Jump to content
AlaskanSandman

Bael & Queen Alyssane (Updating)

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The whole premise doesn't make any sense considering that the idea that a Bolton could have skinned Bael's son alive during the reign of Jaehaerys I or Viserys I is so outlandish that it doesn't deserve to be considered.

Bael the Bard was King-beyond-the-Wall long before the Conquest.

There may have been some trouble with the wildlings and dragonriders and king's men making expeditions in the lands beyond the Wall when Jaehaerys I and Alysanne visited the Wall, but if there was any conflict at that time it wouldn't have involved a king-beyond-the-Wall. And most definitely not Bael.

Why? Ramsey has been doing worse in the North. No one in the south has heard, cares or doing anything about it. 

And where does it say that about Bael? It clearly states in his tale that the Starks were lords. Not kings. Implying it was after Aegon I's time.

I think you may be wrong there ser

Share this post


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

The whole premise doesn't make any sense considering that the idea that a Bolton could have skinned Bael's son alive during the reign of Jaehaerys I or Viserys I is so outlandish that it doesn't deserve to be considered.

Bael the Bard was King-beyond-the-Wall long before the Conquest.

There may have been some trouble with the wildlings and dragonriders and king's men making expeditions in the lands beyond the Wall when Jaehaerys I and Alysanne visited the Wall, but if there was any conflict at that time it wouldn't have involved a king-beyond-the-Wall. And most definitely not Bael.

I hear where you are coming from, but I have to admit, I think you’re wrong here...

The first time Bael the Bard is mentioned isn’t by a wildling... and if Nan and Lewin agree to me that means it’s basically set in stone.

Quote

 

"Wildlings have invaded the realm before." Jon had heard the tales from Old Nan and Maester Luwin both, back at Winterfell. "Raymun Redbeard led them south in the time of my grandfather's grandfather, and before him there was a king named Bael the Bard.
"Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side . . . but the Night's Watch is only a shadow of what we were, and who remains to oppose the wildlings besides us? The Lord of Winterfell is dead, and his heir has marched his strength south to fight the Lannisters. The wildlings may never again have such a chance as this. I knew Mance Rayder, Jon. He is an oathbreaker, yes . . . but he has eyes to see, and no man has ever dared to name him faintheart."

 

 
Bael the Bard is part of recorded history, Jon later disputes some details of The tale he’s told, but not that Bael invaded the realm. And given the indications here, it wasn’t “long before” or ancient times. Given the Lord of Winterfell and Kingsroad in the story, it almost certainly took place after the conquest, and after the construction of he Kingsroad, but before the whole sleepy Jon-Redbeard invasion.
 
It also shows that Bael made it over/under/through the Wall, since he invaded the realm.
 
The fact that there is no place called the Frozen Ford on any map I’ve seen leads me to believe that place now has a different name. Deep Lake is my current suspect, though of course this is all speculative.
 
Now I’m not saying every detail of the Bael Song is true, all the women loved him in his songs, but mention of a Bolton skinning someone hardly seems like a reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Edited by LiveFirstDieLater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Why? Ramsey has been doing worse in the North. No one in the south has heard, cares or doing anything about it. 

Ramsay does his stuff in the middle of a civil war, when there is clear central power either in the North or the Realm at large.

Jaehaerys I was always in control of the Seven Kingdoms and there were no rebellions nor severe conflicts throughout his entire reign. If the Lord of the Dreadfort had rebelled against Winterfell during his reign he would also have rebelled against the Iron Throne. And then dragonfire would have ended the line of House Bolton. Especially if they had actually gotten around to skin the Lord of Winterfell alive.

4 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

And where does it say that about Bael? It clearly states in his tale that the Starks were lords. Not kings. Implying it was after Aegon I's time.

No, that doesn't imply that. The Kings in the North were also always the Lords of Winterfell. And the wildlings are not exactly proper historians or people who care about proper titles.

In addition, there is the problem of Bael's son. If he fucked the Stark daughter and she gave him the son then that son would inevitably be a bastard - and with the Starks no longer being kings in their own right they would not be able to legitimize such children. The way things go the father of the daughter would have legitimized his daughter's bastard as a Stark. Within the Targaryen framework the Lord of Winterfell would have been forced to go through Jaehaerys I to do that - something we simply have no evidence for.

As to the elements in the wildling tale:

This is an oral tradition. Modern geographic features and titles quickly creep into historic tales, in oral tales even quicker than in written tales. Just think about the medieval depiction ancient Jerusalem (as a medieval city), Alexander the Great (as a medieval king), or the Huns in the Nibelungenlied (culturally identical with the Burgundians).

