Nucky Thompson Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 It is stated multiple times that "There always must be a Stark in Winterfell." and people take that literally - like that if there is no Stark present, the situation is not desirable. But what if having multiple Starks in Winterfell at once is equally undesirable? There are examples of historical dynasties in the real world where the heir-apparent murdered all his relatives so there wouldn't be anyone to challenge the throne. The way we the Starks have been presented in the books makes such a line of reasoning speculative at best, but what if Rhaegar's actions (abducting or whatever) towards Lyanna are meant for exactly this purpose: to draw one, or two, or eventually three Starks away from Winterfell? By abducting her, he immediately reduces their number by one. Brandon Stark follows, as could possibly have been predicted due to his character traits, and finally the king summons Lord Rickard - as was perhaps suggested to him (by Rhaegar?). Now that isn't quite convincing at first glance - it might be just the king's anger that caused such an outcome - but why did Benjen take the black after the rebels secured their victory? Could it be another attempt to not have all those Starks at once in Winterfell (or at least near it, if Benjen had become a bannerman)? Furthermore, why had Eddard been sent as far away as the Eyrie? Could the Stark tradition of sending sons to the Night's Watch be more than an placing a high value on honour? If they were being sent someplace else, there would be probability that one or more could return for some reason. With the Night's Watch such risk is avoided and perhaps that's why the series begins with beheading a deserter. Bear in mind that all things started going South (pun not intended) just when Benjen returned to Winterfell (albeit temprorarily) for the feast. Could all this mimic Craster's policy towards his sons? We could take a retrospective view as well - while the plot requires that there are no first or second cousins to the present Starks, it is quite unusual that both Rickard and Edwyle had no syblings and were ruling Winterfell somewhat isolated (Edwyle had a sister though - which was married at the Eyrie - again the Eyrie). It is the offspring of Rickard which is quite large and this is where the problems for the Starks begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Cornholio! Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I dont think it had to do with Benjen returning south. That feast is merely where the story begins so to speak, however, we know that the events pushing the novel into play began many years prior to it (i.e. Bloodraven reporting to the wall, Roberts Rebellion, Tower of Joy, Danny's wedding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joluoto Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 There has been more than one Stark in Winterfell before. We have stories about brothers of the Lords of Winterfel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brut Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Quite recently, there's been at least five Starks at Winterfell. No nuclear warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted April 20, 2013 Author Share Posted April 20, 2013 Yeah, but previously all those Starks could remain in Winterfell simultaneously without any problems probably because there was no 'magic' in the world. Since its return - as seen from events like the birth of dragons/the red comet/the Others' pending invasion - things are different and ancient rules like 'There must always be a Stark in Winterfell' gain validity once again. While it is unclear which is the cause and which are the effects, the interconnectedness and similarities between such extraordinary events seems somewhat obvious. It may be argued that because the Starks have a dormant warging ability, it may prove quite dangerous to have multiple wargs in a dominant position in the North at the same time: they can be influenced by different persons (Bloodraven comes to mind) in order to further a specific agenda. If there are multiple agendas being put into motion, the various Starks would inevitably oppose one another and in the process risk exterminating the entire line, thus breaking whatever alliance was concluded after the Long Night and which requires a Stark to hold Winterfell. In order to avoid such 'conflict of interest' of sorts, a single Stark at any given time would be the optimal choice, which would explain the eagerness of the ruling family in the North to provide the Night's Watch with recruits from itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Others Take Them Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Jesus, man, it's not Highlander! There doesn't have to be only one! By this incredibly literal meaning, there would always have to be one Stark in Winterfell, and winter would fall if the whole family left the castle walls and went hunting or something, and a father would have to kill himself immediatly upon having a son to prevent OverStarking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I think if there were ever more than one Stark in Winterfell at any given time it would actually tear a hole in the very fabric of space and time!!! