The three Kingsguard were loyal to Rhaegar, not Aerys.

[bent branch]

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 Lord Tywin had made himself greater than King Aerys, I heard one begging brother preach, but only a god is meant to stand above a king. 

- Oberyn Martell

This statement means that Tywin sinned by trying to place himself above the king. This is a criticism of Tywin's ambition, not an opinion that Tywin was actually greater than Aerys. However, I love that you are the first person to actually try to meet the challenge. Thank you. And I mean that sincerely (since my intentions often seem to be misread).

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 hour ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

 

Are you talking about my conclusion that Mel had nothing to do other the killing of the three kings, that she only saw them in the flames then used the info later as a power display? There is no text that spells this out to us.

The app states:

Melisandre offers to use her magic to kill the remaining usurper kings, stating that if she succeeds, she will have proven her powers and Stannis should let her sacrifice Edric Storm. What she neglects to tell Stannis is that she has already seen their deaths in her flames and that the magic is not required to bring them about.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

3 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The app states:

Melisandre offers to use her magic to kill the remaining usurper kings, stating that if she succeeds, she will have proven her powers and Stannis should let her sacrifice Edric Storm. What she neglects to tell Stannis is that she has already seen their deaths in her flames and that the nagic is not required to bring them about.

Thanks. I didn't know that was on the app.

I'm guessing it still won't matter to our friend John of Suburbia, but that's okay. To each their own.

[kissdbyfire]

On 1/24/2019 at 4:35 PM, John Suburbs said:

Yes. No one sets out to inaccurately predict the future, do they?

Are you seriously trying to spin it this way now? “Setting out to” has nothing to do w/ prophecy. Mel “sets out” to see a glimpse of AA; she also sets out to find the “grey girl” in her flames, because Jon would expect that of her. There are other examples. And then there is (are) prophecy (ies)... a noun, w/ no intent or purpose. So, while I agree w/ you that one who’s trying to see the future definitely doesn’t set out to predict it inaccurately, I fail to see what one’s intent has to do with this. 

[Lord Varys]

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

I already gave you multiple examples. Melisandre was certain that Stannis' destiny was to be the PtwP. Whether she is right is another matter. Rhaegar was certain that Aegon's destiny was to be the PtwP and he would sing the song of ice and fire. Whether he is right is another matter. Sansa thought it was her destiny to become queen. Maggy is certain that Cersei's destiny is to die by the valonquar, that Melara Heatherspoon's death was very close. The woods witch was certain that the PtwP was destined to come from Aerys Rhaella's line. There are countless examples of people believing that destinies are fixed, but predicting them is very difficult.

Melisandre pretty much is what I'm talking about here. She is not a moron sitting back and relaxing while *destiny* and *prophecy* fulfill themselves - she actually tries to fulfill the prophecies she believes in and she strives to enable Stannis to fulfill the destiny she thinks he has. She does not stay in Asshai - which she could if prophecy and destiny came true no matter what people - even the people such prophecies referred to - did.

She gives Stannis two fake Lightbringers and apparently honestly believes that when Stannis draws a burning sword dipped in wildfire from a fire the prophecy she believes in is fulfilled. Her view of prophecy and destiny is completely different from your rigid view. She obviously thinks that people can shape and change the future - in fact, that's why she glimpses into the future, assuming she can change its course by ensuring that certain things she has *foreseen* don't become true.

I mean, we do know that Mel foresees danger to her own person in the flames. She knew Cressen would try to poison her - meaning she saw that in the flames -, she foresaw that Davos would return from the dead and try to murder her and took steps to prevent that, etc. 

If said visions did not become true, then what's the criteria to differentiate a *true vision* from a *false vision*? There seem to be none. The same goes for all those other visions. They may become true - or not. And the same goes, presumably, for Maggy's prophecies and all the other things we hear.

Even green dreams might not have to become true - Jojen being a phlegmatic determinist doesn't mean that's the correct or healthy way to deal with a prophetic talent. 

Another example here is Daenerys - she is the only character who actually seems to have an actual destiny accompanied by visions and prophecies, but ADwD makes it very clear that she does not automatically fulfill that destiny. When she lingered in Meereen she actively turned away from her destiny, and had she been killed there - or were she to die in the Dothraki Sea - her destiny would not be fulfilled.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

As I said, Ned wanted to keep Jon's identity a secret. How on earth is he going to explain the presence of a crannogman in Winterfell who's job it is to raise Jon? At what age do you think it would be appropriate to drop this little bombshell on the boy? And what, exactly, is Jon supposed to do with this information? What will they do if someone overhears a conversation and word gets out that Jon is the son of Rhaegar?

