Aenys Blackfyre's Murder

[Mourning Star]

16 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

I disagree with your theory here.  And yes, the bolded certainly is nothing more than a presumption on your part. (Bolding mine)

Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to disagree.

16 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

So...Aemon wasn't simply stating a fact?  It's quite plausible that he was.  But you instead need Aemon to be "being cute" when he said his brother, King Aegon V, insisted Dunk "see him safe" to the Wall because it fits your narrative. 

Sorry, I was unclear. I was joking that Egg was being cute, calling the whole party Aemon's "honor guard". It's flattery, and a kindness to an older brother who was true to his oaths and pledged his life to the Watch (in addition to the Maesters), honoring those vows to the last. Aemon gets it. Dunk wasn't there for him, nor were the hundreds of men headed to the watch with him. It was a change in power at the highest level and, I assume, to avoid kinslaying himself, Egg allowed Bloodraven and his men to go to the Wall instead of being killed. I think Eggs words honored the loyal brother, even if the reality was somewhat different.

16 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Nah, this is not "simple deduction" at all and does not fit with all the information we have.  It is instead what you need it to be to fit your narrative/theory/interpretation.  If you can't produce a quote that explicitly states that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven then stop stating that they were.  It's just as plausible that they weren't and went willingly with their commander out of loyalty.  Again, please produce the quote that explicitly proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven or stop saying they were.

If you are looking for quotes that explicitly state everything I think you are reading the wrong story. Lots goes unsaid, and I am theorizing about the direction of the story, both in ASoIaF and in Dunk and Egg will go. I think you need to read between the lines. 

Just trying to show you how I see it. Believe what you want.

16 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Hmm...can one fulfill the spirit of an oath while seemingly violating the letter of the oath?  Pretty sure it can happen and, indeed, we've already seen it happen multiple times in ASoIaF (and it's gonna happen more, I think).  It's you who are "playing games with words" here by wanting to hold Bloodraven to the exact letter of his oath to the NW because, again, you need him to be an oathbreaker to fit your narrative.     

We know he's an oathbreaker, hell he even admits to being an oathbreaker.

I would argue that there is something inherently wrong with oathbreaking, but that doesn't mean there isn't a time when breaking an oath is justified. Life is complicated like that. I think we see a whole spectrum such play out in the series. But I think you are falling down the slippery slope that ends with oaths meaning nothing and everything being justified. 

I don't really care about the Night's Watch oath myself, nor do I need Bloodraven to fit any sort of characterization, this is just what I'm seeing in the text.

[Prince of the North]

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to disagree.

Of course I am...and I do.

Quote

Sorry, I was unclear. I was joking that Egg was being cute, calling the whole party Aemon's "honor guard". It's flattery, and a kindness to an older brother who was true to his oaths and pledged his life to the Watch (in addition to the Maesters), honoring those vows to the last. Aemon gets it. Dunk wasn't there for him, nor were the hundreds of men headed to the watch with him. It was a change in power at the highest level and, I assume, to avoid kinslaying himself, Egg allowed Bloodraven and his men to go to the Wall instead of being killed. I think Eggs words honored the loyal brother, even if the reality was somewhat different.

Eh, it's a theory.  And one I also disagree with.  Also, it's certainly not proven or even suggested anywhere in the text.  Nothing more than your interpretation.

Quote

If you are looking for quotes that explicitly state everything I think you are reading the wrong story. Lots goes unsaid, and I am theorizing about the direction of the story, both in ASoIaF and in Dunk and Egg will go. I think you need to read between the lines. 

Just trying to show you how I see it. Believe what you want.

Saying I'm "looking for quotes that explicitly state everything" is a stawman and deflecting.  So...now you're "theorizing" and you can't actually prove that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven?  That's what I already knew but it's nice for you to admit it.  And, again, I will believe what I want.  Thanks!  Unlike you, however, I will always make an effort not to present my theories/opinions/interpretations as fact before they are proven.

Quote

We know he's an oathbreaker, hell he even admits to being an oathbreaker.

I would argue that there is something inherently wrong with oathbreaking, but that doesn't mean there isn't a time when breaking an oath is justified. Life is complicated like that. I think we see a whole spectrum such play out in the series. But I think you are falling down the slippery slope that ends with oaths meaning nothing and everything being justified. 

