Lord Brandon the Daughterless

[AlaskanSandman]

 Been a while. A simple post.  

When was Lord Brandon the Daughterless of the Bael the Bard Legend? 

The World of Ice and Fire list Benjen Stark at the start of the Line. Who must be sometime after 101Ac as Lord Ellard Stark attends that Council. So it would appear to go ,  Lord Ellard 101Ac, Lord Benjen, Lord Rickon, and then Cregan Stark in 129Ac. Every other Lord since is listed. The only Lord Brandon listed had sons, unlike Brandon the Daughterless. 

Before Benjen, we only know of Torhen and his sons, and one daughter. 

So, could Lord Brandon the daughterless have been one of Torhen's children or grandchild?

The Legend of Bael mentions a Lord of Winterfell and the Kings Road built by Jaehaerys and Barth no earlier than 59Ac when Barth became hand. (The only counter to this is the part about Bolton's flaying, but as they still practice Lord's Right to First Night in our current story and also flay people, im inclined to believe the rest).

So it's suggested that Brandon the Daughterless lived during the reign of Jaehaerys I. Meaning that Ellard could be Bael's son, or related to him. It is unknown when Bael's son, the Lord of Winterfell was flayed by the Boltons. 

Im curious any thoughts into this. 

Bael is said to have had a war with his son at the Wall, and Viserys I tells his grandkids before he dies of Jaehaerys and Alysanne fighting at the wall with dragons (TWOIAF). It is known that Jaehaerys and Alysanne went North with half of court and 6 dragons, but it isn't mentioned when. Twoiaf makes it sound like it was early in the reign of Jaehaerys. 

Yet Sam tells Jon in AFFC that Alysanne visited the wall 200 years ago. From when he is saying this is 299-300Ac. Which would be the years of Alysanne's life, which ended in either 99 or 100ac. Also Barth and Gael die in 99ac. Unknown if relevant. 

Bran also tells Meera and Jojen that the Night Fort is closed 200 years ago is Asos. So again, two mentions putting in the later half of Jaehaerys reign. 

(Note that Ellard is mentioned to be the one to give the New Gift to the Watch per Alysanne and Jaehaerys, but this was later changed so we dont know who did it. To be revealed in Blood and Fire?)

(Also, Viserys' tale of Jaehaerys is said to supposedly be fanciful tale, as per GRRM to Elio Garcia, to me posing questions. So not Elio's word, GRRM'S, but GRRM says it's just a tale. Viserys though did ride Baelerion up till 94Ac. And it's not till Daemon, and Visery's that i can account for 6 dragons with riders. Only 5 and Vhagar and Balerion are unclaimed. Jaehaerys and Alysanne have dragons. Old Rhaena has a dragon. And that's it that we know of for a while. Till Viserys claimes Balerion, Daemon mounts Ceraxes and Rhaenys mounts Meleys.) 
 

If Bael skips down kings road early in Jaehaerys reign but after the Barth, then 30 years later fights son at the wall some time. It would fees-ably work with in the time frame. 

 

Torhen

   I 

Sons (Brandon The Daughterless?) Maybe Torhen's youngest son? or Torhen's Grandson?

   I

Baels Son 

   I

Ellard at 101ac.

 

Or did Bael not exist at all?

Can't agree with Bael happening anytime before Aegon's Conquest just on the premise that the Bolton's "supposedly" gave up flaying.  

[Lord Varys]

Nope. There is no chance that Bael the Bard lived during the Targaryen days. None at all. If he had, the dragons would have dealt with him, not the Starks, and Bael's son would have definitely not skinned by some Bolton - the Targaryens wouldn't have allowed such a thing, either, nor would the Boltons as a house survived such a thing if they had dared to do it, anyway.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope. There is no chance that Bael the Bard lived during the Targaryen days. None at all. If he had, the dragons would have dealt with him, not the Starks, and Bael's son would have definitely not skinned by some Bolton - the Targaryens wouldn't have allowed such a thing, either, nor would the Boltons as a house survived such a thing if they had dared to do it, anyway.

You are correct, but completely by accident, given that the reasons for your answer are wrong. After all, the Targs did bugger all to “not allow” Raymun Redbeard’s invasion a mere 80 years ago. Nope, it was left to the Starks and Umbers to deal with the last wildling invasion, as always.

It is true that Bael lived long before Torrhen’s time, though. Possibly a thousand years ago or more, even, given that Boltons were still skinning Starks in his time.

[rotting sea cow]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You are correct, but completely by accident, given that the reasons for your answer are wrong. After all, the Targs did bugger all to “not allow” Raymun Redbeard’s invasion a mere 80 years ago. Nope, it was left to the Starks and Umbers to deal with the last wildling invasion, as always.

Well, but 80 years ago is another time in the Targaryen dynasty, they were completely concentrated in the threat of the Blackfyres and little else. There is some hints that the unresponsiveness of the Crown regarding other threats (like Dagon Greyjoy raids) is what motivated the Starks to start the Southern ambitions.