It is therefore hardly surprising that the modern titles 'Lord of Winterfell' and the Kingsroad feature in oral traditions.

If Bael's son truly was the Lord of Winterfell who later slew him that wouldn't be a fact the Starks could hide. Not in the Targaryen times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay does his stuff in the middle of a civil war, when there is clear central power either in the North or the Realm at large.

Jaehaerys I was always in control of the Seven Kingdoms and there were no rebellions nor severe conflicts throughout his entire reign. If the Lord of the Dreadfort had rebelled against Winterfell during his reign he would also have rebelled against the Iron Throne. And then dragonfire would have ended the line of House Bolton. Especially if they had actually gotten around to skin the Lord of Winterfell alive.

No, that doesn't imply that. The Kings in the North were also always the Lords of Winterfell. And the wildlings are not exactly proper historians or people who care about proper titles.

In addition, there is the problem of Bael's son. If he fucked the Stark daughter and she gave him the son then that son would inevitably be a bastard - and with the Starks no longer being kings in their own right they would not be able to legitimize such children. The way things go the father of the daughter would have legitimized his daughter's bastard as a Stark. Within the Targaryen framework the Lord of Winterfell would have been forced to go through Jaehaerys I to do that - something we simply have no evidence for.

As to the elements in the wildling tale:

This is an oral tradition. Modern geographic features and titles quickly creep into historic tales, in oral tales even quicker than in written tales. Just think about the medieval depiction ancient Jerusalem (as a medieval city), Alexander the Great (as a medieval king), or the Huns in the Nibelungenlied (culturally identical with the Burgundians).

It is therefore hardly surprising that the modern titles 'Lord of Winterfell' and the Kingsroad feature in oral traditions.

If Bael's son truly was the Lord of Winterfell who later slew him that wouldn't be a fact the Starks could hide. Not in the Targaryen times.

Why would you assume the skinning a stark detail is true but none of the other details? I don’t understand.

Jon confirms that Bael existed and invaded the realm not all that long ago via Nan and Lewin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Why would you assume the skinning a stark detail is true but none of the other details? I don’t understand.

Because we also assume that the other personal stuff is true. Like, the part about Bael seducing the Stark daughter and impregnating her. Those are important details.

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Jon confirms that Bael existed and invaded the realm not all that long ago via Nan and Lewin.

That doesn't mean it happened during the Targaryen reign. It could have happened a few hundred years earlier and would still have been quite recent. We are talking about a history that stretches back thousands of years, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Because we also assume that the other personal stuff is true. Like, the part about Bael seducing the Stark daughter and impregnating her. Those are important details.

Well not seducing right, we are explicitly told to question wether she was in love with him or not.

And there is the inherent contradiction of Brandon the Daughterless’s only child being a daughter.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't mean it happened during the Targaryen reign.

I think it does... just for calling The Stark Lord and referencing the Kingsroad if nothing else. The fact Bael is lumped with the practically contemporary Redbeard and not with the KBtW from long ago or ancient times reinforces this.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

It could have happened a few hundred years earlier and would still have been quite recent. We are talking about a history that stretches back thousands of years, after all.

It is unclear how long the history goes back or how accurate any of the dating is before the conquest.  

And I get the whole, there were tales of knights before knights existed thing... but this isn’t a real world history either, we may well see explanations for this.

on top of this, the story we hear is based on the Song written by Bael himself, so oral tradition or not, it’s unlikely to have been all that long ago.

It seems to me you are being selective in what details you choose to accept.

I find it easier to believe that we just haven’t learned all the details surrounding a Stark being flayed by a Bolton than to dismiss all the rest as bunk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Why would you assume the skinning a stark detail is true but none of the other details? I don’t understand.

I think we can take the general details as true: a Stark ruler of Winterfell, a road between the Wall and Winterfell, and a Bolton flaying and wearing the skin of a Stark ruler of Winterfell.

An ignorant wildling using the current title of the Starks (Lord) and current name of the road between the Wall and Winterfell (Kingsroad), both of which have been in use for at least two centuries, is a completely plausible anachronism.

But it is implausible that the legend mistakenly features a Bolton flaying and wearing the skin of Bael's Stark son, and it is implausible that the Boltons as of ACOK have a reputation of having bent the knee and ceased flaying and wearing the skin of Starks "a thousand years ago" if a Bolton had flayed and worn the skin of any Lord Stark in the last three centuries.

