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

[Sly Wren]

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?

Agreed. 

And, to go a bit further on Rhaegar--was he a plotter who liked to stick it to enemies via their children? Or a Prince who liked to sing--and was trying to reform the kingdom?

[J. Stargaryen]

I had an idea about how the kinslaying aspect of Bael's story might play out in the present. For starters, Jon isn't the only Targaryen in the world. There's Dany for sure, and even Aegon Blackfyre is arguably kin, and definitely so if he's who Varys claims he is. But if you want Jon Snow, the son of the Stark maid, to kinslay unknowing there might be an even better candidate, Tyrion Lannister. The reason I think this version might have a better chance than Jon/Dany and Jon/fAegon is that there are two secret parentage theories here. Which doubles the chances that Jon would not know Tyrion is kin.

Assuming he is the bastard of the Mad King, he would be Jon's uncle. Despite the fact that they become friends in AGoT, Jon later states that he wants to bring death and destruction down upon House Lannister. Looking back even further, specifically to 1993, GRRM intended Jon and Tyrion to develop a "deadly rivalry." As imagined, this rivalry was supposed to be over the affections of Arya. Whether this story line has been shifted to Sansa or scrapped completely, I do not know. However, one change need not lead to another. That is, maybe GRRM has retained the bit about Jon and Tyrion developing a deadly rivalry. I can only assume that GRRM meant, or maybe still means, for one of those characters to kill the other.

Tyrion Lannister will continue to travel, to plot, and to play the game of thrones, finally removing his nephew Joffrey in disgust at the boy king's brutality. Jaime Lannister will follow Joffrey on the throne of the Seven Kingdoms, by the simple expedient of killing everyone ahead of him in the line of succession and blaming his brother Tyrion for the murders. Exiled, Tyrion will change sides, making common cause with surviving Starks to bring his brother down, and falling helplessly in love with Arya Stark while he's at it. His passion is, alas, unreciprocated, but no less intense for that, and it will lead to a deadly rivalry between Tyrion and Snow.

Because of the time gap in the original version of events, something similar might make more sense here than trying to look for kinslaying right around the time the Stark maid gives birth to her son. While my idea is admittedly highly speculative, I think that's okay here because maybe we're not supposed to be able to extrapolate all of the original tale onto the story just yet. And I think the kinslaying unknowing part of the story is a prime candidate for a yet-to-be-revealed connection.

[Sly Wren]

 

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.)

 

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.

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.

1.  with J. Stargaryen on this.

Seems really unlikely, given all of the baggage that crown holds that it wouldn't have been noticed in the crypts. And, given the horror Ned feels re: the crown in his dreams, am wondering why he'd put it on her statue. Seems like Ned's dreaming of her with the crown--and feeling enormous hostility from all of his ancestors re: Lyanna and her crown. Guilt.

2. On Theon--I waffle a bit re: whether he's having a vision or a guilt dream. Or a combo. But the rose crown--can't see any reason why Theon wouldn't have heard that story. Others outside the Starks reference Lyanna's crowning. And its tie to the ensuing war. So, not sure why the statue in the crypts would require a crown for Theon to dream of her with a crown.

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.

1. Agree they could be blue winter roses. But text doesn't say. In a text where Ned dreams of a blood-streaked sky with a storm of blue rose petals. So, really could be. But text doesn't say.

2. Without re-litigating the "tower occupancy" question, one way or another, Lyanna was very, very likely in Dorne when she died. Could she have gotten blue winter roses there? Maybe. Or maybe other roses to fill the room with scent. Ned doesn't give us much. 

3. And back to her love for roses--any reason why she'd have to love the man who gave her the rose crown to continue loving blue roses? Or not love roses any more if she didn't love that man?

[Sly Wren]

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?

Okay--I think we may be tripping over each other's ideas here a bit. So, let me try another tack.

1.  Bael did a lot of things--like what he did in the Song of the Blue Winter Rose. Then, he wrote those exploits down in the form of songs and sang them--keeping the tales going.

2. The content of the songs is what made Bael famous--not just that he sang, but what he sang about himself doing. That content and his being a raider and king beyond the Wall--those actions are what he's famous for. Not for being Pavarotti. Or even just a great song-writer. The content of the tales/songs--that's what Ygritte is telling Jon. That's what Mance is inspired by when he enters Winterfell.

