Jump to content
divica

Were Ned, Robert and Jon Arryn the villains of the rebellion?

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well, the point behind that list I made is that there are quite a few characters who are definitively evil, miles worse than Robert, Ned and Jon. Robert, Ned and Jon had legitimate greviences with King Aerys. Robert and Ned were personally threatened by Aerys, Ned’s father and brother were tortured to death in a mockery of trial by combat, and Aerys is technically threatening his own kin in Robert. Jon Arryn wasn’t going to give up his foster sons to a man like that, because of what he had done. Would any of them have done the same things as Joffrey, or Ramsay, or the Mountain?

You and a lot of people are interpreting villains as people that are monsters while I meant villains as people that are acting against what is lawfull/right.

And if the northerns had a conspiracy to depose aerys and kill his familly in order to put robert on the throne then it was aerys that had grievances with ned and robert.

And that aerys had a right in wanting their heads! 

Share this post


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

The stories of Aerys enjoying the tortures are probably just that all we know is he witnessed the lord burn alive just like Stannis did. 

Well no. We know he raped Rhaella every time he gave someone to the flames. Jaime calls it out specifically. In fact we know one of the fire boners gave life to Dany, since Jaime gives us the quotes:

The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure.

[...] Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone.

32 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Aerys probably doesn't even make top 20 bad guys in asoiaf. I mean burning KL is as bad as you could get but he never did that, and im pretty sure others would as well. (Euron Viserys Joff like half of Essos )

Aerys is pretty easily a top 5 in the "modern" Westeros (post AC), and part of that is because of the power he was afford. Yandel mentions that if he'd not been a king no one would have paid much mind, and I agree. Joff and Viserys don't really hold a candle, though they could well later in life. Euron would definitely do it. However the only reason the plan didn't work is because Jaime stopped it. Aerys set it in motion with Jaime thinking Aerys' thought he'd be reborn as a dragon.

32 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Why is Gregor exempt, Because of his condition? If anything Aerys whos mental health is in question should be the one exempt. 

Because Gregor's condition is almost certainly because of a tumor, whereas Aerys' already crazy behavior got worse through experiences he could have avoided. Gregor doesn't get a pass, but he does get an asterisk.

32 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

we know neds the good guy from chapter 1, or whatever it is, but in chapter 2 we read that Danys fams were. 

Can you explain what you mean by the latter half of that sentence?

32 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Oh come on, it was to seperate itself from KL we have no way of knowing but that seems the most plausible

Let me rephrase, it was most likely a defensive alliance to be able to remove Aerys from power, if necessary. I am back and forth on that theory anyway, but I think we can safely discount its existence was to definitely remove Aerys and replace him with Robert. If that were the case, Tywin would have been much more active with his bannermen earlier on in the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, divica said:

 

And if the northerns had a conspiracy to depose aerys and kill his familly in order to put robert on the throne then it was aerys that had grievances with ned and robert.

And that aerys had a right in wanting their heads! 

Prove that Ned would have killed Viserys, Rhaenys and Aegon. Would you honestly think that he would have stabbed Rhaenys 50 times or smashed Aegon’s head against a wall?

 

Edited by Angel Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, divica said:

You and a lot of people are interpreting villains as people that are monsters while I meant villains as people that are acting against what is lawfull/right.

Well, isn’t that what a villain is, a person/character who acts in monstrous ways? Like Tarkin blowing up Alderaan. Billions exterminated in seconds, countless innocent lives lost in an instant. 

Tyrion Lannister is technically an anti-villain, since he has an mostly affable personality, but he aids and abets a cruel tyrant.

Edited by Angel Eyes

Share this post


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

Prove it.

Obviously I can t.

But the problem is that you can t prove there wasn t and that we have had some tidbits of information that indicate that the starks might have been planing something.

And my op can explain why the squire survived, why aerys wanted ned's and robert's heads and why he ordered jon arryn to do it. I think it is more than the theory aerys and the people sorrounding him were batshit crazy can do at the moment. And I like to have a justification for characters actions instead to saying they are doing things because they are completly irrational. But I admit I am biased in that.

 

Share this post


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

Obviously I can t.

But the problem is that you can t prove there wasn t and that we have had some tidbits of information that indicate that the starks might have been planing something.

And my op can explain why the squire survived, why aerys wanted ned's and robert's heads and why he ordered jon arryn to do it. I think it is more than the theory aerys and the people sorrounding him were batshit crazy can do at the moment. And I like to have a justification for characters actions instead to saying they are doing things because they are completly irrational. But I admit I am biased in that.