I don't really care about the Night's Watch oath myself, nor do I need Bloodraven to fit any sort of characterization, this is just what I'm seeing in the text.

Nah, I'm not falling down any slippery slope.  I'm seeing something different in the text than you and what I think I'm seeing is just as legitimate as what you think you're seeing, at this point.  IF Bloodraven did join with the weirwood tree/network to survive long enough to mentor Bran and prepare him to fight the Others, then I believe he's still fulfilling his oath to the NW.  I wouldn't quibble with the fact that he's not actually at the Wall anymore.  IF my theory is right, then I trust Bloodraven knew where he needed to be to do the most he could for the upcoming struggle with the Others. 

Only time will tell. 

[frenin]

16 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

They selected the rightful heir and next king at the Great Council: Aegon V.

They did not, as any genealogical tree would tell you.

 

 

16 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Bloodraven was a hard man for a hard time. 

He made it hard this time. He held all the cards and chose backstabbing.

Being a "hard man for a hard time", more often than not is just senseless apologism of strong men and atrocities of sides we like most.

[Megorova]

13 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Why did Egg insist Dunk accompany the ship? To make sure the prisoners made it to the Wall, especially Bloodraven.

This trip provided Dunk with a legit excuse to visit Winterfell, after delivering Bloodraven and Aemon to The Wall.

At Winterfell lived Dunk's ex-paramour - Alysanne Nan Stark, the mother of Dunk's twin-children (their son was Hodor's paternal grandfather, and their daughter was a maternal grandmother of the Mountain, the Hound, and Pretty Meris - Brienne Tarth's mother). More info on this topic here: https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/159020-swan-song-part-616-a-brown-haired-girl-and-a-knight-as-tall-as-hodor/

It's likely that, after arriving to The Wall, maester Aemon would have went on a friendly visit to Lord Stark. Especially considering the possibility that Lord Willem Stark's wife - Melantha Blackwood, was a sister of Betha Blackwood - Egg's wife, and thus Aemon's sister-in-law. Also because Betha and Melantha possibly were children of Mya Rivers - Bloodraven's sister.

So it's likely that either Aemon would have went to Winterfell to visit his sister-in-law and her children, or Bloodraven could have went there to visit his niece - Melantha, and his sister's grandkids - Edwyle (Ned's paternal grandfather) and Jocelyn.

So Dunk would have tagged along with either Aemon or Bloodraven during their visit to Winterfell, and thus he would have had an opportunity to visit his own children - Old Nan's/Alysanne's kids. Nan at that time was living at Winterfell, already after the death of Willem's son (born by Willem's first wife, who died after giving birth to Willem's firstborn) - Brandon Stark, to whom Nan used to be a wet-nurse, and also was his paternal aunt (Willem's younger sister).

So Egg insisted for Dunk to accompany the ship, because that way he gave his friend an opportunity to see his estranged children, probably for the last time in his life. Because from then on, Dunk was supposed to fully dedicate his life to Egg, while serving as his Kingsguard. So it was a gesture of care and goodwill from Egg towards Dunk, and it had nothing to do with making sure that Bloodraven wouldn't have escaped, because he had no intentions of escaping. 

[Mourning Star]

9 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Eh, it's a theory.  And one I also disagree with.  Also, it's certainly not proven or even suggested anywhere in the text.  Nothing more than your interpretation.

It is certainly suggested, as I showed with very basic logical deduction. You can still disagree, that's fine, I just don't think you are being honest about it.

9 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Saying I'm "looking for quotes that explicitly state everything" is a stawman and deflecting.

No, you literally asked for this. That's on you.

Again, please produce the quote that explicitly proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven or stop saying they were.

I'm trying to be fair here, but have you no shame? If you are going to be this dishonest then I'm not interested in continuing.

9 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

  So...now you're "theorizing" and you can't actually prove that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven?  That's what I already knew but it's nice for you to admit it.  And, again, I will believe what I want.  Thanks!  Unlike you, however, I will always make an effort not to present my theories/opinions/interpretations as fact before they are proven.

No, I used a very basic logical deduction that is: the Raven's Teeth went with Aemon to the Wall (first premise), and the men who went with Aemon to the Wall were from the dungeons (second premise), then the Raven's teeth were from the dungeons (conclusion).