Don't construe this as an exclusive deal. Jon grew up with the Stark children and had many companions and tutors. Howland would have been just one among Luwin, Rodrik Cassel, Old Nan, etc.

And I never said anything about Jon Snow learning stuff about his true parentage. That is irrelevant. Reed could have just told him about his role as per the promised prince prophecy, without burdening him with stuff about his parents. They are dead and gone.

That presupposes that the promised prince prophecy gives any clue as to what that guy has to do, though. And there is ample evidence that there are no concrete clues of this sort. After all, all Rhaegar seems to have drawn from the prophecy is that he was supposed to be a warrior. Great.

However, you assume that the Green Men and Howland knew pretty much everything there is about the role of that guy, so you would have to explain why they didn't do anything to prepare the guy for his destiny.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

If Jon is to fulfill this prophecy, then clearly the best move is to make sure that no one thinks he is anything special, not even Jon himself. Sometimes, the best course of action is no action at all.

LOL, no. Not in this context. If you are supposed to do special things you should know about them. If you don't, you are not likely to try to do them.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

So yes, people are surprised to see crannogmen this far from their bogs, and the Freys are, naturally, hostile. And this is following the re-establishment of the King in the North when all leal bannermen are expected to kneel to their new sovereign and then depart back to their own keeps. The presence of a crannogman hanging out in Winterfell year after year trailing Jon Snow like a ghoul would certainly set tongues wagging, particularly given the secrecy that surrounds his mother.

It might cause some people to talk, but it would not be *suspicious* as you claimed. And Ned could easily enough explain all that by claiming Jon's mother had been a crannogwoman, perhaps a sister or cousin of Howland's.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

More than likely, Ned knows everything that Howland knows, and it was Ned's decision to keep Jon's identity firmly under wraps -- a plan that could easily have gone south if there was a Reed at Winterfell for the past 15 years. And who says he is ignoring him? The Reeds have ways of knowing things far outside their bogs and crannogs.

I don't care about people watching people in crystal balls. I meant that he is actively ignoring Jon by not contacting him nor trying to pass him any information whatsoever.

If Howland Reed actually believed Jon Snow was *special* in any way (aside from his royal parentage) he would be the greatest moron in this series.

And the same goes for Ned Stark, by the way. Ned is not happy when Jon reveals he wants to take the black, but if he knew about the prophecy and believed in it and if he also thought it had to do with the Others - which nobody seems to have done - then he should actually have been glad that Jon wanted to take the place because he would be where he was supposed to be, right? In fact, he should actually have groomed Jon to take the black to help him to be where he should be. But there is no indication that he wanted Jon to take the black.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

How powerful do you think Howland is? How on earth is he supposed to stop half-a-million wildlings from rushing the Wall? These people are fleeing for their lives. If Jojen took Bran to Jon like you propose, first of all Jon would not be in a position to do anything because first he was a wildling, then fighting the wildlings at Castle Black, and then a prisoner of Thorne and Slynt. And even after he became Lord Commander, he is not going to send his crippled brother into the north just because some crannogman said he saw it in a dream -- and that's provided Stannis didn't grab Bran, have him bend the knee and use him to force his claim on Winterfell. So, no, taking Bran to Jon is not an option. Bran has to get to the 3EC so he can learn to fly.

Sorry, man, but if you have ways to know about the future then the way to act wouldn't have been during Mance's march but long before. Bloodraven and/or the Green Men should have contacted Mance and the Watch and Ned Stark to prepare them for the great war that was to come. That way pointless infighting beyond the Wall and in the North could have been avoided.

The fact that all this people remained utterly silent or did at best send obscure dreams/feelings or create weirdo animal omens strongly implies they are either unable or unwilling to properly contact other people - and the Green Men may be not very interested in involving themselves in outside affairs at all. Howland found them and learned from them, yes, but that doesn't mean that they give a rat's ass about the affairs of mortals.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

They don't have to know the future, but it is likely that, since they are so connected to "those who sing the song of earth" that they also know what the song of ice and the song of fire are and that together they create the song of ice and fire. Whether they call it the PtwP or the Last Hero it would be related to the Others and the War of the Dawn. So by all means, keep your assumptions, and I'll do the same.