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duncan Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Jesus, man, it's not Highlander! There doesn't have to be only one! By this incredibly literal meaning, there would always have to be one Stark in Winterfell, and winter would fall if the whole family left the castle walls and went hunting or something, and a father would have to kill himself immediatly upon having a son to prevent OverStarking. :rofl: While it's a plausible theory, I always took that phrase to mean that if there were no Starks in Winterfell it might be attacked or overtaken by some foes, no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOler Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Yeah, but previously all those Starks could remain in Winterfell simultaneously without any problems probably because there was no 'magic' in the world. Since its return - as seen from events like the birth of dragons/the red comet/the others' pending invasion - things are different and ancient rules like 'There must always be a Stark in Winterfell' gain validity once again. While it is unclear which is the cause and which are the effects, the interconnectedness and similarities between such extraordinary events seems somewhat obvious. It may be argued that because the Starks have a dormant warging ability, it may prove quite dangerous to have multiple wargs in a dominant position in the North at the same time: they can be influenced by different persons (Bloodraven comes to mind) in order to further a specific agenda. If there are multiple agendas being put into motion, the various Starks would inevitably oppose one another and in the process risk exterminating the entire line, thus breaking whatever alliance was concluded after the Long Night and which requires a Stark to hold Winterfell. In order to avoid such 'conflict of interest' of sorts, a single Stark at any given time would be the optimal choice, which would explain the eagerness of the ruling family in the North to provide the Night's Watch with recruits from itself.But none of them had realized their warging ability while there were multiple Starks at Winterfell - I'm speaking of the current Stark family - Ned, Robb, Bran ETC. I cant say I agree but I do like the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted June 14, 2013 Author Share Posted June 14, 2013 There was an interesting tweet that raises some thoughts: "What do the Starks say when it is winter?" - it would be fairly redundant to say "Winter is coming!" when it is already there, wouldn't it? Could the Stark words suggest that through the course of winter they act in a different role - maybe something to do with their kingship of winter? If regarded as "King of the Winter", how a Stark would be different from "King in the North"? Could this mean more than simple title and have to do with the more mysterious past of the Starks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Winter is coming isn't a reminder to lay in more firewood; its a battle cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe42m1 Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Winter is coming isn't a reminder to lay in more firewood; its a battle cry.I like that.Having a Stark in Winterfell just means that someone needs to be there to keep things running smoothly, prevent bannermen of ambition or questionable loyalty from trying to take advantage of a power vacuum, settling disputes, etc.A castellan is great but he's no lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where Boars Glow Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Once you stop operating under the impression that Rhegar is a caring philanthropist who is doing things for other people and to save the realm, and come to the reality that he is an awful kidnapper, then you will see how silly your premise is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LitaJ Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Jesus, man, it's not Highlander! There doesn't have to be only one! By this incredibly literal meaning, there would always have to be one Stark in Winterfell, and winter would fall if the whole family left the castle walls and went hunting or something, and a father would have to kill himself immediatly upon having a son to prevent OverStarking.First I loved the turn of phrase OverStarking! I wouldn't mind it happening at all... your theory is interesting but I think that things really started to go bad once Starks hit the South... they are the north and the winter and do not behave well in the south Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I think you're reading way way too much into this. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell is not a literal truth, rather a political and pragmatical statement. As Wintefell has been North's capital and Stark's seat for millenia, it's useful to have Starks always present there.And I don't follow your logic. Why exactly would more than one Stark lead to them attacking and killing one another? How does this have to do with the fact that some of them are wargs? After all, current generation of Starks have been living happily in WF for many years and nothing happened. Likewise, Ned's siblings had normal childhood growing up together and apparently didn't think of killing each other.Likewise, Targaryens lived in KL without any apparent problems. So did Tyrells in HG, Tullys in Riverrun or Martells in Sunspear. What you're attacking is very idea of medieval family as group of people who live together - false assumption, since we know how important family and blood ties are in Westeros.The danger of overStarking (thanks for word, Others Take Them) is nonexistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Davos' finger bones Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 There must always be a Stark in Winterfell could just be a saying and there's nothing more to it. Or the saying might be derived from some ancient knowledge that if there is not someone with Stark blood in Winterfell (or surrounding area, Wall included) that some ancient ward or spell may be broken. That leads me to speculate that if Jon is indeed dead, that might be what causes the Wall to fall.Just a thought, but what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaarioBigalowTyroshiGigolo Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 The universe would collapse in on itself! Honestly and abundance of Starks in Winterfell wouldn't necessarily be bad unless of course you have an ambitious younger Stark with designs on being Lord of Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Umber Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 If there is more than one Stark in Winterfell it gets really dangerous. I picture something like... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.