[Adam Yozza]

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You are correct, but completely by accident, given that the reasons for your answer are wrong. After all, the Targs did bugger all to “not allow” Raymun Redbeard’s invasion a mere 80 years ago. Nope, it was left to the Starks and Umbers to deal with the last wildling invasion, as always.

It is true that Bael lived long before Torrhen’s time, though. Possibly a thousand years ago or more, even, given that Boltons were still skinning Starks in his time.

It's not the flaying that gives it away it; seeing as the Bolton's still flay people (secretly) as late as 300 ac. Instead, it's the fact that we've been told there has not been a Bolton rebellion since before the Conquest. I think capturing the Lord of Winterfell and flaying him pubicly enough that even the wildlings of it would be considered something of a rebellion and I doubt the rest of the North would just let it slide. As such, I suspect we can quite safely say the Bael story takes place before the Conquest and that the mention of the Kingsroad is just something that got added in as the years passed.

[dmfn]

If Bael walked down the Kingsroad to Winterfell, it couldn't have been 1000 years ago. 

There are enough inconsistencies to cast doubt that the story is true at all. 

 

[The Wondering Wolf]

2 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

and Viserys I tells his grandkids before he dies of Jaehaerys and Alysanne fighting at the wall with dragons (TWOIAF)

I think you have been told before that it was just a story to entertain the kids and actually did not happen.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You are correct, but completely by accident, given that the reasons for your answer are wrong. After all, the Targs did bugger all to “not allow” Raymun Redbeard’s invasion a mere 80 years ago. Nope, it was left to the Starks and Umbers to deal with the last wildling invasion, as always.

Oh, but that's why I talked about the dragons dealing with Bael. Meaning the literal dragons. Jaehaerys I and his sisters and children would have flown their dragons up north and would have burned Bael and his men the moment they dared to cross the Wall in strength.

During Maekar's day they no longer had dragons, nor was there a need for them to go north when they had a leal Warden of the North to deal with those problems.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is true that Bael lived long before Torrhen’s time, though. Possibly a thousand years ago or more, even, given that Boltons were still skinning Starks in his time.

Difficult to pinpoint the date, could be in the Red King days, could have been afterwards. A 'Stark' with as doubtful a parentage as Bael's son might have very well not have been all that popular or secure in his kingship. It might even be that the man died childless and a different branch of House Stark took over afterwards.

[Bael's Bastard]

If there is a historical basis for the Bael the Bard story, there is no chance it occurred during the Targaryen era. For one, there are a number of details that would put the story in a context well before the Targaryen era. Even aside from that, and even with an incomplete list of Stark lords in the first century of the Targaryen era, we have enough information to safely rule it out.

Ygritte not only claims that Brandon's daughter was his only child, but implies that she was the last of the Stark line. But here is no point during the first century of the Targaryen era where the Starks can be shown to have been reduced to just one Stark Lord and his daughter.

We know that Cregan Stark was Lord of Winterfell at the start of the Dance in 129 AC, that his father Rickon was Lord of Winterfell, that his father Benjen was Lord of Winterfell, and that Ellard Stark, of uncertain relation to them, was Lord of Winterfell at the time of the Great Council 101 AC. We know that the Lord Stark who was forced to give up the New Gift during the reign of Jaehaerys I had a brother, and it is safe to assume that they were born to a Stark father. And we know that Torrhen had multiple sons, and his only known daughter was wed to a Lord Arryn.

It is inconceivable that House Stark was whittled down to one Stark male and one Stark female at any point between Torrhen's sons and Ellard and his brother

[AlaskanSandman]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

8 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

8 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

8 hours ago, dmfn said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, i know this is one of the bigger questions, when did Bael happen. I do mention the flaying but that i question it because Roose clearly still flays people and Ramsay is old enough that Rooose was practicing the Lords Right under Eddard's nose. 

Thats only one fact of 3 tho. The Kingsroad and Lord Stark are also mentioned. Both clearly implying that it's after the conquest.

Im not sure why the Targaryen's would get involved. That's part of the interest to me. As Aegon never bothered to Visit the North or the Wall that we know of. Which is highly weird unless Aegon conquered Westeros with no knowledge of the Others and the Long Night. Or just doesn't care. Jaehaerys and Alysanne are the first we know of to visit the North and the Wall.

As mentioned above, Twoiaf makes it seem as though Jaehaerys visited the Wall early in his reign. 

But the accounts from Sam to Jon and Bran to Meera and Jojen would place it later in the reign of Jaehaerys, even if they are off by 30 years (70ac is the half way point in Jaehaerys' rule.)

Plus we have every Lord Stark accounted for after Jaehaerys's reign, except for the first couple after Aegon to Jaehaerys. 

8 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I think you have been told before that it was just a story to entertain the kids and actually did not happen.