So it isn't a matter of dismissing the truth behind the other details, but of reconciling the details. There is a simple explanation for Ygritte's use of "lord" and "Kingsroad." There are only convoluted and implausible explanations for a Lord Bolton flaying and wearing the skin of a Lord Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is therefore hardly surprising that the modern titles 'Lord of Winterfell' and the Kingsroad feature in oral traditions.

 

It is not oral tradition. It is work of GRRM who specifically created Kingsroad as work of Jaehaerys I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I think we can take the general details as true: a Stark ruler of Winterfell, a road between the Wall and Winterfell, and a Bolton flaying and wearing the skin of a Stark ruler of Winterfell.

An ignorant wildling using the current title of the Starks (Lord) and current name of the road between the Wall and Winterfell (Kingsroad), both of which have been in use for at least two centuries, is a completely plausible anachronism.

But it is implausible that the legend mistakenly features a Bolton flaying and wearing the skin of Bael's Stark son, and it is implausible that the Boltons as of ACOK have a reputation of having bent the knee and ceased flaying and wearing the skin of Starks "a thousand years ago" if a Bolton had flayed and worn the skin of any Lord Stark in the last three centuries.

So it isn't a matter of dismissing the truth behind the other details, but of reconciling the details. There is a simple explanation for Ygritte's use of "lord" and "Kingsroad." There are only convoluted and implausible explanations for a Lord Bolton flaying and wearing the skin of a Lord Stark.

Except that it’s a song written by Bael himself we are hearing summed up... and I still don’t understand why we don’t believe a Bolton flayed a Stark more recently than thousands of years ago?

3 minutes ago, RedGrace that was promised said:

It is not oral tradition. It is work of GRRM who specifically created Kingsroad as work of Jaehaerys I.

Also true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a personal note, after my read I thought that George did build a story for Bael & Brandon Stark but thinned it at the end for a simple reason. It does not matter to the main plot (or any relevant subplot). For my night work (review drafts of a local printing house & getting along with some authors) I've seen it happen. You made that small story to support the plot, go along into fleshing it (and probably rail off the trail for a bit) and after it is done, you decide to keep it in the book or shelve it for the future but leave a skeleton crew to bridge the telling. My guess is that Bael's tale was not only an obscure wildling tale but one that George did build but ultimately obscured because it was not relevant.

Or, as the famous razor thingie postulates, it was just a wildling tale with all vectors of the original story morphed to fit in whatever time it was told by the narrator. Our author is really inescrutable at these things.

Since Bael/Abel's shadow actually resurfaced as a narrative resource in Dance, I don't think Sandman, even if I do find this theory a lil tin foil, catched just thin air with this one, tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedGrace that was promised said:

It is not oral tradition. It is work of GRRM who specifically created Kingsroad as work of Jaehaerys I.

See @Bael's Bastard post for clarification.

We also have to keep in mind that Bael would have been crushed in a matter of seconds if he had actually tried to invade the Seven Kingdoms during the dragon days. Vermithor and Silverwing would have been up there in a few days, and the stories would actually reflect the presence of the Targaryens and their dragons in this war.

In fact, if the Targaryens ever had to deal with a wildling invasion while they still had dragons Jaehaerys I and Viserys I would really have sent expeditions in the lands beyond the Wall, extending the power of the Iron Throne.

But nothing of that sort happened.

It might be that Jaehaerys I and Alysanne sent some men beyond the Wall to explore things there - and they most likely flew their dragons beyond the Wall, too, while they were up there - but if there was any real conflict at that time we would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

See @Bael's Bastard post for clarification.

We also have to keep in mind that Bael would have been crushed in a matter of seconds if he had actually tried to invade the Seven Kingdoms during the dragon days. Vermithor and Silverwing would have been up there in a few days, and the stories would actually reflect the presence of the Targaryens and their dragons in this war.

In fact, if the Targaryens ever had to deal with a wildling invasion while they still had dragons Jaehaerys I and Viserys I would really have sent expeditions in the lands beyond the Wall, extending the power of the Iron Throne.

But nothing of that sort happened.

It might be that Jaehaerys I and Alysanne sent some men beyond the Wall to explore things there - and they most likely flew their dragons beyond the Wall, too, while they were up there - but if there was any real conflict at that time we would know.

How do you know any of that didn’t happen?

We do know Jaehaerys and Alysanne flew beyond the wall, and Viserys died telling the story of them fighting... why do you believe his story is a lie?

Why do you think what Jon learned from Nan and Lewin was wrong?

I think you are stating your assumptions as facts

Edited by LiveFirstDieLater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

How do you know any of that didn’t happen?