 

When people behave irrationally, they are irrational. He behaves irrational towards his own kin, his own lick-spittles, his own council, and anyone else outside of that circle. For example his response to the knight of the laughing tree. It's almost traditional that anonymous knights join the lists in a tourney. Whenever you read about a tourney, there's some anonymous person who measures him (or herself) against known knights. These usually are people who otherwise would not be allowed to enroll (women, squires) or otherwise avoided and being gifted the win (royalty, a la the historical black prince). There's not one king who makes a conspiracy and drama out of it, except mad Aerys. The man was as coocoo as brightflame, and as cruel as Maegor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Well no. We know he raped Rhaella every time he gave someone to the flames. Jaime calls it out specifically. In fact we know one of the fire boners gave life to Dany, since Jaime gives us the quotes:

The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure.

[...] Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone.

For sure, but that may have to do more with the fire then the murder. 

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Aerys is pretty easily a top 5 in the "modern" Westeros (post AC), and part of that is because of the power he was afford. Yandel mentions that if he'd not been a king no one would have paid much mind, and I agree. Joff and Viserys don't really hold a candle, though they could well later in life. Euron would definitely do it. However the only reason the plan didn't work is because Jaime stopped it. Aerys set it in motion with Jaime thinking Aerys' thought he'd be reborn as a dragon.

Because Gregor's condition is almost certainly because of a tumor, whereas Aerys' already crazy behavior got worse through experiences he could have avoided. Gregor doesn't get a pass, but he does get an asterisk.

Post AC I can only think of Maegor and that one eyed prince during the Dance. But in modern times theres plenty worse.

I mean the Tickler never left a carbon footprint like Aerys did, but Ramsays comes close. Euron is a kinslayer and a slaver. Walder massmurderd. Joff shot crossbows into a crowd. Cersei plans on filling the entire castle with children and midget heads. The great masters kill random civilians in the hopes of Dany restarting an entire continent slave based industry. Tywin raped his son (kinda) All of them committed hysterically heinous acts and impacted the world like only a Targaryen King could.

Aerys was an asshole, sure. But what was Robert? Not a rapist murderer, just a rapist, though he would have been a murderer if Ned told him the truth of his children.

Nah fuck Gregors asterisk, lol. Dude burned his brothers face and was basically rewarded for that, it was all downhill after that. When most people suffer from migraines they lie down not rape smallfolks daughter for being spoken to.

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

Can you explain what you mean by the latter half of that sentence?

Let me rephrase, it was most likely a defensive alliance to be able to remove Aerys from power, if necessary. I am back and forth on that theory anyway, but I think we can safely discount its existence was to definitely remove Aerys and replace him with Robert. If that were the case, Tywin would have been much more active with his bannermen earlier on in the war. 

So agot opens, ned and robert reminisce and laugh until robert gets all creepy and talks about killing rhaegar. The very next chapter is Dany being told her brother was a hero. 

If we are to belive rhaegar didnt maliciously kidnap Lyanna then Roberts whole rebellion becomes suspect and the granted good guys of robert and ned becomes suspect, especially as we see Robert acting more suspect.

Im pretty sure they didnt plan on installing Robert on the IT, agreed. But they were clealry becoming more independant from the IT and its Tyrell and Lannister swords. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, divica said:

If rickard and brandon were conspiring against aerys he had the right to punish them. And that talk about the fair trial is kind of weird.

If some nobles plan to kill the king given aerys personality and personal history what was he suposed to do? Hells how many fair trials have we seen in asoiaf? Is it really so strange that aerys had a mock trial for people conspiring against him.

Then given that robert was their supposed new king and ned was not only a grown up stark but robert's best friend it makes sense that aerys would demand their heads. 

Was aerys brutal? YES. Was he within his rights? yes!

Sorry but I can’t help but feel you are trolling us. Just a hunch.

Share this post


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

For sure, but that may have to do more with the fire then the murder. 

Post AC I can only think of Maegor and that one eyed prince during the Dance. But in modern times theres plenty worse.

I mean the Tickler never left a carbon footprint like Aerys did, but Ramsays comes close. Euron is a kinslayer and a slaver. Walder massmurderd. Joff shot crossbows into a crowd. Cersei plans on filling the entire castle with children and midget heads. The great masters kill random civilians in the hopes of Dany restarting an entire continent slave based industry. Tywin raped his son (kinda) All of them committed hysterically heinous acts and impacted the world like only a Targaryen King could.

