Jump to content
three-eyed monkey

The three Kingsguard were loyal to Rhaegar, not Aerys.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

You're confusing prophecy with destiny. One is the ability to accurately predict the future and the other is the future as determined by fate.

Seems you are confusing prophecy with foresight since prophecy isn’t the ability to accurately predict the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 9:18 AM, A Ghost of Someone said:

I figured Hightower may have done what he did out of plausible circumstance sort of speak. My King commanded me to find his son and heir, send him back, so I did. While there, the Prince, second in command ordered me to stay etc.... , we may never really know but we do know that they did nothing when Aerys murdered the Northern and Vale lords and called for innocent heads. They did nothing. 

Ser Barristan did tell Dany but was either distracted or cut off by her. Something alone the lines, "We all knew or thought the King was a little mad but it was not until after..... - he must be referring to that incident because up until that point, they all followed him obediently. 

Sorry, no. Whether they were assigned to Rhaegar or not, the fact that the realm is in rebellion and the king's life is in danger can only mean one of two things: either they betrayed Aerys in favor of Rhaegar or Aerys was the one who ordered them to remain at the tower.

Their primary duty, above everything else, is to protect the king. So with the king in jeopardy, their oaths compelled them to return to his side. And this was particularly the case after Rhaeger headed north with Selmy, Darry and Martell, leaving the king with only one guard -- a teenager of dubious loyalty. Remember all that talk in the White Sword Tower?:

Quote

"Sers." Jaime said in a formal tone when all five had assembled "who guards the king?"

"My brothers, Ser Osney and Ser Osfryd," Ser Osmund replied.

"And my brother, Ser Garlan," said the Knight of Flowers.

"Will they keep him safe?"

"They will, my lord."

"Be seated then." The words were a ritual. Before the seven could meet in session, the king's safety must be assured.

 There is no way Jaime could guard the king himself, 24-7 for months, and the king does not trust a single living soul in the Red Keep to wear steel in his presence. So by law and by custom, all three should have returned to protect their king, unless the king himself ordered them to do otherwise.

And I'm sorry, but Aerys sent Hightower to find Rhaegar just to tell him to return to the capital? Why wouldn't he want Hightower to bring him back personally? This is a rather important assignment, after all.

Share this post


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

Seems you are confusing prophecy with foresight since prophecy isn’t the ability to accurately predict the future. 

Take it up with @Lord Varys. He's the one conflating the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

You're confusing prophecy with destiny. One is the ability to accurately predict the future and the other is the future as determined by fate.

This is what you posted, right? You clearly said that [prophecy] “is the ability to accurately predict the future”. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

You're confusing prophecy with destiny. One is the ability to accurately predict the future and the other is the future as determined by fate. So when Mel, Qyburn etc., talk about the uncertain future, they are talking about the ability to predict it. Mel certainly believes it is Stannis' destiny to be the PtwP, but whether she is right about it is another question. So when applied to Howland's approach to Jon, he could very well believe that if it is Jon's destiny to be the PtwP, that is what he will be. If not, then he isn't and was never meant to be. There is certainly no reason why Howland would decide that it was his responsibility to ensure that Jon fulfills his destiny.

I asked you whether there is any reason to assume that your view of prophecy or destiny is actually reflected by the characters in the books. Do they have as deterministic a view on *destiny* as you apparently have or not?

I see no reason to assume that a single person in Westeros would just sit there like a sullen child declaring 'prophecy fulfills itself' and 'nothing can stand in the way of destiny' regardless what we do. Far to the contrary. That is not a mindset any of the characters in the books depict.

Instead they actively try to fulfill prophecies (or prevent them from ever coming true) and they actually shape destinies.

The idea that a prophecy has to come true or that destiny will see to itself is laughable.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Besides, it wouldn't be Howland's place to do such a thing. Jon is Ned's responsibility. And frankly, it would look rather suspicious if Howland were to suddenly take up residence in Winterfell and start showing a piqued interest in Ned's bastard.