Because the story of Bael does not mention dragons or the wildlings having to fight the Targaryen armies?

11 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

We do know Jaehaerys and Alysanne flew beyond the wall, and Viserys died telling the story of them fighting... why do you believe his story is a lie?

I didn't say that this tale was a lie. But we don't know it was the truth, either. It is the story an old king tells his young grandchildren. It could simply have been a bedtime story. We have no proof that this story is in any way, shape, or form connected to Bael the Bard.

11 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Why do you think what Jon learned from Nan and Lewin was wrong?

I never said that what Jon learned from Nan and Luwin was wrong. Nan and Luwin never told Jon that Bael the Bard lived during the reign of Jaehaerys I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting ideas. I was brought here from your theory concerning Jon and Daenerys. I was always struck by the similarities between Mance and Rhaegar and your theory makes that comparison more interesting.

Anyhow, if I'm following correctly Gael is the child of Bael and Alysanne according to this theory. Rhaenyra however, is proposed to be the child of Alysanne and Ellard Stark? I had a hard time reading your family tree to be honest. What you're suggesting is that Rhaenyra was denied the throne because she was believed to be a Stark bastard?

Sorry for the questions, but I haven't actually read about the Dance of Dragons civil war previously so I wasn't familiar with it.

As I said, really intriguing ideas (and I am assuming original, since I've never heard of this theory before).

Edited by Dimmu Borgir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

@AlaskanSandman you obviously put a lot of effort and imaginations to your posts. I find many of them interesting and they stir my thoughts and make me look at stuff under new light. I appreciate them! 

I've noticed you've been on a theme lately with the Bael the Bard story. I haven't read everything you've posted, but I read a lot, and there's one thing that's really bothering me.

The mere existence of Bael the Bard, King Beyond the Wall, is disputed. Many people say he never existed at all, it's all just legends. Now, while I don't think we should rule out his existence (not at all!) I am certain this means that he precedes the Targaeryan Conquest. The fact that Ygritt tells the story using the title 'Lord of Winterfell' is not enough ti mark it as after Tohrren - Sam does let us know about several stories about "knights" supposed to have taken place  before the Andal invasion. See, even if we as readers aren't privy to it, it's well stablished in universe that events taking place after the Targaeryan Conquest were documented.

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Jon III 

"Now, that is the question. How many wildlings are there? How many men of fighting age? No one knows with certainty. The Frostfangs are cruel, inhospitable, a wilderness of stone and ice. They will not long sustain any great number of people. I can see only one purpose in this gathering. Mance Rayder means to strike south, into the Seven Kingdoms."

"Wildlings have invaded the realm before." Jon had heard the tales from Old Nan and Maester Luwin both, back at Winterfell. "Raymun Redbeard led them south in the time of my grandfather's grandfather, and before him there was a king named Baelthe Bard." 

"Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side . . . but the Night's Watch is only a shadow of what we were, and who remains to oppose the wildlings besides us? The Lord of Winterfell is dead, and his heir has marched South 

Jon's grandfather's grandfhater fought Raymun Redbeard. This is most likely the king beyond the wall the Targaeryans fought against. The timeline fits...

Share this post


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

@AlaskanSandman you obviously put a lot of effort and imaginations to your posts. I find many of them interesting and they stir my thoughts and make me look at stuff under new light. I appreciate them! 

I've noticed you've been on a theme lately with the Bael the Bard story. I haven't read everything you've posted, but I read a lot, and there's one thing that's really bothering me.

The mere existence of Bael the Bard, King Beyond the Wall, is disputed. Many people say he never existed at all, it's all just legends. Now, while I don't think we should rule out his existence (not at all!) I am certain this means that he precedes the Targaeryan Conquest. The fact that Ygritt tells the story using the title 'Lord of Winterfell' is not enough ti mark it as after Tohrren - Sam does let us know about several stories about "knights" supposed to have taken place  before the Andal invasion. See, even if we as readers aren't privy to it, it's well stablished in universe that events taking place after the Targaeryan Conquest were documented.

Jon's grandfather's grandfhater fought Raymun Redbeard. This is most likely the king beyond the wall the Targaeryans fought against. The timeline fits...

Aegon the V who banished Bloodraven? and is tied to this whole set up as he is the 13th l.c. who served for 13 years.

298th- Jon Snow         299-300ac     1yr

297th- Jeor Mormont   288-299ac     11 yrs

996th- Qorgyle            252-288ac      36 yrs  (Person of interest under the time of Roberts Rebellion and service of Mance.)