As far as the tale told by Viserys. Yes, as i clearly mention above. I asked Ran who asked GRRM (as that section apparently was written by Grrm him self and covers a period of time set to be released in a future book Fire and Blood.) and Grrm gave me the "Its just a tale" answer.

On a subject (Jaehaerys) to be covered more in Fire and Blood (Along with who really gave the new Gift and Lord Ellard Stark has since been removed from the book).

So do i believe GRRM yet?  Not completely yet. Im waiting for the book to crush curiosities haha 

But too many things line up to not be curious. Viserys was riding Baelerion up till 94Ac and would have possibly been alive for the tale he is telling. 

Again, as explained above. Jaehaerys went north with 6 dragons. This is fact. Which 6 dragons? who was riding them? What did 6 dragons feed on in the North? Mammoths north of the Wall?  Daemon, Viserys I, Rhaenys, Rhaena, Jaehaeys and Alysanne are the only known dragon riders till the Dance of Dragons. 

Daemon, Rhaenys, and Viserys are all born in the last half of Jaehaerys reign. 

Further. Jaehaerys doesnt' even make Barth hand till 59Ac. Even if it only takes him 10 years to finish the Kingsroad, that puts completion of it into the later half of Jaehaerys' reign. 

Completion of the KIngsroad (Which ends at Castle Black which Jaehaerys and Alysanne visit) seems the most logical reason for Jaehaerys, Barth, and Half of court and 6 dragons to go North.

So i have a hard time thinking that Jaehaerys went North in the first half of his reign.

I also have a hard time completely writing Bael off as before the Conquest. .

[AlaskanSandman]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Difficult to pinpoint the date, could be in the Red King days, could have been afterwards. A 'Stark' with as doubtful a parentage as Bael's son might have very well not have been all that popular or secure in his kingship. It might even be that the man died childless and a different branch of House Stark took over afterwards.

This is what i suspect happened and why he was allowed to be flayed by  the Boltons. If the Boltons knew he was a kin killer, other Starks likely found out he was Bael's son and a wildling by blood. A cousin to the main line could have take over, or Torhen had other sons and their son's may have taken it.  

[AlaskanSandman]

9 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

It's not the flaying that gives it away it; seeing as the Bolton's still flay people (secretly) as late as 300 ac. Instead, it's the fact that we've been told there has not been a Bolton rebellion since before the Conquest. I think capturing the Lord of Winterfell and flaying him pubicly enough that even the wildlings of it would be considered something of a rebellion and I doubt the rest of the North would just let it slide. As such, I suspect we can quite safely say the Bael story takes place before the Conquest and that the mention of the Kingsroad is just something that got added in as the years passed.

Would there be a rebellion over this though? If the Boltons could find out that Lord was a kin killer, could not the rest of that Lords family? Like cousins who equally hate wildlings, and would hate the idea of their house being usurped by wildlings.

We dont know that this Lord ever had children. So for all we know, the current Starks are in no way tied to Bael by blood. 

[AlaskanSandman]

8 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I think you have been told before that it was just a story to entertain the kids and actually did not happen.

Interesting point. Why would the Targaryens tell this story if it's fake? The only Targaryens to visit the wall are Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Literally no other Targ does. 

So, question.  How would they know about Giants or Mammoths? No one south of the neck believes giants or mammoths. Even Jon was shocked to see them. 

So Viserys shouldn't know anything about them. We have no tales of Jaehaerys or Alysanne dealing with mammoths, wildlings, or giants. We dont even know why Alysanne was so convinced of the Watch's bravery. Why, cause she saw the wall? Tyrion saw it and couldn't give two figs. No one thinks the Watch is brave for fighting off wildlings. No one even thinks much of the wildlings. 

So why is Viserys even telling this story. There should be no reason for it. Unless something happened at the wall. Something so big it impressed Alysanne with their bravery, appalled her with the Night Fort and Lords Right, and possibly involved wildlings, giants, and mammoths. And all possibly happened within years of Viserys' life that he could remember. 

Seems sketch to me

[Lord Varys]

44 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

So, i know this is one of the bigger questions, when did Bael happen. I do mention the flaying but that i question it because Roose clearly still flays people and Ramsay is old enough that Rooose was practicing the Lords Right under Eddard's nose. 

Roose and Ramsay may indulge themselves in the privacy of the Dreadfort, but it is one thing to flay criminals and poor commoners you arrest, and another to flay a Stark of Winterfell and get away with it. That would have never happened during the Targaryen days.

Quote

Thats only one fact of 3 tho. The Kingsroad and Lord Stark are also mentioned. Both clearly implying that it's after the conquest.

It is a story told by wildlings. They are not exactly portrayed as historians, you know, nor as people who have an accurate view of how things look south of the Wall. They tell stories, and just like any storytellers do they incorporate elements their audience know in stories from the distant past. That's what the singers also do when they put knights back in the days of the First Men.

