Jump to content
Rhaenys_Targaryen

Small Questions v. 10105

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Are we sure about the fact that Lord William doesn't have any sons? Isn't it possible that they died in the war?

With no references to such things? Seems a bit improbable given the fact that that turns her into his heir which makes her all the more enticing a prospect. And the Mootons seemed to have largely sat out the fighting anyways, so it seems odd that the sons would have died in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ran said:

Arya calls the tale she's told by the man as just a story, so the report and the reporter's facts can be called into question. Given there's no reference to Lord Mooton's father passing away in the course of the novels, I think William Mooton is the lord being referred to, but it's from someone who has heard a garbled rumor and doesn't really know any particular facts (such as the fact that William Mooton has no sons).

That's sort of my point. William Mooton has no sons, but we know for a fact that his father had at least two, Myles and William. But I get that there's a lot of second hand info flying around. 

Lord Darry was allegedly killed by Gregor Clegane according to the accusations brought against the BwB in ASOS. So it got me wondering if something like that had happened with Lord Mooton.

Edited by Widow's Watch
I don't know how to spell two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Widow's Watch said:

That's sort of my point. William Mooton has no sons, but we know for a fact that his father had at least too, Myles and William. But I get that there's a lot of second hand info flying around. 

Yeah. I think it entirely possible that in fact Lord William succeeded his father somewhere in the course of the novels... but it just seems super unlikely. Easier to assume that a random, no-name stranger trading gossip in an era where many people who live just a couple of day's walk outside of a castle will never have seen the local lord is simply passing on mistaken rumors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ran said:

With no references to such things? Seems a bit improbable given the fact that that turns her into his heir which makes her all the more enticing a prospect. And the Mootons seemed to have largely sat out the fighting anyways, so it seems odd that the sons would have died in any case.

I hear you. I had a rather heated discussion I while back where I suggested that the Mootons pretty much stayed out of the war due to the fact they lost pretty much at the Trident, making it not all that likely that they would be all that keen to aid the Tullys (traitors) while the Lannisters (other traitors) attacked the western Riverlands. That wasn't exactly Lord William Mooton's problem, was it? Aside from the fact that the man isn't exactly of a martial nature.

I'm inclined to believe that many of those Riverlords who stood with Rhaegar at the Trident didn't involve themselves all that much in the fighting during the War of the Five Kings.

But we have those sons listed as existing in the wiki: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Mooton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to those junior houses who were sworn to house Reyne? Or all those petty lords and landed knights who nominally served that wiped out house. Naturally assuming that there was any who survived that failed rebellion.

A) They lost their lands and either died or were exiled by winners.

B ) They could keep their lands if they renounced their old masters and knelt to new masters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

What happened to those junior houses who were sworn to house Reyne? Or all those petty lords and landed knights who nominally served that wiped out house. Naturally assuming that there was any who survived that failed rebellion.

A) They lost their lands and either died or were exiled by winners.

B ) They could keep their lands if they renounced their old masters and knelt to new masters.

Probably this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not news that Eddard Stark welcomed, but it was true enough that they needed help, and Littlefinger had been almost a brother to Cat once. It would not be the first time that Ned had been forced to make common cause with a man he despised.

What is Eddard reffering to? Does he mean Jaime in Robert's Rebellion or someone else?

Edited by ApostolinO
spelling mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ApostolinO said:

That was not news that Eddard Stark welcomed, but it was true enough that they needed help, and Littlefinger had been almost a brother to Cat once. It would not be the first time that Ned had been forced to make common cause with a man he despised.

What is Eddard reffering to? Does he mean Jaime in Robert's Rebellion or someone else?

Yep. I imagine he also means Tywin and the Lannisters during the Greyjoy rebellion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Yep. I imagine he also means Tywin and the Lannisters during the Greyjoy rebellion

Hasn't Roose Bolton been suggested as well? And he could be thinking of other persons we might not know of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a question in that same vein.

Quote

"Whereas Daenerys is a fourteen year old girl." Ned knew he was pushing this well past the point of wisdom, yet he could not keep silent. "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" (Eddard VIII, AGOT 33)

I know Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned, but Robert and Ned at 19 and 20 hardly qualify as children anymore and I doubt Ned would be talking about himself here. And Brandon was not a child when he was murdered. So what's Ned talking about? Was Aerys killing children and it's something that has not been mentioned in story or is he eluding to something more specific without naming names?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

I do have a question in that same vein.

I know Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned, but Robert and Ned at 19 and 20 hardly qualify as children anymore and I doubt Ned would be talking about himself here. And Brandon was not a child when he was murdered. So what's Ned talking about? Was Aerys killing children and it's something that has not been mentioned in story or is he eluding to something more specific without naming names?

In my opinion ist is a metaphor. For Eddard, killing children is wrong and unlawful, and they rebelled against Aerys to make an end to a reign of wrongs and injustices. So it is another way of saying "what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to these kind of wrongs?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

In my opinion ist is a metaphor. For Eddard, killing children is wrong and unlawful, and they rebelled against Aerys to make an end to a reign of wrongs and injustices. So it is another way of saying "what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to these kind of wrongs?"

Good point. Didn't think of it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

I do have a question in that same vein.

I know Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned, but Robert and Ned at 19 and 20 hardly qualify as children anymore and I doubt Ned would be talking about himself here. And Brandon was not a child when he was murdered. So what's Ned talking about? Was Aerys killing children and it's something that has not been mentioned in story or is he eluding to something more specific without naming names?