If group A is part of group B, and group B shares a characteristic, then group A has that characteristic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Quote

Simple example[edit]

An example of an argument using deductive reasoning:

All men are mortal. (First premise)

Socrates is a man. (Second premise)

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal." The second premise states that "Socrates" is classified as a "man" – a member of the set "men." The conclusion then states that "Socrates" must be "mortal" because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a "man."

Just because you disagree does not make your opinion worth anything. For that, you need to use the text to make a case of your own. Until you do, your opinion is meaningless to me, especially given the blatant dishonesty.

9 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Nah, I'm not falling down any slippery slope.  I'm seeing something different in the text than you and what I think I'm seeing is just as legitimate as what you think you're seeing, at this point.  IF Bloodraven did join with the weirwood tree/network to survive long enough to mentor Bran and prepare him to fight the Others, then I believe he's still fulfilling his oath to the NW.  I wouldn't quibble with the fact that he's not actually at the Wall anymore.  IF my theory is right, then I trust Bloodraven knew where he needed to be to do the most he could for the upcoming struggle with the Others. 

Saying you have an opinion is fine. But just being in denial isn't helpful for you or anyone who has to read this. I think you are wrong, your opinion is built on bias and a misunderstanding of the story at hand, and you are arguing in bad faith.

Unless you are going to use the text to defend your position, or even just to elaborate on your point, there is nothing more for us to discuss here. In this case, these opinions are about a theory that is either true or not, one or neither of us is right, hopefully one day we find out.

[Prince of the North]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

It is certainly suggested, as I showed with very basic logical deduction. You can still disagree, that's fine, I just don't think you are being honest about it.

It is not even suggested in the text.  That's you making things up to fit your narrative.  You are exhibiting nothing but confirmation bias at every turn here.  And I'm being totally up front and honest in expressing my opinion here.  It's you who claim the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven but can't prove it with a quote.  Your weaselly "it's simple deductive reasoning" notwithstanding.  Do you know what should be simple?  Backing up your statement of fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  But, of course, we both know you can't.  

Quote

No, you literally asked for this. That's on you.

Again, please produce the quote that explicitly proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven or stop saying they were.

I'm trying to be fair here, but have you no shame? If you are going to be this dishonest then I'm not interested in continuing.

HA!  Nice deflection again.  I will continually challenge you to produce this proof.  What you did was characterize my asking for a specific quote to support your statement of fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven as me "wanting quotes to prove everything".  That's YOU being dishonest.  I only want one single quote proving that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  Otherwise we all know that's simply your opinion because you need to believe it to fit your narrative.  

Quote

No, I used a very basic logical deduction that is: the Raven's Teeth went with Aemon to the Wall (first premise), and the men who went with Aemon to the Wall were from the dungeons (second premise), then the Raven's teeth were from the dungeons (conclusion).

If group A is part of group B, and group B shares a characteristic, then group A has that characteristic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

What you think is "very basic logical deduction" does not constitute proof.  Please provide the quote that says ONLY men from the dungeons went with Aemon to the Wall?  Uh oh, I think someone's confirmation bias is showing again  Nice attempt at condescension again, too, with the wiki link

Quote

Saying you have an opinion is fine. But just being in denial isn't helpful for you or anyone who has to read this. I think you are wrong, your opinion is built on bias and a misunderstanding of the story at hand, and you are arguing in bad faith.

Unless you are going to use the text to defend your position, or even just to elaborate on your point, there is nothing more for us to discuss here. In this case, these opinions are about a theory that is either true or not, one or neither of us is right, hopefully one day we find out.

Wow!  Project much?  This describes you to a tee.  It is you who are arguing in bad faith.  Please provide everyone "who has to read this" with even one quote that proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  If you can't, just admit it's only your opinion.  And I don't need to elaborate on my point.  My position is that I believe the Ravens Teeth went with Bloodraven out of loyalty and were not imprisoned with him in the Black Cells but it's just my opinion (because we don't know either way).  You state that it's a fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven because you need them to have not followed him to the Wall out of loyalty to fit your narrative that Bloodraven didn't have any friends or loyal followers. 

Now, since you so kindly provided the wiki link to Deductive Reasoning above, allow me to provide you with one that I think you sorely need: Confirmation Bias.  

