Jump to content

Southron Ambitions question/observation


The WolfSpider

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

First, Chaircat will concede that his argument is a theory, and it is speculation. We lack definitive proof. Nevertheless, it is informed speculation, derived from clues given in the text, synthesized with a framework which allows us to make judgements regarding the author’s intention.

No it is a 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' scenario. Wouldn't it be cool if there was something more sinister/meaningful beneath all those marriages/betrothals between the great houses?

Perhaps. But we have no reason to believe that there was. Rickard Stark's 'southron ambitions' aren't clues for sinister plots. They are just hints that the man wanted his children to marry southron nobility rather than waste them on Northern spouses the Starks already had under their thumb.

Quote

The principal charge against those who deny ‘southron ambitions’ entailed anything especially ambitious has been ably stated by the original poster. The unbelievers have yet to provide a convincing rationale for the policies of Rickard, which we are told amounted to a outright defiance of the traditions of House Stark. The unbeliever can give no reason regarding why Rickard wanted influence in the south; they always fail to answer what he hoped these alliances would achieve.

I can point out a theory full of holes without providing a great theory of my own. Especially since there is no need to explain Rickard's motivations because the author will eventually do that. We don't have the full picture of the man yet - assuming Lady Dustin is not just fantasizing there. The woman is driven by the need to get *an explanation* as to why Lord Rickard refused to allow her to marry her Brandon.

And while it wasn't the rule for the Starks to marry southron houses it did happen. Pretty often if one looks at the family tree. Brandon-Cat and Lyanna-Robert aren't that different from Willam-Melantha, Beron-Lorra, Jocelyn-Benedict, or Branda-Harrold.

Quote

We are told Rickard wanted a say in affairs in the Riverlands, or in the Stormlands. Nowhere in the books do we see that one lord derives any influence on policy in a given region because he has marriage ties there. Ned had no say in the Riverlands through a marriage to Catelyn; Robert had no say in the Westerlands in virtue of a marriage to Cersei.

Nothing like that is ever mentioned. Barbrey talks about 'southron ambitions' but doesn't explain what she means. It could be just a synonym for 'southron marriages' and the point of that would be that Rickard has closer ties and thus more informal power on events down south. He would have more powerful kin-by-marriage, more influence, more friends of rank and station.

And that's what all lords want.

Quote

In addition, there is no reason (to use again that hallowed phrase of yours) that any great lord would want influence in a region other than his own, unless the reason was nefarious, or, at least, based on the need for security, such as flipping a key bannerman or something of that kind. The Starks in particular had nothing to gain from influence over the affairs of the Stormlands for its own sake.

What? That makes no sense. Power and influence are always important, and the Warden of the North could always need a friendly ear in the south during the next six-year-winter when his smallfolk is starving to death. Not to mention that Rickard's ambitions - if he had concrete ambitions - may have aimed at a Small Council seat or something of that sort - do you think one gets that kind of thing without close connections to powerful lords at court?

Quote

So, it falls to the unbelievers to offer some convincing rationale for Rickard’s actions, which they have thus far failed to do.

No. You are not right until we give you an alternative explanation. You have to convince us that your theory is supported by the text. There a lot of alternative explanations for Rickard's actions - if there is something to explain at all. Perhaps Barbrey is just imagining those 'southron ambitions'.

Quote

And the answer is twofold. Firstly, all political action must have regard to the prevailing forms of legitimacy. Power in westeros is inherited; it must be tied to family. Therefore, a new king and a new dynasty must have some ties by blood to the family to whom custom accords a right to rule all of westeros. There is no getting away from this, so while from our standpoint it might have been safer to support a totally non-Valyrian dynasty it was not actually a viable option.

The whole 'conspiracy theory' angle - and it is a conspiracy theory - completely breaks down when asking about the reason why the hell a man as insignificant as Rickard Stark was 'chosen' to involve himself in such a weirdo conspiracy as well as why this was only down in the convoluted way it was. The man at the heart of something like that would have been Lord Hightower, or Luthor/Mace Tyrell. Men with real connections in the Realm, men with the capability to defy the Targaryens with impunity if they must, and not men who need half the Realm to gather the strength to do so.

The way to rid Westeros of House Targaryen was after the Dance, it was during the reign of Aegon III and his sons, it was during the reign of the Unworthy and later during the reign of Aegon V. And during the reign of Aerys II. Why not smother a sibling-less Rhaegar in infancy and then put down Aerys II and Rhaella in some 'accident' or open assassination. That could have been done easily. And there would be no need for weirdo marriage alliances because their heir presumptive would, of course, have been their cousin Steffon Baratheon, with Robert being Steffon's heir.

This kind of overly complicated conspiracy stuff is, in real world language, in chemtrail territory. There are a hundred easier ways for smart people to accomplish goal X, and if the Citadel were behind this whole thing they would know how to do it. They are nothing if not smart.

Quote

Secondly, blood is only part of the story. Doubtless there are plenty of nobles and commoners running around in westeros with Targaryen blood. Perhaps real extremists in the Citadel would want to exterminate them too. However, there is a crucial difference between what we would call genes and the membership of a specific family or dynasty possessed of those same genes. Only when both are united is there danger. 

Not if we talk about dragons and magic. Every dragonlord descendant can have dragon dreams and come to the conclusion that he or she is 'chosen' to hatch some dragon eggs. Peasants will have trouble doing that, true, but highborn Baratheons, Velaryons, Penroses, Martells, Plumms, etc. would face less problems. Especially if they sat the Iron Throne.

Quote

The Targaryens had their family traditions and their ancestral memories, passed down from one generation to the next, which kept alive their links to Valyria and the old Valyrian magic, just as the Starks and Lannisters remember their ancestors. There is no sign that the Baratheons kept these traditions alive, so while they might be genetically capable of returning dragons to life it would never enter their heads to try to do so, and so they are no threat to the Citadel.

You have no basis for that claim because we know pretty much nothing about the private lives and dreams of the Baratheons from Orys to Steffon.

Instead we actually do know that Bloodraven makes no difference between the magical potential of a Blackfyre and a Targaryen. That means there is, by and far, no difference between the magical potential of a Targaryen and that of a Baratheon. And we see that the Targaryen ancestry of Stannis Baratheon allows him to fall prey to mad beliefs about prophecy and dragons.

The Citadel surely would have known that, too. They are not stupid enough to not know that. And we know from Marwyn that the grey sheep mistrust 'the blood' not the name. Robert, Stannis, and Renly also have 'the blood'. And everybody knows that.

Quote

Now, regarding the fact we are told, in the app apparently, that Robert proposed to Lyanna, this means little. It is customary for the male to propose to the female, and as we have seen with the Tyrell-Lannister marriage, the great lords often carefully prepare the ground and seed the imagination of those they hope to ally with through marriage, so that a proposal is forthcoming. In addition, according to Chaircat's theory, certain high-ranking maesters were guiding elements of Rickard's system of alliances, so they could have nurtured the idea in Robert's mind. 

That is just presupposing that what you believe is true. There is no hint in that direction. In fact, especially with Robert we have ample clues that the man actually desired Lyanna, wanted her, loved her. That implies that the whole thing was a love match on Robert's side rather than an arranged match. Cressen gives no indication to be have been involved in Robert's marriage plans and he would have been the maester influencing Robert. Robert was no longer in the Vale at the time he arranged his betrothal, nor did he ever visit Winterfell before AGoT. He may not even have met Lord Rickard all that often (or not at all).

Quote

Finally, you say that we have no evidence House Stark was opposed to Aegon V's reforms. That's true but it is only true because no particular house is ever mentioned by name as opposed to the reforms. It seems reasonable to infer that every great lord was opposed to Aegon V's schemes as they represented a colossal loss of power on their part and would, moreover, be enforced by dragons, if Aegon's dreams had become reality.

That isn't clear at all. The smallfolk isn't that likely to suffer all that much under the heels of the great houses. They are relatively aloof. Those lords directly mistreating and exploiting their smallfolk would be the ones vehemently opposed to the reforms. I do not doubt that some of the great houses were opposed to the reforms, but the Starks are likely the ones who had no reason to even react or bother about royal decrees, regardless whether they came from a dragonless or a dragonriding king. They are so remote that the dragonriding Targaryens pretty much didn't bother what they did, so why do we think Aegon V would care more about the smallfolk in the North than the suffering of the smallfolk in his own neighborhood?

In addition, thanks to Betha and Melantha the Starks and Aegon V were kin-by-marriage. A fact that makes it less likely that they were at odds. Another such fact would be Aegon V's attempts to provide the Northmen with aid and food during the six-year-winter. His help didn't save everyone, but the Starks must have been thankful for what he did.

If you ask me for a candidate for Aegon V's greatest enemy from the great houses I'd suggest Jon Arryn, followed by the spurned houses - Tully, Tyrell, Redwyne. The Arryns are kin of Prince Maegor (through Alys Arryn, the mother of Princess Daenora) and may have preferred her blood on the Iron Throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No it is a 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' scenario. Wouldn't it be cool if there was something more sinister/meaningful beneath all those marriages/betrothals between the great houses?

Perhaps. But we have no reason to believe that there was. Rickard Stark's 'southron ambitions' aren't clues for sinister plots. They are just hints that the man wanted his children to marry southron nobility rather than waste them on Northern spouses the Starks already had under their thumb.

As you actually know there are hints in the texts that something more meaningful was going on, and that this was not just a big nothingburger.

The woiaf notes that interest in southern affairs was a very unusual policy for the Starks and that some of Rickard’s subjects blamed him for his own death, which is pretty harsh if all he hoped to get out of those marriages was a small council seat.

In addition, Lady Dustin lets us know that Rickard’s ambitions were encouraged by the maesters who clearly had their own ends. So, it is not possible to say there is nothing more to this than Rickard’s desire for southern spouses for his children, the text lets us know there likely was.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I can point out a theory full of holes without providing a great theory of my own. Especially since there is no need to explain Rickard's motivations because the author will eventually do that. We don't have the full picture of the man yet - assuming Lady Dustin is not just fantasizing there. The woman is driven by the need to get *an explanation* as to why Lord Rickard refused to allow her to marry her Brandon.

And while it wasn't the rule for the Starks to marry southron houses it did happen. Pretty often if one looks at the family tree. Brandon-Cat and Lyanna-Robert aren't that different from Willam-Melantha, Beron-Lorra, Jocelyn-Benedict, or Branda-Harrold.

I’d also say the objection against you is more that you’re not acknowledging diplomacy is always calibrated to certain ends. Influence is for something: to achieve something. So you need to say what Rickard wanted with these marriages, yes they brought influence but what did he intend to do with it?

Yes, I’m assuming Lady Dustin didn’t invent a plot by the maesters to explain why Brandon didn’t marry her. I am OK with this.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nothing like that is ever mentioned. Barbrey talks about 'southron ambitions' but doesn't explain what she means. It could be just a synonym for 'southron marriages' and the point of that would be that Rickard has closer ties and thus more informal power on events down south. He would have more powerful kin-by-marriage, more influence, more friends of rank and station.

And that's what all lords want.

The ‘we are told’ referred to the unbelievers who are content with the idea marriages bring influence and influence is good and we don’t need to think what Rickard was actually trying to influence.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What? That makes no sense. Power and influence are always important, and the Warden of the North could always need a friendly ear in the south during the next six-year-winter when his smallfolk is starving to death. Not to mention that Rickard's ambitions - if he had concrete ambitions - may have aimed at a Small Council seat or something of that sort - do you think one gets that kind of thing without close connections to powerful lords at court?

Well here you are acknowledging you need influence to bring about outcomes but the only outcome you’ve come up with is food supplies, although this is fair enough I suppose. Maybe Rickard was really keen to avoid famine and thought marriages were the best way to achieve this. Although this does not fit so well with his subjects blaming him for his own death and the maesters apparently trying to facilitate the whole thing. 

A small council seat, on its own, is not really worth much though, certainly not for a Lord Stark who doesn’t need the king to enhance his power or prestige. For a more minor lord it works differently.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No. You are not right until we give you an alternative explanation. You have to convince us that your theory is supported by the text. There a lot of alternative explanations for Rickard's actions - if there is something to explain at all. Perhaps Barbrey is just imagining those 'southron ambitions'.

I'd say it is a flaw in those arguments usually adduced against theories of southron ambitions like mine, that they are unable to posit convincing explanations of what Rickard was up to, yes. As has been said, posters sometimes content themselves with vague hand-waving about influence, without explaining what the influence was designed to achieve. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The whole 'conspiracy theory' angle - and it is a conspiracy theory - completely breaks down when asking about the reason why the hell a man as insignificant as Rickard Stark was 'chosen' to involve himself in such a weirdo conspiracy as well as why this was only down in the convoluted way it was. The man at the heart of something like that would have been Lord Hightower, or Luthor/Mace Tyrell. Men with real connections in the Realm, men with the capability to defy the Targaryens with impunity if they must, and not men who need half the Realm to gather the strength to do so.

The way to rid Westeros of House Targaryen was after the Dance, it was during the reign of Aegon III and his sons, it was during the reign of the Unworthy and later during the reign of Aegon V. And during the reign of Aerys II. Why not smother a sibling-less Rhaegar in infancy and then put down Aerys II and Rhaella in some 'accident' or open assassination. That could have been done easily. And there would be no need for weirdo marriage alliances because their heir presumptive would, of course, have been their cousin Steffon Baratheon, with Robert being Steffon's heir.

This kind of overly complicated conspiracy stuff is, in real world language, in chemtrail territory. There are a hundred easier ways for smart people to accomplish goal X, and if the Citadel were behind this whole thing they would know how to do it. They are nothing if not smart.

Rickard Stark was one of the most powerful men in the realm simply in virtue of being Lord Stark. He did have the capacity to defy the Targaryens with impunity too, as sans dragons the north is quite hard to invade. Lord Hightower or Tyrell would both have needed alliances to confront the Targaryens too.

In any case though, I’m not claiming to know how the conspiracy started or how it worked exactly. Rickard may not have been chosen as such, he may have chosen himself and the maesters, seeing this, encouraged and facilitated. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not if we talk about dragons and magic. Every dragonlord descendant can have dragon dreams and come to the conclusion that he or she is 'chosen' to hatch some dragon eggs. Peasants will have trouble doing that, true, but highborn Baratheons, Velaryons, Penroses, Martells, Plumms, etc. would face less problems. Especially if they sat the Iron Throne.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have no basis for that claim because we know pretty much nothing about the private lives and dreams of the Baratheons from Orys to Steffon.

Instead we actually do know that Bloodraven makes no difference between the magical potential of a Blackfyre and a Targaryen. That means there is, by and far, no difference between the magical potential of a Targaryen and that of a Baratheon. And we see that the Targaryen ancestry of Stannis Baratheon allows him to fall prey to mad beliefs about prophecy and dragons.

The Citadel surely would have known that, too. They are not stupid enough to not know that. And we know from Marwyn that the grey sheep mistrust 'the blood' not the name. Robert, Stannis, and Renly also have 'the blood'. And everybody knows that.