3. So, his singing is a key element--because of what he sings about. Ygritte tells the tale without singing it (unless I'm missing some hidden sub text). That's what I'm trying to say re: he's less famous as a singer than for his exploits.

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.

But the story is told in response to Jon's talk about Ygritte's kin. And after Jon and Mormont have talked about Bael as a former king beyond the Wall. The tale shows how the Wildlings and Starks are kin. AND it shows why, the driving force: spite. Sticking it to an enemy. How the "kinning" happens gets a lot of emphasis. The motive gets a lot of emphasis vs. the actual taking of the maid, or Bael's feelings about her, etc. This kinship happens via spite.

And the tale, like many Bard tales, has a lesson: this kinship born of spite has a disastrous end: kin kills father; takes trophy from battlefield; only then is the full horror of Bale's little spite-fest known. Then: tower suicide, death of Stark maid. And a curse on the kinslayer.

The lesson: spite results in kinship--and disaster. 

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.

On the bolded: touche again, ser!

But I can't see how the Bael Tale is presented as romantic per se. And I agree with Julia H. that Ygritte fits part of the Tale. But the lessons, the motives, the lack of focus on Bael's interest in the maid--those really are in the tale Ygritte tells. And Mance is the one who is inspired to copy Bael. Ygritte's using the tale for a different purpose--no spite (that I can see). And no lesson on kinslaying--at least so far. . . 

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.

Agreed--though I would say how well Rhaegar fits is part of the question. But would also include Bael-ish. Martin gives us him first. Gives us Bael-ish and Mance "Rayder" before he gives us Bael, the "great raider." And the Martin keeps Baelish's context clear in the novels, how this southron deceiver uses his own (if non-singing) talents to trick, deceive, charm, and stick it to enemies. If we're looking for what happened to Lyanna, seems like we should look at what happens to her echoes--Sansa and Arya. And Sansa is in the hands of Baelish. Who seems nothing like what we have of Rhaegar. So. . . was Rhaegar at fault here? Or did he get the blame--like Marilliion and the Blue Bard?

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.

Rhaegar as plotter--possible. But I can't find his potential hostility to the Starks. Let alone his actual hostility. Only can find it via Aerys. Are you thinking of something specific re: Rhaegar's potential hostility to the North?

Even Jaime, who echoes Rhaegar twice, chooses the Stark maid he believes killed Joff over his family. Chooses honor over family. Based on what little info we have on Rhaegar, I have a hard time seeing him stick it to an enemy via a child of his own accord. Not impossible, but hard.

[Avalatis]

Great analysis.

Are you making the claim that Aerys paralleled Bael on purpose or this was a literary device tying the two together? The story of Bael isn't even known by the Starks, so I doubt Aerys would be aware of it. You do seem to be implying that most people are aware of the story, or at least all the Starks were at Harrenhal. This maybe the case but I don't understand why the story died in the telling to the Starks after Robert's Rebellion. It would have been even further justification for the Starks to hate the Targaryens. It seems to me the story was never told by the Starks due to the slight to their house and suggestion they were bested.

I've seen people tie the Bael story to many other story arcs in the series, not just this one. But from what I've seen postulated the characters of Bael and the "maid" are not always the same even throughout the arc.

I have thought it odd that Aerys from what we can gather never sent anyone looking for Rhaegar until late into the war. Which suggests he was fine with what Rhaegar did. He ruthlessly defended his son which caused Roberts Rebellion. This is why I find the world book's "interpretation" that the father and son were at each others throats to be falsehood (or great exaggeration).

[J. Stargaryen]

Okay--I think we may be tripping over each other's ideas here a bit. So, let me try another tack.

1.  Bael did a lot of things--like what he did in the Song of the Blue Winter Rose. Then, he wrote those exploits down in the form of songs and sang them--keeping the tales going.

2. The content of the songs is what made Bael famous--not just that he sang, but what he sang about himself doing. That content and his being a raider and king beyond the Wall--those actions are what he's famous for. Not for being Pavarotti. Or even just a great song-writer. The content of the tales/songs--that's what Ygritte is telling Jon. That's what Mance is inspired by when he enters Winterfell.

3. So, his singing is a key element--because of what he sings about. Ygritte tells the tale without singing it (unless I'm missing some hidden sub text). That's what I'm trying to say re: he's less famous as a singer than for his exploits.