Quote

Im not sure why the Targaryen's would get involved. That's part of the interest to me. As Aegon never bothered to Visit the North or the Wall that we know of. Which is highly weird unless Aegon conquered Westeros with no knowledge of the Others and the Long Night. Or just doesn't care. Jaehaerys and Alysanne are the first we know of to visit the North and the Wall.

Aegon the Conqueror made royal progresses. We do know he visited Winterfell and the North.

The reason why the Targaryens would get involved in a threat as severe as that of Bael's (who threatened Winterfell) is the same reason why they react to the rebellions after the death of the Conqueror, why they crushed the Faith Militant, why they fought Dornish invaders, etc. - because this was a threat to their Realm and rule. And while they had dragons they could have flown up north in no time.

Quote

As mentioned above, Twoiaf makes it seem as though Jaehaerys visited the Wall early in his reign. 

But the accounts from Sam to Jon and Bran to Meera and Jojen would place it later in the reign of Jaehaerys, even if they are off by 30 years (70ac is the half way point in Jaehaerys' rule.)

Alysanne most definitely visited Winterfell and the Wall in her relative youth. The way she acts doesn't indicate she was a woman in her middle or even old age.

Quote

Plus we have every Lord Stark accounted for after Jaehaerys's reign, except for the first couple after Aegon to Jaehaerys. 

That is true but it doesn't lend any credence to your idea.

Quote

On a subject (Jaehaerys) to be covered more in Fire and Blood (Along with who really gave the new Gift and Lord Ellard Stark has since been removed from the book).

Lord Ellard isn't removed from the book. He is still the Lord of Winterfell present at the Great Council, but he is not the Lord of Winterfell when the New Gift is given.

Quote

But too many things line up to not be curious. Viserys was riding Baelerion up till 94Ac and would have possibly been alive for the tale he is telling. 

That is irrelevant if Viserys was telling a fairy-tale - which is what he told. Viserys was not alive in the youth of his grandsire, though.

Quote

Again, as explained above. Jaehaerys went north with 6 dragons. This is fact. Which 6 dragons? who was riding them? What did 6 dragons feed on in the North? Mammoths north of the Wall?  Daemon, Viserys I, Rhaenys, Rhaena, Jaehaeys and Alysanne are the only known dragon riders till the Dance of Dragons. 

That doesn't mean there weren't other dragonriders. I mean, do you really think Jaehaerys I's sons and daughters didn't have the opportunity to claim dragons? Or Rhaena's daughter Aerea? Vaegon and the Targaryens who joined the Faith were likely no dragonriders, but the others could have all claimed dragons of their own.

39 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

This is what i suspect happened and why he was allowed to be flayed by  the Boltons. If the Boltons knew he was a kin killer, other Starks likely found out he was Bael's son and a wildling by blood. A cousin to the main line could have take over, or Torhen had other sons and their son's may have taken it.  

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Bael's son couldn't even lay claim to Winterfell without being legitimized as a Stark by King Jaehaerys I if we go by your theory. And if Jaehaerys I did that - which he would have to do considering that the man was, in the story, the Lord of Winterfell - then King Jaehaerys I would also stand by this man of his choosing and would thus severely punish any Bolton flaying this man.

It also makes no sense to assume that Bael's son would have been seen as a kinslayer. He would have just slain a king-beyond-the-Wall, not his acknowledged father.

Instead, it makes infinitely more sense that a King in the North could have made the bastard of his daughter his own heir - precisely because he was a king and could legitimize bastards (or simply name his heir and ensure he would succeed by removing potential rivals from the board (of life)).

And man - Jaehaerys and Alysanne lived more than two hundred years before the main series. Back in their days there would have been more mammoths and giants and direwolves up in the north than there are now.

[The Wondering Wolf]

GRRM said it did not happen. I have no idea what else you need to accept that it did not happen. 

And my grandparents told me stories about things they never met as well. 

[AlaskanSandman]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Roose and Ramsay may indulge themselves in the privacy of the Dreadfort, but it is one thing to flay criminals and poor commoners you arrest, and another to flay a Stark of Winterfell and get away with it. That would have never happened during the Targaryen days

The North is so far removed from the South, the south usually doesnt' know or care about the North. We've seen it time after time, and even Robert only came once for the GreyJoy Rebellion. Which is way more of a threat than the Wildling ever were or could be. I dont see how your even comparing the two. The Iron born nearly conquered all of Westeros, Twice. If Aegon hadn't arrived, Harren would have rolled over the rest of Westeros having finally secured the Riverlands. 

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a story told by wildlings. They are not exactly portrayed as historians, you know, nor as people who have an accurate view of how things look south of the Wall. They tell stories, and just like any storytellers do they incorporate elements their audience know in stories from the distant past. That's what the singers also do when they put knights back in the days of the First Men.