I think you may not have grasped the distinction I was making. I’m not saying there is a difference in magical ability between Targaryens and other Valyrian lines, whatever that means. I’m saying to wake a dragon you need ability and the will/awareness of your heritage/destiny. People who go around repeating ‘I am the dragon,’ because their parents did, read wacky prophecies, have their throne room festooned with dragonheads etc are the ones likely to walk into fires and blow up buildings.

As I also pointed out, the Citadel has to work within political reality, and that means they can’t butcher everyone with dragon blood or connive in favour of families with no links to the line of Aegon I. Wiping out the Targaryens makes it substantially less likely anyone will be trying to revive dragons in the future, so that's a win.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just presupposing that what you believe is true. There is no hint in that direction. In fact, especially with Robert we have ample clues that the man actually desired Lyanna, wanted her, loved her. That implies that the whole thing was a love match on Robert's side rather than an arranged match. Cressen gives no indication to be have been involved in Robert's marriage plans and he would have been the maester influencing Robert. Robert was no longer in the Vale at the time he arranged his betrothal, nor did he ever visit Winterfell before AGoT. He may not even have met Lord Rickard all that often (or not at all).

I was merely pointing out that the app does not show the idea was purely Robert’s, only that he did the proposing.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That isn't clear at all. The smallfolk isn't that likely to suffer all that much under the heels of the great houses. They are relatively aloof. Those lords directly mistreating and exploiting their smallfolk would be the ones vehemently opposed to the reforms. I do not doubt that some of the great houses were opposed to the reforms, but the Starks are likely the ones who had no reason to even react or bother about royal decrees, regardless whether they came from a dragonless or a dragonriding king. They are so remote that the dragonriding Targaryens pretty much didn't bother what they did, so why do we think Aegon V would care more about the smallfolk in the North than the suffering of the smallfolk in his own neighborhood?

In addition, thanks to Betha and Melantha the Starks and Aegon V were kin-by-marriage. A fact that makes it less likely that they were at odds. Another such fact would be Aegon V's attempts to provide the Northmen with aid and food during the six-year-winter. His help didn't save everyone, but the Starks must have been thankful for what he did.

If you ask me for a candidate for Aegon V's greatest enemy from the great houses I'd suggest Jon Arryn, followed by the spurned houses - Tully, Tyrell, Redwyne. The Arryns are kin of Prince Maegor (through Alys Arryn, the mother of Princess Daenora) and may have preferred her blood on the Iron Throne.

I think the Starks are likely to care about a dragonriding king, they presumably remember how Torrhen had to abase himself.

As for Jon Arryn I think he was, at some point, part of the conspiracy yes.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 9:19 PM, Risto said:

Not only that there are no evidence, the plot wouldn't make much sense. If the Harrenhal Tourney was imagined as informal Great Council, with 4 Great Lords being invited (at the end, Tywin didn't attend when Aerys announced he will come) and emissaries from other 2 great Houses, one can arguably claim that the parties at least silently understood what the tourney was supposed to be about. Attendance of Starks in such number, with other Northern houses doesn't speak they were that anti-Targ but more of anti-Aerys. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn that Brandon had some instructions from his father.

I don't think they were only anti-Aerys.  All they need do is support Rhaegar if that were the case.  Coming to Harrenhal does not mean they were pro-Rhaegar.  As a matter of fact, it is even possible that the crowning of Lyanna by Rhaegar was an attempt to seduce the key to Rickard's malicious plot.  Rhaegar wanted to cockblock the marriage between Lyanna and Robert to break up the conspirators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Allardyce said:

I don't think they were only anti-Aerys.  All they need do is support Rhaegar if that were the case.  Coming to Harrenhal does not mean they were pro-Rhaegar.  As a matter of fact, it is even possible that the crowning of Lyanna by Rhaegar was an attempt to seduce the key to Rickard's malicious plot.  Rhaegar wanted to cockblock the marriage between Lyanna and Robert to break up the conspirators.

Given that the talk regarding Harrenhal tourney were widely known and that the guest list was as prestigious as it gets, it would be totally weird them not to be pro-Rhaegar at that moment.

As for Lyanna, the problem with the interpretation is that everyone forget the factor of Knight of the Laughing Tree and the fact that Rhaegar was the one sent looking for mysterious knight.

The thing is no one expected Rhaegar to actually WIN which is why crowning being preplanned is not something that can be argued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

As you actually know there are hints in the texts that something more meaningful was going on, and that this was not just a big nothingburger.

What are those hints?

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The woiaf notes that interest in southern affairs was a very unusual policy for the Starks and that some of Rickard’s subjects blamed him for his own death, which is pretty harsh if all he hoped to get out of those marriages was a small council seat.

Sure, just as one can blame Ned or Robb for their own deaths. They involved themselves with stuff they should have stayed out of, and they paid the price. In fact, we can blame Rickard's southron ambitions for their deaths, too, since they would have never involved themselves with stuff they should have stayed out of if there hadn't been a Tully marriage.

Keep in mind that Ned himself has the very strong feeling to stay out of the blasted of affairs of the south. Other people in the North might have had similar feelings in relation to Lord Rickard.

If Rickard had been a conspirator planning something against the Targaryens then the pitiful manner of his own death makes no sense at all. 

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In addition, Lady Dustin lets us know that Rickard’s ambitions were encouraged by the maesters who clearly had their own ends. So, it is not possible to say there is nothing more to this than Rickard’s desire for southern spouses for his children, the text lets us know there likely was.

Only if you take Lady Dustin's words as gospel. What makes you think she knew the heart and mind of Maester Walys? She didn't even live at Winterfell, and there is no hint that she ever stayed there for a longer period of time during Rickard's time.

It is actually possible that Barbrey's conspiracy theory is just nonsense - and the point of her talk about maesters and their (possible) secret agenda is just to make their reader aware of the fact that the Citadel may have such an agenda and the means to influence the policies of the Realm.

Even if Maester Walys was the guy behind the Tully marriage (and that's the only one he may have arranged) then this isn't proof of a conspiracy the type you are suggesting, because - as a man from the south - Walys would have been inclined to favor the south when discussing marriage prospects with Lord Rickard.

But the most obvious fact that makes this entire conspiracy pretty much break down is that the fact that Brandon/Ned were marrying Catelyn Tully didn't actually bring the Tullys into the fold. Jon Arryn also had to take Lysa to convince Hoster to turn against Aerys II.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I’d also say the objection against you is more that you’re not acknowledging diplomacy is always calibrated to certain ends. Influence is for something: to achieve something. So you need to say what Rickard wanted with these marriages, yes they brought influence but what did he intend to do with it?

Increase the prominence and importance of his house? Add to the glory of House Stark? Make the Starks more than just the backwater rulers of a large chunk of Westeros pretty much nobody took into account in day-to-day politics?

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yes, I’m assuming Lady Dustin didn’t invent a plot by the maesters to explain why Brandon didn’t marry her. I am OK with this.

Then you are making a mistake. Lady Barbrey has no proof for any of her mad ramblings. She is right that what she says is possible, and that the maesters most definitely have great influence on the lords collectively, and it might very well be that Walys was the one suggesting Catelyn Tully as a match for Brandon Stark, but that doesn't mean that Walys' suggestion was part of a far-flung conspiracy.

And if Lord Rickard personally had 'southron ambitions' then the Tully match may have been his idea alone.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The ‘we are told’ referred to the unbelievers who are content with the idea marriages bring influence and influence is good and we don’t need to think what Rickard was actually trying to influence.

We have no reason to believe he tried to influence anything.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Well here you are acknowledging you need influence to bring about outcomes but the only outcome you’ve come up with is food supplies, although this is fair enough I suppose. Maybe Rickard was really keen to avoid famine and thought marriages were the best way to achieve this. Although this does not fit so well with his subjects blaming him for his own death and the maesters apparently trying to facilitate the whole thing. 

Of course this fits. Lord Rickard may not have told his dear lords and subjects why he was having 'southron ambitions' and when he died people were pissed and blamed his death on the man's stupid participation in southron politics.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

A small council seat, on its own, is not really worth much though, certainly not for a Lord Stark who doesn’t need the king to enhance his power or prestige. For a more minor lord it works differently.

If you look at the history of Westeros we know at this point it is pretty obvious that both great and small houses were striving to sit on the council and trying to claim the Handship. Tyrion makes a seat on the Small Council even part of his alliance with Dorne.

And, as @Bael's Bastard has been suggesting above, Lord Rickard may have ultimate aimed at marrying into the royal family. The Iron Throne is the ultimate price.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Rickard Stark was one of the most powerful men in the realm simply in virtue of being Lord Stark. He did have the capacity to defy the Targaryens with impunity too, as sans dragons the north is quite hard to invade. Lord Hightower or Tyrell would both have needed alliances to confront the Targaryens too.

Actually, I daresay the Tyrells could not only have defied the Targaryens with impunity they also have the strength to topple them all by themselves (if all the Reach stood with them, of course). The Starks could, of course, secede and force the Targaryens to come to them, but on their own they don't have the strength to influence the politics of the Realm to a high degree. That's why they would be in need of allies.

The Tyrells wouldn't have need of (m)any of such allies, and unlike the Starks (who you simply suggests might have been enemies of Aegon V with nothing pointing in that direction) the Redwynes and Tyrells were actually slighted by Aegon V and his children, making it much more likely the Citadel would have turned to them to serve as the focal point for an anti-Targaryen conspiracy rather than the Starks. But that never happened.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In any case though, I’m not claiming to know how the conspiracy started or how it worked exactly. Rickard may not have been chosen as such, he may have chosen himself and the maesters, seeing this, encouraged and facilitated. 

There is no indication that Lord Rickard had strong ties to any great lord in the Realm, Tullys and Arryns included. Yes, Ned ended up being fostered with the Arryns, but Lord Rickard could have brought that about by means of his kin in the Vale, approaching Lord Jon through Jocelyn's daughters and grandchildren.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I think you may not have grasped the distinction I was making. I’m not saying there is a difference in magical ability between Targaryens and other Valyrian lines, whatever that means. I’m saying to wake a dragon you need ability and the will/awareness of your heritage/destiny. People who go around repeating ‘I am the dragon,’ because their parents did, read wacky prophecies, have their throne room festooned with dragonheads etc are the ones likely to walk into fires and blow up buildings.

That is a non-existing distinction. Targaryens and Blackfyres do not choose to have dragon dreams, nor are they influenced by the way they view themselves. Once a Penrose, Martell, or Baratheon has some dragon dreams he or she will come to terms with the fact that he or she is 'the blood of the dragon'. And dragons are power, everybody know that. You don't have to be a Targaryen or bear the Targaryen/Blackfyre name to get drunk with power at the thought of becoming a dragonrider. Just look at Tyrion's dreams as a child.

And it is not, in fact, so that every Targaryen aware of his heritage wanted to become a dragonrider or did everything he could to bring the dragons back after they were gone.

But people who mistrust Targaryens because of their blood should also mistrust Baratheons because of their blood. Because they and the Targaryens essentially have the same blood.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

As I also pointed out, the Citadel has to work within political reality, and that means they can’t butcher everyone with dragon blood or connive in favour of families with no links to the line of Aegon I. Wiping out the Targaryens makes it substantially less likely anyone will be trying to revive dragons in the future, so that's a win.

While there is some truth to that, the question remains why they would want to do that with as shitty/weird a plot as marriage alliances and war when they could have just killed Aerys II, Rhaella, and Rhaegar? Or eradicated them earlier when they were even fewer of them around. 

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I was merely pointing out that the app does not show the idea was purely Robert’s, only that he did the proposing.

We know Robert approached Rickard via Ned to make the match. Marriages are arranged, nobody 'proposes' in this world. Parents and families talk and then they tell the children who they will marry. If Rickard had wanted Lyanna to marry Robert then he could very well have approached Robert/Steffon with that wish, but that there is no hint in that direction.

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I think the Starks are likely to care about a dragonriding king, they presumably remember how Torrhen had to abase himself.

That was when they marched down south. Is there any indication that the Targaryens with their multiple dragons ever cared to enforce their will in the North in an improper way?

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

As for Jon Arryn I think he was, at some point, part of the conspiracy yes.  

That wasn't my point. Jon Arryn doesn't give any indication that he was part of any conspiracy. I said I would find it interesting if he had opposed Aegon V's reforms - but those reforms died during the reigns of Jaehaerys II and Aerys II, giving nobody a reason to think that a Targaryen king - regardless whether he had dragons or not - would be that much of an issue for the average great house.

Not to mention - you know - that dragons are no guarantee that there are no rebellions. Just look at Kings Aenys and Maegor. Neither Balerion nor Vhagar nor Quicksilver saved them from their ends. And if a king antagonized the majority of his lords he will inevitably, never mind whether he has dragons or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What are those hints?

The ones you are responding to below.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, just as one can blame Ned or Robb for their own deaths. They involved themselves with stuff they should have stayed out of, and they paid the price. In fact, we can blame Rickard's southron ambitions for their deaths, too, since they would have never involved themselves with stuff they should have stayed out of if there hadn't been a Tully marriage.

Keep in mind that Ned himself has the very strong feeling to stay out of the blasted of affairs of the south. Other people in the North might have had similar feelings in relation to Lord Rickard.

If Rickard had been a conspirator planning something against the Targaryens then the pitiful manner of his own death makes no sense at all.

The actual quotation from the woiaf is:

‘When the Stark line was nearly obliterated by Mad King Aerys after Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna, some misguided men laid the blame at the feet of the late Lord Rickard, whose alliance by blood and friendship tied the great houses together and ensured they would act together in response to the Mad King’s crimes.’

So, the misguided men think Rickard was to blame for his death, Brandon’s and maybe Lyanna’s as well. We have to ask why someone would hold this opinion as Rickard was killed when he went to answer for Brandon seeking revenge for Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna.

Rickard wasn’t meddling here; he was trying to support his son who was on trial for his life. So, unless there is more to the story than we know there is no reason to lay the blame for Rickard’s death on his southern ambitions; according to the barebones account of events we have he did not die for his southern designs. He didn’t go south to take up the handship and play politics; he didn’t go south with an army.

The most likely explanation for the views of the misguided men, therefore, is that Rickard’s southron ambitions were actually blameworthy (i.e. conspiracy against the throne) and so brought about Aerys’ vengeance. If the ambitions were a harmless arrangement with the Tullys and Baratheons to secure food supplies the judgment of the misguided men is insanely harsh.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if you take Lady Dustin's words as gospel. What makes you think she knew the heart and mind of Maester Walys? She didn't even live at Winterfell, and there is no hint that she ever stayed there for a longer period of time during Rickard's time.

It is actually possible that Barbrey's conspiracy theory is just nonsense - and the point of her talk about maesters and their (possible) secret agenda is just to make their reader aware of the fact that the Citadel may have such an agenda and the means to influence the policies of the Realm.

Even if Maester Walys was the guy behind the Tully marriage (and that's the only one he may have arranged) then this isn't proof of a conspiracy the type you are suggesting, because - as a man from the south - Walys would have been inclined to favor the south when discussing marriage prospects with Lord Rickard.