I think I understand your point that he's not famous because he sang, but for what he sang about. I have a slightly different take on it. He's not famous because he's a bard, he's famous because he's a KBtW who was also a bard. For a similar idea, recall Robert telling Ned about becoming the "Sellsword King." Robert seems to think that the singers would have enjoyed that. Sellswords aren't usually famous, but kings who are sellswords would get remembered for being both. Such is the case with Bael the Bard, I believe.

Certainly the content of his songs helped perpetuate his own legend among the free folk in some cases -- Eff the Starks amiright? -- I think the fact that he became KBtW meant that at least some of his songs might be popular anyway. Ygritte makes it seem like lots of his songs were, at least in part, about bedding maidens. Is that such a great deed? I guess it depends on the maiden. Har.

But the story is told in response to Jon's talk about Ygritte's kin. And after Jon and Mormont have talked about Bael as a former king beyond the Wall. The tale shows how the Wildlings and Starks are kin. AND it shows why, the driving force: spite. Sticking it to an enemy. How the "kinning" happens gets a lot of emphasis. The motive gets a lot of emphasis vs. the actual taking of the maid, or Bael's feelings about her, etc. This kinship happens via spite.

And the tale, like many Bard tales, has a lesson: this kinship born of spite has a disastrous end: kin kills father; takes trophy from battlefield; only then is the full horror of Bale's little spite-fest known. Then: tower suicide, death of Stark maid. And a curse on the kinslayer.

The lesson: spite results in kinship--and disaster. 

On the bolded: touche again, ser!

I think we're wading into talk of Bael's motive again. I agree that it's something we should be thinking about. But, there are more angles to the story. Also, it seems to me like you're focusing on the in universe interpretation of the discussion, which is completely valid. But we also need to consider what the readers are supposed to take away from it.

 

But I can't see how the Bael Tale is presented as romantic per se. And I agree with Julia H. that Ygritte fits part of the Tale. But the lessons, the motives, the lack of focus on Bael's interest in the maid--those really are in the tale Ygritte tells. And Mance is the one who is inspired to copy Bael. Ygritte's using the tale for a different purpose--no spite (that I can see). And no lesson on kinslaying--at least so far. . .

Once again, I think you're focusing solely on Bael's motive. Especially his motive heading into Winterfell. As I think we both suspect, the method of executing his revenge on the lord changed at some point after he arrived. Unless he knew about the maid beforehand, but we don't hear anything about that. So I don't see why it can't be a bit of both, revenge and romance. He wanted revenge, but he spent a year bedding the girl. At least from her perspective, I'd say it was a romance. Otherwise I doubt she stays in the crypts with him for a year, and then jumps from a tower after his head is brought back to the castle all those years later.

Agreed--though I would say how well Rhaegar fits is part of the question. But would also include Bael-ish. Martin gives us him first. Gives us Bael-ish and Mance "Rayder" before he gives us Bael, the "great raider." And the Martin keeps Baelish's context clear in the novels, how this southron deceiver uses his own (if non-singing) talents to trick, deceive, charm, and stick it to enemies. If we're looking for what happened to Lyanna, seems like we should look at what happens to her echoes--Sansa and Arya. And Sansa is in the hands of Baelish. Who seems nothing like what we have of Rhaegar. So. . . was Rhaegar at fault here? Or did he get the blame--like Marilliion and the Blue Bard?

I'm not very concerned with what GRRM gives us first, as he often reveals more important things later. Look at the blue roses in Ned's chapters. Beyond a doubt, the most important info about them comes in his last chapter.

I completely agree that when the story gives us these parallels, that it makes sense to look for missing data from one in the other. However, I'd be careful when extrapolating backwards like this for a couple of reasons. GRRM isn't always a straight shooter with these things. It seems to me he's about just as likely to invert the idea somehow from iteration to the other. Also, because the stories are incomplete we might be extrapolating onto the wrong data points. Obviously, by all means speculate away. But I'd be wary about drawing any firm conclusions this way. That is, draw conclusions if you'd like, but also prepare to be open minded if something that fits better comes along.

Rhaegar as plotter--possible. But I can't find his potential hostility to the Starks. Let alone his actual hostility. Only can find it via Aerys. Are you thinking of something specific re: Rhaegar's potential hostility to the North?