Your first point is irrelevant - it is Ned's decision, sure, but if Ned bought Howland's beliefs about Jon then he would have no issue with Howland teaching Jon stuff, right? - and your second point makes no sense. Howland Reed is a Northman and a bannerman of Eddard Stark. He can spend as much time with his liege lord and friend as he wants. Nobody got 'suspicious' when the Reed siblings showed a piqued interest in Brandon Stark, right?

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

 Of course, the whole thing is speculation. I never claimed otherwise. But Martin has already revealed all sorts of answers to mysteries that previously could only have been answered through speculation. To say that we shouldn't consider alternate possibilities until Martin makes it plain in the text is silly. That's the whole purpose of this forum.

Sure. I just say your speculation there doesn't convince me, nor are your arguments justifying your speculation there. Some theories/speculation have more to it than other ideas.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Why is it necessary for Howland to be there at all? Why is it necessary for Jon to be aware of this destiny of his in order for him to fulfill it. His fate will arrive one way or another.

It is not necessary for Howland to do anything. But it makes no sense to assume Howland knows things that would cause any sane person not acting like a badly written fictional character with plot holes in his background motivation to just ignore Jon Snow throughout his entire life.

Neither you nor I would do that if we were in Howland's situation. It just doesn't make any sense. One can invent excuses why he may not have done what he obviously should have - but since we have no reason to believe he knows or believes he knows stuff about Jon Snow there is no reason whatsoever to entertain such speculation. We can just dismiss the idea that he has such knowledge.

And, sure, people need knowledge and tools to do what they are supposed to. Jon Snow has to know what to do if he is supposed to do it. Unless, of course, his 'destiny' is to stumble while running down the stairs to slay the head Other in his fall. That kind of 'destiny' certainly doesn't need knowledge or tools. But waging a successful war does.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

What possible reason could there be for laying this much responsibility on the shoulders of a little boy, and what if this information were to pass beyond Jon, Howland and Ned?News that Jon is a special ice-fire child would spread around Winterfell first, then the north then to the whole kingdom.

Those are weak excuses as well. Nobody said they should tell the boy all at once, nor is there any reason to bother the boy with the story of his parentage. That is irrelevant for his destiny. At best it would be a sign to recognize the promised prince. Correctly citing his pedigree is not going to avail Jon Snow in the war for the dawn.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, but no. Best to keep everything on the down-low for now, and when the time is right, if ever it is, then Howland can have his chat with Jon.

Well, if said chat were just about his pedigree then he could just as well keep his mouth shut for good. Because that's most definitely irrelevant. Family trees don't fight battles.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Jojen certainly thinks so, and he is the one having the dreams. And honestly, you think Jon would let Bran and Co. skip through the Wall while Mance's army is bearing down on them? Please.

Who cares about Mance? If Howland had special knowledge he should do all in his power to prevent the war between the wildlings and the Watch - which both he and Bloodraven fail to do.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

So, you can assume he received information on only the Others, but to assume anything else is "without basis." The fact that such an ice-fire person would be the one prophesied to defeat the Others, or herald their arrival, would be irrelevant to this tale? And as I said, this knowledge did shape some of his decisions; he told Lyanna what was up, which led her to Rhaegar. Now, whether that was by intent or merely the result of Lyanna's willfulness is another question.

I assume that Howland received information on the Others on the basis that the Green Men go back to the Pact. They know stuff. Either collectively or even on an individual level - who knows how long-lived they are? What we have no reason to believe at this point is that they know anything about the future or that they care about some Targaryen prophecy and their promised prince.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Again, we don't know what Howland is thinking or what, exactly, he was told on the IoF. For all we know, he doesn't know what to make of Jon. Maybe he is the PtP, maybe he isn't. We do know that Ned went to great lengths to keep Jon in cognito, and either Howland's presence or some confidant of his at Winterfell year after year hanging out with Jon would certainly draw notice, especially since the crannogmen are rarely seen outside the Neck.

You mean just as everybody went into conspiracy theory territory when the Reeds showed up at Winterfell? Or when Howland actually accompanied Eddard Stark to war?