But the most obvious fact that makes this entire conspiracy pretty much break down is that the fact that Brandon/Ned were marrying Catelyn Tully didn't actually bring the Tullys into the fold. Jon Arryn also had to take Lysa to convince Hoster to turn against Aerys II.

It is of course possible Lady Dustin is not telling the truth or is misguided. There really isn’t much to say on this point save that there is no especially convincing reason to suppose she manufactured the maester involvement in Rickard’s southron schemes to salve her wounded pride. It is a somewhat out-there-thing to come up with to explain why you didn’t get the husband you wanted.

There is also no particular reason why Walys, who was from the Reach, would favour a marriage between northerners and riverlanders just for the sake of it, or out of southern loyalty. Dustin’s suggestion is also very much that Walys was carrying out a maester design, not acting individually out of some weird and never hitherto seen sense of pan-southern loyalty.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Increase the prominence and importance of his house? Add to the glory of House Stark? Make the Starks more than just the backwater rulers of a large chunk of Westeros pretty much nobody took into account in day-to-day politics?

How does this work in practice though? Ned is married to Cat but we never see Ned have any say or influence in the governance of the riverlands. The marriage means the Starks and Tully support each other in times of crisis, that is the need for an alliance is based on the prospect of war, rivalry and power struggle.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Then you are making a mistake. Lady Barbrey has no proof for any of her mad ramblings. She is right that what she says is possible, and that the maesters most definitely have great influence on the lords collectively, and it might very well be that Walys was the one suggesting Catelyn Tully as a match for Brandon Stark, but that doesn't mean that Walys' suggestion was part of a far-flung conspiracy.

And if Lord Rickard personally had 'southron ambitions' then the Tully match may have been his idea alone.

We do actually know, from Marwyn, that the Citadel engage in far-reaching plots to shape the world as they desire, so there is nothing weird about them trying to influence dynastic politics to bring about results favourable for themselves.

It might be the case the author only included Dustin’s suggestion to shed light on her, and not on deeper issues but it is also equally likely that he did so intend it. He has not told us much about Rickard, or his plans, or even how the great lords felt about politics in the reign of Aerys and this is one of the few clues. It is strange to be so eager to discount it.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no reason to believe he tried to influence anything.

No reason returns. Except the fact he departed from traditional policy and made some important marriage alliances in the south which prompts the questions: what did he want?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course this fits. Lord Rickard may not have told his dear lords and subjects why he was having 'southron ambitions' and when he died people were pissed and blamed his death on the man's stupid participation in southron politics.

Not really. If you hold the southron designs blameworthy you have to have some idea of what they were intended to achieve. If they were just marriages for the sake of it, undertaken from the vague goal of prestige, Rickard was not really participating in politics in a way that would threaten the throne. It is not impossible people still blamed him for this of course, but it makes more sense for him to be blamed given the idea his alliances were part of an ambitious scheme. I also believe Rickard's bannermen likely had an inkling of what the plans were; the marriages of Stark heirs is a matter of national importance for the north (ordinarily the bannermen think they will get the heirs for their own families). 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you look at the history of Westeros we know at this point it is pretty obvious that both great and small houses were striving to sit on the council and trying to claim the Handship. Tyrion makes a seat on the Small Council even part of his alliance with Dorne.

And, as @Bael's Bastard has been suggesting above, Lord Rickard may have ultimate aimed at marrying into the royal family. The Iron Throne is the ultimate price.

There are specific reasons that make the offer of a seat for Dorne make sense though. After the battle of Blackwater the Iron Throne was in hands of two houses the Dornish thought of as enemies. The Dornish allegiance to the realm was loose to begin with, ever since the sack of King’s Landing. The seat was a peace offering and a way of giving the Dornish a stake in the new regime.

In and of itself a Lord Stark hankering after a council seat does not make sense. If, on the other hand, his family partially control the king, as the Tyrells and Lannisters both did, after BoBWB, greedily dividing up the government offices makes more sense.

Yes, I think Rickard did plan to marry into the royal family, this is my whole argument. I just think there was not much chance of this happening with the current royal family, so he decided to marry into a new one.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, I daresay the Tyrells could not only have defied the Targaryens with impunity they also have the strength to topple them all by themselves (if all the Reach stood with them, of course). The Starks could, of course, secede and force the Targaryens to come to them, but on their own they don't have the strength to influence the politics of the Realm to a high degree. That's why they would be in need of allies.

The Tyrells wouldn't have need of (m)any of such allies, and unlike the Starks (who you simply suggests might have been enemies of Aegon V with nothing pointing in that direction) the Redwynes and Tyrells were actually slighted by Aegon V and his children, making it much more likely the Citadel would have turned to them to serve as the focal point for an anti-Targaryen conspiracy rather than the Starks. But that never happened.

The Tyrells are a far weaker and less powerful house than the Starks. It is true that on paper they are stronger, both in wealth and manpower but their power is situated in GrrM’s rather platonic (in the sense of archetypal) feudal system and when considered in this way the Tyrells are weak.

They are not the original ruling family of the Reach but owe their position to the Iron Throne and have numerous bannermen who think they have better claims to the over-lordship of the Reach. Loyalties in the Reach are thus not clear, many lords would answer a call from the Iron Throne and the Targaryen dynasty before they would answer one from the Tyrells.

This was also the case in the Stormlands and Riverlands. The three central regions of the realm are all ruled by houses raised up House Targaryen, they cannot therefore depend on the uniform support of their bannermen in the event of war with the royal family (we see this during Robert’s rebellion). If they could there would be little point in an Iron Throne: a symbol of legitimacy that doesn’t legitimise your rule beyond the say-so of the seven greatest lords is not worth much.

In any case, this is really beside the point. You may think the Citadel would have done better to pick Lord Tyrell, but was he willing to rise against the Iron Throne, did he have a personal grievance and a desire to be king, did he have a daughter who could marry a Baratheon etc.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that Lord Rickard had strong ties to any great lord in the Realm, Tullys and Arryns included. Yes, Ned ended up being fostered with the Arryns, but Lord Rickard could have brought that about by means of his kin in the Vale, approaching Lord Jon through Jocelyn's daughters and grandchildren.

No, he set about making ties.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a non-existing distinction. Targaryens and Blackfyres do not choose to have dragon dreams, nor are they influenced by the way they view themselves. Once a Penrose, Martell, or Baratheon has some dragon dreams he or she will come to terms with the fact that he or she is 'the blood of the dragon'. And dragons are power, everybody know that. You don't have to be a Targaryen or bear the Targaryen/Blackfyre name to get drunk with power at the thought of becoming a dragonrider. Just look at Tyrion's dreams as a child.

And it is not, in fact, so that every Targaryen aware of his heritage wanted to become a dragonrider or did everything he could to bring the dragons back after they were gone.

But people who mistrust Targaryens because of their blood should also mistrust Baratheons because of their blood. Because they and the Targaryens essentially have the same blood.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

While there is some truth to that, the question remains why they would want to do that with as shitty/weird a plot as marriage alliances and war when they could have just killed Aerys II, Rhaella, and Rhaegar? Or eradicated them earlier when they were even fewer of them around.

The distinction is between dragon blood and the dynastic/social context in which it makes senses to use that dragon blood to engage in magical activities. You’ve decided that the latter is all about dreams but I didn’t say that.

Tyrion has dragon dreams but this does not lead him to explore ancient prophecies, search out dragon eggs, drink wildfire and or blow up buildings. He dismisses the dreams as the fancies of a young unhappy child. If he had been brought up with Aegon V, Aerys II or Rhaegar as a father the dreams would have been proof of valyrian greatness of something.

People don’t just decide they’re the blood of the dragon and should walk into flames or undertake human sacrifice to revive monsters because they have some dreams. You need to decide what the dreams mean, why they’re important, how to interpret them and how to act on them. This is what makes the family history and sense of identity so important. Stannis is only edging in this direction because his dragon blood has been put in a context for him, by Melisandre.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know Robert approached Rickard via Ned to make the match. Marriages are arranged, nobody 'proposes' in this world. Parents and families talk and then they tell the children who they will marry. If Rickard had wanted Lyanna to marry Robert then he could very well have approached Robert/Steffon with that wish, but that there is no hint in that direction.

I meant by proposed asked for her hand in marriage. Disagreement here is purely verbal. 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That was when they marched down south. Is there any indication that the Targaryens with their multiple dragons ever cared to enforce their will in the North in an improper way?

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That wasn't my point. Jon Arryn doesn't give any indication that he was part of any conspiracy. I said I would find it interesting if he had opposed Aegon V's reforms - but those reforms died during the reigns of Jaehaerys II and Aerys II, giving nobody a reason to think that a Targaryen king - regardless whether he had dragons or not - would be that much of an issue for the average great house.

Not to mention - you know - that dragons are no guarantee that there are no rebellions. Just look at Kings Aenys and Maegor. Neither Balerion nor Vhagar nor Quicksilver saved them from their ends. And if a king antagonized the majority of his lords he will inevitably, never mind whether he has dragons or not.

If the Starks hadn’t marched south it seems the Targaryens would have gone north. Or at the very least the Starks supposed they would have done: why else march to meet them?

If the Iron Throne means anything at all it means some degree of power over all the seven kingdoms, even if that power is stronger in some regions (the three central ones) than in the North or in Dorne. If the Starks have nothing at all to fear from the Iron Throne why care about it at all.

Tywin Lannister seemed to do away with the reforms but they will still have caused disquiet and the fear remained that the Targaryens might attempt something like this again. So the bonds uniting the royal family and its vassals began to fray.

If one side has dragons and the other doesn’t that’s a really bad position for the dragonless side to be in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

So, the misguided men think Rickard was to blame for his death, Brandon’s and maybe Lyanna’s as well. We have to ask why someone would hold this opinion as Rickard was killed when he went to answer for Brandon seeking revenge for Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna.

Because it is the Starks who are, more or less, to be blamed for the entire war. If Brandon had quieted his rage and had not gone to KL there may not have been a war at all. Or another war where the Starks would have fought with King Aerys II against the traitor and rapist Rhaegar and whatever pitiful hosts the man might have been able to marshal against his father after what he had pulled off.

Rickard did things that sort of provided the basis for the alliance to topple Aerys II, but said alliance was only forged during the Rebellion. And in a sense only because Ned and Robert were with Jon when things exploded. If they had been elsewhere things wouldn't have gone the way they did. Not to mention the possibility of Jon not actually loving Robert and Ned. 

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Rickard wasn’t meddling here; he was trying to support his son who was on trial for his life. So, unless there is more to the story than we know there is no reason to lay the blame for Rickard’s death on his southern ambitions; according to the barebones account of events we have he did not die for his southern designs. He didn’t go south to take up the handship and play politics; he didn’t go south with an army.

But he was in the south at all because he had agreed to marry his son and his daughter to southrons. If Lyanna hadn't been betrothed to Lord Robert, if she had stayed at home to be married to a proper Northman, then Prince Rhaegar would have never seen her. If Rickard and Brandon hadn't gone down south to celebrate Brandon's marriage at Riverrun (and had instead forced the Tullys to deliver the bride to Winterfell and see her married there, in front of the heart tree of Winterfell) neither Brandon nor Rickard would have ever gone to KL.

And so on.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The most likely explanation for the views of the misguided men, therefore, is that Rickard’s southron ambitions were actually blameworthy (i.e. conspiracy against the throne) and so brought about Aerys’ vengeance. If the ambitions were a harmless arrangement with the Tullys and Baratheons to secure food supplies the judgment of the misguided men is insanely harsh.

There you are presupposing that those people need a good reason to blame Rickard for stuff. They don't need such reasons. Even Lady Dustin has no good reasons to blame Maester Walys for things - aside from him being a maester and a man from the south.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It is of course possible Lady Dustin is not telling the truth or is misguided. There really isn’t much to say on this point save that there is no especially convincing reason to suppose she manufactured the maester involvement in Rickard’s southron schemes to salve her wounded pride. It is a somewhat out-there-thing to come up with to explain why you didn’t get the husband you wanted.

Nobody said she manufactured anything. She doesn't even lay out her theory. All she does is use Maester Walys as a scapegoat to explain why Lord Rickard didn't allow her to marry Brandon. That's all we have. We don't know on what 'knowledge' this opinion is based.

For instance, it could be that Brandon himself had no inclination to marry a woman he had already deflowered. But to keep Barbrey sweet he may have told her that his father's maester had convinced Rickard to grant Brandon's hand to Hoster Tully's daughter - when in fact Brandon and Rickard were as much in favor of the Tully match than Maester Walys - who may or may not have proposed it.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

There is also no particular reason why Walys, who was from the Reach, would favour a marriage between northerners and riverlanders just for the sake of it, or out of southern loyalty. Dustin’s suggestion is also very much that Walys was carrying out a maester design, not acting individually out of some weird and never hitherto seen sense of pan-southern loyalty.

Nobody is talking about southron loyalty here. If you read what you can at this point about Westerosi history then a lot of people suggest a lot of matches to royalty and nobility in the books. When people suggest the Lady of Starfall to Maegor as bride, or others various spouses for King Viserys I or Rhaenyra then they may have ulterior motives - or not.

If Rickard wanted the daughter of a great house for his heir then Maester Walys would have looked for a suitable bride fitting those criteria. There was no female Baratheon around at all, no Tyrell of the right age, possibly no Hightower, Cersei Lannister wouldn't have been available for a Stark (although they may have tried behind the scenes), there were no female Arryns around, leaving only the Tully sisters.

It is not that difficult to understand why they settled on Catelyn eventually.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

How does this work in practice though? Ned is married to Cat but we never see Ned have any say or influence in the governance of the riverlands. The marriage means the Starks and Tully support each other in times of crisis, that is the need for an alliance is based on the prospect of war, rivalry and power struggle.

We don't really see what happened between the marriage and the beginning of the series. And the fact that Ned sat on his ass in the North doing nothing to use the connections he had through marriage, kinship, and friendship isn't exactly proof that he couldn't have, by the time the series began, virtually ruled the Seven Kingdoms in all but the name.

He could have pushed Jon out of the Handship, taking it himself. He could have betrothed Myrcella to Robb, Sansa to Joff, Arya to Robert Arryn, and Brandon to Shireen. He could have put his men in the Kingsguard, and his kinsmen (Edmure; Brynden) on the Small Council.

This wouldn't have been that hard if the man had just tried to seize power. Robert would have been wax in his hands if Ned had remained with him at court.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

We do actually know, from Marwyn, that the Citadel engage in far-reaching plots to shape the world as they desire, so there is nothing weird about them trying to influence dynastic politics to bring about results favourable for themselves.

The Citadel is 'building a new world'. They have an agenda, but it is not necessarily a far-flung conspiracy. There is no proof whatsoever they felt the need to eradicate the Targaryens - the only hints we have is that they wanted the dragons gone, and that's something different.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It might be the case the author only included Dustin’s suggestion to shed light on her, and not on deeper issues but it also equally likely that he did so intend it. He has not told us much about Rickard, or his plans, or even how the great lords felt about politics in the reign of Aerys and this is one of the few clues. It is strange to be so eager to discount it.