That's funny, cause you'll believe their tale that Boltons flayed somebody, but those other two bits. NOPE. Those have to be lies, cause clearly the Maesters say it is and Wildlings "Know Nothing". Hard to take that argument when your willing to pick and choose which part of the tale you believe. Cause your an authority? Just saying. 

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon the Conqueror made royal progresses. We do know he visited Winterfell and the North.

The reason why the Targaryens would get involved in a threat as severe as that of Bael's (who threatened Winterfell) is the same reason why they react to the rebellions after the death of the Conqueror, why they crushed the Faith Militant, why they fought Dornish invaders, etc. - because this was a threat to their Realm and rule. And while they had dragons they could have flown up north in no time.

Where does it once say Aegon visited the North? As far as im aware, it never mentions Aegon going North of the Neck once. 

And no, name me one time the south gets involved in anything to do with the North other than the Iron Born with Robert who had to as he had just taken the throne and couldn't risk whether or not Eddard could handle it. The IronBorn are the only threat in the North the South even has to worry about. 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Alysanne most definitely visited Winterfell and the Wall in her relative youth. The way she acts doesn't indicate she was a woman in her middle or even old age.

Just your opinion. While ill agree, it does sound like she's not very interested in politics and affairs of state ( and never shows interest any other time either other than to do with the Watch. Something there interested her enough.)

And clearly you dont know very many women. No offence, but that's laughable that a middle aged woman wouldn't also get bored with politics and go traveling. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is true but it doesn't lend any credence to your idea.

How does it not? Mathematically, it literally does. Logistically it does. 

 

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Lord Ellard isn't removed from the book. He is still the Lord of Winterfell present at the Great Council, but he is not the Lord of Winterfell when the New Gift is given.

I never said anything about 101Ac, just that Ellard was removed from having been the one to give the New Gift. Cause GRRM apparently wants that a mystery still till either Fire and Blood or a later book. Cause clearly something is going on back then. But sure. 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is irrelevant if Viserys was telling a fairy-tale - which is what he told. Viserys was not alive in the youth of his grandsire, though.

Well i explained already how as a fairy tale, it makes no sense imo. And it being something written specifically by Grrm and not Elio, i find it even more interesting. Again, covering a time period Grrm is clearly holding back on for later books as he pulled Ellard from the New Gift for a later reveal. And Viserys being alive for it is not settled as you claim though. Not at all. You do not know when in Jaehaerys' reign he went North. 

Why would Jaehaerys go North before the Kingsroad was finished, and not be there for it's completion? Either he went mid-to late in his reign, or Jaehaerys went North twice. 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't mean there weren't other dragonriders. I mean, do you really think Jaehaerys I's sons and daughters didn't have the opportunity to claim dragons? Or Rhaena's daughter Aerea? Vaegon and the Targaryens who joined the Faith were likely no dragonriders, but the others could have all claimed dragons of their own.

Ummm, yes it does. Rhaena's children aren't mentioned to have had dragons, and they are wed to other families and never hear from them again. Not likely they had dragons. That literally only leaves the children of Jaehaerys as possibilities. And unless Jaehaerys and Alysanne got popping out kids every since she was 14, there is no way they had enough kids to be riding dragons. Baelon, Alyssa, Aemon, and Daela are never mentioned to have had dragons. Aegon died young. And if Alysanne was busy popping out kids every year early in their reign, then i doubt they did alot of traveling, least of all to the North. The only known dragon riders after Jaehaerys and Alysanne, are Viserys, Daemon, and Rhaenys. Rhaenys was born first in 74 Ac. 

But, if they were popping out kids that fast. Then my previous theory regarding Gael the Winter Child is back in play as the 13th child of Alysanne born earliest in 62ac, 30 years (here's looking at you Bael) before the succession crisis of 92ac after the death of Aemon. (see my thread, why we dance to Rhaenyra Targaryen  ) 

 

And what are you talking about? Why would Lord Stark need Jaehaerys to legitimize the child??? Brandon the Daughterless could have hidden it up till his death since not wanting the embarrassment to get out. Jaehaerys may have never known. 

Bolton flaying him could have been for any reason (It may not have been kinslaying, idk where i got that from). Either way, still doesn't mean it wasn't found out later, or something else happened that caused him to be hated enough in the North that they didn't care he got flayed.

Or maybe she's off a lil and he wansn't skinned and worn like that. Maybe it was faceless men, maybe it was skinchanging. The tale doesnt' mention Boltons by name. 

And if the Wildlings are that ignorant to the South, shouldn't the tale ALWAYS be told as the Stark Kings?? As the Wildlings should be unaware that the long time kings to their south are no longer kings. In fact, they shouldn't even know about the kings road. I dont recall tales of Wildlings fleeing the south just to go back North of the Wall. I could be wrong but im pretty sure theyd rather die than go back beyond the wall and tell every "hey guys! These dudes built a Kings Road!!!" "Well crap, we better include that in our songs, or they'll never except them!" 