[Mourning Star]

13 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

It is not even suggested in the text.  That's you making things up to fit your narrative.  You are exhibiting nothing but confirmation bias at every turn here.  And I'm being totally up front and honest in expressing my opinion here.  It's you who claim the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven but can't prove it with a quote.  Your weaselly "it's simple deductive reasoning" notwithstanding.  Do you know what should be simple?  Backing up your statement of fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  But, of course, we both know you can't.  

HA!  Nice deflection again.  I will continually challenge you to produce this proof.  What you did was characterize my asking for a specific quote to support your statement of fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven as me "wanting quotes to prove everything".  That's YOU being dishonest.  I only want one single quote proving that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  Otherwise we all know that's simply your opinion because you need to believe it to fit your narrative.  

What you think is "very basic logical deduction" does not constitute proof.  Please provide the quote that says ONLY men from the dungeons went with Aemon to the Wall?  Uh oh, I think someone's confirmation bias is showing again  Nice attempt at condescension again, too, with the wiki link

Wow!  Project much?  This describes you to a tee.  It is you who are arguing in bad faith.  Please provide everyone "who has to read this" with even one quote that proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  If you can't, just admit it's only your opinion.  And I don't need to elaborate on my point.  My position is that I believe the Ravens Teeth went with Bloodraven out of loyalty and were not imprisoned with him in the Black Cells but it's just my opinion (because we don't know either way).  You state that it's a fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven because you need them to have not followed him to the Wall out of loyalty to fit your narrative that Bloodraven didn't have any friends or loyal followers. 

Now, since you so kindly provided the wiki link to Deductive Reasoning above, allow me to provide you with one that I think you sorely need: Confirmation Bias.  

I've made my case using textbook deductive reasoning and tried to explain it, repeatedly, as simply as possible for you.

I don't care if you agree. But you've been insulting, rude, and blatantly dishonest. Clearly there is no reason to interact with you again.

Goodbye

[Jaenara Belarys]

Your only evidence is "simple deductive reasoning". While it can work, I think it'd simply be easier to provide a little bit of evidence. @Prince of the North has repeatedly asked for text evidence, but you haven't provided any. Which says a lot about your theory and evidence. 

[Prince of the North]

Just now, Mourning Star said:

I've made my case using textbook deductive reasoning and tried to explain it, repeatedly, as simply as possible for you.

I don't care if you agree. But you've been insulting, rude, and blatantly dishonest. Clearly there is no reason to interact with you again.

Goodbye

So you don't like getting what you give, eh?  That's...not surprising.  If this is truly the last time we're going to "interact" with each other then let me ask one last time: Please provide the quote that proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven that you claim is fact.  If you can't, admit that it's just your own opinion/interpretation/theory that's in service to your preconceived narrative surrounding Bloodraven. 

I have not been dishonest in any way (nor any more rude or insulting than you).  I just don't agree with what you think is "simple deductive reasoning".  It's nothing of the sort and really only you demonstrating your own confirmation bias.  And, for the record, I don't care if you agree either.  Convincing you of anything will never be my goal.  My goal has always been challenging your statement of fact that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven.  The text does not say this anywhere but I get that you need it to be the case due to your contention that Bloodraven is, basically, Satan and could not possibly have friends/loyal followers     

[Mourning Star]

18 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Your only evidence is "simple deductive reasoning". While it can work, I think it'd simply be easier to provide a little bit of evidence. @Prince of the North has repeatedly asked for text evidence, but you haven't provided any. Which says a lot about your theory and evidence. 

I think you need to reassess what you consider evidence then. There would be no need for a theory if it was spelled out in a single sentence. Rather, using two separate quotes as evidence, I deduce a conclusion. This is how one constructs a logical argument.

Egg emptied out the dungeons too, so I would not need to say my vows alone.

Premise A - Aemon said that all the men sent to the Wall with him to join the Watch, were from the dungeons.  (Do you dispute this? Do you have any evidence to support an alternative?)

Two hundred men went with him, many of them archers from Bloodraven's personal guard, the Raven's Teeth. The king's brother, Maester Aemon, was also amongst them.

Premise B - The Raven's Teeth went to the Wall with Aemon. (Do you dispute this? Do you have any evidence to support an alternative?)