I've no issue with the idea that Rickard wanted a spot in the south for himself and his house. What I don't buy without evidence is that he was at the heart of a fantasy conspiracy against the king.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No reason returns. Except the fact he departed from traditional policy and made some important marriage alliances in the southern which prompts the questions, what did he want?

As far as we know he wanted a different/better born bride for his son and heir than the Starks usually take.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Not really. If you hold the southron designs blameworthy you have to have some idea of what they were intended to achieve. If they were just marriages for the sake of it, undertaken from the vague goal of prestige, Rickard was not really participating in politics in a way that would threaten the throne. It is not impossible people still blamed him for this of course, but it makes more sense for him to be blamed given the idea his alliances were part of an ambitious scheme. I also believe Rickard's bannermen likely had an inkling of what the plans were; the marriages of Stark heirs is a matter of national importance for the north. 

That makes no sense considering that nobody ever mentioned anything of that sort - not even Lady Dustin who certainly would have known if Rickard's other bannermen knew or suspected something.

But more importantly - you cannot trust your own bannermen (or other lords) when you plot treason.

And the real reason why this whole 'marriage scheme' falls to pieces is that alliances in war seldom go along the lines of marriage alliance. Aemond Targaryen agreed to marry a daughter of Lord Borros, yet the Stormlanders only bestirred themselves after Aemond Targaryen was dead. Genna Lannister is married to Ser Emmon but Lord Walder didn't give a fig about that when Robb stood at his gates. Alester Florent's niece is Stannis' queen yet he first stood with Renly and Mace, and so on.

The idea that as weak an alliance as this 'Stark marriage alliance' could have had the strength to stand against the king if that was all what connected them makes pretty much no sense. I mean, yes, Lyanna was betrothed to Robert, but the Arryns and the Tullys had no kinship nor ties to Lord Robert aside from, perhaps 'friendship' (which is worth nothing if you conspire to commit treason).

Why didn't Rickard broker another marriage between Stannis and Lysa? Why wasn't Renly fostered at Riverrun?

In the end, the ties between these houses provided the foundation for the alliance they forged during the Rebellion, but there was no alliance there before the Rebellion. If they had been such an alliance, Rickard would never have died the way he did.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

There are specific reasons that make the offer of a seat for Dorne make sense though. After the battle of Blackwater the Iron Throne was in hands of two houses the Dornish thought of as enemies. The Dornish allegiance to the realm was loose to begin with, ever since the sack of King’s Landing. The seat was a peace offering and a way of giving the Dornish a stake in the new regime.

Sure, and it means a house like the Martells would be interested in such a seat. Which means it is something houses interested in power are interested in. And we know from history that the houses desire such power. Just look at what Yandel tells us about the Lannister ambition for power which went nowhere during the first century because the Velaryons, Baratheons, Celtigars, Tullys, etc. wielded more power.

Power and prestige and influence are to be had at court, not back home. 

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In and of itself a Lord Stark hankering after a council seat does not make sense. If, on the other hand, his family partially control the king, as the Tyrells and Lannisters both did, after BoBWB, greedily dividing up the government offices makes more sense.

A council seat gives you power, too. Just look at Littlefinger.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yes, I think Rickard did plan to marry into the royal family, this is my whole argument. I just think there was not much chance of this happening with the current royal family, so he decided to marry into a new one.

There is simply no reason to believe he had any plans to topple the king. And as @Bael's Bastard has put forth: What about the idea that Lyanna and Robert's child be married to a child of Rhaegar's? Ambition doesn't necessarily mean treason.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The Tyrells are a far weaker and less powerful house than the Starks. It is true that on paper they are stronger, both in wealth and manpower but their power is situated in GrrM’s rather platonic (in the sense of archetypal) feudal system and when considered in this way the Tyrells are weak.

That is not the case. In the late 3rd century the Tyrells pretty much own the Reach, having insanely close ties with the Redwynes, and close ties with the Hightowers. They don't have to fear any Boltons to stab them in the back.

Back in the 1st century things may have been different, but the power of the Tyrells is pretty clear when we see how a mere word of Mace's makes the entire Reach gather around the pretender and traitor Renly Baratheon.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

They are not the original ruling family of the Reach but owe their position to the Iron Throne and have numerous bannermen who think they have better claims to the over-lordship of the reach. Loyalties in the Reach are thus not clear, many lords would answer a call from the Iron Throne and the Targaryen dynasty before they would answer one from the Tyrells.

That is certainly possible - but what makes you think the Manderlys, say, would stand with the Starks when their were plotting treasons against the king? Or the Boltons, Umbers, Dustins, Karstarks?

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This was also the case in the Stormlands and Riverlands. The three central regions of the realm are all ruled by houses raised up House Targaryen, they cannot therefore depend on the uniform support of their bannermen in the event of war with the royal family (we see this during Robert’s rebellion). If they could there would be little point in an Iron Throne: a symbol of legitimacy that doesn’t legitimise your rule beyond the say-so of the seven greatest lords is not worth much.

The Arryns who once wore crowns also couldn't count on the support of all their bannermen during their rebellion. You are creating differences were there are none. It is true that treason would have been dangerous for the Tyrells just as it was for the Starks, but there is no reason to believe the Starks have a stronger or weaker hand on their bannermen than the Tyrells (and vice versa).

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In any case, this is really beside the point. You may think the Citadel would have done better to pick Lord Tyrell, but was he willing to rise against the Iron Throne, did he have a personal grievance and a desire to be king, did he have a daughter who could marry a Baratheon etc.

Again, the Tyrells actually do have reasons to have grievances. For the Starks you just invent reasons for (as far as we know) non-existing grievances.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No, he set about making ties.

Ned befriended Jon and Robert. Rickard did not. And Ned, by and far, only become important because Brandon died. Ned was not supposed to rule anything.

If Robert and Lyanna had married the Starks may eventually have had close ties to Robert. But not before. And with Robert having no ambition to become king and actually be a cousin to Aerys II and Rhaegar there is no reason that he, Robert, would have been willing to serve as figurehead of a conspiracy against his royal kin without the whole Harrenhal episode which caused him to loath Rhaegar.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The distinction is between dragon blood and the dynastic/social context in which it makes senses to use that dragon blood to engage in magical activities. You’ve decided that the latter is all about dreams but I didn’t say that, did I?

Tyrion has dragon dreams but this does not lead him to explore ancient prophecies, search out dragon eggs, drink wildfire and or blow up buildings. He dismisses the dreams as the fancies of a young unhappy child. If he had been brought up with Aegon V, Aerys II or Rhaegar as a father the dreams would have proof of valyrian greatness of something.

So you are saying that Steffon's sons didn't know who their grandmother Rhaelle was? Or who the founder of their house, Orys Baratheon, had been?

If you don't know you are the blood of the dragon you might sit on your hands even if you have strange dreams. But if you know who and what you are - like Stannis does - you do what prophecy and destiny demand.

And Dany acts completely out of instinct. Yes, she also knows from Viserys that she is special, but she has never read any prophecy or searched out dragon eggs. She just gets some, has weird dreams, and then feels compelled to try to hatch them.

The idea that smart people like the maesters at the Citadel don't know of that danger simply doesn't make a lot of sense.

If they agenda is - for which we have no evidence at this point - that they wanted to destroy House Targaryen then they would not have wanted to replace the Targaryens with the Targaryen-Baratheons. Especially not by means of a silly war/rebellion.

They would act much more subtly - using poison and other schemes.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I meant by proposed asked for her hand in marriage. Disagreement her is purely verbal. 

The families of women also ask for the hands of men in marriage - just look at Tywin asking Aerys II for Rhaegar's hand, or Walder insisting that Robb marry one of his daughters.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

If the Starks hadn’t marched south it seems the Targaryens would have gone north. Or at the very least the Starks supposed they would have done: why else march to meet them?

And perhaps they would have failed, going North. Perhaps the North would have been the other Dorne for them, putting an end to Aegon's Conquest before it was complete? We will never know.

Torrhen walked into a trap of his own making.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

If the Iron Throne means anything at all it means some degree of power over all the seven kingdoms, even if that power is stronger in some regions (the three central ones) than in the North or in Dorne. If the Starks have nothing at all to fear from the Iron Throne why care about it at all.

Because they are men of honor and beholden to the vows they swore? Because a united Realm profits them and their people in many ways, especially in trade and support during long and cruel winters?

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Tywin Lannister seemed to do away with the reforms but they will still have caused disquiet and the fear remained that the Targaryens might attempt something like this again. So the bonds uniting the royal family and its vassals began to fray.

Jaehaerys II already ended the whole reform thing. Tywin only continued it. There is no evidence that anyone continued to think about those reforms.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

If one side has dragons and the other doesn’t that’s a really bad position for the dragonless side to be in.

Aegon V believed dragons could help him achieve his political goals. But if most of his lords were opposed to them then dragons wouldn't have helped him all that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

SNIP!!!

And another post came swirling down.

It is important, at this stage in the argument, to take stock and redirect the enquiry to the heart of the case, rather than be side-tracked by minor issues.

I adduced two fundamental struts for my southron ambitions theory: (although there are others) the woiaf’s report on the allegation of the 'misguided men' and Lady Dustin’s view that the maesters stood behind Lord Rickard’s southron ambitions.

From the woiaf we can deduce that Lord Rickard’s policies were judged, by his own subjects, reason enough for the Mad King to put him to death. They were likely, therefore, to encompass an attempt on the throne.

From Lady Dustin’s report we gather that Rickard’s schemes were also promoting the ends of the Citadel. We are told in AFFC that the maesters plan to eliminate magic in the world and kill Daenerys and her dragons, just as they have killed previous generations of Targaryen dragons. The logical way these ends tie into Rickard’s dynastic designs is for the whole plan to be about the extermination of House Targaryen: the principal threat to the magic-free world the Citadel was building.

To assess the strength of the counterarguments we shall take Lord Varys' refutation of each strut in turn.

Regarding the report on the 'misguided men' he claims that the misguided men might have thought that Lyanna simply being in close proximity to Rhaegar, thereby arousing his passions, was enough to charge Rickard with culpability in his own death and the near annihilation of his house. The southron ambitions are to blame because they are the reason, allegedly, Lyanna got close to Rhaegar (she wouldn't have been in the south without the Tully marriage).

This is, on the face of it, totally absurd. For Lord Varys the misguided men think Rickard is culpable in his own death for allowing his daughter to get close to the man who abducted and (for all they know) raped her. Even if he hadn’t gone south Rhaegar could still have come north and got a glimpse of Lyanna. Very few people would think that a father whose daughter was abducted and went passively to try and sort things out was responsible for the near annihilation of his whole line just for allowing said daughter to get near her abductor.

If this is really the case of the misguided men they were utterly unreasonable and we have to question why maester Yandel and by extension the author felt it was worthwhile to include their complaints in the woaif. The novels and histories, we must not forget, are created works, they have an author, and details do not fall as by random chance.

It makes a lot more sense to blame Rickard for Lyanna’s abduction if his own plot made Lyanna central to the scheme against House Targaryen. This explains why Rhaegar would want to abduct her, or at least why Rhaegar’s desire, aroused by the Knight of the Laughing Tree escapade, cohered with his duty to his House and allowed this dutiful prince to seemingly abandon duty.

It likewise explains why Aerys II murdered Rickard and Brandon when they were in King’s Landing and called for the heads of Ned and Robert: they were all deemed part of the same plot.

In sum, Lord Varys alternative explanation for the charges brought against Lord Rickard by the misguided men does not bear scrutiny, and it makes much more sense, both of their charges and Rhaegar’s actions, to assume that their claims hinted at Rickard’s ambitions for the throne for his daughter. 

Turning to Lady Dustin’s allegations Lord Varys essentially reiterates the idea that Dustin is misguided and that there are lies involved, although in this case the source is said to be Brandon, who would rather blame his maester than his father for not carrying on with Barbery.

The first thing to say about all this is that Dustin might be wrong, and that there is no definitive proof she isn’t. However, various considerations suggest we should take her seriously.

The first is the dottiness of the lie. Why would either Dustin or Brandon be so keen to blame the maester for the Tully marriage. Why doesn’t Dustin just blame the Starks, why does Brandon not just blame his father. And why invent a big conspiracy theory to back it all up; Dustin alleges that many maesters rule rather than are ruled, not just Walys.

The second consideration is what we can call argument to authorial intent. The books are written by GrrM; they are created by an intelligence, not just the products of random chance. So, we have to take notice of the fact that at just the time GrrM starts to reveal the inner workings of the Citadel and the designs of the maesters against Daenerys and her dragons in Sam’s chapters, he also has a character tie Rickard’s plan in with the Citadel’s schemes. This is not just chance, or randomness, we should seek to explain away at all costs, like Lord Varys does. We have to ask why the author chose to do this.

So, although we can’t say there are no other explanations for the accusations of the misguided men, and the allegations of Dustin, it is best to take them seriously and ponder what they imply.

Regarding some of the other points raised, the objection is still made that destroying House Targaryen will not reduce the chance of magic and dragons returning because other people also have dragon blood.

This point has really already been answered, but the fact of the matter is that House Targaryen is the house most conscious of its Valyrian descent and has the strongest family traditions/culture supporting those magical links. It favours incestuous marriage to preserve the purity of the Valyrian blood, and its scions are the only people we know who drink wildfire and blow up their palaces in the name of waking the dragon.

Ridding the world of these people makes it enormously less likely magic will make a return, even if it does not guarantee it. It is generally not smart to not take a course of action because there is a chance it will not be a 100% successful. The intelligent thing to do is to take if it makes you more likely to succeed in your aims.

Anyway, there is no indication whatsoever the Baratheons have a family culture or historical awareness that leads them to think they are the blood of the dragon (they don't go around repeating this) even though they know they are descended from the Targaryens, and that that tie was renewed not so long ago.

Stannis is not an exception here and his interest in magic and prophecy comes through a different framework. He has been (partly) convinced he is a divine saviour, and the basis of this is an eastern religion, desperation and the evidence he has of Melisandre’s powers. I don’t think he ever even had a dragon dream (although I could be wrong), although Shireen did. Mel shows Stannis visions instead.

Finally, the Citadel know only the Targaryens lay such emphasis sibling marriage, another sign of the unique awareness they had of their magical heritage. As the Baratheons do not dragon blood will dilute and diminish in their line as time passes.

I am happy to respond to the other points raised later but I think the arguments put forward speak to the heart of the issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Martin has not given us any direct evidence of a conspiracy but if I am forced to give an opinion there was a plot by Robert Baratheon and Rickard Stark to take over the government.  I ask you to refer to the following GM interview and pay attention at the ~28 minute mark.

 

Take this interview and add what Barbery Dustin told Theon.  Additionally, if Robert and Rickard had been loyal they would have no interest in building power for themselves that could threaten their lawful king.  Their actions were not those of loyal servants of their king.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I adduced two fundamental struts for my southron ambitions theory: (although there are others) the woiaf’s report on the allegation of the 'misguided men' and Lady Dustin’s view that the maesters stood behind Lord Rickard’s southron ambitions.