Yeah it's the scope of the acts that make him the worst, not the actual acts themselves. Taken piece by piece there are several characters worse.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Aerys was an asshole, sure. But what was Robert? Not a rapist murderer, just a rapist, though he would have been a murderer if Ned told him the truth of his children.

So he wasn't a murderer and the penalty for treason (cuckolding the king) is death by headsman. I suppose he'd be a murderer if he killed the kids but even that's debatable given how seriously illegitimacy was to the royal line in those times.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Nah fuck Gregors asterisk, lol. Dude burned his brothers face and was basically rewarded for that, it was all downhill after that. When most people suffer from migraines they lie down not rape smallfolks daughter for being spoken to.

Agree to disagree

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

So agot opens, ned and robert reminisce and laugh until robert gets all creepy and talks about killing rhaegar. The very next chapter is Dany being told her brother was a hero. 

If we are to belive rhaegar didnt maliciously kidnap Lyanna then Roberts whole rebellion becomes suspect and the granted good guys of robert and ned becomes suspect, especially as we see Robert acting more suspect.

Robert didn't rebel for Lyanna. He rebelled to save his own hide. After SE, Robert didn't ride with Ned to find her. He was either excluded or didn't care. Ned and Robert hadn't talked since the Sack and wouldn't talk again until Ned told him Lyanna died.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Im pretty sure they didnt plan on installing Robert on the IT, agreed. But they were clealry becoming more independant from the IT and its Tyrell and Lannister swords. 

Tywin was open to alliance for years (ask Hoster Tully) after his treatment by Aerys and even moreso after Jaime became KG (well maybe more against Aerys than pro Alliance).

Share this post


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

Theres Jaimes recollection of Rhaegar saying he wants to remove his pops. Great Council or not. 

I don’t have time to reply properly now, but really wanted to address the above.

Do you have a quote to back that up? Because all I have is this:

AFfC, Jaime I

Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime’s shoulder. “When this battle’s done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Lol, I get that. It's just one of the many ideas I've presented over the years that makes most people on this forum think I'm nuts. :ack:

Good job on that. I'm with you.

 

8 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Maa culpa. I had forgotten those parts of the world book. The Tywin quote doesn't support Rhaegar trying to depose him. And once again. a great council is a significant variance from deposing a reigning dictator.

Well, seeing how there's no mention of Rhaegar accusing Tywin of treason at that moment, I'd say it does.

And there's only one reason to call a council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Make note of the fact that the letters were written by the brothers, not the father. The North was divived over Torrhen's choice to bend the knee, since some Northerners chose exile in Essos over remaining in the North and formed a sellsword company

Where does it say that the letters were written by the brothers?

It literally says "Stark accepted these arrangements only after much protest" which suggests those were Lord Stark's letters as he was the one to accept or refuse the arrangements.

 

12 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And it's not just about Andal versus First Men, but a kingdom they had centuries of feud with.

Yet they had no problem marrying the First Men former kings of the Vale. And they had no problem marrying Manderlys, who follow the Faith of the Seven. So, however you look at it, they had no problem with either the Vale or religion. It totally was about Arryns being Andals.
Even many years later Ned keeps teaching his children that "The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks". Because it's important.

 

Overall I do not disagree with your point that some lords got along and genuinely liked some kings and queens. But it doesn't mean that every lord was full of enthusiasm about every single match that the kings and queens wanted. In particular, the Stark-Arryn one certainly looks forced to me.

Edited by wia

Share this post


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

You and a lot of people are interpreting villains as people that are monsters while I meant villains as people that are acting against what is lawfull/right.

I know, I know, I will now quote the Oxford dictionary. And what do these bloody experts know anyway ?

villain, noun:

Quote

 

(in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.

‘a pantomime villain’
 
‘I have played more good guys than villains’
 
  1. 1.1 British informal A criminal.
    ‘some people have been tricked by villains with false identity cards’
    ‘the armed villains run off into the night’
    1.2 The person or thing responsible for specified problems, harm, or damage.
  2. ‘the industrialized nations are the real environmental villains’

 

And before you wonder where 2 is, it's an archaic form of villein. (a feudal tenant entirely subject to a lord or manor to whom he paid dues and services in return for land.)

Both interpretations are there, but using criminal (1.1.) in the context of a novel may be misleading.

Edited by SirArthur

Share this post


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

Where does it say that the letters were written by the brothers?

You're correct.

