Jump to content

(Book Spoilers) So does this confirm....


Recommended Posts

Not only was the mother feeding her birth control as another poster pointed out, but my sense of the passage of time in the novel would make a pregnancy unlikely. If Jeyne had been impregnated by Robb before the RW, there would already have been some evidence of her condition by the time Jaime encounters her and her mother at Riverrun several months later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only was the mother feeding her birth control as another poster pointed out,

We don't know that happened, we only know the mother reported to Tywin that it happened. Lots of things are reported by lots of people that turn out to be untrue. And Tywin wouldn't be the first person betrayed by the Spicers.

I'm not saying I disagree with anything posted, but pledges of fealty and loyalty to Tywin Lannister after the Red Wedding shouldn't be taken as evidence. If there is ever a time to lie to him about whether or not you let your daughter carry the heir it's right after he won the war....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the information of 1 bannerman trumps the Will of the dead king.

This is why I think there is one more person who knows who Jon Snow's Mother is. OG perhaps? Though my personal theory remains (search through my posting history).

They could have brought up the issue of Jon in a scene where they hear about Sansa's wedding and the unsullied would just have thought "aawww that's sweet, Jon Snow can be a real Stark now".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get the Dany S2 thing. So they took an already boring storyline and made it even worse, but the end result was the same -- which is that basically nothing interesting happens and Dany gets a ship and decides to go somewhere other than Westeros to let her dragons grow.

Well the only thing i can think of is someonewill have to replace Xaro when he shows up again in ADWD. but there were no major changes to the overall plot, she still ended up exactly where she was in the book, except without Belwas and Barristan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why the frick didn't they just make Talisa Jeyne Westerling? Why the name change and the Volantis stuff?

I'm guessing because it meant they only needed to introduce one character instead of having to cast at least four - ie Jeyne, her mother, her father and her brother - and introduce the whole bannermen of the Lannisters helping a Stark after the battle storyline. It's far easier to have one woman explain her background to Robb and voila all done and dusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing because it meant they only needed to introduce one character instead of having to cast at least four - ie Jeyne, her mother, her father and her brother - and introduce the whole bannermen of the Lannisters helping a Stark after the battle storyline. It's far easier to have one woman explain her background to Robb and voila all done and dusted.

Probably easier to film on a field than to have to build a new set or do some SFX to make the castle that the Westerling live too i.If Robb got hurt like he did in the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't imo, because they're not the same character. They made a point of making them into different characters and naming them differently.

I am one of the "head banging" blind followers of the theory, but I really really think that she was renamed just to let the Frey kill her: no mother would have sent her daughter to be slaughtered, she would have asked Tywinn the guarantee on her safe return for the great service given to House Lannister, and he would have given his word. And said that to Walder Frey too: anything to the boy (AND kill him) the girl safe. If she has no living Lannister valuable allies, she can be killed.

I still think she is a Lannister spy. :bang:

Well, being that she is not a Westerling anymore, she is not protected by anything, and she is deniable. Tywinn may have choosen not to say anything to the Frey on who his spy was, and Walder Frey may have decided that Tywinn would have bleed to avenge a bannerman of his, but not for a quite random volantene. a lot of seeds were there, but a lot of seeds were made even to establish that Ros was trying to let Tyrion understand that he could have an ally in Baelish's house, and it ended up just being a bad joke on Pod, which included three of Littlefinger's girls deciding - knowin what that implies -to become un profitable Littlefinger's girls.

I doubt the information of 1 bannerman trumps the Will of the dead king.

Well, to be honest that is the exact same thing that Ned said to Cersei Lannister, seconds before arresting her. Good point.

Wow I am so glad there are some people on this forum who can think about the connection between the show and the books logically and practically without just robotically regurgitating 'show is not book canon'. I agree with whoever said upthread that she might have been pregnant and miscarried the child, but as for Robb having fathered an heir - not going to happen. As for those who say Robb did father a child but the child won't have that much of an impact on the story which is why they could cut it out of the shows, familiarise yourself Chekov's law.

^^^^^^ How can you be so obtuse? You really think that if Robb fathered a child that becomes important down the line in the books D&D wouldn't know about it? And if they knew about it they would just go 'nah don't like that really important part of the story'. This is not like the omission of Strong Belwas or jesters, or the death of Mago. This is something that would become fundamental to the story if it were true.

Well George, I feel you should familiarize better with Checkov's gun. The point is that in a stage piece you shouldn't put a gun on the stage if nobody ever THINKS about using it.

