any other description of the statue.) It is said that Theon has only seen Lyanna carved in stone, and in the dream he sees her with a crown of pale blue roses. (The roses are blue probably because in his dream he doesn't see the statue but the real Lyanna, apparently based on the statue. Or perhaps the statue was sometimes crowned with real roses, who knows? By the way, statues can be painted as well.)

The statue isn't described, but I have to believe Robert would not have kept silent about the inclusion of the rose crown that Rhaegar gave her. That would have pissed him right off. And he mentions Rhaegar in the crypts, but nothing about the crown. I know I'm arguing absence of evidence here, but I really really think it would have been out of character for Robert not to say anything about it.

Yeah, statues can be painted, but you'll notice that the roses are paired with blood both times. Is that painted on them too? Nor do we have any indication that any of the Stark statues were painted, that I recall anyway.

I think Theon sees the crown either because he has seen Lyanna’s statue with a crown of winter roses or because Lyanna is so strongly associated with the winter roses that even Theon cannot imagine one without the other. Which is more likely? Anyway, both possibilities indicate that blue roses mean more than just insults against the Starks. (I don’t think the white gown spattered with gore is the same thing though – in this dream Theon sees blood everywhere, which may explain why he sees Lyanna in a gown covered with blood – but he doesn’t see blue roses all over everyone, only on Lyanna’s head.)

Theon is probably familiar with the crowning. At least vaguely. And the representation of Lyanna just seems appropriate given the circumstances. In fact, it's a really good way to positively identify her.

I agree that there's more to the meaning of blue roses than insult. I think there are different perspectives that all need to be taken into account. And again, ultimately, the maid gives birth to a son.

As for the white gown, I'd look at the Maiden's Day stuff in one of Cersei's chapters, as well as Beltane ritual mythology.