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

We know the children sing "the song of earth" and that it is a real song, not a metaphor. So it stands to reason that there are also songs of ice, songs of fire, songs of air . . .  Whether these songs are the source of magic or not is irrelevant. Those who sing them are important, and whomever sings the song of ice and fire is very important because that is the name of the series.

The fact that there is one song - and I'm not really sure whether 'a magical song' sung by the Children is the same what we see as song - doesn't mean there are others of the same kind. We have no reason to believe that there is a literal song of ice and fire, nor do we have any reason to believe anyone ever believed that the pedigree of the person who is supposed to 'have' that song has to be descended from people symbolizing *ice* and *fire* in any way. That is, at this point, just baseless speculation. And I don't build large theoretical structures on baseless speculation.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

This is an odd statement from someone who talks about making huge stretches based on the information we have. The information we have is that no Stark has ever made a baby with a Targaryen, and the none of the Blackwoods who married into the royal family had any direct connection to Starks. Nada.

No, this is not a stretch at all. For one, in the MUSH we have Cregan Stark's youngest daughter marrying into House Blackwood. But even if we ignore that - and if we pretend the female line counts - then simple logic tells us that the number of grandparents doubles with each generation - meaning that the chances that there are no Stark ancestors among the Blackwoods (or even the Daynes and the Martells) in the last 8,000 years are astronomically low. This is a world in which nobility predominantly marries other nobility. And there are a number of Blackwood-Stark marriages in the family tree, so it is not unlikely that this happened in the past, too.

Even if it did not, then it would have happened by means of a string of another family - a Blackwood marrying a Sunderland, the Sunderland daughter marrying a Flint, the Flint daughter marrying a Stark.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Nobody does. Why should they? Nobody outside of Rhaegar seems to have heard of the song of ice and fire either. Rhaegar undoubtedly read about it in some book somewhere, and when he finally learned what the ice component of the song was, he acted on it.

I doubt that this is what happened. But sure, could be. Unfortunately we have no idea what Rhaegar believed or thought in relation to the Lyanna thing, so this does lead us nowhere at this point.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

I'm not talking about characters in-universe. I'm talking about a reader who doesn't seem to recognize that blood magic is central to the story, that Targs are said to be descended from dragons, are "blood of the dragon" and that dragons are "fire made flesh." There is the fire component of Targaryen blood (and no, this does not mean their blood is actually fire). Meanwhile, the Starks were the former King's of Winter and, through the Night King, may very well have descended from the Others. Not everything has been revealed in the story, no? There is the ice component to Stark blood.

My point merely is that there is a real, literal song of ice and fire in this series. The fight of the dragons (and their riders) against the Others. The fight of hot life against cold death. The fight of warmth and summer against frost and winter. And so on.

This is the main supernatural theme of the book, and it is reflected in many a romance, too.

The entire series is called 'A Song of Ice and Fire' not just the part that concerns itself with family trees.

The Night's King is just a story at this point. And according to George not exactly a very reliable story. We don't know who he was, what he did exactly, or who the hell his corpse queen was. And I'm not sure this is important. The Others were, presumably, defeated before the Night's King became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. His desires and ambitions and religious practices may have been vile and abominable, but there is no reason to believe they had a lasting effect on anything besides his own reputation.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

So, sorry if I sound incredulous, but it amazes me how someone reading "A Song of Ice and Fire" could fail to appreciate the significant of Ice blood and Fire blood mixing in the same person, especially since this has apparently never happened before, ever.

This is not a story about magical blood mixing and creating great heroes. It isn't even a story about magical blood. Perhaps the dragon thing is in the Targaryen (or rather: dragonlord) blood, but so what? What makes you a dragonrider is not exactly a main theme in this series.

Many characters believe in the special properties and 'magic' of king's blood, but that's just a medieval belief George has adapted. Kingship changes people, rises them above common men, and this also affects their families. But whether there is any special power in king's blood at all - or whether that is just superstition - is completely unclear at this point.

If Targaryen blood were the root for that belief then it might indeed be special, but the fact that people fantasize about the blood of Mance strongly implies this is all just nonsense.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Blood magic is not metaphorical. Mel used king's blood to bring about the deaths of Stannis' rivals, unless you think that was just a coincidence.