The differences between us is that you seem to be pretty determined to assume things without good cause and connections were there are none established at this point - about people we know literally nothing about. That's too far-fetched for me.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

So the fact that those who sing the song of earth can be heard literally singing a song with voices "pure as winter air", coupled with the fact that the series is entitled "A Song of Ice and Fire", still does not give a reason to believe there is a song of ice and fire in the story. Incredible. I have never seen an illogical reach that far.

That is all great metaphoric speech, especially for an eight-year-old processing this, but the point to believe there is a literal song of ice and fire is when it actually is mentioned/sung, not when other songs are sung.

The Children refer to themselves as 'those who sing the song of the earth'. That implies this song isn't exactly a real song at all, but rather a reference to how they see themselves in the world and what they think is their purpose in life.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

By that logic, every person on the continent should have kings blood because thousands of years ago there were hundreds of kings having who knows how many legitimate and natural born children. Clearly there is a demarcation line somewhere, and the daughter of a Lord Stark making a baby with the crown Targaryen prince would certainly cross it.

Yes, chances are very high that many people actually do have king's blood (those descended from all the (petty) kings of Westeros most definitely include millions of people since the Age of Heroes), just as FaB flat-out confirmed that many people on Dragonstone and Driftmark do have Targaryen blood - and we can reasonably assume that thousands or tens of thousands of descendants of Aegon the Unworthy run around in KL and the places that guy visited. He supposedly slept with 900 women, and if only half of them gave birth to bastards he is likely to have had thousands of grandchildren.

There is no reason whatsoever to draw such a silly 'demarcation line' somewhere if the blood was actually 'magical'. Noble house names would be irrelevant in such a context.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

The rest, like you say, is baseless speculation, but what did a wise man once say about baseless speculation? Oh yeah, he doesn't build large structural theories around it.

But the speculation is not baseless because it is a matter of mathematics how your ancestors double with each generation, right? We don't need George's word to believe that, just as we don't need his word that gravity is a thing in his world.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

It shows that he knew the importance of the soiaf in relation to the ptwp. If Lyanna were also made aware of the soiaf from someone who heard it directly from those who know it's meaning, then it provides a very strong motivation for the two of them to light the realm on fire now so that mankind will be better prepared for the real battle when it comes. But as I freely admitted right from the start, I'm speculating. And honestly, there is no harm in speculating.

But there is no reason to draw Howland into that to find an explanation for Lyanna's possible interest in prophecy. Rhaegar could have told and convinced her, too.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, but you missing a crucial element here: that there is magic in this world and one of its primary sources is blood. Blood of the Dragon (Fire) runs through Targaryen veins. Blood of Ice (Others) runs through Stark veins. Mixing these two particular forms of magic creates a very powerful person, one that could very likely forge the peace between these two factions rather than simply destroy ice so that fire reigns supreme.

There is no evidence for the Others part of your idea, nor that combining such blood creates anything or anyone special. Ice and fire combined would form a lukewarm puddle. It makes for very bad symbolism unless you see it as a union bringing extremes together. That's what Dany and Jon could do together, perhaps, but Lyanna and Rhaegar did not do that.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

To say that the title has the depth to encompass dragons and Others, life and death, summer and winter, but not the blood magic that is a running theme throughout the book is selective reasoning at best.

Blood magic is just one small part of magic in general.

On 1/24/2019 at 10:44 PM, John Suburbs said:

Whether it was the Night King or Bael the Bard or some other source, this theory rests on the assumption that the Starks are Blood of Ice just as the Targs are Blood of the Dragon. I'm not asking you or anybody to buy into it, but please stop this nonsense about trying to disprove it with nothing more than your own opinions about what the story is about.

All I ask for you to actually give us any evidence why anyone should believe this Stark-Other connection.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 5:08 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Are you talking about my conclusion that Mel had nothing to do other the killing of the three kings, that she only saw them in the flames then used the info later as a power display? There is no text that spells this out to us.

If you want to believe she actually killed the three kings with the leeches then go for it, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. 

 

I'm only suggesting that it is possible.