Quote

 

When Ned and Robert are arguing over the murder of Daenerys in Game of Thrones , Ned says "what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" Since Aerys did a lot of atrocities but never talk about killing children, is it a slip of Ned or is there something we still do not know?

Well, there were times when Aerys ordered the killing of children. It is discovered in later books, as in the Defiance of Duskendale, when they take the city and put most people to the swords, including the young children of the Houses that challenged them, such as the Darklyns and the Hollards. And I imagine that there would be other situations in which the same thing happened: the whole line of a House is eliminated, you do not limit yourself to simply killing the father yet you let the children grow up so they can take revenge. But this becomes an endless circle, the Targaryen children themselves are killed.  -SSM

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Val's and Qyburn's eyes change colors. Val's go from pale grey to blue and Qyburn's from brown to blue. Do we know if these are brain blips like Renly's eyes changing color or are these changes intentional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 6:23 AM, Lollygag said:

Val's and Qyburn's eyes change colors. Val's go from pale grey to blue and Qyburn's from brown to blue. Do we know if these are brain blips like Renly's eyes changing color or are these changes intentional?

I think it may just be a writing inconsistency, at least on Qyburn's part. Grey to blue, I can understand. But brown to blue seems like too drastic a color change to be intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joseth Veira said:

I think it may just be a writing inconsistency, at least on Qyburn's part. Grey to blue, I can understand. But brown to blue seems like too drastic a color change to be intentional.

I wrote it off as an inconsistency until recently. I just noticed that pale eyes puts Val in the same group with some of the darker characters of the series and then there's showing back up at the NW in white with blue eyes.

I noticed recently that dark magic seems to change characters' appearances as they often have similar descriptions though they're unrelated. Cersei implies that Maggy's dark magic has contributed to her appearance. We know that Qyburn is into some very dark stuff and now he has a different eye color.

If there's clarification about Renly but none about Val and Qyburn, I think I'm going to have to start reading into that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I wrote it off as an inconsistency until recently. I just noticed that pale eyes puts Val in the same group with some of the darker characters of the series and then there's showing back up at the NW in white with blue eyes.

I noticed recently that dark magic seems to change characters' appearances as they often have similar descriptions though they're unrelated. Cersei implies that Maggy's dark magic has contributed to her appearance. We know that Qyburn is into some very dark stuff and now he has a different eye color.

If there's clarification about Renly but none about Val and Qyburn, I think I'm going to have to start reading into that.

I'm considering it a mistake for now. Jon is the POV for each mention of Val's eyes, and GRRM doesn't have Jon remarking about them changing color. GRRM has long had frustrations with keeping eye colors consistent.

1999:

Quote

I do intend to publish a timeline as an appendix in one or other of the later volumes, but even when I do, I am not certain I'm going to start detailing things down to months and days. With such a huge cast of characters, just keeping track of the =years= drives me half mad sometimes. Not to mention the colors of everybody's eyes.

2005:

Quote

He did note with some amusement that his readers catch his mistakes for him (Renly's eyes being green once, then blue, and then calling them 'blue-green eyes that changed color depending on what he wears' as an out). Ditto with various horse gender oopses.

2008:

Quote

He does find hard to keep track of all characters and keeps flipping back and forth through his notes to find out the color of this character´s eyes or the name of this cousin. Elio and Linda are great help, so sometimes he writes to them asking them this or that. He is very good at changing the sex of horses between books, he calls those his transexual horses.

2010:

Quote

One thing I found interesting that she didn't mention was GRRM's response to a question about how he keeps all the details straight as he writes more books.

GRRM responded that this was one of the things that was making Dance take so long, namely having to go back and check a bunch of details. He said that without search functions in documents he would have gone mad.

He gave a very funny rant about eye color - about how in the real world, we really notice anyone's eye color unless we're very close to them, but in books, everyone has their eye color described. Having to go back and check the eye color he gave for hundreds of characters was an example of a detail that could drive him batty; GRRM said he regretted mentioning the eye color of any of his characters. He also noted that as a brown-eyed person, he finds it annoying that brown-eyed characters are always portrayed as ordinary, while the doers of great deeds always have blue or hazel eyes or something - he notes that he himself was somewhat guilty of this with the violet eyes of Dany or the red eyes of Melisandre.

He said that in all seriousness, what was most important in rereading prior books to make sure he got the continuity right was speech patterns - each of his hundreds of characters has a distinct way of talking that he wants to make sure he is faithful to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nittanian said:

I'm considering it a mistake for now. Jon is the POV for each mention of Val's eyes, and GRRM doesn't have Jon remarking about them changing color. GRRM has long had frustrations with keeping eye colors consistent.

1999:

2005:

2008:

2010:

 

Thanks for the quotes. It's still the first description of pale eyes for Val which really gives me pause as I've recently noticed how consistent its usage is. Pale eyes looks like a very deliberate choice for certain types of characters which is why I'd still like clarification.

Old Nan, Barristan and Pycelle have pale eyes due to age. But the list of characters with pale eyes who are younger is rather ominous. An incomplete list...

Viserys

Bran’s would-be killer

Tywin

The Boltons

 Ilyn Payne

Jon Con (Tyrion compares his pale eyes to Tywin's)

Lysa

Selyse

Mandon Moore

Emmon Frey

The wights

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to the audio book of AGOT the other day, and noticed that Ned's POV says that Maester Malleon's book of lineages is over a century old [in 298 or 299], yet also states that the last mating between Baratheon and Lannister recorded in the book was some ninety years ago. How can this be reconciled? The quote about the book being over a century old makes it sound as though the book was written in its entirety at that time, not that it has continued to be updated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×