I think I've dealt with both of these; Lady Dustin thinks one maester, Walys, stands behind Lord Rickard's ambitions, not the entire Citadel. She also doesn't trust 'the maesters' as such but she doesn't believe in a far-flung 'maester conspiracy'. She is not a complete nut case.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

From the woiaf we can deduce that Lord Rickard’s policies were judged, by his own subjects, reason enough for the Mad King to put him to death. They were likely, therefore, to encompass an attempt on the throne.

Oh, Lord Rickard may have been accused and executed for high treason, but not the kind you are suspecting. We do have evidence - actual evidence, not conspiracy theory evidence - that there were two faction at court before the Rebellion. Aerys' party and Rhaegar's party. And Aerys and his people believed (correctly) that Rhaegar was plotting against him. After Harrenhal Aerys' guys thought the Starks displeasure over Lyanna's coronation was an act, and that they were secretly plotting with Rhaegar against Aerys.

If Aerys continued to believe that after the abduction, if he thought there was no abduction but the entire thing was charade, and that Brandon's 'complaint' was BS, too, then it makes sense why he and Rickard were accused of high treason and executed. In fact, this could also explain why Aerys was stupid enough to call for Ned and Robert's heads, too - because he thought the rebellion had already begun and he had to crush it rather than assuming his actions might provoke a rebellion.

That scenario makes much more sense based on the information we have than anything about a far-reaching conspiracy between men who behaved like morons (Rickard) and cravens (Hoster).

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

From Lady Dustin’s report we gather that Rickard’s schemes were also promoting the ends of the Citadel.

Again - Maester Walys' ends, not the Citadel's as such. That is a difference. You are projecting the idea that Walys was a player/pawn in some far-reaching conspiracy here. You have no evidence for that.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

We are told in AFFC that the maesters plan to eliminate magic in the world and kill Daenerys and her dragons, just as they have killed previous generations of Targaryen dragons. The logical way these ends tie into Rickard’s dynastic designs is for the whole plan to be about the extermination of House Targaryen: the principal threat to the magic-free world the Citadel was building.

This is not what Marwyn tells us. He talks about dragons and what dragons mean for Westeros. The Citadel is building a new world, a world where there is no longer a place for magic, true, but that doesn't mean they are completely against magic or all types of it (after all, they still permit the study of magic at their Citadel!). They do not want that magic or dragons shape the politics and ways of the world. That is something different than them just loathing magic for no good reason.

We have to ask ourselves why they loathe dragons, especially. And the answer to that is, most likely, the Dance and the potential of destruction that comes with the prospect of another civil war between dragonriders. The destruction of the Dance - and the potential of the destruction entailed in the idea of a dragon unleashed on KL, Oldtown, or Lannisport is what was likely behind the Citadel's eradication of the dragons - that is, if they were behind the death of the dragons. We don't know that for a certainty as of yet.

Many people point out that Marwyn might not be trusted (completely) and they have a point there.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This is, on the face of it, totally absurd. For Lord Varys the misguided men think Rickard is culpable in his own death for allowing his daughter to get close to the man who abducted and (for all they know) raped her. Even if he hadn’t gone south Rhaegar could still have come north and got a glimpse of Lyanna. Very few people would think that a father whose daughter was abducted and went passively to try and sort things out was responsible for the near annihilation of his whole line just for allowing said daughter to get near her abductor.

Well, my argument does, of course, also entail the fact that things wouldn't have exploded if Lyanna Stark hadn't been betrothed to anyone when she met Rhaegar - or had been betrothed to a man who wasn't Robert Baratheon but, you know, some minor Northerns lordling who would have been cowed by a word of Rickard Stark.

But - sure, if Rickard Stark hadn't allowed his sons to attend the Harrenhal tourney Rhaegar would have likely not seen Lyanna. There is no hint whatsoever Rhaegar ever visited the North or was likely to do so in the near future. The man had other things on his plate. And sending his children to a southron tourney can be seen as part of Rickard's southron ambitions. We don't see any Starks participating in any other southron tourney in TWoIaF.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

If this is really the case of the misguided men they were utterly unreasonable and we have to question why maester Yandel and by extension the author felt it was worthwhile to include their complaints in the woaif. The novels and histories, we must not forget, are created works, they have an author, and details do not fall as by random chance.

I find the idea pretty compelling. Rickard got undone by his own petty ambitions and schemes. He overreached himself instead of restricting himself to the things he was supposed to take care of - the North.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It makes a lot more sense to blame Rickard for Lyanna’s abduction if his own plot made Lyanna central to the scheme against House Targaryen. This explains why Rhaegar would want to abduct her, or at least why Rhaegar’s desire, aroused by the Knight of the Laughing Tree escapade, cohered with his duty to his House and allowed this dutiful prince to seemingly abandon duty.

That is conspiracy theory territory. There is no reason to believe anything of that sort. All we know about Lyanna and Rhaegar imply that this is some kind of love affair, not something where politics were of (much) importance.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It likewise explains why Aerys II murdered Rickard and Brandon when they were in King’s Landing and called for the heads of Ned and Robert: they were all deemed part of the same plot.

See above for the likelier plot Rickard and Brandon were part of - at least in Aerys' mad mind.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The first is the dottiness of the lie. Why would either Dustin or Brandon be so keen to blame the maester for the Tully marriage. Why doesn’t Dustin just blame the Starks, why does Brandon not just blame his father. And why invent a big conspiracy theory to back it all up; Dustin alleges that many maesters rule rather than are ruled, not just Walys.

One part of Barbrey's reason could have been her continuing love for the Starks. She wanted to be one of them, so she cannot believe Brandon and Rickard rejected her and has to blame somebody else. That's not so difficult to believe.

I'm not saying she does. This isn't even an important point of my argument. I'm perfectly willing to believe Walys suggested Catelyn Tully as a bride for Brandon and Rickard then accepted that idea. Even if that was true that's no proof for a conspiracy.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The second consideration is what we can call argument to authorial intent. The books are written by GrrM; they are created by an intelligence, not just the products of random chance. So, we have to take notice of the fact that at just the time GrrM starts to reveal the inner workings of the Citadel and the designs of the maesters against Daenerys and her dragons in Sam’s chapters, he also has a character tie Rickard’s plan in with the Citadel’s schemes. This is not just chance, or randomness, we should seek to explain away at all costs, like Lord Varys does. We have to ask why the author chose to do this.

Sure, and I gave you a reason why he might have put it in the story - to give more credence to Marwyn's conspiracy theory and to see the maesters as potential players/pawns working to realize some other agenda. But there is no hint there that Walys is part of some anti-Targaryen conspiracy. 

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This point has really already been answered, but the fact of the matter is that House Targaryen is the house most conscious of its Valyrian descent and has the strongest family traditions/culture supporting those magical links. It favours incestuous marriage to preserve the purity of the Valyrian blood, and its scions are the only people we know who drink wildfire and blow up their palaces in the name of waking the dragon.

Again, do we know how conscious the Baratheons are of their Valyrian ancestry? Do we know how many Targaryen cousins through the female line (Targaryen-Hightowers, Targaryen-Penroses, Targaryen-Velaryons) they married throughout their years before the Ormund-Rhaelle match?

Just because Robert hates the Targaryens and tries to distance himself from them doesn't mean the other Baratheons did the same thing.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Ridding the world of these people makes it enormously less likely magic will make a return, even if it does not guarantee it. It is generally not smart to not take a course of action because there is a chance it will not be a 100% successful. The intelligent thing to do is to take if it makes you more likely to succeed in your aims.

But we don't know if they even had the goal you ascribe the maesters to. They may have killed the dragons, but where is the evidence they even believed the Targaryens could bring the dragons back? If they thought they couldn't possibly bring them back, dismissing their plans as folly and madness, then they wouldn't have any need to move against them, no?

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anyway, there is no indication whatsoever the Baratheons have a family culture or historical awareness that leads them to think they are the blood of the dragon (they don't go around repeating this) even though they know they are descended from the Targaryens, and that that tie was renewed not so long ago.

But we do not know any Baratheons closely aside from Steffon's sons. And we do know why Robert doesn't play up his Targaryen ancestry - he hates his Targaryen cousins. This tells us nothing about Steffon, Ormund, and all the other Baratheons between Borros and Lyonel (nor about Boremund, his father, and Orys' children).

The idea that you have to run around and tell everyone you are the blood of the dragon isn't a prerequisite to want to hatch dragon eggs.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Stannis is not an exception here and his interest in magic and prophecy comes through a different framework. He has been (partly) convinced he is a divine saviour, and the basis of this is an eastern religion, desperation and the evidence he has of Melisandre’s powers. I don’t think he ever even had a dragon dream (although I could be wrong), although Shireen did. Mel shows Stannis visions instead.

Melisandre believes Stannis is the savior because he is the Lord of Dragonstone and the grandson of Princess Rhaelle. We learn that in AFfC and ADwD.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Finally, the Citadel know only the Targaryens lay such emphasis sibling marriage, another sign of the unique awareness they had of their magical heritage. As the Baratheons do not dragon blood will dilute and diminish in their line as time passes.

How do you know dragon blood can be diluted and diminished? Maekar's sons are neither the children nor the grandsons of an incestuous union, yet all four of them had 'dragon dreams'. There are many dragonriders who do not exactly have incestuous parents - just think of Addam and Alyn of Hull and the other dragon seeds.

Keep in mind that according to Marwyn the grey sheep mistrust 'the blood', not the name or the family or the lineage. There is no reason to believe this taint can be bred out or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I think I've dealt with both of these; Lady Dustin thinks one maester, Walys, stands behind Lord Rickard's ambitions, not the entire Citadel. She also doesn't trust 'the maesters' as such but she doesn't believe in a far-flung 'maester conspiracy'. She is not a complete nut case.

Her accusation against Walys come amidst a passage accusing the maesters in general of having nefarious ends and of pulling he wool over the eyes of the lords. Now, I don’t take this to mean she is saying anything about the anti-Targaryen plot I argue existed, no, but she is also not speaking of Walys as one individual; he’s being blamed because he is a maester and this is what maesters do.

He is also, she believes, son of an archmaester and a Hightower girl, a fact she believes is significant, and so it seems reasonable to infer that the designs he promotes are those of the higher-ups in the Citadel in her mind. He is not presented as a lone operator and it also seems more plausible a maester sent far from his own home would be serving the interests of his corporate body when meddling in the affairs of lords and ladies, rather than his own interests (why would he even have a personal interest in who Lord Stark's heir married).

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, Lord Rickard may have been accused and executed for high treason, but not the kind you are suspecting. We do have evidence - actual evidence, not conspiracy theory evidence - that there were two faction at court before the Rebellion. Aerys' party and Rhaegar's party. And Aerys and his people believed (correctly) that Rhaegar was plotting against him. After Harrenhal Aerys' guys thought the Starks displeasure over Lyanna's coronation was an act, and that they were secretly plotting with Rhaegar against Aerys.

If Aerys continued to believe that after the abduction, if he thought there was no abduction but the entire thing was charade, and that Brandon's 'complaint' was BS, too, then it makes sense why he and Rickard were accused of high treason and executed. In fact, this could also explain why Aerys was stupid enough to call for Ned and Robert's heads, too - because he thought the rebellion had already begun and he had to crush it rather than assuming his actions might provoke a rebellion.

That scenario makes much more sense based on the information we have than anything about a far-reaching conspiracy between men who behaved like morons (Rickard) and cravens (Hoster).

This doesn’t address the point of why Rickard was felt to have brought his death on himself via his southron ambitions, which was the charge of the misguided men.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Again - Maester Walys' ends, not the Citadel's as such. That is a difference. You are projecting the idea that Walys was a player/pawn in some far-reaching conspiracy here. You have no evidence for that.

Dustin claims Walys is the son of an archmaester and a Highhtower girl, and derives his importance from this. So his designs will be the archmaester’s designs, presumably. Also, as a maester it stands to reason his ends, when influencing great lords, are the Citadel’s, or those of factions within it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This is not what Marwyn tells us. He talks about dragons and what dragons mean for Westeros. The Citadel is building a new world, a world where there is no longer a place for magic, true, but that doesn't mean they are completely against magic or all types of it (after all, they still permit the study of magic at their Citadel!). They do not want that magic or dragons shape the politics and ways of the world. That is something different than them just loathing magic for no good reason.

We have to ask ourselves why they loathe dragons, especially. And the answer to that is, most likely, the Dance and the potential of destruction that comes with the prospect of another civil war between dragonriders. The destruction of the Dance - and the potential of the destruction entailed in the idea of a dragon unleashed on KL, Oldtown, or Lannisport is what was likely behind the Citadel's eradication of the dragons - that is, if they were behind the death of the dragons. We don't know that for a certainty as of yet.

Many people point out that Marwyn might not be trusted (completely) and they have a point there.

I don't recall saying the maesters hated magic for no reason. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, my argument does, of course, also entail the fact that things wouldn't have exploded if Lyanna Stark hadn't been betrothed to anyone when she met Rhaegar - or had been betrothed to a man who wasn't Robert Baratheon but, you know, some minor Northerns lordling who would have been cowed by a word of Rickard Stark.

But - sure, if Rickard Stark hadn't allowed his sons to attend the Harrenhal tourney Rhaegar would have likely not seen Lyanna. There is no hint whatsoever Rhaegar ever visited the North or was likely to do so in the near future. The man had other things on his plate. And sending his children to a southron tourney can be seen as part of Rickard's southron ambitions. We don't see any Starks participating in any other southron tourney in TWoIaF.

I maintain it is ludicrous to hold Rickard responsible for his daughter’s abduction, and his and his son’s own death because he brought about a situation where Lyanna came to bump into Rhaegar. It is just daft. I also didn’t mean Rhaegar had a plan to come to the north; this just spoke to the fact Rhaegar seeing Lyanna is not of necessity tied to any southron ambitions. Nobles meet each other: it happens.

So this is not the charge of the misguided men, I think.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is conspiracy theory territory. There is no reason to believe anything of that sort. All we know about Lyanna and Rhaegar imply that this is some kind of love affair, not something where politics were of (much) importance.

It's not. We know Rhaegar abducted Lyanna and we have some hints towards reasons, such as love and the need to fulfil prophecy. We do also know that Rhaegar was rather dutiful and knew the political situation was delicate. It seems to work best if his abduction of Lyanna fitted into political goals, so he wasn't being wildly irresponsible.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, and I gave you a reason why he might have put it in the story - to give more credence to Marwyn's conspiracy theory and to see the maesters as potential players/pawns working to realize some other agenda. But there is no hint there that Walys is part of some anti-Targaryen conspiracy. 

The hint is when you put two and two together and think why Walys and his archmaester father have these ambitions for the Starks, as this is obviously not explained or even known by Dustin. What does Marwyn tell us the Citadel designs to achieve, what is the only ongoing plan we know the Citadel has?

I can see no reason on your view for Dustin’s rather long attack on the maesters to be included, in the context of the Sam chapters and the revelations of Marwyn, if we’re not meant to link the two.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, do we know how conscious the Baratheons are of their Valyrian ancestry? Do we know how many Targaryen cousins through the female line (Targaryen-Hightowers, Targaryen-Penroses, Targaryen-Velaryons) they married throughout their years before the Ormund-Rhaelle match?