And if it did not, this merely backs up the original point I was trying to make that some people can see the destiny of others (or themselves) and know that this is what will happen even if the seer does nothing to bring it about.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 7:40 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Are you seriously trying to spin it this way now? “Setting out to” has nothing to do w/ prophecy. Mel “sets out” to see a glimpse of AA; she also sets out to find the “grey girl” in her flames, because Jon would expect that of her. There are other examples. And then there is (are) prophecy (ies)... a noun, w/ no intent or purpose. So, while I agree w/ you that one who’s trying to see the future definitely doesn’t set out to predict it inaccurately, I fail to see what one’s intent has to do with this. 

Sorry, but this is just semantic silliness. If you fail to predict the future accurately you're not prophesizing anything -- you're just making a fool of yourself. From what we've seen, Mel's visions are correct, she just interprets them incorrectly, and makes a fool of herself in the process.

A prophecy is literally a message from a god to a prophet. If the prophet understands the true mean it becomes a prophecy. If he mucks it up, it's not a prophecy of anything. Are you saying that I can make a prophecy that the earth will be destroyed by a comet this time tomorrow, and that will be a prophetic statement even if it turns out to be completely false?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, Lord Varys said:

Melisandre pretty much is what I'm talking about here. She is not a moron sitting back and relaxing while *destiny* and *prophecy* fulfill themselves - she actually tries to fulfill the prophecies she believes in and she strives to enable Stannis to fulfill the destiny she thinks he has. She does not stay in Asshai - which she could if prophecy and destiny came true no matter what people - even the people such prophecies referred to - did.

She gives Stannis two fake Lightbringers and apparently honestly believes that when Stannis draws a burning sword dipped in wildfire from a fire the prophecy she believes in is fulfilled. Her view of prophecy and destiny is completely different from your rigid view. She obviously thinks that people can shape and change the future - in fact, that's why she glimpses into the future, assuming she can change its course by ensuring that certain things she has *foreseen* don't become true.

I mean, we do know that Mel foresees danger to her own person in the flames. She knew Cressen would try to poison her - meaning she saw that in the flames -, she foresaw that Davos would return from the dead and try to murder her and took steps to prevent that, etc. 

Unless she is also getting prophetic messages from her god that she is his instrument and these are the actions she is to take, which she is.

Contrast this with Jojen, who sees his fate and accepts it. He does not do a thing to prevent it. Why? Because "the greendreams do not lie," even though he misinterprets them frequently.

Ah, now we're getting into the fate vs. free will debate. Did Mel alter the future, or were her decisions pre-ordained? Would Davos have killed her had she not intervened? Was any other outcome even possible given that Mel does have the ability to be forewarned against threats to her person?

Let's take a look at what Bloodraven has to say on the subject:

Quote

"Those were shadows of days past that you saw, Bran."

"The past remains the past. We can learn from it, but we cannot change it."

"Men live their lives trapped in an eternal present, between the mists of memory and the sea of shadow that is all we know of the days to come."

So the past is unchangeable and lies in shadow. But the future is also in shadow, so is it reasonable to assume it is unchangeable as well? Maybe, maybe not. But given that many characters have seen the future and it came to pass without any intervention on their part, I'd say that it's pretty fixed.

Quote

If said visions did not become true, then what's the criteria to differentiate a *true vision* from a *false vision*? There seem to be none. The same goes for all those other visions. They may become true - or not. And the same goes, presumably, for Maggy's prophecies and all the other things we hear.

Even green dreams might not have to become true - Jojen being a phlegmatic determinist doesn't mean that's the correct or healthy way to deal with a prophetic talent. 

True visions are visions that come true in the fullness of time. False visions do not. Is the universe deterministic or can we forge our own destinies? The fact that Maggie's prophecies only came true following an extremely unlikely series of events, in which she played no part, should be proof positive that some destinies are fated and require zero action from the seer to bring them to fruition.

Lol, "phlegmatic determinist." That's a good one. Mind if I borrow it sometime?

Quote

Another example here is Daenerys - she is the only character who actually seems to have an actual destiny accompanied by visions and prophecies, but ADwD makes it very clear that she does not automatically fulfill that destiny. When she lingered in Meereen she actively turned away from her destiny, and had she been killed there - or were she to die in the Dothraki Sea - her destiny would not be fulfilled.