4 hours ago, wia said:

It literally says "Stark accepted these arrangements only after much protest" which suggests those were Lord Stark's letters as he was the one to accept or refuse the arrangements.

You left out the paradoxal phrasing...

"But there are letters preserved at the Citadel suggesting that Stark accepted these arrangements only after much protest"

How can it only be "suggesting much protest". Protest is strong and clear, whereas suggesting implies non-confirmed but based on opinion. So, thanks for bringing this up. Such a contradiction of statements can only work if the letters preserved at the Citadel aren't letters from Starks at all, but basically hearsay (likely letters from a maester in KL), which then are interpreted by yaendel.

Now I do expect Starks to not have agreed to it at first suggestion, and it was never my point anyway that great houses (prior kings) were overjoyed at the sisters' meddling, but we cannot interpret hearsay revelations as "under duress". Alaric disagreed with Alysanne too. It weren't threats, nor a dragon that convinced Alaric to agree with Alysanne, but her reasoning. And there is no evidence that proves Aegon, Rhaenys or Visenya threatened Torrhen over the match they proposed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

You're correct.

You left out the paradoxal phrasing...

"But there are letters preserved at the Citadel suggesting that Stark accepted these arrangements only after much protest"

How can it only be "suggesting much protest". Protest is strong and clear, whereas suggesting implies non-confirmed but based on opinion. So, thanks for bringing this up. Such a contradiction of statements can only work if the letters preserved at the Citadel aren't letters from Starks at all, but basically hearsay (likely letters from a maester in KL), which then are interpreted by yaendel.

Now I do expect Starks to not have agreed to it at first suggestion, and it was never my point anyway that great houses (prior kings) were overjoyed at the sisters' meddling, but we cannot interpret hearsay revelations as "under duress". Alaric disagreed with Alysanne too. It weren't threats, nor a dragon that convinced Alaric to agree with Alysanne, but her reasoning. And there is no evidence that proves Aegon, Rhaenys or Visenya threatened Torrhen over the match they proposed.

 

I don't see that much contradiction there to be honest. The way I see it, those were:
- Stark letters
- Targaryen letters
- letters of 3rd parties who witnessed or claimed to witness Torrhen's protest and brothers refusal to attend the wedding
- all/some of the above

Though opinions of 3rd parties are usually described as 'it is said' or 'some claimed'. The fact that there are actual letters suggests to me that they were written by either Lord Stark or Targaryens.

What would be the agenda of the Grand Maester in writing letters to the Citadel with false claims that Lord Stark has protested the match?
Overall, who wrote those letters is anyone's guess.

 

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

How can it only be "suggesting much protest". Protest is strong and clear, whereas suggesting implies non-confirmed but based on opinion.

I think that "suggesting much protest" means that Torrhen was using every excuse in the book to get out of this match without outright saying 'no' which isn't something he thought he could afford to say. But again, it's anyone's guess

 

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

but we cannot interpret hearsay revelations as "under duress". Alaric disagreed with Alysanne too.

And 'under duress' would depend on the person, wouldn't it? The fact that there is a threat of dragons doesn't mean that everyone will act the same. Some people chose to fight, some chose to show their defiance openly, some chose exile, Torrhen chose peace, Alaric might've chosen to fight for all we know.

What I'm saying is that Torrhen was the kind of guy who thought that peace was important and worth more than things like, for example, his title. And as arranged marriages should've been totally normal to him, him protesting over a particular match would suggest that he really didn't like it. 

To compare, I'm sure that if he died and one of his sons was presented with that match and he pretested, it wouldn't mean anything in particular other than the son hating Targaryens which is something that we already know.

Share this post


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

I don't see that much contradiction there to be honest. The way I see it, those were:
- Stark letters
- Targaryen letters
- letters of 3rd parties who witnessed or claimed to witness Torrhen's protest and brothers refusal to attend the wedding
- all/some of the above

Though opinions of 3rd parties are usually described as 'it is said' or 'some claimed'. The fact that there are actual letters suggests to me that they were written by either Lord Stark or Targaryens.

What would be the agenda of the Grand Maester in writing letters to the Citadel with false claims that Lord Stark has protested the match?
Overall, who wrote those letters is anyone's guess.

The agenda is on Maester Yandel writing the world book. The quote you refer to is a side comment from the author of the World Book, Maester Yandel, HIS interpretation. 