LOL, yeah, the leeches were just nonsense. Mel foresaw their deaths and used that trick to try to convince Stannis that she was behind it. That she and Edric's blood somehow 'caused' this.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

MMD used blood to call up demons and keep Drogo from dying, unless you think she just got lucky. Maggy the Frog used blood to predict Cersei's future, unless you think she too had a series of incredibly lucky guesses.

There is magic in this world, sure. But not everything is blood magic. Nor is everything about blood magic.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Why would the Reeds, of all people, use ice and fire as the primary elements in their vow? They live in a swamp and talk to trees and animals. Why would ice and fire be of such crucial importance to them to elevate them above earth, water, bronze and iron?

Honestly, how should I know? I do not deny that the vow brings back the title of the series to the reader, but there is no song there. Why don't you ask why they swear by bronze and iron? Or by earth? Aside from water they should have little to do with any of those other things.

Share this post


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

Sorry, no. Whether they were assigned to Rhaegar or not, the fact that the realm is in rebellion and the king's life is in danger can only mean one of two things: either they betrayed Aerys in favor of Rhaegar or Aerys was the one who ordered them to remain at the tower.

Their primary duty, above everything else, is to protect the king. So with the king in jeopardy, their oaths compelled them to return to his side. And this was particularly the case after Rhaeger headed north with Selmy, Darry and Martell, leaving the king with only one guard -- a teenager of dubious loyalty. Remember all that talk in the White Sword Tower?:

 There is no way Jaime could guard the king himself, 24-7 for months, and the king does not trust a single living soul in the Red Keep to wear steel in his presence. So by law and by custom, all three should have returned to protect their king, unless the king himself ordered them to do otherwise.

And I'm sorry, but Aerys sent Hightower to find Rhaegar just to tell him to return to the capital? Why wouldn't he want Hightower to bring him back personally? This is a rather important assignment, after all.

unless and until we get the particulars, We do not know for sure if Aerys knew where Rheagar was or what he was doing.  only Jaime was left in kl for the Battle of the Trident + Tower of Joy 3 so Aerys only had Jaime as a Kingsguard. 

Rheagar was to take personal control of the Royal Army after Connington's failure. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

This is what you posted, right? You clearly said that [prophecy] “is the ability to accurately predict the future”. :dunno:

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

Share this post


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

I asked you whether there is any reason to assume that your view of prophecy or destiny is actually reflected by the characters in the books. Do they have as deterministic a view on *destiny* as you apparently have or not?

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.

Quote

I see no reason to assume that a single person in Westeros would just sit there like a sullen child declaring 'prophecy fulfills itself' and 'nothing can stand in the way of destiny' regardless what we do. Far to the contrary. That is not a mindset any of the characters in the books depict.

Instead they actively try to fulfill prophecies (or prevent them from ever coming true) and they actually shape destinies.

The idea that a prophecy has to come true or that destiny will see to itself is laughable.

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?

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.

Quote

Your first point is irrelevant - it is Ned's decision, sure, but if Ned bought Howland's beliefs about Jon then he would have no issue with Howland teaching Jon stuff, right? - and your second point makes no sense. Howland Reed is a Northman and a bannerman of Eddard Stark. He can spend as much time with his liege lord and friend as he wants. Nobody got 'suspicious' when the Reed siblings showed a piqued interest in Brandon Stark, right?

The crannogmen are rarely, if ever, seen outside of the Neck. Yes, people do take note when the Reeds show up in Winterfell:

Quote

At the foot of the hall, the doors opened and a gust of cold air made the torches flame brighter for an instant. Alebelly led two new guests into the feast. "The Lady Meera of House Reed," the rotund guardsman bellowed over the clamor. "With her brother, Jojen, of Greywater Watch."

Men looked up from their cups and trenchers to eye the newcomers. Bran heard Little Walder mutter, "Frogeaters," to Big Walder beside him. Ser Rodrick climbed to his feet. "Be welcome, friends, and share this harvest with us." Serving men hurried to lengthen the table on the dais, fetching trestles and chairs.