Even Jaime, who echoes Rhaegar twice, chooses the Stark maid he believes killed Joff over his family. Chooses honor over family. Based on what little info we have on Rhaegar, I have a hard time seeing him stick it to an enemy via a child of his own accord. Not impossible, but hard.

Well, Rhaegar supposedly arranged the HH tourney so that he could meet with as many great lords as possible to discuss what to do about his father. Rickard Stark didn't show up. Snub. (Sure, neither did Tywin, but there is reason to think that Rhaegar might have believed he had his support anyway. And Tywin wanted nothing to do with that tourney because of Aerys and his investiture of Jaime into the KG.) It's also possible that Rhaegar may have gotten wind of the southron ambitions alliance. That would have left him without many potential allies outside of Dorne. Certainly Lyanna was one of the keys to sealing that alliance. (In the past I've posited some different scenarios about how it would have made sense for Rhaegar to marry Lyanna and have a child with her, in order to destabilize this alliance. That might be beyond the scope of this thread though. And just mentioning the idea might be enough for you to understand where it could lead.) One other previously mentioned idea comes to mind, as well. That the crowning was (partially?) in retaliation for the Stark dishonoring Ashara at HH. Arthur was his BFF, after all.

And on top of all of that, we have to consider the idea that the Bael story/symbolism wasn't necessarily meant to be applied during the crowning, but later on and partially as a result of it. Again, it would be the same idea as the procreation metaphor. Rhaegar didn't impregnate Lyanna at HH, nor was he announcing his intention to do so. It was GRRM's way of telling us that he did, later on. So, Rhaegar didn't mean to insult the Starks, or announce that he was going to kidnap Lyanna. It was GRRM's way of telling us that he did, later on.

[Julia H.]

 

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.

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.

Unless the roses are real – and they are not there when Robert visits. We know that Ned takes flowers to Lyanna, and it is not impossible that, when winter roses bloom, someone makes a crown for Lyanna’a statue. It is possible, especially given that two characters recall the statue with a crown.  Anyway, Theon has either seen a blue rose crown on Lyanna’s statue (so it’s not just a coincidence that both Theon and Ned recall the statue with a crown), which means the blues roses still signify honour and beauty, or Theon has heard the story of the crowning in Winterfell (I doubt that it is a tale he heard in Pyke) so many times that it immediately comes up in association with Lyanna, in which case it cannot be a tale of insult in the first place - after all who would dare tell stories that insult the lord of the castle and his family?

I don't see much difference between telling the story of Lyanna's crowning and decorating her statue with a rose crown. Either both are insults or neither is an insult, and I don't think anyone would dare insult Lyanna in Winterfell. Therefore my conclusion is that blue winter roses do not mean insult by themselves, not even after the incident in Harrenhal.

[Julia H.]

 

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.

I realize that I presented a scenario the text does not give us. My purpose was to point out that not telling the son who the father was is not proof that the mother did not love Bael – because there are other possible explanations. The idea that the mother hated Bael’s memory so much that she never revealed her son the identity of his father (possibly tormenting the son) is not more probable than a number of other reasons. The need to hush up the story and present a fake father sounds logical enough. After all, the boy did become the Lord of Winterfell and we know how Westerosi society regards bastards. It is also interesting that no one ever brings up the story to any of the Starks south of the Wall.

Of course, there are still other possibilities. The Lord of Winterfell may have been powerful enough to put an end to all rumours about Bael in the North by force. Or he may have made his daughter swear that she would never tell anyone who the father of her child was – including the child. The point is that lacking more data, we cannot take her silence as proof that she did not love Bael. In fact, looking at the main story, we can see a very similar situation: Ned never tells Jon who his mother was, but that does not mean that Ned didn’t love the mother. We all seem to be certain that he loved her very much, yet, he never talks about her to his bastard son. This may be another parallel worth considering.

[J. Stargaryen]

Unless the roses are real – and they are not there when Robert visits. We know that Ned takes flowers to Lyanna, and it is not impossible that, when winter roses bloom, someone makes a crown for Lyanna’a statue. It is possible, especially given that two characters recall the statue with a crown.  Anyway, Theon has either seen a blue rose crown on Lyanna’s statue (so it’s not just a coincidence that both Theon and Ned recall the statue with a crown), which means the blues roses still signify honour and beauty, or Theon has heard the story of the crowning in Winterfell (I doubt that it is a tale he heard in Pyke) so many times that it immediately comes up in association with Lyanna, in which case it cannot be a tale of insult in the first place - after all who would dare tell stories that insult the lord of the castle and his family?