The Stallion Who Mounts the World was said to have a destiny according to "visions and prophecies." Was his fate thwarted in some way? Was it MMD's destiny to destroy him? Or did the Dosh Khaleen just get it wrong? Dany's "visions and prophecies" are fairly vague. If she dies tomorrow, who is to say she has not already lit her fires, mounted her rides and known her treasons? She's already become the Unburnt, the Mother of Dragons, the Breaker of Chains . . . I don't remember anyone saying that it was her destiny to conquer Westeros and sit the iron throne -- at least not anybody who would know this for a fact rather than just hopes she does. So how can you possibly say that her destiny would not be fulfilled when we don't even know what it is?

Quote

Don't construe this as an exclusive deal. Jon grew up with the Stark children and had many companions and tutors. Howland would have been just one among Luwin, Rodrik Cassel, Old Nan, etc.

And I never said anything about Jon Snow learning stuff about his true parentage. That is irrelevant. Reed could have just told him about his role as per the promised prince prophecy, without burdening him with stuff about his parents. They are dead and gone.

That presupposes that the promised prince prophecy gives any clue as to what that guy has to do, though. And there is ample evidence that there are no concrete clues of this sort. After all, all Rhaegar seems to have drawn from the prophecy is that he was supposed to be a warrior. Great.

However, you assume that the Green Men and Howland knew pretty much everything there is about the role of that guy, so you would have to explain why they didn't do anything to prepare the guy for his destiny.

No, Howland would be the subject of endless speculation. Why has the Lord of Greywater Watch left his seat to watch over baby Jon year after year? What's so important about Jon? If Howland is his father, why has Ned claimed him as a bastard and brought him to Winterfell? There would be a thousand questions, and Ned and Howland would have to lie and lie and lie and lie . . .

Just his role as the promised prince. Oh, is that all? And what does Howland say when little boy Jon learns that the last promised prince had to murder his own beloved wife to make his magic sword, then venture on an arduous years-long quest to find the race of evil spider-riding, wight-raising ice demons as his friends and companions, even his dog, all perished until he had to face these frightening enemies alone? I can't imagine a surer way to get a boy to reject this destiny then to tell him that this is what life will bring him.

No, I assumed that the Green Men know what the Song of Ice and Fire is and that they told it to Howland who relayed it to Lyanna. Why everyone did what they did from that point depends very much on what the Song of Ice and Fire actually means.

Quote

LOL, no. Not in this context. If you are supposed to do special things you should know about them. If you don't, you are not likely to try to do them.

Hogwash. Jon is already doing them. He knows where the real battle lies and he is taking steps to wage it -- all without knowing his "destiny" or with any involvement from Howland Reed.

Quote

It might cause some people to talk, but it would not be *suspicious* as you claimed. And Ned could easily enough explain all that by claiming Jon's mother had been a crannogwoman, perhaps a sister or cousin of Howland's.

That's silly. Howland is Lord of Greywater Watch. If Howland had fathered a child on a northern woman, a sister or cousin of Ned's, would Ned leave Winterfell to go raise him in a bog? Lords do not abandon their seats for years at a time unless it is very, very important.

Quote

I don't care about people watching people in crystal balls. I meant that he is actively ignoring Jon by not contacting him nor trying to pass him any information whatsoever.

If Howland Reed actually believed Jon Snow was *special* in any way (aside from his royal parentage) he would be the greatest moron in this series.

And the same goes for Ned Stark, by the way. Ned is not happy when Jon reveals he wants to take the black, but if he knew about the prophecy and believed in it and if he also thought it had to do with the Others - which nobody seems to have done - then he should actually have been glad that Jon wanted to take the place because he would be where he was supposed to be, right? In fact, he should actually have groomed Jon to take the black to help him to be where he should be. But there is no indication that he wanted Jon to take the black.

He is not ignoring him. He is watching him very carefully, seeing that he is being brought up to be a brave, honorable leader of men.

Ned is not unhappy by the prospect of Jon joining the watch. He simply thinks it's too soon.

Quote

Sorry, man, but if you have ways to know about the future then the way to act wouldn't have been during Mance's march but long before. Bloodraven and/or the Green Men should have contacted Mance and the Watch and Ned Stark to prepare them for the great war that was to come. That way pointless infighting beyond the Wall and in the North could have been avoided.

The fact that all this people remained utterly silent or did at best send obscure dreams/feelings or create weirdo animal omens strongly implies they are either unable or unwilling to properly contact other people - and the Green Men may be not very interested in involving themselves in outside affairs at all. Howland found them and learned from them, yes, but that doesn't mean that they give a rat's ass about the affairs of mortals.