Just because Robert hates the Targaryens and tries to distance himself from them doesn't mean the other Baratheons did the same thing.

Well just look at them: are they into blowing themselves up trying to bring back dragons, drinking wildfire etc.

We also know the Baratheons don’t go for incest, which is the main marker of trying to preseve your dragons genes. The Targs did.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But we don't know if they even had the goal you ascribe the maesters to. They may have killed the dragons, but where is the evidence they even believed the Targaryens could bring the dragons back? If they thought they couldn't possibly bring them back, dismissing their plans as folly and madness, then they wouldn't have any need to move against them, no?

Yes, we’re supposing they thought there was a chance the Targaryens might succeed and it was better to be safe than sorry. We have reason to believe they do fear Targaryens from Marwyn’s comment on Aemon’s blood being untrustworthy. Why distrust the man from the magical dynasty if you don’t believe he can bring anything about with said magic?

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Melisandre believes Stannis is the savior because he is the Lord of Dragonstone and the grandson of Princess Rhaelle. We learn that in AFfC and ADwD.

It was Mel who persuaded Stannis of this. This is what I meant when I said you need both blood and culture/belief to become a danger. And Stannis's conversion to the red god is not anything internal to the Baratheon house, like a family tradition: its due to foreign influence. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

How do you know dragon blood can be diluted and diminished? Maekar's sons are neither the children nor the grandsons of an incestuous union, yet all four of them had 'dragon dreams'. There are many dragonriders who do not exactly have incestuous parents - just think of Addam and Alyn of Hull and the other dragon seeds.

Keep in mind that according to Marwyn the grey sheep mistrust 'the blood', not the name or the family or the lineage. There is no reason to believe this taint can be bred out or anything.

The idea inbreeding helps you control the dragons is actually said directly by the author in the video someone uploaded to this thread. It is also almost certainly implied in the books but I do not have the reference now. Obviously you can still inherit dragon blood without an incestuous union but the idea will be that the odds of the magical ability being passed on diminish as time goes by. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Her accusation against Walys come amidst a passage accusing the maesters in general of having nefarious ends and of pulling he wool over the eyes of the lords. Now, I don’t take this to mean she is saying anything about the anti-Targaryen plot I argue existed, no, but she is also not speaking of Walys as one individual; he’s being blamed because he is a maester and this is what maesters do.

Walys and what she believes of him is the reason why she mistrusts maesters. And it is his example what makes her think about the place they have silently acquired in their society over the years, but she doesn't believe in some far-flung conspiracy thing.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

He is also, she believes, son of an archmaester and a Hightower girl, a fact she believes is significant, and so it seems reasonable to infer that the designs he promotes are those of the higher-ups in the Citadel in her mind. He is not presented as a lone operator and it also seems more plausible a maester sent far from his own home would be serving the interests of his corporate body when meddling in the affairs of lords and ladies, rather than his own interests (why would he even have a personal interest in who Lord Stark's heir married).

Walys is not presented as a tool of his Hightower mother and his archmaester father, either. Barbrey just makes a point that maesters (like septons) are not necessarily people without a family or allegiances. 

The Hightower connection there makes it actually rather unlikely that Walys was involved in any anti-magic plot. After all, we do know that the Hightowers in general as well as Lord Leyton Hightower and his daughter, the Mad Maid Malora specifically are rumored to be interested in and are dabbling in sorcery. If the Citadel cannot prevent the Hightowers from doing that (who are there in the city) why do we assume they can be involved in far-flung anti-magic conspiracy? And if Walys was a Hightower bastard then he might have had similar/the same interests as his highborn kin... If that was the case then Walys would have been motivated by completely different things than you believe he was.

And a conspiracy to kill the dragons back in the 2nd century isn't the same as a far-flung conspiracy against magic in general.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This doesn’t address the point of why Rickard was felt to have brought his death on himself via his southron ambitions, which was the charge of the misguided men.

Again, because he and his children involved themselves with people from the south who got them killed. It is not that difficult to see that. Ned and Robb, too, got themselves killed because of their southron ambitions.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Dustin claims Walys is the son of an archmaester and a Highhtower girl, and derives his importance from this. So his designs will be the archmaester’s designs, presumably. Also, as a maester it stands to reason his ends, when influencing great lords, are the Citadel’s, or those of factions within it.

Especially in Walys' case it could also be the interests of House Hightower, though. Keep in mind that ADwD also strongly hints at the fact that maesters do not exactly forget the allegiances of their birth houses as Lord Wyman's mistrust of his maester testifies (who was born a Lannister of Lannisport).

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I don't recall saying the maesters hated magic for no reason. 

But you insist on the Citadel being involved in a conspiracy against magic in general when the only real hints we have point against a conspiracy against dragons, not a conspiracy against magic as such. If that were the case then the study of the higher mysteries would long be forbidden in the Citadel.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I maintain it is ludicrous to hold Rickard responsible for his daughter’s abduction, and his and his son’s own death because he brought about a situation where Lyanna came to bump into Rhaegar. It is just daft. I also didn’t mean Rhaegar had a plan to come to the north; this just spoke to the fact Rhaegar seeing Lyanna is not of necessity tied to any southron ambitions. Nobles meet each other: it happens.

Or not. Not all nobles bump into each other. But Rhaegar is only part of that point. What brought Brandon and Rickard down was Lyanna's betrothal. And that involved a man from the south.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

So this is not the charge of the misguided men, I think.

If you cannot give us the thoughts of those men your speculation about what they may have thought (or must have thought as you think only very special thoughts make sense in this case of men we have never even met).

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It's not. We know Rhaegar abducted Lyanna and we have some hints towards reasons, such as love and the need to fulfil prophecy. We do also know that Rhaegar was rather dutiful and knew the political situation was delicate. It seems to work best if his abduction of Lyanna fitted into political goals, so he wasn't being wildly irresponsible.

What little hints we actually have on the Rhaegar/Lyanna thing as such points to love. Prophecy may or may not have played a role, but love was definitely part of it. That's what the people think who actually think and talk about Rhaegar and Lyanna.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The hint is when you put two and two together and think why Walys and his archmaester father have these ambitions for the Starks, as this is obviously not explained or even known by Dustin. What does Marwyn tell us the Citadel designs to achieve, what is the only ongoing plan we know the Citadel has?

Again, no proof Walys acted on behalf of the Citadel. Also no proof Rickard was part of any Citadel plot. Also no proof Rickard would have been part of any Citadel plot if he followed Walys' suggestions in his marriage policies.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I can see no reason on your view for Dustin’s rather long attack on the maesters to be included, in the context of the Sam chapters and the revelations of Marwyn, if we’re not meant to link the two.

The point could be generally build up the maesters as players and lay the ground for the actual Citadel conspiracy Sam and Sarella are going to uncover in TWoW. 

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Well just look at them: are they into blowing themselves up trying to bring back dragons, drinking wildfire etc.

Again: We don't know anything about any Baratheons. We do know there were Blackfyres with prophetic dreams (and right now there is a Toland with dragon dreams whatever that's worth) - who is to say there wasn't a Baratheon who thought he should be a dragonrider? Who had dragon dreams and behaved like a mad Targaryen?

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

We also know the Baratheons don’t go for incest, which is the main marker of trying to preseve your dragons genes. The Targs did.

The incest is a cultural thing. Yes, the rationale behind it is that it helps to preserve the dragonriding thing. But there is no indication that you definitely lose the ability for good if you do not constantly marry your sisters (which Dany's ancestors did not always do, either). I mean, the reason why the dragonlords started it could have been a combination of the idea that it would help to ensure that all children (and not only 70-80% of each generation, say) are born with the potential to become dragonlords but also part of the policy that the blood of the dragon be not spread to lesser men. If half of the Lands of the Long Summer had the potential to become dragonlords the foundation of Valyrian supremacy may have been in real jeopardy. I mean, we must keep in mind there were hundreds (or perhaps even thousands) of dragons in Valyria. 

Not practicing incest doesn't mean you do not believe you are the blood of the dragon. Just look at Aegon V. No (grand)son of incestuous (grand)parents, did not marry his sister, no fan of incest, yet he still believed he could and should hatch dragon eggs.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yes, we’re supposing they thought there was a chance the Targaryens might succeed and it was better to be safe than sorry. We have reason to believe they do fear Targaryens from Marwyn’s comment on Aemon’s blood being untrustworthy. Why distrust the man from the magical dynasty if you don’t believe he can bring anything about with said magic?

You have to keep the context in mind. Marwyn offers his opinion after he has learned that there is a Targaryen queen in the east who has hatched three dragon eggs and fulfilled an ancient prophecy. That is pretty big stuff. Those maesters preferring a dragonless world to a world ruled by dragonriders might get anxious over this.

But that doesn't mean they have been secretly plotting to overthrow the Targaryens since the last dragon died in 153 AC.

Aemon, too, is only in danger when this prophecy is apparently fulfilled. Not while he was just some old guy with dragon blood and the dragons were dead and gone.

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It was Mel who persuaded Stannis of this. This is what I meant when I said you need both blood and culture/belief to become a danger. And Stannis's conversion to the red god is not anything internal to the Baratheon house, like a family tradition: its due to foreign influence. 

Again, Dany was persuaded by her own dreams. There is no reason to believe that Stannis, having dreams and strange feelings when touching dragon eggs couldn't have developed exactly the same notions about hatching them as Dany did all on her own. Stannis knows who his grandmother was, no?

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The idea inbreeding helps you control the dragons is actually said directly by the author in the video someone uploaded to this thread. It is also almost certainly implied in the books but I do not have the reference now. Obviously you can still inherit dragon blood without an incestuous union but the idea will be that the odds of the magical ability being passed on diminish as time goes by. 

See above. Again, no indication that the thing can be bred out. Nobody seems to think that Aemon Targaryen's 'dragon blood' had been bred out already, never mind the man's Velaryon, Arryn, Rogare, Martell, and Dayne blood - and all those women marrying into House Targaryen would have a lot of non-Valyrian ancestors on some branches of the family tree, even the Velaryons and the Rogares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2018 at 7:59 AM, Lord Varys said:

Cregan Stark could have claimed either Baela or Rhaena Targaryen as a bride in 131 AC. Instead he chose Black Aly Blackwood. It was his choice. If somebody broke the Pact of Ice and Fire it was Lord Cregan, not the Targaryens.

The Pact was that a princess would marry into his family,  Cregan wasn't obligated to marry one of them and so clearly didn't break the Pact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The WolfSpider said:

The Pact was that a princess would marry into his family,  Cregan wasn't obligated to marry one of them and so clearly didn't break the Pact. 

Sure he did. If the Pact stated that a Stark marry a Targaryen woman and Cregan refused to do that when the opportunity presented itself then he broke the Pact. Aegon III would then have been under no obligation to offer one of his daughters later on to the man's sons or grandsons, assuming it made sense age-wise. And it is not that Cregan Stark needed to ask the boy king for his opinion when he dominated his court and capital with his army when he served as Hand of the King and condemned half his court to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Dustin rants about Maester Walys influencing Lord Rickard in chapter 37 of ADWD, and rants about Lord Rickard's great/southron ambitions in chapter 41 of ADWD. And yet, both of those rants are about Brandon's betrothal to Catelyn Tully, with not a mention or hint of Lyanna's betrothal to Lord Robert. Her idea of Lord Rickard having "become the ruled" of Walys, and Lord Rickard's great/southron ambitions, is his agreeing to bring a southron lady to wed his heir in the isolation of Winterfell in the north. She is a bitter widow who was deprived marrying Brandon, then Ned, not someone with inside knowledge of Citadel conspiracies, or some detective who has deduced Citadel conspiracies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Lady Dustin rants about Maester Walys influencing Lord Rickard in chapter 37 of ADWD, and rants about Lord Rickard's great/southron ambitions in chapter 41 of ADWD. And yet, both of those rants are about Brandon's betrothal to Catelyn Tully, with not a mention or hint of Lyanna's betrothal to Lord Robert. Her idea of Lord Rickard having "become the ruled" of Walys, and Lord Rickard's great/southron ambitions, is his agreeing to bring a southron lady to wed his heir in the isolation of Winterfell in the north. She is a bitter widow who was deprived marrying Brandon, then Ned, not someone with inside knowledge of Citadel conspiracies, or some detective who has deduced Citadel conspiracies. 

Even if Walys had been behind the Robert-Lyanna thing, that would be evidence for an imagined conspiracy involving an alliance of various great houses - who then, supposedly, were planning to do something nefarious for which there isn't the slightest bit of textual evidence.

If Lady Dustin has a point about the collective influence of the maesters of the Citadel, the funny thing is that these people do not need something as silly and overly convoluted as drawing great houses together in some weirdo alliance (which is never likely to last due to the conflicting ambitions and the large egos of such men). If they wanted to make Robert king they could just kill Aerys II, Rhaella, and there descendants and it would be done. But then, there is no evidence for this kind of conspiracy, either.

The maesters don't need the support of Rickard Stark or Hoster Tully or Jon Arryn. And men who study poisons and their cures, men who tend the sick of the royal family, men who advise the king and queen on all issues, could easily enough kill them all without anybody realizing that foul play was involved.

To make it much more complicated than it has to be is one of the classical criteria of a conspiracy theory.

Another thing is that we have actually textual evidence for two factions at court - Aerys' and Rhaegar's. If there was any truth to this idea then there would have to have been a third faction mostly consisting of great lords who made up 'Robert's faction' and who were plotting behind the backs of Aerys and Rhaegar and their followers. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and you have to presuppose a lot of nonsensical stuff to make it appear even remotely plausible.

I mean, neither the Starks nor Jon Arryn, nor Robert, nor Hoster look even remotely prepared for war.

If Rickard had been plotting anything the moment Brandon was arrested (another stupid move on the part of conspirators - wasn't Brandon briefed on the conspiracy?) he would have given the start sign for the coup - which should have caused armies from the North, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the Stormlands on KL. Instead Rickard meekly walks into the dragon's mouth to his death. That's not the behavior of a man who knew he was involved in high treason (and neither is Brandon's).

In fact, if Rickard had been a cold and calculating guy, insidiously planning the downfall and death of both his king and the heir to the throne, then we would talk about a man who knows the price of treason and must have thought through the possibility that his plans might be betrayed. That means a man in conspiracy theory Rickard's position and with his agenda would have been sorely tempted to ignore Brandon's predicament and continue with the plan instead of risking his life in an attempt to save his son in some kind of trial. Just like Tywin didn't give shit about Jaime being imprisoned, continuing the war as before and not allowing himself to be influenced or intimidated by the fact that his son might be killed.

But Rickard behaves in no way like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if Walys had been behind the Robert-Lyanna thing, that would be evidence for an imagined conspiracy involving an alliance of various great houses - who then, supposedly, were planning to do something nefarious for which there isn't the slightest bit of textual evidence.