As for the grand maester or any other maester at KL at Aegon's time: they would report to the Citadel by letter, and keep logs. This practice is evidenced by plenty of the sources usually mentioned in either the World Book or F&B. Except, here Yandel actually keeps his source vague: letters, but not by whom. Now, if the Citadel actually had Stark letter protesting against this match, then Yandel wouldn't use the word "suggest". He would just come out and say that Torrhen protested against it and even use some wording. He cannot. So, we can rule out Stark letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The agenda is on Maester Yandel writing the world book. The quote you refer to is a side comment from the author of the World Book, Maester Yandel, HIS interpretation. 

As for the grand maester or any other maester at KL at Aegon's time: they would report to the Citadel by letter, and keep logs. This practice is evidenced by plenty of the sources usually mentioned in either the World Book or F&B. Except, here Yandel actually keeps his source vague: letters, but not by whom. Now, if the Citadel actually had Stark letter protesting against this match, then Yandel wouldn't use the word "suggest". He would just come out and say that Torrhen protested against it and even use some wording. He cannot. So, we can rule out Stark letters.

I'm confused.

So you're saying that:
- there are letters
- they are not from Lord Stark
- they are likely from a maester in KL
- but the maester in KL does not have an agenda
- maester Yandel does have an agenda

So... how do letters from a maester in KL that do not mention Lord Stark protesting (because he doesn't have an agenda) serve maester Yandel and his agenda? 

The options are:
1. Letters from a 3rd party (let's say a maester in KL) that do mention the protest. In which case Yandel does have an agenda and there was a protest.
2. Stark and/or Targaryen letters that have veiled protest. In which case Yandel does have an agenda and there was a protest.
3. Stark and/or Targaryen letters that have no protest, but things that can be interpreted as one with enough stretching, that Yandel, who has an agenda, has intentionally misinterpreted.

Letters from a 3rd party (let's say a maester in KL) that do not mention the protest are useless to Yandel and therefore wouldn't be mentioned.

Overall does he even name his sources much? 

No source:

Quote

Though Torrhen Stark had given up the ancient crown of the Kings of Winter, his sons were less glad of the Targaryen yoke, and some among them entertained talk of rebelling, and of raising the Stark banner whether Lord Torrhen consented or not.

Quote

Later still, it was said that the Starks were bitter at the Old King and Queen Alysanne for having forced them to carve away the New Gift and give it the Night's Watch; this may be one reason for why Lord Ellard Stark sided with Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys at the Great Council of 101 AC.

"There are letters preserved at the Citadel" is actually the only sort-of-source cited in 3 paragraphs on the topic. If there are letters, but they don't mention any protesting, why refer to them at all instead of continuing his no source storytelling?

Since he goes out of his way to mention the letters, I think it's likely that there is some protest in them.

Edited by wia

Share this post


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

I'm confused.

So you're saying that:
- there are letters
- they are not from Lord Stark
- they are likely from a maester in KL
- but the maester in KL does not have an agenda
- maester Yandel does have an agenda

So... how do letters from a maester in KL that do not mention Lord Stark protesting (because he doesn't have an agenda) serve maester Yandel and his agenda? 

The options are:
1. Letters from a 3rd party (let's say a maester in KL) that do mention the protest. In which case Yandel does have an agenda and there was a protest.
2. Stark and/or Targaryen letters that have veiled protest, that Yandel. In which case Yandel does have an agenda and there was a protest.
3. Stark and/or Targaryen letters that have no outright protest, but thing that can be interpreted as one with enough stretching, that Yandel, who has an agenda, has intentionally misinterpreted.

Letters from a 3rd party (let's say a maester in KL) that do not mention the protest are useless to Yandel and therefore wouldn't be mentioned.

Overall does he even name his sources much? 

No source:

"There are letters preserved at the Citadel" is actually the only sort-of-source cited in 3 paragraphs on the topic. If there are letters, but they don't mention any protesting, why refer to them at all instead of continuing his no source storytelling?

Since he goes out of his way to mention the letters, I think it's likely that there is some protest in them.

When it comes to sources I speak in general on how Yandel deals with it in his commentary throughout the WHOLE of the world book. For example when he talks about the Wall, reports of sightings of giants, and such, the sources are letters from maesters.

There is only one option with the commentary: the letters are from a 3rd party (a maester in KL at the time) that mention Torrhen Stark's reluctance to the proposed match for his daughter. We do not know how this was phrased, nor how strong this protest truly was, let alone how it was worded. The maester in KL attempted to be as faithful as he could.