So, why didn't Bloodraven or the Green Men rise up out of their caves and declare the truth to all living men? Why didn't they just hand out dragonglass to every man in the kingdom? I don't know. Maybe we should wait to see how the story unfolds. Might be that while they can see into the past and do know all the lore that men have forgotten, their ability to wage actual war against virtually invincible ice beings is limited. And yes, these are ancient institutions working on their own planes. Just because they know the Song of Ice and Fire does not mean it is at the forefront of their concerns.

Quote

The differences between us is that you seem to be pretty determined to assume things without good cause and connections were there are none established at this point - about people we know literally nothing about. That's too far-fetched for me.

That is all great metaphoric speech, especially for an eight-year-old processing this, but the point to believe there is a literal song of ice and fire is when it actually is mentioned/sung, not when other songs are sung.

The Children refer to themselves as 'those who sing the song of the earth'. That implies this song isn't exactly a real song at all, but rather a reference to how they see themselves in the world and what they think is their purpose in life.

I agree, we're on pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum. But how you can say there is no good cause to think that a story entitled "A Song of Ice and Fire" will not have songs of either ice or fire even after we learn that a basic element like earth does in fact have an actual song is beyond me.

Quote

Yes, chances are very high that many people actually do have king's blood (those descended from all the (petty) kings of Westeros most definitely include millions of people since the Age of Heroes), just as FaB flat-out confirmed that many people on Dragonstone and Driftmark do have Targaryen blood - and we can reasonably assume that thousands or tens of thousands of descendants of Aegon the Unworthy run around in KL and the places that guy visited. He supposedly slept with 900 women, and if only half of them gave birth to bastards he is likely to have had thousands of grandchildren.

There is no reason whatsoever to draw such a silly 'demarcation line' somewhere if the blood was actually 'magical'. Noble house names would be irrelevant in such a context.

So would the need for "king's blood" because she could pretty much grab anybody off the street and get the same results as Edric. So clearly there is a point at which the magical aspect of king's blood has faded to where it is no longer viable, particularly for major feats like waking stone dragons and fathering mythical heroes.

Quote

But the speculation is not baseless because it is a matter of mathematics how your ancestors double with each generation, right? We don't need George's word to believe that, just as we don't need his word that gravity is a thing in his world.

It is baseless because there is no text (aka, base) that leads to the conclusion that any of the Blackwood brides of Targaryen kings had even a drop of Stark blood in their veins. Yes, your ancestors double, which means the genetic heritage from any one ancestor is diluted. So just as we can see that 100-year-old kingsblood is no good for Mel's magic, 100-year-old Stark blood does not produce a child of ice and fire. This is called logical consistency.

Quote

But there is no reason to draw Howland into that to find an explanation for Lyanna's possible interest in prophecy. Rhaegar could have told and convinced her, too.

Rhaegar obviously did not know what the song of ice and fire was all about, otherwise he would not have made the mistake with Aegon.

If anybody in the kingdom knows what the soiaf is, it is the Green Men because, once again, they have knowledge of the lore that men have forgotten.

Quote

There is no evidence for the Others part of your idea, nor that combining such blood creates anything or anyone special. Ice and fire combined would form a lukewarm puddle. It makes for very bad symbolism unless you see it as a union bringing extremes together. That's what Dany and Jon could do together, perhaps, but Lyanna and Rhaegar did not do that.

Well, if the Starks are not ice, then why would Dany and Jon be ice and fire but not Lyanna and Rhaegar? Ice magic and fire magic could be very powerful indeed, particularly if it gives one the ability to warg a dragon. But, lol, yes, ice and fire makes water: the Drowned God will rule in the end.

Quote

Blood magic is just one small part of magic in general.

Disagree. Every piece of magic that we've seen has involved blood: the birthing of dragons, the prophesizing, talking to demon gods, making fire swords . . . The one exception seems to be Mel's shadow baby, but we are not even sure how she did that so it could still very well have required blood.

Quote

All I ask for you to actually give us any evidence why anyone should believe this Stark-Other connection.

I don't expect anyone to believe anything. It's just a theory, based on myth and legend. That's what makes it so fun.

[Annalee]

On 1/14/2019 at 6:39 PM, Aetta said:

Gawd Aerys was the King of Shade.  