I don't see much difference between telling the story of Lyanna's crowning and decorating her statue with a rose crown. Either both are insults or neither is an insult, and I don't think anyone would dare insult Lyanna in Winterfell. Therefore my conclusion is that blue winter roses do not mean insult by themselves, not even after the incident in Harrenhal.

Which two characters recall the statue with a crown? Ned and...? Do you mean Theon? If so, when does he see Lyanna's statue with a crown?

[Julia H.]

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.

A disclaimer whether the Stark girl truly loved Bael… That is by no means the only “love aspect” of the story. The story is a myth, and in a myth it does not matter whether it was true love or lust, seduction or force. It was a relationship between a man and a woman, and the result was the birth of a child. We don’t need to know more. A myth focuses on the universal, on the eternal, on how the world works. They may be enemies, their intent may be this or that, but the union of a man and a woman recreates the mystery of life, in this case life emerging from the crypt, conquering death. Something eternally, universally human turns enemies into blood relations. Those who face each other in battle are kinsmen – brothers or father and son, it doesn’t really matter. The unsuspecting kinslaying that angers the gods is a universal warning: we are all part of a large family, slaying a fellow human is more often kinslaying than we would think.

 

The idea that the Bael story is primarily about political manipulation takes away a lot from its mythical qualities. To me, it is a myth of a universal message, about rebirth and blood ties, the futility of war. Of course, your interpretation about the political manipulation angle is totally valid. But I think that the game of thrones is overridden by the game of life in this story, too. Was Bael planning a cruel joke at the expense of his enemy? Did he think he could play with the lives of others – including a young girl who had never hurt him and a not yet born child? His own child? Don’t you think that his brilliant plan backfired? It took thirty years, but it backfired when Bael found himself face to face in battle with a Lord Stark he could not kill – his own son.

How did he even know that Lord Stark was his son? It implies that Bael had never fully left behind his “family” in Winterfell, that he kept an eye on his son secretly, from a distance, otherwise he would not have known that his son had grown to be the Lord of Winterfell. Was he only afraid of the anger of the gods or did he really want his son to live? Perhaps he hoped to make peace with his son, but the son did not recognize the father who had left him. As a result, his son became the kinslayer who angered the gods. Do you think Bael would have been proud if he had known the consequences of his actions in advance?

Bael wanted to punish Lord Stark, who had only abused him verbally, and in the process he literally created another Lord Stark, one who was stronger than he (Bael) was, the Lord Stark who, in the end, defeated and killed him. The Starks survived and grew stronger and continued to fight Bael’s people. Such a brilliant political manipulator, that Bael. This is, I think, what the story says about the political manipulation angle. It is not the game of the ultimate winners. Bringing a child into this world, bringing him / her up is the work of Life, and Life can come back even from the crypts. In the main story, the Starks protect the children, including the children of their enemies. They protect life, just as once Lord Brandon Stark did when he found his lost daughter and his grandchild.

[Julia H.]

Which two characters recall the statue with a crown? Ned and...? Do you mean Theon? If so, when does he see Lyanna's statue with a crown?

In the quote that I gave above, it is specifically mentioned that Theon sees people in his dream that he has seen only carved in stone. And then immediately Lyanna is mentioned with a crown of blue roses. The two images - Lyanna's statue and the crown - are clearly associated with each other. Theon's image of Lyanna in the dream is based on her staute. It is a strange enough coincidence after Ned seeing Lyanna's statue crowned in his own dream. 

[Julia H.]

Agreed. 

And, to go a bit further on Rhaegar--was he a plotter who liked to stick it to enemies via their children? Or a Prince who liked to sing--and was trying to reform the kingdom?

Correct me if I’m wrong on the points below:

1. You seem to have established that the “plotter” who uses his enemy’s child for manipulation purposes is King Aerys. (Fair enough.)

2. You also seem to be saying that Bael, rather than a bard and a future king, is primarily a king and a plotter / political manipulator in the original Bael story.