If Lady Dustin has a point about the collective influence of the maesters of the Citadel, the funny thing is that these people do not need something as silly and overly convoluted as drawing great houses together in some weirdo alliance (which is never likely to last due to the conflicting ambitions and the large egos of such men). If they wanted to make Robert king they could just kill Aerys II, Rhaella, and there descendants and it would be done. But then, there is no evidence for this kind of conspiracy, either.

The maesters don't need the support of Rickard Stark or Hoster Tully or Jon Arryn. And men who study poisons and their cures, men who tend the sick of the royal family, men who advise the king and queen on all issues, could easily enough kill them all without anybody realizing that foul play was involved.

To make it much more complicated than it has to be is one of the classical criteria of a conspiracy theory.

Another thing is that we have actually textual evidence for two factions at court - Aerys' and Rhaegar's. If there was any truth to this idea then there would have to have been a third faction mostly consisting of great lords who made up 'Robert's faction' and who were plotting behind the backs of Aerys and Rhaegar and their followers. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and you have to presuppose a lot of nonsensical stuff to make it appear even remotely plausible.

I mean, neither the Starks nor Jon Arryn, nor Robert, nor Hoster look even remotely prepared for war.

If Rickard had been plotting anything the moment Brandon was arrested (another stupid move on the part of conspirators - wasn't Brandon briefed on the conspiracy?) he would have given the start sign for the coup - which should have caused armies from the North, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the Stormlands on KL. Instead Rickard meekly walks into the dragon's mouth to his death. That's not the behavior of a man who knew he was involved in high treason (and neither is Brandon's).

In fact, if Rickard had been a cold and calculating guy, insidiously planning the downfall and death of both his king and the heir to the throne, then we would talk about a man who knows the price of treason and must have thought through the possibility that his plans might be betrayed. That means a man in conspiracy theory Rickard's position and with his agenda would have been sorely tempted to ignore Brandon's predicament and continue with the plan instead of risking his life in an attempt to save his son in some kind of trial. Just like Tywin didn't give shit about Jaime being imprisoned, continuing the war as before and not allowing himself to be influenced or intimidated by the fact that his son might be killed.

But Rickard behaves in no way like that.

Meanwhile, Jon Arryn, whose heir Elbert was held by the king along with Brandon and the rest of his entourage, did not go to King's Landing to answer for the crimes of his "son," as Rickard did, but remained in the Vale.

It seems likely that Jon would have been the "father" Aerys would have summoned to King's Landing, and held responsible for answering for Elbert's "crimes," seeing how Elbert's father was dead, and Jon was Elbert's lord, and had named him his heir. Yet he remained in the Vale with Lord Robert and Eddard, leaving Elbert to whatever fate awaited him at the hands of Aerys. He seems to have understood that he wasn't going to get Elbert back, while Rickard walked right into the hands of the Mad King.

A Rickard who had been preparing for war against the Iron Throne for years might have taken the imprisonment of his heir as the time to call for his banners, and for his allies of the other great houses to raise theirs. But the Arryns, Baratheons, and Starks did not raise their banners until Aerys murdered Lord Rickard, Brandon, and Elbert and called for Lord Jon to send the heads of Lord Robert and the new Lord Eddard, and Lord Hoster Tully did not bother to join on the side of the Starks until months into the war, only with the promise that Lords Stark and Arryn would wed his daughters.

Really, if there was a faction at the Citadel that wished to see the Targaryens killed and replaced on their Iron Throne, the best candidate would have been Lord Tywin Lannister, who had actually been largely responsible for stabilizing the realm over the course of twenty years in the wake of Summehall, not Robert, who had not even demonstrated any responsibility over his own region after the death of Lord Steffon.

Maester Pycelle, who served as Grand Maester for forty years, starting just before the Summerhall deaths of most the royal family, is long on record praising Tywin, who became Hand of the King within two or three years of Pycelle being elevated to his office.

In TWOIAF, Maester Yandel quotes Grand Maester Pycelle: "'The gods made and shaped this man to rule,' Grand Maester Pycelle wrote of Tywin Lannister in a letter to the Citadel after serving with him on the small council for two years."

In ACOK, Grand Maester Pycelle tells Tyrion: "'For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . .'"

In ASOS, Grand Maester Pycelle tells Jaime: "'I have served six kings... but here before us lies the greatest man I ever knew. Lord Tywin wore no crown, yet he was all a king should be.'"

We can speculate about how truthful Pycelle is being in these quotes, especially in the ones in which he is speaking to sons of Tywin, or how representative Pycelle's love of Tywin is of other maesters at the Citadel, but I think we have a pretty good idea who the Grand Maester and whatever faction he might have belonged to or been trying to influence would have preferred to replace the Targaryens, and it wasn't a Baratheon or Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Walys and what she believes of him is the reason why she mistrusts maesters. And it is his example what makes her think about the place they have silently acquired in their society over the years, but she doesn't believe in some far-flung conspiracy thing.

That’s not exactly clear; we don’t know whether she distrusts maesters because she distrusts Walys, or Walys because she distrusts maesters, or a bit of both. There is no reason to bring up this chicken and egg question, as far as I can see.

Just to be clear, I never said she believed in the anti-Targ/kill the dragons and end magic conspiracy I argue existed. Or if she does she gives no reason for us to believe she believes this. However, as she does assert lots of maesters have ulterior motives, not just Walys, it is not unreasonable to conclude she does think the Citadel has a policy to influence the course of events in the realm.

She could, I suppose, simply mean each maester, in virtue of the trust they come to be held in, start to get ideas above their station and pursue their own individual plans. However, I think it is more plausible to suppose she assumes some coordination from the Citadel, as she notes, in Walys’ case, his connection to both an archmaester and the ruling family of Oldtown.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Walys is not presented as a tool of his Hightower mother and his archmaester father, either. Barbrey just makes a point that maesters (like septons) are not necessarily people without a family or allegiances. 

Well I think the point is that these allegiances determine the maester’s designs (why else are they relevant if they don’t condition action?). So we ought not to suppose Walys was acting on his own, but at the behest of the rulers of the Citadel.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Hightower connection there makes it actually rather unlikely that Walys was involved in any anti-magic plot. After all, we do know that the Hightowers in general as well as Lord Leyton Hightower and his daughter, the Mad Maid Malora specifically are rumored to be interested in and are dabbling in sorcery. If the Citadel cannot prevent the Hightowers from doing that (who are there in the city) why do we assume they can be involved in far-flung anti-magic conspiracy? And if Walys was a Hightower bastard then he might have had similar/the same interests as his highborn kin... If that was the case then Walys would have been motivated by completely different things than you believe he was.

And a conspiracy to kill the dragons back in the 2nd century isn't the same as a far-flung conspiracy against magic in general.

To be honest, I think it is hard to nurse hopes of bringing about a rational, non-magical world, when magic is still a strong force, especially in the east, unless you are prepared to fight fire with fire, to an extent. You have heard of the notion that to the pure all things are pure? So it would not surprise me that under certain conditions the grey sheep approved of magical studies, providing the ends were good.

In fact there is quite a bit of evidence that the Citadel believes quite strongly that the ends justify the means.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, because he and his children involved themselves with people from the south who got them killed. It is not that difficult to see that. Ned and Robb, too, got themselves killed because of their southron ambitions.

You are confusing causation with moral culpability. 

 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But you insist on the Citadel being involved in a conspiracy against magic in general when the only real hints we have point against a conspiracy against dragons, not a conspiracy against magic as such. If that were the case then the study of the higher mysteries would long be forbidden in the Citadel.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Especially in Walys' case it could also be the interests of House Hightower, though. Keep in mind that ADwD also strongly hints at the fact that maesters do not exactly forget the allegiances of their birth houses as Lord Wyman's mistrust of his maester testifies (who was born a Lannister of Lannisport).

 

My recollection of Marwyn’s speech (I do not currently have access to my books) is that it was substantially more than just an anti-dragon approach from the Citadel, even if dragons were, so to speak, the sharp tip of the spear of sorcery.

I also had the impression dragons either increase magic or their presence correlates with it, i.e. when they are present magic is stronger. I may misremember and this does not affect the point about southron ambitions too much, despite being an interesting subject.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Or not. Not all nobles bump into each other. But Rhaegar is only part of that point. What brought Brandon and Rickard down was Lyanna's betrothal. And that involved a man from the south.

 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you cannot give us the thoughts of those men your speculation about what they may have thought (or must have thought as you think only very special thoughts make sense in this case of men we have never even met).

You need to consider the provenance of the source we have for the views of the misguided men. Yandell is pro-Stark insofar as he is pro-Baratheon, who are, as far as he is concerned, still the reigning dynasty. It therefore makes little sense to hint at the frivolous or foolish opinions some backwater bumpkins held about Rickard (and surely these people were fools if they thought Rickard deserved his own death and his children’s death for venturing south). On the contrary, Yandell calls out these misguided men because they are significant, and they have a case; there is no point in even giving them notice otherwise.

You’re also mixing up causation and moral culpability. If I cross the road and get knocked down by a drunk and carless driver I was the cause of my own demise as far as I chose to cross the road at that particular place and moment in time. I’m not morally culpable though, because I should be able to cross the road at any place I like without being knocked down by an incapacitated driver.

In a similar vein westeros is not Saudi Arabia. Ladies are not required to be continually sequestered from the male gaze lest the opprobrium for an abduction fall on them and their family. The blame for the abduction, as far as everyone will be concerned, is Rhaegar’s; Lyanna is not required to hide behind Moat Cailin in perpetuity lest some southron take a fancy to her.

 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What little hints we actually have on the Rhaegar/Lyanna thing as such points to love. Prophecy may or may not have played a role, but love was definitely part of it. That's what the people think who actually think and talk about Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Sure, never denied this.

I’m saying there is a need to explain why, when we know Rhaegar was aware of the perilous political situation of his house, and was trying to work against his father, he threw it all away to disappear with Lyanna. If, as according to my theory was the case, he was seizing the keystone in the arch of the anti-Targaryen conspiracy, Rhaegar’s desires do not conflict with his political concerns,

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, no proof Walys acted on behalf of the Citadel. Also no proof Rickard was part of any Citadel plot. Also no proof Rickard would have been part of any Citadel plot if he followed Walys' suggestions in his marriage policies.

Dustin implies Walys was serving the interests of the archmaester and maybe the Hightowers; there is no other reason to be so concerned about Walys family connections. The reason for supposing Rickard’s aims were the Citadel’s is the very fact Dustin presents the southron ambitions as cohering with the maesters’ designs. Your third sentence seems a reiteration of the second.

If by proof you’re looking for a direct, textual statement, or something demonstrative, obviously this does not exist but I have never claimed it does. If you want someone to prove something you have to set a standard of proof, and that standard, considered reasonably, is different in different situations. I am, in any case, not saying I have proved anything. My case is that my theory is the best explanation current of the existing data we have. 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point could be generally build up the maesters as players and lay the ground for the actual Citadel conspiracy Sam and Sarella are going to uncover in TWoW. 

Marwyn already built the maesters up pretty well, (paraphrase) ‘who do you think killed the dragons last time, knights in shining armour?’ We’ve already been introduced to the Citadel plot, in the book prior the one in which we get the anti-maester speech from Dustin.

Now you’re proposing to explain authorial intent by imagining a second plot/conspiracy will be revealed; why not just adopt the simpler course of believing we’re meant to link Dustin’s revelations with the scheme that already has been revealed. Allegedly there are only two more books.

 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again: We don't know anything about any Baratheons. We do know there were Blackfyres with prophetic dreams (and right now there is a Toland with dragon dreams whatever that's worth) - who is to say there wasn't a Baratheon who thought he should be a dragonrider? Who had dragon dreams and behaved like a mad Targaryen?

Nothing we know about the Baratheons suggests they were into the cultural practices of the Targaryens; people always speak of the House Targaryen keeping itself separate from the rest of the westerosi houses. Ned wonders what strange gods Aerys II might have worshipped. GrrM in the video linked on this thread describes how the Targaryens could be seen as alien interlopers, and how westerosi lords, such as Robert, came to doubt their superhuman status.

 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The incest is a cultural thing. Yes, the rationale behind it is that it helps to preserve the dragonriding thing. But there is no indication that you definitely lose the ability for good if you do not constantly marry your sisters (which Dany's ancestors did not always do, either). I mean, the reason why the dragonlords started it could have been a combination of the idea that it would help to ensure that all children (and not only 70-80% of each generation, say) are born with the potential to become dragonlords but also part of the policy that the blood of the dragon be not spread to lesser men. If half of the Lands of the Long Summer had the potential to become dragonlords the foundation of Valyrian supremacy may have been in real jeopardy. I mean, we must keep in mind there were hundreds (or perhaps even thousands) of dragons in Valyria. 

Not practicing incest doesn't mean you do not believe you are the blood of the dragon. Just look at Aegon V. No (grand)son of incestuous (grand)parents, did not marry his sister, no fan of incest, yet he still believed he could and should hatch dragon eggs.

So, there are two ways you can interpret GrrM’s statement that they interbred to control the dragons.

a.      Incest was necessary to prevent the dragon blood being passed onto anyone else, so no one but the Targaryen family could control dragons.

b.      Incest was necessary to ensure the dragon blood was not diluted and the ability to control and even birth dragons was not lost.

There is a pretty easy way of telling which theory is right. If a is right we would expect Targaryens to have, in addition to a proclivity for incest, a prohibition on any intercourse outside incestuous marriage, or a blanket abortion policy in such cases. Obviously, if the reason for marrying brother to sister is so you don’t pass your blood onto anyone else bastards are a major problem. However, there is no Targrayen taboo against bastards, so a is wrong.

B is therefore the correct theory.

Incest is a family tradition; a custom inherited from the Targaryen forefathers which serves an obvious purpose. Yes, Aegon V didn’t adhere to it but he was only in a position to contemplate raising dragons again because his ancestors did adhere to it, and his descendants in their turn returned to the older practice.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to keep the context in mind. Marwyn offers his opinion after he has learned that there is a Targaryen queen in the east who has hatched three dragon eggs and fulfilled an ancient prophecy. That is pretty big stuff. Those maesters preferring a dragonless world to a world ruled by dragonriders might get anxious over this.

But that doesn't mean they have been secretly plotting to overthrow the Targaryens since the last dragon died in 153 AC.

Aemon, too, is only in danger when this prophecy is apparently fulfilled. Not while he was just some old guy with dragon blood and the dragons were dead and gone.

This is not, as I recall, correct. Marwyn says something like (paraphrase), ‘why do you think the grey sheep let Aemon rot on the wall all those years. His blood that’s why.’ So he’s talking about Citadel fears before the rebirth of the dragons.

Moreover, the plan to purge the world of magic (or bad magic/dragon magic, if you prefer) is described as a long-standing design: it’s not something the Citadel only came up with after Dany’s dragons became general knowledge.

 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, Dany was persuaded by her own dreams. There is no reason to believe that Stannis, having dreams and strange feelings when touching dragon eggs couldn't have developed exactly the same notions about hatching them as Dany did all on her own. Stannis knows who his grandmother was, no?