 

   Whatever, he was the king and entitled to name his successor.  

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 1/21/2019 at 11:19 PM, Ran said:

Jon Arryn probably did not realize that child existed, since it seems she was only with child at the time. And the child died shortly after birth, regardless. But for the purpose of this discussion, the only thing that really matters is that the Battle of the Bells is before the weddings according to Catelyn's own understanding of the timeline. 

But Lysa never gave birth, did she? The child was aborted using moon tea, Lysa tells us:

I  would  have  given  you  a  son too, but they murdered  him  with  moon tea, with tansy and  mint  and wormwood, a spoon  of  honey and  a drop of pennyroyal.  

 

As Catelyn does not seem to have realized at the time that Lysa was pregnant, I would guess that she had not been all that far along, as she apparently hadn't been showing yet. At least not enough for Catelyn to notice. (Plus, Catelyn might have been preoccupied with her own grief over Brandon, I suppose, which couls have caused her to have been less perceptive than usual).

[HexMachina]

57 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

But Lysa never gave birth, did she? The child was aborted using moon tea, Lysa tells us:

I  would  have  given  you  a  son too, but they murdered  him  with  moon tea, with tansy and  mint  and wormwood, a spoon  of  honey and  a drop of pennyroyal.  

 

As Catelyn does not seem to have realized at the time that Lysa was pregnant, I would guess that she had not been all that far along, as she apparently hadn't been showing yet. At least not enough for Catelyn to notice. (Plus, Catelyn might have been preoccupied with her own grief over Brandon, I suppose, which couls have caused her to have been less perceptive than usual).

I don’t think ran is talking about Lysa there, rather the child of Jon Arryn’s heir. If I’m reading those quotes correctly anyway

[Ran]

30 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I don’t think ran is talking about Lysa there, rather the child of Jon Arryn’s heir. If I’m reading those quotes correctly anyway

Right.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I don’t think ran is talking about Lysa there, rather the child of Jon Arryn’s heir. If I’m reading those quotes correctly anyway

 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Right.

Ok thanks! Sorry, I misread your post.

Thank you for the clarification!  

[SFDanny]

On 1/14/2019 at 6:30 AM, Bael's Bastard said:

Dayne was, and Whent seems likely to have been, one of the few people that Rhaegar was either close to or put some amount of trust in. But for now, I am inclined to think that Dayne and Whent did not go so far as to brazenly disobey a direct order from Aerys. I am inclined to think that they made every effort to operate within the framework of their vows to Aerys.

There were clearly issues between Aerys and Rhaegar, but as far as we know, it never got to the point where Aerys or Rhaegar took open action against each other. We might have an Aerys faction and a Rhaegar faction, but they are ultimately on the same side, and whatever plotting went on, it does not appear to have gone to the point of open rebellion or treason.

Dayne and Whent very well might have been supportive of Rhaegar's efforts to minimize or remove Aerys's power as king, and see Rhaegar installed as regent, but as of yet, I don't think they were prepared to openly break with Aerys to support Rhaegar, nor do I think Rhaegar himself was prepared to openly break with Aerys.

Now, had Aerys known for certain that these Kingsguard were collaborating with Rhaegar for such purposes, I have little doubt that he would have seen it as treason, and punished it accordingly. But, despite his suspicions of Rhaegar and anyone who was close or seemed close to him, he apparently never felt it confirmed to the extent that he could do this.

While I think Dayne and Whent operated with Rhaegar on whatever he was doing, and while I think they probably justified that they were operating within the framework of their vows in an unprecedented situation, where the very king they were sworn to was the greatest danger to himself and the entire Targaryen regime, I don't think Hightower would accepted such a liberal interpretation.

I am definitely one of those that, until we receive further information, leans towards Hightower having to be persuaded by Rhaegar to remain at the tower against his will.

Ultimately, I think the KG simply obeyed whatever command Rhaegar gave them. Dayne and Whent had been with Rhaegar for what, over a year? So they might not have had any existing order from Aerys that they would have had to break to obey Rhaegar's command. And Hightower's order might have simply been to return Rhaegar to King's Landing.

Rhaegar could have demanded that Hightower remain in return for Rhaegar's return to KL, and taken it upon himself to smooth over any issue Aerys might have had with Hightower or the other KG remaining away once he returned to King's Landing.