3. We seem to agree that Lyanna plays the part of the Stark maiden in her version of the Bael story.

4. We seem to agree that Lyanna gave birth to a child: Jon Snow.

If I interpret you correctly on the above four points, then I think all these arguments together plus your (rhetorical?) question (whether Rhaegar was a plotter) point in one specific direction: that in Lyanna’s version of the Bael story, Bael’s role is played by King Aerys. From this, the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that on the evidence of this interpretation of Bael’s story, Aerys must be Jon Snow’s father. I don’t agree with this, but I don’t agree with point 2 above either. However, if I agreed with all four points above, I would have to conclude that Jon Snow’s parents are Lyanna and Aerys because in the Bael story, Bael is undoubtedly the father of the Stark girl’s child.

Do you agree with this conclusion? 

[J. Stargaryen]

In the quote that I gave above, it is specifically mentioned that Theon sees people in his dream that he has seen only carved in stone. And then immediately Lyanna is mentioned with a crown of blue roses. The two images - Lyanna's statue and the crown - are clearly associated with each other. Theon's image of Lyanna in the dream is based on her staute. It is a strange enough coincidence after Ned seeing Lyanna's statue crowned in his own dream. 

Okay, but that's different than Theon seeing her statue with a crown.

Also, in reply to something you said up thread, I have a hard time believing Ned has anyone make Lyanna winter rose garlands. I know he brings her flowers. Some of those flowers may even well be winter roses, but still. Ned seems more guarded than to go the full crown of winter roses route. I could be mistaken, but that's my gut feeling.

I think the main problem with having Lyanna's statue include a rose garland is that it would appear to be celebrating the crowning by Rhaegar. Which would be odd, since the known tale in those parts is that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped her, leading to her death. To anyone who doesn't know the truth, it would almost be like having Rickard's statue engulfed in flames. Maybe that's a bit more drastic, but I hope my meaning is clear.

[Julia H.]

Okay, but that's different than Theon seeing her statue with a crown.

Also, in reply to something you said up thread, I have a hard time believing Ned has anyone make Lyanna winter rose garlands. I know he brings her flowers. Some of those flowers may even well be winter roses, but still. Ned seems more guarded than to go the full crown of winter roses route. I could be mistaken, but that's my gut feeling.

I think the main problem with having Lyanna's statue include a rose garland is that it would appear to be celebrating the crowning by Rhaegar. Which would be odd, since the known tale in those parts is that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped her, leading to her death. To anyone who doesn't know the truth, it would almost be like having Rickard's statue engulfed in flames. Maybe that's a bit more drastic, but I hope my meaning is clear.

Different, but it is difficult not to associate it with Ned seeing Lyanna's statue with a crown. Regarding, the meaning of the crown: Sly Wren suggests that Lyanna may continue loving blue winter roses even if they were once used against her as an insult. But then how do we know that Lyanna hadn't loved rose garlands before being crowned with one by Rhaegar? The smallfolk of Winterfell may remember her as a little girl making a crown of roses for herself, but anyway... the statue is associated with the crown twice in the text. It is not so conspicuous in Ned's dream, but it occurs in Theon's, too, and as I said, it doesn't really matter whether there was really a crown on the statue or only the tale was told by the people of Winterfell (so that even a relative outsider, like Theon, came to associate Lyanna and the roses so strongly), because neither would have been done if it had been considered an insult.

[J. Stargaryen]

Different, but it is difficult not to associate it with Ned seeing Lyanna's statue with a crown. Regarding, the meaning of the crown: Sky Wren suggests that Lyanna may continue loving blue winter roses even if they were once used against her as an insult. But then how do we know that Lyanna hadn't loved rose garlands before being crowned with one by Rhaegar? The smallfolk of Winterfell may remember her as a little girl making a crown of roses for herself, but anyway... the statue is associated with the crown twice in the text. It is not so conspicuous in Ned's dream, but it occurs in Theon's, too, and as I said, it doesn't really matter whether there was really a crown on the statue or only the tale was told by the people of Winterfell (so that even a relative outsider, like Theon, came to associate Lyanna and the roses so strongly), because neither would have been done if it had been considered an insult.

I think one reason we see the crown associated with Lyanna's statue is that the crown is related to her death. And that's essentially what a statue in the crypts tells us. This Stark is dead. And that's also why it's not just roses that we get in those dreams, but blood and roses. As in bed of blood -- childbirth -- and crown of winter roses, like the ones Rhaegar gave her. In other words, Lyanna gave birth to Rhaegar's child, and this is what led to her death.