Yandel is the sole one with an agenda here. He cannot outright claim there was "much protest" by Torrhen Stark. He can only "suggest" there was. And he cleverly succeeds in it, because your focus is on "much protest" and taking it ad verbim, glossing over that the leading verb in Yandel's commentary is "suggest". If Yandel has written evidence of strong and much protest by Torrhen, he has no need to word his commentary so carefully at all (after all he claims to have "letters").

If you and I were to have a disagreement, and I loudly and vehemently protest against you, and there is a direct witness to this, then there's no way that the witness would say "the conversation I overheard suggests that SSR was protesting much." No, they'd say "I heard SSR protest strongly". You only use "suggest" when you have no actual confirmation or evidence of it, but only indirect info, where you need to fill in the gaps and must interprete.

One can only conclude the source is a hearsay, and actually so vague about Torrhen's "protest" that Yandel can only "suggest" it instead of claiming it. For all we know the actual marriage consent developed over several letters between the matchmaking queens and Torrhen Stark in the same way that Alysanne and Alaric discussed ideas: Torrhen gave reasons why he did not consider the boy-lord Arryn a good match for his daughter (a House the Starks warred with over land, a long-time enemy, Andal, his daughter would wed before a tree in a godswood), and the match-making queens argued the benefits, with Torrhen eventually consenting to it.

What is Yandel's agenda? Keep his head. The World book is a gift for King Tommen, with Cersei hating Starks, who are an already defeated, annihilated House, except for Sansa (who is believed to have poisoned Joffrey) as far as Yandel knows. Whenever he has to write about Starks it is in his own best survival interest to paint them as always disagreeing with the crown. He does this in a clever way: by focusing on the protest of Starks who aren't actual Lords at the time, and for which there are witness reports, and secondly by twisting hearsay sources to make it sound much stronger than the evidence he has.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

If Yandel has written evidence of strong and much protest by Torrhen, he has no need to word his commentary so carefully at all (after all he claims to have "letters").

If you and I were to have a disagreement, and I loudly and vehemently protest against you, and there is a direct witness to this, then there's no way that the witness would say "the conversation I overheard suggests that SSR was protesting much." No, they'd say "I heard SSR protest strongly". You only use "suggest" when you have no actual confirmation or evidence of it, but only indirect info, where you need to fill in the gaps and must interprete.

I think that we actually disagree on the "much" part with you. You think that "strong" and "loudly and vehemently" are synonymous to "much", I do not. 

The way I see 'much' in this context is if you offered me a contract and I, without outright refusing or outright accepting, would drag the negotiations out for as long as possible by coming up with excuses, demanding unreasonable compensation, presenting opposite suggestions, requesting clarifications and posing difficult questions in hopes of you giving me up as a candidate for this contract and switching to someone else. Such negotiations might suggest much protest from my side to a 3rd party's point of view.

Yandel has an agenda, but not everything in the book is about it. We can't just take any part of it and say "Yandel has an agenda, so it's a lie". If we were to question Yandel, why not question things that he doesn't have a source on like Torrhen's sons wanting to rebel? 

Anyway we're way OT, so let's just agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wia said:

I think that we actually disagree on the "much" part with you. You think that "strong" and "loudly and vehemently" are synonymous to "much", I do not. 

The way I see 'much' in this context is if you offered me a contract and I, without outright refusing or outright accepting, would drag the negotiations out for as long as possible by coming up with excuses, demanding unreasonable compensation, presenting opposite suggestions, requesting clarifications and posing difficult questions in hopes of you giving me up as a candidate for this contract and switching to someone else. Such negotiations might suggest much protest from my side to a 3rd party's point of view.

Yandel has an agenda, but not everything in the book is about it. We can't just take any part of it and say "Yandel has an agenda, so it's a lie". If we were to question Yandel, why not question things that he doesn't have a source on like Torrhen's sons wanting to rebel? 

Anyway we're way OT, so let's just agree to disagree.

I actually think it was long negotiation marriage deal. The issue lies with reframing it as "protest".

How do negotiations proceed even between parties who both are intent on agreeing from the get go? They feign counter arguments, feign protestations, to get more out of it than the initially agreed price. It is so with negotiations when buying a house, when Jon wants something from Tycho Nestoris, etc. And Starks are generally portrayed as being very good in this: we see it with Alaric Stark, Jon Snow, and Jon Snow's memories of Ned Stark's words on it. 

Yandel's commentary aims at making it look like something else. I'm not saying we should treat anything Yandel says as a lie, but we should damn well read as a sceptic, especially when he writes a convulated commentary such as this one where he basically admits to "suggest" something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×