Your theory on singers works for singers in the realm, not for wildlings who would never go back home to spread tales of Starks being Lords rather than Kings now and of Kings' Roads. 

[AlaskanSandman]

44 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

GRRM said it did not happen. I have no idea what else you need to accept that it did not happen. 

And my grandparents told me stories about things they never met as well. 

Yea, cause GRRM has never misdirected any one before....

Hmmm, maybe because it covers a time he plans on telling us more about in future books and may not want to spoil things.

Same reason GRRM had Elio pull out Ellard as the one who gave the Gift but was left out as Elio said "For GRRM to reveal possibly in Fire and Blood" 

I guess if you asked GRRM about the ending of the book, and guess right, but GRRM plays hooky and infers that your wrong. I guess when that book comes out, you better hold it to George and never forgive him... Cause he must give away his book before he publishes it simply cause you asked. Maybe even said "pretty please", i mean come on, im pretty sure that can hold up in court and we can sue him. 

George can say what ever he want's right now, and not be held to it. He is in no way required to give away spoilers. Come on. Really?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

GRRM said it did not happen. I have no idea what else you need to accept that it did not happen. 

And my grandparents told me stories about things they never met as well. 

@AlaskanSandman

That's all I can tell you, too. In addition, I'd suggest you not use things as evidence you know the author has made clear do not support your position.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

That's funny, cause you'll believe their tale that Boltons flayed somebody, but those other two bits. NOPE. Those have to be lies, cause clearly the Maesters say it is and Wildlings "Know Nothing". Hard to take that argument when your willing to pick and choose which part of the tale you believe. Cause your an authority? Just saying. 

There is no indication we have to take this wildling story at face value. Perhaps the Bolton stuff is wrong, too. I never said it was 'the truth'. Perhaps the entire story about Bael's son is bogus. We don't know. But Bael the Bard existed, presumably, and lived long before Aegon's Conquest.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Where does it once say Aegon visited the North? As far as im aware, it never mentions Aegon going North of the Neck once. 

We know Aegon visited Winterfell on his last royal progress. It either says that in TWoIaF or TSotD.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Just your opinion. While ill agree, it does sound like she's not very interested in politics and affairs of state ( and never shows interest any other time either other than to do with the Watch. Something there interested her enough.)

And clearly you dont know very many women. No offence, but that's laughable that a middle aged woman wouldn't also get bored with politics and go traveling. 

We are talking dragonriding here, and a considerable distance. An older person would have found some less tedious things to do, things you can do comfortably in a large castle. Going to the Wall is something young and adventurous people would like to do - not so much older people.

But it is not just that - it is also Alysanne's enthusiasm, her spontaneous decision to pay for a new castle with her own jewels, etc. that points towards a young woman there.

And, to be frank, if there was this war thing you imagine it could still have happened in later years. Jaehaerys and Alysanne might not have gone only once to Winterfell and the North. They ruled Westeros for over half a century.

Your clichéd beliefs about women also don't reflect well on you, by the way. I would be bored to hell at Winterfell, too.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

How does it not? Mathematically, it literally does. Logistically it does. 

No, it just gives us evidence that we don't know the names of some Lords of Winterfell. Not knowing something doesn't mean your way of filling the void is true. Just as you not knowing the name of your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather doesn't mean your idea how his name might have been is what his name actually was.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Well i explained already how as a fairy tale, it makes no sense imo. And it being something written specifically by Grrm and not Elio, i find it even more interesting. Again, covering a time period Grrm is clearly holding back on for later books as he pulled Ellard from the New Gift for a later reveal. And Viserys being alive for it is not settled as you claim though. Not at all. You do not know when in Jaehaerys' reign he went North. 

Ran and Linda made a mistake with Ellard and the New Gift. George never told them Ellard had anything to do with that.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Ummm, yes it does. Rhaena's children aren't mentioned to have had dragons, and they are wed to other families and never hear from them again. Not likely they had dragons. That literally only leaves the children of Jaehaerys as possibilities. And unless Jaehaerys and Alysanne got popping out kids every since she was 14, there is no way they had enough kids to be riding dragons. Baelon, Alyssa, Aemon, and Daela are never mentioned to have had dragons. Aegon died young. And if Alysanne was busy popping out kids every year early in their reign, then i doubt they did alot of traveling, least of all to the North. The only known dragon riders after Jaehaerys and Alysanne, are Viserys, Daemon, and Rhaenys. Rhaenys was born first in 74 Ac. 

We don't know much about the reign of Jaehaerys I. Not knowing stuff doesn't mean nothing happened. The idea that Targaryen children didn't become dragonriders is very odd in this context.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

But, if they were popping out kids that fast. Then my previous theory regarding Gael the Winter Child is back in play as the 13th child of Alysanne born earliest in 62ac, 30 years (here's looking at you Bael) before the succession crisis of 92ac after the death of Aemon. (see my thread, why we dance to Rhaenyra Targaryen  ) 

Your ideas in that department are pretty weird, too.