I agree with most all of this. As @Ygrain, @three-eyed monkey, @SirArthur and others have said, Hightower is key, or rather trying to figure out Hightower's motivations is key to understanding some basic elements of the trio's conduct. However I think it is a mistake to ever look at any of Martin's character's as static. Almost always there is something else going on than the same old story we have come to accept from any of them. That caution, I think, also applies to Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower, the White Bull.

This is the man who lectures Jaime about his need to stand by and do nothing but follow his king's order while Rickard is roasted in his own armor, and Brandon strangles himself trying to save his father. For what? For demanding the right recognized throughout the Seven Kingdoms of trial by combat. Clearly Hightower's threshold for following through on his vows is high during this scene.

So, what could have caused such a man to change? To change enough that he would obey Rhaegar's order to stay at the Tower rather than to take Rhaegar back to King's Landing, and likely to take Lyanna back with him? It seems there are, or maybe they are things that might be responsible for this seeming change in Hightower. 

One is simply, to get Rhaegar to go back and take up the role he needs to, there must be some willingness on Rhaegar's part to do so or there is no point to bringing the Crown Prince back. A prince who will not lead the royal army and unite the realm against the rebellion is of no use to Aerys. Better to leave him in hiding than to bring him back to face punishment for refusal to support his father's cause, only to further drive a wedge between Rhaegar's supporters and the King at the worst time.

This plus we do not know if the odds against Hightower were such that he had no choice but to acquiesce to any orders given to him by Rhaegar - no matter if they contradicted those given to Ser Gerold by Aerys. By which I mean, we have no idea how many men Hightower brought with him to the tower. If it is Hightower alone, or with a small escort, then he has no ability to force Rhaegar to comply and return to King's Landing. But these two factors hide something else that may have been going on - a transformation in Hightower to chose where his loyalties lay if he must choose between father and son.

The difference between then and now is that those men were rebels against the Targaryens. Rhaegar is the Crown Prince of House Targaryen himself. But this dispute between Father and Son has been going on for a long time, why would Hightower choose this time to accept the orders of his Prince to those of his King? What Jaime tells us is what else is going on when Hightower is sent to get Rhaegar.

I think we have been told just such a cause to force a change in the man who lectured Jaime. Jaime tells us himself.

Quote

"After dancing griffins lost the Battle of the Bells, Aerys exiled him." Why am I telling this absurd ugly child? "He had finally realized that Robert was no mere outlaw lord to be crushed at whim, but the greatest threat House Targaryen had faced since Daemon Blackfyre. The king reminded Lewyn Martell gracelessly that he held Elia and sent him to take command of the ten thousand Dornishmen coming up the kingsroad. Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy rode to Stoney Sept to rally what they could of griffins' men, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south and persuaded his father to swallow his pride and summon my father. (ASoS 418) bold emphasis added

If Aerys has reached the state where he will threaten the life of his daughter-in-law to enforce her brothers's loyalty to his cause, I see no reason he would not do the same with his son. 

We know from Jaime that when the battle of the Trident goes against him and Aerys suspects the fault lies in Dornish betrayal, the threat includes Elia and Aegon.

Quote

"Rhaegar met Robert on the Trident, and you know what happened there. When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it. Somehow he had gotten it in his head that Prince Lewyn must have betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, but he thought he could keep Dorne loyal so long as he kept Elia and Aegon by his side. (ASoS 419) bold emphasis added

For the months following the Battle of the Bells Aerys used the threat to Rhaegar's family as a way to get the Dornish to stay loyal, and I think it highly unlikely this threat wasn't used to do the same with Rhaegar during this same period. In fact, I believe, it is Hightower who is sent to deliver the same threat to Rhaegar that Prince Lewyn is forced to deliver to Doran and Oberyn Martell

If I'm right, and I see no reason to doubt Aerys would use this threat against his son, Ser Gerold is no longer just forced to follow his oath to Aerys while it violates all custom and law, but he is forced to deliver the threat to Rhaegar that his wife's life, and possibly the lives of his children, are at risk unless he does as Aerys wills. This is the line I think that forces Ser Gerald to bend. He accepts Rhaegar's orders to stay at the Tower of Joy and guard Lyanna with Dayne and Whent, and thereby removes his support from Aerys in the struggle between father and son. He may not have physically bent his knees to Rhaegar, but in following his orders he has changed his loyalties from father to son.