Conclusion- The Raven's teeth were in the dungeons before going to the Wall.

My argument speaks for itself.

[Prince of the North]

9 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think you need to reassess what you consider evidence then. There would be no need for a theory if it was spelled out in a single sentence. Rather, using two separate quotes as evidence, I deduce a conclusion. This is how one constructs a logical argument.

Egg emptied out the dungeons too, so I would not need to say my vows alone.

Premise A - Aemon said that all the men sent to the Wall with him to join the Watch, were from the dungeons.  (Do you dispute this? Do you have any evidence to support an alternative?)

Um, I absolutely dispute that your supplied quote "Egg emptied out the dungeons too, so I would not need to say my vows alone." proves your contention that "Aemon said that all men sent to the Wall with him to join the Watch, were from the dungeons." (bolding mine)

Your "Premise A" is actually a huge, self-serving logic leap.

Quote

Two hundred men went with him, many of them archers from Bloodraven's personal guard, the Raven's Teeth. The king's brother, Maester Aemon, was also amongst them.

Premise B - The Raven's Teeth went to the Wall with Aemon. (Do you dispute this? Do you have any evidence to support an alternative?)

Conclusion- The Raven's teeth were in the dungeons before going to the Wall.

My argument speaks for itself.

I totally agree that many of the men who accompanied Aemon to the Wall were "archers from Bloodraven's personal guard, the Raven's teeth."  But this fact does not prove that the Raven's Teeth were imprisoned in the dungeons before going to the Wall.  So, it absolutely cannot be stated as fact that ALL the men sent to the Wall with Aemon were from the dungeons and it absolutely cannot be stated as fact that the Raven's Teeth who did go to the Wall with Aemon were from the dungeons.

Your argument does not speak for itself.  It's just another theory, not fact.    

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

13 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

We know he's an oathbreaker, hell he even admits to being an oathbreaker.

I would argue that there is something inherently wrong with oathbreaking, but that doesn't mean there isn't a time when breaking an oath is justified. Life is complicated like that. I think we see a whole spectrum such play out in the series. But I think you are falling down the slippery slope that ends with oaths meaning nothing and everything being justified. 

I don't really care about the Night's Watch oath myself, nor do I need Bloodraven to fit any sort of characterization, this is just what I'm seeing in the text.

Also, what part of the oath did Bloodraven break? 

Quote

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

1. Bloodraven has no wife nor paramour so he hasn't broken that part of his vow.

2. He is no visible holder of lands

3. He has no children at all and if even he if he fathered children he had 50 long years before he was sent to the Night's Watch

4. He wears no crowns and nobody knows him so he hasn't won any glory.

5. He is still a member of the Night's Watch, he says it himself.

6. The rest are just metaphors.

He never admits to being an oathbreaker. Could you please provide evidence for those claims.

[Prince of the North]

@Brynden “Bloodraven”Rivers I suspect you're going to get an answer about how Bloodraven broke his word to Aenys Blackfyre.  It's probably not really about the NW vows (unless to hold Bloodraven totally to the letter of the vows and say he abandoned his post) 

ETA: changed "your" to "you're"

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

53 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think you need to reassess what you consider evidence then. There would be no need for a theory if it was spelled out in a single sentence. Rather, using two separate quotes as evidence, I deduce a conclusion. This is how one constructs a logical argument.

Egg emptied out the dungeons too, so I would not need to say my vows alone.

Premise A - Aemon said that all the men sent to the Wall with him to join the Watch, were from the dungeons.  (Do you dispute this? Do you have any evidence to support an alternative?)

Two hundred men went with him, many of them archers from Bloodraven's personal guard, the Raven's Teeth. The king's brother, Maester Aemon, was also amongst them.

Premise B - The Raven's Teeth went to the Wall with Aemon. (Do you dispute this? Do you have any evidence to support an alternative?)

Conclusion- The Raven's teeth were in the dungeons before going to the Wall.

My argument speaks for itself.

What valid reason would the Raven's Teeth be in the dungeons? They didn't aid in the murder of Aenys Blackfyre because we know the gold cloaks dragged to him to Maegor's holdfast and beheaded him. The Raven's Teeth are a group of the finest archers in Westeros. They have no reason to be in the dungeons. Also your quote itself suggests a grey area in your interpretations.