"Who are they?" Rickon asked.

"Mudmen," answered Little Walder disdainfully. "They're thieves and cravens, and they have green teeth from eating frogs."

Maester Luwin crouched beside Bran's ear to whisper counsel in his ear. "You must greet these ones warmly. I had not thought to see them here, but . . . you know who they are?"

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.

Quote

Sure. I just say your speculation there doesn't convince me, nor are your arguments justifying your speculation there. Some theories/speculation have more to it than other ideas.

That's fine. Your convictions are your own. Some theories/speculations had virtually nothing at all until they were revealed to be true: the Arryn murder, the Westerling conspiracy . . .

Quote

It is not necessary for Howland to do anything. But it makes no sense to assume Howland knows things that would cause any sane person not acting like a badly written fictional character with plot holes in his background motivation to just ignore Jon Snow throughout his entire life.

Neither you nor I would do that if we were in Howland's situation. It just doesn't make any sense. One can invent excuses why he may not have done what he obviously should have - but since we have no reason to believe he knows or believes he knows stuff about Jon Snow there is no reason whatsoever to entertain such speculation. We can just dismiss the idea that he has such knowledge.

And, sure, people need knowledge and tools to do what they are supposed to. Jon Snow has to know what to do if he is supposed to do it. Unless, of course, his 'destiny' is to stumble while running down the stairs to slay the head Other in his fall. That kind of 'destiny' certainly doesn't need knowledge or tools. But waging a successful war does.

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.

If Ned instructed Howland to return to the Neck and say no more about Jon, that's what Howland would do as a loyal Stark bannerman. And it isn't that much of a stretch to think that when he "talks to trees" he is getting word from Bloodraven or the children or the Green Men that this is exactly what he should be doing.

Quote

Those are weak excuses as well. Nobody said they should tell the boy all at once, nor is there any reason to bother the boy with the story of his parentage. That is irrelevant for his destiny. At best it would be a sign to recognize the promised prince. Correctly citing his pedigree is not going to avail Jon Snow in the war for the dawn.

Well, if said chat were just about his pedigree then he could just as well keep his mouth shut for good. Because that's most definitely irrelevant. Family trees don't fight battles.

What is Howland going to do for him that literally nobody else in the world can do? And how do you envision this conversation to go?

"BTW Jon, you are the Prince that was Promised, the chosen one who will rescue all mankind in a grueling fight to the death with the evil Others that will cause you to lose everything and everyone you hold dear."

"Really, why do you think that?"

"Oh, no reason. Run along and play -- but whatever your do, don't tell anybody what I just told you."

There is nothing that Howland needs to do for Jon while he is growing up. If he needs any guidance, and they need Howland to provide it, the GM have ways of letting him know. But as it turns out, he does not need any guidance because Jon is already one of the few people on the planet who recognizes the Other threat for what it is.

Quote

Who cares about Mance? If Howland had special knowledge he should do all in his power to prevent the war between the wildlings and the Watch - which both he and Bloodraven fail to do.

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.

Quote

I assume that Howland received information on the Others on the basis that the Green Men go back to the Pact. They know stuff. Either collectively or even on an individual level - who knows how long-lived they are? What we have no reason to believe at this point is that they know anything about the future or that they care about some Targaryen prophecy and their promised prince.

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.

Quote

You mean just as everybody went into conspiracy theory territory when the Reeds showed up at Winterfell? Or when Howland actually accompanied Eddard Stark to war?

If they had stayed at Winterfell year after year hanging around Bran and whispering secrets into his ear, yes I would think Ned and Catelyn would not be the only ones to grow suspicious. The Reeds are bannermen to the Starks. Nothing unusual about the head of the house obeying his liege lord's commands.

Quote

The fact that there is one song - and I'm not really sure whether 'a magical song' sung by the Children is the same what we see as song - doesn't mean there are others of the same kind. We have no reason to believe that there is a literal song of ice and fire, nor do we have any reason to believe anyone ever believed that the pedigree of the person who is supposed to 'have' that song has to be descended from people symbolizing *ice* and *fire* in any way. That is, at this point, just baseless speculation. And I don't build large theoretical structures on baseless speculation.