57 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

And what are you talking about? Why would Lord Stark need Jaehaerys to legitimize the child??? Brandon the Daughterless could have hidden it up till his death since not wanting the embarrassment to get out. Jaehaerys may have never known. 

The child would still have been a bastard, the son of an unmarried daughter of Lord Stark. To inherit such a child would have to be legitimized in the Targaryen era (and presumably in the earlier ages, too). And that can only be done by kings.

[AlaskanSandman]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's all I can tell you, too. In addition, I'd suggest you not use things as evidence you know the author has made clear do not support your position

Well it's in the book and only used anecdotally really by me. In no way needed for proof of Bael having been in Jaehaerys' time.  And as mentioned to LandedKnight, in what way is GRRM obligated to reveal potential spoilers for a book he his clearly working on (Fire and Blood come out later this year if im not mistaken.) But yes, as devil's advocate in arguing against it, i understand, there is not much more to go on other than GRRM dismissing it which is weighty in it self. 

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication we have to take this wildling story at face value. Perhaps the Bolton stuff is wrong, too. I never said it was 'the truth'. Perhaps the entire story about Bael's son is bogus. We don't know. But Bael the Bard existed, presumably, and lived long before Aegon's Conquest

 I just dont understand why of all the things, Bael happening before the Conquest is the most adamant point most feel about Bael's legend.

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know Aegon visited Winterfell on his last royal progress. It either says that in TWoIaF or TSotD.

Hmm, My apologies if it does. Ill have to look at that as that would pertain to my curiosity over the Wall and the purpose for Aegon's sudden take over, then apparent lul later in his reign. It almost seems to me that he thought he was the Prince that was Promised and expected a war with the Others. 

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are talking dragonriding here, and a considerable distance. An older person would have found some less tedious things to do, things you can do comfortably in a large castle. Going to the Wall is something young and adventurous people would like to do - not so much older people.

But it is not just that - it is also Alysanne's enthusiasm, her spontaneous decision to pay for a new castle with her own jewels, etc. that points towards a young woman there.

And, to be frank, if there was this war thing you imagine it could still have happened in later years. Jaehaerys and Alysanne might not have gone only once to Winterfell and the North. They ruled Westeros for over half a century.

Your clichéd beliefs about women also don't reflect well on you, by the way. I would be bored to hell at Winterfell, too.

Well firstly, your the one with Cliche views about women lmao. May wanna look up that word. Your putting women in a box saying that only young women can get bored with politics or be interested in long distance travel to a mythical-magical wall that supposedly divides them and the great unknown. Im saying that it's possible and that not just young women are strong willed, independent, and adventurous. You would get bored, i would get bored, and one of us likely would go visit the mythic wall out of curiosity. 

The point about her paying for Deep Lake with her own Jewels speaks to something more than just a young womans wistful actions. Why give up her own Jewels? And Jaehaerys let her, with out offering to pay for it else wise. I would thing that something had to have happened to impress Alysanne.

And I agree with your last point, and why im trying to parse this out as best as i can. There may indeed have been two different trips. 

War aside. Bran tells Meera and Jojen than Alysanne closed the Night's Watch in 99-100ac, and Sam tells Jon that Alysanne and Jaehaerys came to Castle Black on their dragons in 99-100ac. 

Are these times right? Idk. Even if off by 30 years tho, again, puts it in the later half of Jaehaerys' reign. 

Further, it's not directly linked in the same paragraph that the closing of the NIghtfort and visiting Castle Black were the same trip in which they brought 6 dragons. 

I agree that looking at all known events for Jaehaerys, most happen late in his life and it would fit better if they visited when they were young. But it just doesnt' line up with some things, like Barth becoming hand in 59ac and it likely taking at least 10 years to finish the kings road (The most likely reason Jaehaerys went North. And Inevitably would have to visit Castle Black as that's where the Kings Road ends). Plus there is the issue of all their kids and when they were born. 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it just gives us evidence that we don't know the names of some Lords of Winterfell. Not knowing something doesn't mean your way of filling the void is true. Just as you not knowing the name of your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather doesn't mean your idea how his name might have been is what his name actually was.

Yes, that does. That means, if theres an open possibility based on lack of knowledge, then it could fit hypothetically. Since he is named "Lord" Brandon the Daughterless. 

That's literally how deductive reasoning works yo. Ever play blocks when you were a kid and had to match shapes? Got down to the last shape.. Gee, which hole does it go into? If all other spots are filled, and it still doesn't fit. You may have a piece to some one else's set and should give it back. Otherwise, that last piece your hand should fit in the hole. 

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ran and Linda made a mistake with Ellard and the New Gift. George never told them Ellard had anything to do with that.

Yes, i know. And he also sent them the list of all the Lords between Torhen to Ellard. And they chose to not include who it was for GRRM to possibly reveal in Fire and Blood. If not there, i assume the main books.