"Many of them were"

If Egg emptied out the dungeons right after Maekar's death, there would have been very little prisoners. The only war during Maekar's reign was the Peake uprising which took no prisoners because Robert Reyne killed all of them. So it is reasonable to assume that most of the two hundred men were Raven's teeth and the rest were prisoners in the dungeons. I feel like this conclusion speaks for itself.

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

1 minute ago, Prince of the North said:

@Brynden “Bloodraven”Rivers I suspect your going to get an answer about how Bloodraven broke his word to Aenys Blackfyre.  It's probably not really about the NW vows (unless to hold Bloodraven totally to the letter of the vows and say he abandoned his post) 

That would constitute oathbreaking so he is an oathbreaker but not when he was in the Night's Watch so @Mourning Star really has no argument here.

[Mourning Star]

2 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Also, what part of the oath did Bloodraven break? 

 Bloodraven did not deny that he had lured the pretender into his power by the offer of a safe conduct, but contended that he had sacrificed his own personal honor for the good of the realm.

Bloodraven admits to knowingly giving a promise of safe passage with the intent to kill him. That's Oathbreaking.

2 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

1. Bloodraven has no wife nor paramour so he hasn't broken that part of his vow.

2. He is no visible holder of lands

3. He has no children at all and if even he if he fathered children he had 50 long years before he was sent to the Night's Watch

4. He wears no crowns and nobody knows him so he hasn't won any glory.

5. He is still a member of the Night's Watch, he says it himself.

6. The rest are just metaphors.

He never admits to being an oathbreaker. Could you please provide evidence for those claims.

No to number 5!

Bloodraven say's he was "once" a member of the night's watch. "once" implies that he is no longer, as does, "have been".

"A … crow?" The pale lord's voice was dry. His lips moved slowly, as if they had forgotten how to form words. "Once, aye. Black of garb and black of blood." The clothes he wore were rotten and faded, spotted with moss and eaten through with worms, but once they had been black. "I have been many things, Bran.

[Prince of the North]

nm Edit being moved finally got me!

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

2 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Bloodraven did not deny that he had lured the pretender into his power by the offer of a safe conduct, but contended that he had sacrificed his own personal honor for the good of the realm.

Bloodraven admits to knowingly giving a promise of safe passage with the intent to kill him. That's Oathbreaking.

Oathbreaking is only punished in the night's watch. He also got punished for that Oathbreaking. I don't get what you are trying to prove here. Bloodraven is an oathbreaker in one instance, towards the end of his life and it can be legally justified. That doesn't make him the big bad of the series.

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

4 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

No to number 5!

Bloodraven say's he was "once" a member of the night's watch. "once" implies that he is no longer, as does, "have been".

"A … crow?" The pale lord's voice was dry. His lips moved slowly, as if they had forgotten how to form words. "Once, aye. Black of garb and black of blood." The clothes he wore were rotten and faded, spotted with moss and eaten through with worms, but once they had been black. "I have been many things, Bran.

I concede that point. He does say once implying that he is no longer a member of the Night's Watch.

[Mourning Star]

3 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

What valid reason would the Raven's Teeth be in the dungeons?

I'm suggesting Bloodraven tried to become king... sorry if that got lost in the mix. This would be why his men would be arrested with him, as well as presumably participating in the crime against Aenys.

3 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

They didn't aid in the murder of Aenys Blackfyre because we know the gold cloaks dragged to him to Maegor's holdfast and beheaded him.

We do not know if the Raven's Teeth were members of the Goldcloaks at this point.

3 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

The Raven's Teeth are a group of the finest archers in Westeros. They have no reason to be in the dungeons. Also your quote itself suggests a grey area in your interpretations.

"Many of them were"

All the men in the dungeons weren't Raven's Teeth... I'm not sure I understand your issue here?

3 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

If Egg emptied out the dungeons right after Maekar's death, there would have been very little prisoners. The only war during Maekar's reign was the Peake uprising which took no prisoners because Robert Reyne killed all of them. So it is reasonable to assume that most of the two hundred men were Raven's teeth and the rest were prisoners in the dungeons. I feel like this conclusion speaks for itself.

Or they are other servants of, or men loyal to, Bloodraven not explicitly called Raven's Teeth?