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.

Quote

No, this is not a stretch at all. For one, in the MUSH we have Cregan Stark's youngest daughter marrying into House Blackwood. But even if we ignore that - and if we pretend the female line counts - then simple logic tells us that the number of grandparents doubles with each generation - meaning that the chances that there are no Stark ancestors among the Blackwoods (or even the Daynes and the Martells) in the last 8,000 years are astronomically low. This is a world in which nobility predominantly marries other nobility. And there are a number of Blackwood-Stark marriages in the family tree, so it is not unlikely that this happened in the past, too.

Even if it did not, then it would have happened by means of a string of another family - a Blackwood marrying a Sunderland, the Sunderland daughter marrying a Flint, the Flint daughter marrying a Stark.

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.

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.

Quote

I doubt that this is what happened. But sure, could be. Unfortunately we have no idea what Rhaegar believed or thought in relation to the Lyanna thing, so this does lead us nowhere at this point.

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.

Quote

My point merely is that there is a real, literal song of ice and fire in this series. The fight of the dragons (and their riders) against the Others. The fight of hot life against cold death. The fight of warmth and summer against frost and winter. And so on.

This is the main supernatural theme of the book, and it is reflected in many a romance, too.

The entire series is called 'A Song of Ice and Fire' not just the part that concerns itself with family trees.

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.

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.

Quote

The Night's King is just a story at this point. And according to George not exactly a very reliable story. We don't know who he was, what he did exactly, or who the hell his corpse queen was. And I'm not sure this is important. The Others were, presumably, defeated before the Night's King became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. His desires and ambitions and religious practices may have been vile and abominable, but there is no reason to believe they had a lasting effect on anything besides his own reputation.

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.

Quote

This is not a story about magical blood mixing and creating great heroes. It isn't even a story about magical blood. Perhaps the dragon thing is in the Targaryen (or rather: dragonlord) blood, but so what? What makes you a dragonrider is not exactly a main theme in this series.

Many characters believe in the special properties and 'magic' of king's blood, but that's just a medieval belief George has adapted. Kingship changes people, rises them above common men, and this also affects their families. But whether there is any special power in king's blood at all - or whether that is just superstition - is completely unclear at this point.

If Targaryen blood were the root for that belief then it might indeed be special, but the fact that people fantasize about the blood of Mance strongly implies this is all just nonsense.

LOL, yeah, the leeches were just nonsense. Mel foresaw their deaths and used that trick to try to convince Stannis that she was behind it. That she and Edric's blood somehow 'caused' this.

There is magic in this world, sure. But not everything is blood magic. Nor is everything about blood magic.

I'm not sure what story you're reading but in my copy there are frequent references to blood magic, the power of blood, people using blood to do all sorts of magical things, people claiming to be blood of this or blood of that . . . and there was even a great hero who forged a magical sword by plunging it into his wife's heart. Ignore all of that at your peril my friend.

So Mel did that just for kicks? Because she just wants to see a little boy burn to death for no reason at all? Mel, Maggy, MMD, they all used blood to perform feats of magic. It's in the book.

Quote

Honestly, how should I know? I do not deny that the vow brings back the title of the series to the reader, but there is no song there. Why don't you ask why they swear by bronze and iron? Or by earth? Aside from water they should have little to do with any of those other things.

Because earth and water are natural elements that invoke the children, and bronze and iron invoke the First Men -- all of which binds the Starks and Reeds in shared history, heritage, alliances and worship of the old gods. Ice and fire have nothing to do with either, as far as we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Oh sweet summer child...

So coincidence?

How about Maggy the Frog? Multiple coincidences?

MMD's demon shadows? Nothing at all to do with the horse blood she spilt?

The Stallion that Mounts the World? Not related to Dany eating the horse heart? That was all just for fun?

Beric's blood catching fire on his sword?

How many more examples of blood magic do you need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

unless and until we get the particulars, We do not know for sure if Aerys knew where Rheagar was or what he was doing.  only Jaime was left in kl for the Battle of the Trident + Tower of Joy 3 so Aerys only had Jaime as a Kingsguard. 