[Julia H.]

 

1. Agree they could be blue winter roses. But text doesn't say. In a text where Ned dreams of a blood-streaked sky with a storm of blue rose petals. So, really could be. 1. But text doesn't say.

2. Without re-litigating the "tower occupancy" question, one way or another, Lyanna was very, very likely in Dorne when she died. Could she have gotten blue winter roses there? Maybe. 2.Or maybe other roses to fill the room with scent. Ned doesn't give us much. 

3. And back to her love for roses--any reason why she'd have to love the man who gave her the rose crown to continue loving blue roses? Or not love roses any more if she didn't love that man?

1. Perhaps the writer didn't consider it necessary at that point to talk about blackened blue rose petals. Writers don't always spell out everything for the readers. Lyanna is symbolized by blue roses. Blackened blue rose petals symbolize Lyanna's death. (Other possible meanings: blue roses may be associated with Lyanna's child, and then the black has a different meaning. It may even mean - though it is not may favourite interpretation - that Lyanna became a Targaryen and paid for it with her life.) The symbolism just doesn't work with any other roses.

2.   Now I have an image in my head of GRRM writing about the blackened rose petals, giggling to himself: "Let me see how many readers will guess these roses were originally yellow! Heh, heh." He also giggled when he wrote about the blue flower in the ice in Dany's dream knowing how few readers would guess that the flower was a forget-me-not.

3. Any reason why her statue wouldn't be crowned with blue roses then? My question is not what her reason was to love roses. It is that winter roses are either a symbol of insult for the Starks or not. If they are, then they won't have them in Winterfell. If they are not, then the blue roses from Rhaegar or anyone didn't represent any specific political message.  

[Julia H.]

I think one reason we see the crown associated with Lyanna's statue is that the crown is related to her death. And that's essentially what a statue in the crypts tells us. This Stark is dead. And that's also why it's not just roses that we get in those dreams, but blood and roses. As in bed of blood -- childbirth -- and crown of winter roses, like the ones Rhaegar gave her. In other words, Lyanna gave birth to Rhaegar's child, and this is what led to her death.

Yes, but that's the meaning of the symbol that the reader is supposed to understand, and we are talking about what the roses mean to the characters. Ned may also see the roses as symbols of Lyanna's death. But how does Theon come to see this image, in-universe, unless he has heard about the events from others in detail? 

[purple-eyes]

Yes, but that's the meaning of the symbol that the reader is supposed to understand, and we are talking about what the roses mean to the characters. Ned may also see the roses as symbols of Lyanna's death. But how does Theon come to see this image, in-universe, unless he has heard about the events from others in detail? 

Lyanna is having the garland and weeping blood, so maybe it is indeed a symbol of death and grief and pain, stuff like that. 

 

[J. Stargaryen]

Yes, but that's the meaning of the symbol that the reader is supposed to understand, and we are talking about what the roses mean to the characters. Ned may also see the roses as symbols of Lyanna's death. But how does Theon come to see this image, in-universe, unless he has heard about the events from others in detail? 

That's what I meant. I was just adding a couple pence to the discussion.

[Sly Wren]

<snip>

Because of the time gap in the original version of events, something similar might make more sense here than trying to look for kinslaying right around the time the Stark maid gives birth to her son. While my idea is admittedly highly speculative, I think that's okay here because maybe we're not supposed to be able to extrapolate all of the original tale onto the story just yet. And I think the kinslaying unknowing part of the story is a prime candidate for a yet-to-be-revealed connection.

Yes, the gap might mean the kinslaying is to come. And the above and the snipped portion--it's very workable. And the Tyrion angle --it would fit with the original synopsis as you say. And have a particular gut-punch to it that Martin is fond of. 

The thing that keyed me in on the battle with Arthur is that it fits the rough sketch of the story Ygritte tells: battle where Stark kills father of Stark maid's child. Stark returns with trophy. Full horror of event realized--woman throws herself form tower and Stark maid ends up dead.

The fight with Arthur and the others doesn't run the parallel straight--none of Martin's parallels run straight. But it hits the rough sketch of Ygritte's story with some degree of detail. And, near as I can tell, there aren't a lot of examples of women throwing themselves from towers in the books.