 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know much about the reign of Jaehaerys I. Not knowing stuff doesn't mean nothing happened. The idea that Targaryen children didn't become dragonriders is very odd in this context.

We actually know quite a bit, just not when a few crucial things happened. Like when peace with the Faith was made, when Kings Road was finished, or When his children were born. Or what the first quarrel was. Or when the Tourney of the Rose was or failed attempt by Jaehaerys to end the Blackwood Bracken feud. 

We know at least some of his kids were having there own kids though by 74ac, and that more came including Viserys and Daemon. There was the death of Aemon in 92ac and council of 92ac and 2nd Quarrel, We know in 94 ac that Balerion dies and Jaehaerys and Alysanne reconcile. Daemon is knighted in 97ac at 16 and given Darksister by Jaehaerys and weds Lady of Royce. IN 98Ac a great tourney at K.L. is held and in 99ac Barth dies, Gael Dies and Alysanne either that year or the next year in 100ac. In 101ac Baelon dies and council of 101. That same year Jaehaerys avoids war between Daemon and Laenor. Sometime during these years Otto Hightower is made hand and Jaehaerys dies by103ac.

 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Your ideas in that department are pretty weird, too.

Haha possibly. Im waiting for Fire and Blood to hopefully clear some things up. Like what happened to any possible kids between Ronnel and Lady Stark. Any possible info on old Alyssa Velaryon actually having Jocelyn that late in her life (Women have a 5% chance of getting pregnant in any given month after age 40. Menopause typically sets in around 50.) Or who was the traveling prince who knocked up Gael, and what became of Gael's child, and who were they. 

Otherwise, on the surface, there is just alot of rude actions being taken against house Velaryon and or women in the passing over of Rhaenys.  Which may be, but just too much weird stuff not adding up to me. Like the Velaryon pact with the Merling King in the time of Aegon I, and subsequent falling out of the family with court in the next couple generations. Court hob knobbing or something more?

I could buy the slight against women, if Viserys I hadnt countered it right after Jaehaerys. Jaehaerys just had more respect and fear of the Faith? Again, knowing when the Faith Militant was disbanded would be helpful. I can't help feel that theres something more to his decision though as Viserys is against Laenor also. Who i assume would change his name to Targaryen upon taking the throne, but either way, they are staunch allies and of pure Valyrian blood. 

And its a big point in the books that the Starks and Targaryen's never united that we know of, despite the Pact of Ice and Fire even. But, what if, it did happen. But the results were so bad (loss of dragons) that it was not worth bragging about. Unless, thats what the Starks wanted. 

If there was a conspiracy by either the Maesters or the Faith to end dragons, they likely needed the help of at least some major houses. Hightowers are an easy guess. Starks seem far removed, which makes them an even better suspect. When wacking some one in the mob for instance, they would hire some one out side of the organization. Some one not easily associated to them. Total Crack Pot but possible. The association between the Faith and the Old Gods is not fully understood and sound similar honestly (Seven faces of one god-skinchanger). Plus there is a weirwood in the oldest part of the Citidel. It may be crazy, but i didn't write that tree into the Citidel haha

Plus ive already broke down the name meaning of Brandon Stark - Brave one of the (Broom) Hill, which loosely translates too, Brave one of the Hill. Which sounds like the Hightower. Plus Uthor sounds like Hugor, huzhor, Azor etc. Simply put, there may be a connection between the Starks and Hightowers.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The child would still have been a bastard, the son of an unmarried daughter of Lord Stark. To inherit such a child would have to be legitimized in the Targaryen era (and presumably in the earlier ages, too). And that can only be done by kings.

 The Child would have been a bastard but no need to legitimize if you plan on hiding the dishonor on your house. People try in real life to hide things all the time, sometimes they're successful, sometimes not. He may have thought he could get away with it. He may not have cared. Remember, Torhen's son's spoke openly of rebelling against the Targareyns, and the Starks were less than eager to hand over the New Gift and wrote the Citidel asking for precedence. These are not die hard loyalist after all to their new kings.

 

[The Wondering Wolf]

7 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Yea, cause GRRM has never misdirected any one before....

Hmmm, maybe because it covers a time he plans on telling us more about in future books and may not want to spoil things.

Same reason GRRM had Elio pull out Ellard as the one who gave the Gift but was left out as Elio said "For GRRM to reveal possibly in Fire and Blood"

That would not be misdirecting, it would be lying. And it would not be lying to some random reader (which GRRM has never done as far as I know), but it would be lying to the guy who was responsible to get the facts of his book right. I do not know how you can consider something like that likely. GRRM even refused to answer some questions Elio and Linda had. But this one was not one of them.

And as Lord Varys said, GRRM never intended Ellard to be the Stark dealing with the Gift issue. Elio and Linda just looked at the Stark family tree (the one which contains all Starks up from Torrhen) and decided that Ellard would fit for the timing. But apparently he did not.