Rheagar was to take personal control of the Royal Army after Connington's failure. 

 

Well, Hightower knew where Rhaegar was, unless we think that he just happened to stumble upon his whereabouts by sheer luck.

Yes, only Jaime, which is a direct violation of the KG's rules that says when a KG is not present the king must be guarded by a loyal knight. There are no other loyal knights in the Red Keep, so right there they should have left Lyanna with someone they trusted and rushed back to protect their king as their oaths require. So either they remained at the tower in defiance of their oaths, or they were ordered to do so by the king. A crown prince's commands would not override their primary order to protect the king, particularly when this particular crown prince is widely suspected, and probably quite accurately, of wanting to usurp the crown and his order is to forget about the king and stand watch over his girlfriend.

The Kingsguard are not part of the royal army unless commissioned to serve in that capacity. The three at the ToJ were still answerable to Aerys, not Rhaegar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 5:19 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. 

Sure, the BoB was before the wedding, but the question is when did the Battle of Ashford take place. Can you elaborate further on the spacing issues that led to the decision to break the chronology? All that needed to be done was move the two sentences from its current position to the preceding paragraph. All the spacing should be pretty much the same, no?.

And there were months between the BoB and the wedding? How can that be? The whole war lasted "nearly a year" and we have to have a good eight months at least between the wedding and the sack of KL in order to have Robb be a few weeks older than Jon like we've been told. So now we have the battle of Gulltown, Summerhall, Ashford, Bells, not to mention Ned's flight north, calling his banners, marching down the Kingsroad and a number of months after Bells?

Something seems seriously wrong here.

Share this post


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

Not in the slightest. She saw their deaths in the flames, then used this knowledge to show Stannis her powers by putting on the leech show. 

So she didn't need Edric's blood at all, not even to wake the stone dragons? She just wanted to see a little boy burn?

And what about all the other examples?

Share this post


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

Sure, the BoB was before the wedding, but the question is when did the Battle of Ashford take place. Can you elaborate further on the spacing issues that led to the decision to break the chronology? All that needed to be done was move the two sentences from its current position to the preceding paragraph. All the spacing should be pretty much the same, no?.

It was an editorial decision, so you'd have to ask editorial as to why it was compressed in quite that fashion. But all I can say for sure is that the intention of the published version, as well as the original version, is that Ashford happened before the Battle of the Bells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashford is clearly part of the series of battles Robert fought before linking up with Ned, Jon, and Hoster. There is no hint of Starks, Arryns, or Tullys among the rebels, just Stormlanders. It's a crazy suggestion that Ashford occurred after the three other great rebel lords linked up with Robert.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


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

So she didn't need Edric's blood at all

She didn't need it to see the three deaths in the flames. 

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

not even to wake the stone dragons? She just wanted to see a little boy burn?

We can only speculate what she would have done if she was able to burn Edric.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

And what about all the other examples?

What about them? I've never claimed blood magic does not exist in these books. I've only claimed that Mel did not use it it to kill the three kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 6:21 AM, bent branch said:

 I also renew my standing challenge to find any quotes in the books from someone claiming Tywin "really ruled" the country from someone other than a Lannister loyalist. 

 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

She didn't need it to see the three deaths in the flames. 

We can only speculate what she would have done if she was able to burn Edric.

What about them? I've never claimed blood magic does not exist in these books. I've only claimed that Mel did not use it it to kill the three kings.

We can only speculate what brought about the three deaths. The argument being made by others in this thread is that there is no reason to speculate that blood contains any magical properties in this world. My point is that this is clearly not true. Blood has been used to perform all kinds of magic, right before our POVs own eyes.

So you want to carve out an exception for this one incident -- that's fine. But I would be interested to see if you can point to any actual text that leads you to this conclusion, or why Edric's blood would be suitable for only one magical feat but not another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

But I would be interested to see if you can point to any actual text that leads you to this conclusion, or why Edric's blood would be suitable for only one magical feat but not another.

 

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. :thumbsup:

 

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

×