Not really. You’ve decided that birthing dragons is something dragonblood essentially downloads into your brain via dreams. You’re going to demonstrate that this is the case because this is not how I how I see Daenery’s story at all. Stannis also hasn’t birthed dragons and has been persuaded to adhere to Mel for a variety of reasons, visions being among them, although said visions were not dragon dreams.

There is in fact every reason to suppose a couple of dreams will fail to persuade anyone that they can hatch dragons from stone, walk through fire and ought to indulge in human sacrifice. I don’t even know where you get this from; to say Dany was persuaded by her dreams she could hatch dragons is not really true, there was a lot more going on there.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. Again, no indication that the thing can be bred out. Nobody seems to think that Aemon Targaryen's 'dragon blood' had been bred out already, never mind the man's Velaryon, Arryn, Rogare, Martell, and Dayne blood - and all those women marrying into House Targaryen would have a lot of non-Valyrian ancestors on some branches of the family tree, even the Velaryons and the Rogares.

House Targaryen has been in westeros for nigh on over three hundred years. That’s actually not a very impressive list of non-Targaryen ancestors given that. Had the family had normal breeding practices the list would be much more extensive and the dragon blood would have been more likely to have been bred out.

I think we both agree dragon blood is not necessarily bred out immediately; it can take a while.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

That’s not exactly clear; we don’t know whether she distrusts maesters because she distrusts Walys, or Walys because she distrusts maesters, or a bit of both. There is no reason to bring up this chicken and egg question, as far as I can see.

We have context. That's enough for me. And I honestly don't care whether she despises maesters in principle for some irrational reason. The reason we are given is that this Walys fellow counseled Lord Rickard to not allow her to marry her love - who, quite frankly, most likely would never have married a woman he had deflowered already, anyway.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Just to be clear, I never said she believed in the anti-Targ/kill the dragons and end magic conspiracy I argue existed. Or if she does she gives no reason for us to believe she believes this. However, as she does assert lots of maesters have ulterior motives, not just Walys, it is not unreasonable to conclude she does think the Citadel has a policy to influence the course of events in the realm.

I don't care what's 'unreasonable'. A lot of things are not unreasonable but that doesn't make them true. What's true here is that we Barbrey gives us no reason to believe she believes in a far-flung conspiracy of the Citadel. She mistrusts the maesters because they have a lot of influence over the lords they are serving. Fine. But that's not the same as believing in a far-flung conspiracy.

And thus it makes no little sense to cite Barbrey as a source for the belief that there is a far-flung Citadel conspiracy. She isn't a source for that kind of thing.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Well I think the point is that these allegiances determine the maester’s designs (why else are they relevant if they don’t condition action?). So we ought not to suppose Walys was acting on his own, but at the behest of the rulers of the Citadel.

Or on the behest of his individual parents. But then - the Hightowers have no reason for Brandon Stark to marry Catelyn Tully, no? And the Hightowers stayed out of Robert's Rebellion (with the Hightower Lord Commander of the Kingsguard standing with the Targaryens).

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

To be honest, I think it is hard to nurse hopes of bringing about a rational, non-magical world, when magic is still a strong force, especially in the east, unless you are prepared to fight fire with fire, to an extent. You have heard of the notion that to the pure all things are pure? So it would not surprise me that under certain conditions the grey sheep approved of magical studies, providing the ends were good.

But there is no indication that those 'grey sheep' are on a crusade against magic. Magic is unreliable. Most of its branches didn't work before Dany's dragons came back - and we have a lot of evidence for this. There is this talk of a conspiracy to kill the dragons, but nothing about a conspiracy to destroy/suppress magic as such.

And there are very good reasons why men believing in law and rationality do not like the idea that sorcerers and dragonriders with an insane amount of power rule the world. That has the potential to destroy the world.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You are confusing causation with moral culpability. Most people generally manage to avoid this.

I know the difference. The question is how you know that those people Yandel refers to in TWoIaF know or care about this difference.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

My recollection of Marwyn’s speech (I do not currently have access to my books) is that it was substantially more than just an anti-dragon approach from the Citadel, even if dragons were, so to speak, the sharp tip of the spear of sorcery.

I also had the impression dragons either increase magic or their presence correlates with it, i.e. when they are present magic is stronger. I may misremember and this does not affect the point about southron ambitions too much, despite being an interesting subject.

Well, the Rickard Stark conspiracy theory has no evidence for it. The idea that the Citadel (or some people there) might be up to something nefarious is not completely without basis.

But there is no indication they wanted to eradicate the Targaryen dynasty or make Robert king.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You need to consider the provenance of the source we have for the views of the misguided men. Yandell is pro-Stark insofar as he is pro-Baratheon, who are, as far as he is concerned, still the reigning dynasty. It therefore makes little sense to hint at the frivolous or foolish opinions some backwater bumpkins held about Rickard (and surely these people were fools if they thought Rickard deserved his own death and his children’s death for venturing south). On the contrary, Yandell calls out these misguided men because they are significant, and they have a case; there is no point in even giving them notice otherwise.

Yandel is a historian who does not throw dirt at his king and his queen and the family of his queen. That's it. He is not pro-anything, and there is no reason to believe he twists around facts or carefully thinks about including stuff about Lord Rickard depending how that look.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You’re also mixing up causation and moral culpability. If I cross the road and get knocked down by a drunk and carless driver I was the cause of my own demise as far as I chose the cross the road at that particular place and moment in time. I’m not morally culpable though, because I should be able to cross the road at any place I like without being knocked down by an incapacitated driver.

This is a medieval world. People believe all kind of nonsense there, as a lot of rumors and ridiculous beliefs of many people do attest.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In a similar vein westeros is not Saudi Arabia. Ladies are not required to be continually sequestered from the male gaze lest the opprobrium for an abduction fall on them and their family. The blame for the abduction, as far as everyone will be concerned, is Rhaegar’s; Lyanna is not required to hide behind Moat Cailin in perpetuity lest some southron take a fancy to her.

It is not about Lyanna and Rhaegar as such, it is about Brandon's foolish reaction to the abduction. That's the starting point of the war. It could still have been stopped at that point but it was the first step to escalate the situation.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I’m saying there is a need to explain why, when we know Rhaegar was aware of the perilous political situation of his house, and was trying to work against his father, he threw it all away to disappear with Lyanna. If, as according to my theory was the case, he was seizing the keystone in the arch of the anti-Targaryen conspiracy, Rhaegar’s desires do not conflict with his political concerns.

No reason to believe Rhaegar had any such motivation nor any reason that this kind of thing could have accomplished what he wanted to do. Why on earth didn't he leave a note to his mad father along the line 'Dad, we are all in danger. There is an evil alliance of anti-Targaryen lords out there. Beware!'

If Aerys' guys had known what was 'going on' this rebellion could have been crushed very easily.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

If by proof you’re looking for a direct, textual statement, or something demonstrative, obviously this does not exist but I have never claimed it does. If you want someone to prove something you have to set a standard of proof, and that standard, considered reasonably, is different in different situations. I am, in any case, not saying I have proved anything. My case is that my theory is the best explanation current of the existing data we have. 

But it is not. You do not look at the data with the framework of your theory already in mind, without actually creating your theory out of the data.

If there were a single hint that Rickard-Jon-Hoster actually had had some plan then such a theory could make sense. But there is none of that sort. None whatsoever.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Marwyn already built the maesters up pretty well, (paraphrase) ‘who do you think killed the dragons last time, knights in shining armour?’ We’ve already been introduced to the Citadel plot, in the book prior the one in which we get the anti-maester speech from Dustin.

Well, but in relation to this Marwyn is just a windbag, isn't he? The dragons who died in the Dance were killed by dragons and dragonslayers who didn't wear chains. And of the four dragons who survived the Dance three are not likely to be killed by the maesters, either (Sheepstealer, Silverwing, and the Cannibal). There may be some dragons in eggs and hatchlings who were killed by maesters, but 'the dragons' weren't killed by maesters.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Now you’re proposing to explain authorial intent by imagining a second plot/conspiracy will be revealed; why not just adopt the simpler course of believing we’re meant to link Dustin’s revelations with the scheme that already has been revealed. Allegedly there are only two more books.

I mean the one Marwyn hinted at - the one involving a 'grey sheep' traveling to Meereen to kill Daenerys and her dragons - and what all that entails back home.

Assuming Marwyn can be trusted, of course. The idea that he is correct in his assessment of what the maesters did to the dragons in the past might not be accurate.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Nothing we know about the Baratheons suggests they were into the cultural practices of the Targaryens; people always speak of the House Targaryen keeping itself separate from the rest of the westerosi houses. Ned wonders what strange gods Aerys II might have worshipped. GrrM in the video linked on this thread describes how the Targaryens could be seen as alien interlopers, and how westerosi lords, such as Robert, came to doubt their superhuman status.

Again - the Baratheons are a Targaryen cadet branch. Orys Baratheon was Aerion Targaryen's son and Aegon the Conqueror's half-brother. He is as much a Targaryen as Shiera Seastar, Bittersteel, Bloodraven, and all the other Targaryens (trueborn or bastard-born) who have a non-Targaryen parent.

Robert has issues with his own identity as a member of a Targaryen cadet branch and the fact that he is the great-grandson of Aegon V and a close cousin of Aerys II and Rhaegar, but that doesn't change who and what he and his brothers are. They are as much Targaryens as Harrold Hardyng is an Arryn. And just as Harrold is likely going to presume to call himself 'Arryn' if he becomes lord - and already including the moon-and-falcon of House Arryn in his own personal arms - Robert Baratheon could have taken the three-headed dragon of House Targaryen as his sigil and claimed the Iron Throne as King Robert I Targaryen rather than Robert I Baratheon. He chose not to do this, but as a Targaryen descendant (at least) two times over he could have done that.

Hell, Robert could even adopted/continued the royal incest. It is not that his ancestors (both Targaryen and Baratheon, in the case of Jocelyn Baratheon and Aemon Targaryen) didn't marry their close kin.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

There is a pretty easy way of telling which theory is right. If a is right we would expect Targaryens to have, in addition to a proclivity for incest, a prohibition on any intercourse outside incestuous marriage, or a blanket abortion policy in such cases. Obviously, if the reason for marrying brother to sister is so you don’t pass your blood onto anyone else bastards are a major problem. However, there is no Targrayen taboo against bastards, so a is wrong.

B is therefore the correct theory.

Man, there is no 'correct theory' there because all we get about the origins of Valyrian incest is that the wise men of the ancestors thought the blood of the dragon needed to be preserved pure. We have no idea whether they were right in that believe - or even if they happen to be right whether they concluded that they are right because they properly investigated the phenomenon. It is difficult to breed human beings if you are your a specimen in your own experiment.

Perhaps they had the right idea, perhaps not. Perhaps for the right reasons, perhaps for nonsensical reasons. 

However, bastards don't feature into the thing because they - especially baseborn bastards - are irrelevant. But a dragonlord officially taking a spouse from a non-dragonlord family would give the children from such unions a right to the estate of the dragonlord (and perhaps even other kin of the spouse, depending on Valyrian law). And dragons would be part of such an estate. If you don't want to see your wealth and the foundation of your wealth being squandered you better marry your own.

That is why royalty and the very rich do not seldom develop marriage customs involving incestuous unions or marriages among close kin. That way the family strengthened because outsiders do not make away with your wealth or presume to share in your power/prestige.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Incest is a family tradition; a custom inherited from the Targaryen forefathers which serves an obvious purpose. Yes, Aegon V didn’t adhere to it but he was only in a position to contemplate raising dragons again because his ancestors did adhere to it, and his descendants in their turn returned to the older practice.

Nope, Aegon V actually investigated dragonlore from all over the world, including Asshai. And he had dragon eggs. I could do the same as he did if I lived in Westeros, had money, and some dragon eggs. I don't need Targaryen blood for that. Everybody knowing anything about the power of dragons as a weapon will jump on the chance to get some if he can think of way to make use of them.

Just look at the Astapori. They saw dragons. And they wanted them.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This is not, as I recall, correct. Marwyn says something like (paraphrase), ‘why do you think the grey sheep let Aemon rot on the wall all those years. His blood that’s why.’ So he’s talking about Citadel fears before the rebirth of the dragons.

To let him rot at the Citadel rather than raise him to the rank of archmaester, yes. They mistrusted his blood and did, apparently, not want him to teach and research there (but this seems to be where Marwyn is wrong, too, actually, considering that we actually do know why Aemon went to the Wall).

They would only want to kill Aemon, according to Marwyn, when/if the man had talked about Daenerys, dragons, and the fulfillment of a certain prophecy. That's when they will supposedly try to kill Samwell, too, after all.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Moreover, the plan to purge the world of magic (or bad magic/dragon magic, if you prefer) is described as a long-standing design: it’s not something the Citadel only came up with after Dany’s dragons became general knowledge.

But is it? Where is the evidence that the Citadel wants to *destroy* magic? There is no such evidence, not to mention no hint that this is even possible.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Not really. You’ve decided that birthing dragons is something dragonblood essentially downloads into your brain via dreams. You’re going to demonstrate that this is the case because this is not how I how I see Daenery’s story at all.

This is not a question of interpretation. I talked about a Stannis getting Dany's story as Stannis Baratheon. If he had had her dreams, had gotten her eggs, had been (more or less) in her situations, met similar people than she did, get a similar crash course in magic, etc. then he, too, would have decided to try to hatch those eggs. Whether it would have worked is another question.

You don't have to bear the Targaryen name to do Targaryen things. And Dany pretty much knows nothing about House Targaryen, anyway.

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Stannis also hasn’t birthed dragons and has been persuaded to adhere to Mel for a variety of reasons, visions being among them, although said visions were not dragon dreams.

If he wasn't a Baratheon descendant of Targaryen ancestors nobody would think he would be the fulfillment of a prophecy whose protagonist apparently is a Targaryen prince(ss).

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

There is in fact every reason to suppose a couple of dreams will fail to persuade anyone that they can hatch dragons from stone, walk through fire and ought to indulge in human sacrifice. I don’t even know where you get this from; to say Dany was persuaded by her dreams she could hatch dragons is not really true, there was a lot more going on there.

What was going on besides that? Dany has no ideas about prophecies and destinies. She just feels those dragon eggs are worn and dreams about a dragon coming from one of those eggs. She also dreams about her Targaryen ancestors urging her own, etc. 

If I had such dreams, such feelings when I touch lifeless eggs, and were a descendant of royalty I would do the same thing as Dany, too. As would Stannis in her situation. And perhaps even Robert and Renly. Those dreams are nothing if not persistent. They broke Daeron the Drunken, remember?

14 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

House Targaryen has been in westeros for nigh on over three hundred years. That’s actually not a very impressive list of non-Targaryen ancestors given that. Had the family had normal breeding practices the list would be much more extensive and the dragon blood would have been more likely to have been bred out.

I think we both agree dragon blood is not necessarily bred out immediately; it can take a while.

I don't see a reason to believe dragon blood can be bred out at all. People may no longer have the looks, but that doesn't mean they cannot have dragon dreams, become dragonriders, or have the potential to do what Dany did. She isn't exactly a Targaryen whose dragon lord is there in undiluted form when compared to Aegon and his sisters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...