995th- Bloodraven      239-252ac       13 years...... wait a min.

994th- Sleepy Jack     226-239ac became known as from Jack Musgood after Raymund Redbeard King beyond the Wall snuck south

 

What is 9 + 9 - 5? 13

 I find it interesting that Bran mentions this story too just before passing beyond the Black Gate and possibly meeting the Night's King. The Last Greenseerer.

 

Another interesting thing.

1. Aegon I   

2 Aenys I

3 Maegor I

4 Jaehaerys I & Alysanne 1  who closed Night fort and changed watch                          1. Aegon

5 Viserys I                         2                                                                                              2. Maegor I, Aenys I

6 Aegon II                         3                                                                                               3 Jaehaerys I

7 Aegon III                        4                                                                                               4. Generation skipped over

8 Daeron I                         5                                                                                               4 Viserys I 

9 Baelor I                          6                                                                                               6 Aegon II

10 Viserys II                     7                                                                                               7 Viserys II, Aegon III

11 Aegon IV                     8                                                                                                8 Aegon IV Baelor I Daeron I

12 Daeron II                     9                                                                                                9 Daeron II

13 Aerys I                        10                                                                                              10 Aerys I, Maekar I

14 Maekar I                      11                                                                                              11 Aegon V

15 Aegon V                      12                                                                                               12 Jaeharerys

16 Jaehaerys II                13   The 2nd who wed his kids on word of woods witch            13. Aerys II

17 Aerys II   

Which calls attention to Aegon I and Jaehaerys I. Jaehaerys who married Queen Alysanne that Queens Crown is named after (birthing)

Or you mean Willam Stark? The Stark Lord at the time of Bloodraven?

 

Bael's story may not be about Stark Lords and a Kings Road built during the time of Jaehaerys, yet, that would be quite the coincidence based on the short clues i listed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:
 

So if you look at what you just pointed out about Raymund, and what i pointed out about Bloodraven and Aegon V. That means there is more going on there then we are being told. Bloodraven sent to Wall, becomes L.C. and has war with Raymund Redbeard king beyond the wall. Bloodraven taking over as L.C. of the wall from Sleepy Jack. This, like Jon, is how bloodraven became L.C. While at the same time Shiera Seastar disappears.

This is all connected imo. 

Share this post


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

Bloodraven sent to Wall, becomes L.C. and has war with Raymund Redbeard king beyond the wall. Bloodraven taking over as L.C. of the wall from Sleepy Jack.

How would this be possible if Bloodraven didn't go to the wall until 233? Redbeard was already dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Except that it’s a song written by Bael himself we are hearing summed up... and I still don’t understand why we don’t believe a Bolton flayed a Stark more recently than thousands of years ago?

It's a song that was passed down and received orally, and we do not get the actual lyrics of the song, only the wildling Ygritte giving the kneeler Jon the gist of the story.

It is entirely plausible that she either mistakenly or intentionally used the current terms Lord and Kingsroad anachronistically, but completely implausible that the Boltons have flayed and worn the skin of a Lord Stark in the Targaryen era while maintaining up to ACOK a reputation of having ceased doing so since they bent the knee a thousand years ago.

I am not suggesting that a thousand years is literal, but it is highly unlikely Theon used this to refer to something less than three hundred years ago, when he was perfectly capable of noting that direwolves hadn't been seen south of the Wall in two hundred years, in other words, around the reign of Jaehaerys I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It's a song that was passed down and received orally, and we do not get the actual lyrics of the song, only the wildling Ygritte giving the kneeler Jon the gist of the story.

It is entirely plausible that she either mistakenly or intentionally used the current terms Lord and Kingsroad anachronistically, but completely implausible that the Boltons have flayed and worn the skin of a Lord Stark in the Targaryen era while maintaining up to ACOK a reputation of having ceased doing so since they bent the knee a thousand years ago.

I am not suggesting that a thousand years is literal, but it is highly unlikely Theon used this to refer to something less than three hundred years ago, when he was perfectly capable of noting that direwolves hadn't been seen south of the Wall in two hundred years, in other words, around the reign of Jaehaerys I.

The Bolton flaying part wasn’t in the song... that’s the alternate ending Ygritte provides courtesy of her mother. 

If we are doubting details, this makes me inclined to doubt that part more than the Song/Lewin’s history/and Nan’s stories.

Since there was almost certainly some sort of invasion during the reign of Jaehaerys and Alysanne, given the donations to the Night’s Watch and stories told by Viserys, is there a better candidate for King Beyond the Wall at the time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×