As we have seen even in present of the smoking body of Aegon dead, people will try to slide their own candidate down. Try look wikipedia about "False Dmitri".

With the sheer quantity of "true" and "legitimate" heirs in the series, I feel that the legal importance of Robb's will's heir and of Robb's wife child, "Aegon's", Daenerys, Renly's, Stannis, Edric Storm's, Gendry's, Theon's, Jon's, Tyrion's, Jaime's, Cersei's Arianne', Rickon's "Arya's" and everyone else's birthright over anything is just as valid as Moonboy's. They are worth exactly as much as people believes.

The "It's a trick..A shadow on the wall..." part of the thing.

And at the end of the book series, it could even equate to zero even from a narrative standpoint. Even if the chance for the Westerling doesn't materialize. That is, she is not yet pregnant with a baby of Robb, she is not (forcibly?) impregnated sooon to let the dates blur and sell the children as Robbs, no auburn or black haired alternative is at the same age Robb's heir would have had.

They could use it, as Varys and Illiryo are suspected to be using that same trick on "Aegon".

That gun IS already being used so it has all of the reasons to stay up there on the stage.

There are people wanting to believe in anything in the Forum, and maybe I am far too often one of them, but there are people terribly wanting to believe in anything in the narrative world too. Maybe Jon Connington is one of them. Or are you saying that naming with the same name both Ned's and Raegar's best friend is just another confusing mistake by Martin, and not a Checkov's gun? My take is one of the two: Checkov's gun, or Red Herring's gun.

As I'm already very boring a too long in this post, I'll write on Red Herring's guns on another post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't kill any theory

the books will take a different path from the tv show

George can still give Robb a heir in the books if he wants

You can keep telling yourself that but if you think the TV show will not include a major plot changing event that the books included then you're deluding yourself. Not only does Robb having an heir make no sense in the books, but the inclusion of an unborn heir now with about 2-3 years of story left would just be stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can keep telling yourself that but if you think the TV show will not include a major plot changing event that the books included then you're deluding yourself. Not only does Robb having an heir make no sense in the books, but the inclusion of an unborn heir now with about 2-3 years of story left would just be stupid.

Why? I don't think it's stupid, it would be really awesome

We don't now how much time span George will make in the last two books, maybe at some point, some years will pass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a certain reason I was never convinced by the theory that Jeyne Westerling is pregnant. And that reason is Rickon. He doesn't do much in the books and seems even less important in the show. They could have easily cut his part out like they did with many others. But instead they even kept him in the 3rd season although he isn't even in the books anymore from that point on. I can think of only one reason why they did his: He will be the one to rebuild Winterfell and House Stark later on. But Rickon could never become Lord of Winterfell if Robb had a child.

I can think of a much simpler explanation for why the show didn't cut Rickon. In the books Merra and Jojen were at Winterfell when it was sacked, so Osha could take Rickon immediately, without leaving Bran without a protector. In the show, that wasn't the case. So they had to stay as a group. The only other thing they could do, honestly, would be to kill him off.

I think Rickon will be important in some way later on... but this isn't one of the reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? I don't think it's stupid, it would be really awesome

We don't now how much time span George will make in the last two books, maybe at some point, some years will pass

It's not going to happen in the books. Not only did Jeyne's mother give her a potion to ensure she wasn't pregnant, but Jamie makes a point of saying she can't get married for I think 2? years to ensure no child of hers can be passed off as Robb's child.

There is no evidence her mother was a triple agent. No evidence Jeyne was switched except in people's minds and it would not make any sense that her mother would go along with such a scheme to begin with, since she had already thrown in her entire lot w/the Lannisters and at that point the Starks are completely done for as far as anyone knows, it would be suicidal for Sybil Spicer to have cooperatedin such a scheme.

But, again I say I realize that the Jeyne Westerling is pregnant theory is not giong to die until the last book is written and out and there is no Jeyne Westerling being pregnant, LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more interesting detail is that Robb didn't make Jon his heir as in the books. Of course Robb wouldn't do that since Talisa was pregnant, it wouldn't have made sense. But that means that little plot point is either irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) or the show has deviated on a pretty central point. I'm going to guess the former...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they wanted Robb to have a hot on-screen romance with a sexy young exotic modern nurse rather than a quiet honorable innocent off-screen marriage to a young girl who doesn't get to have any steamy sex scenes in a war tent.

Hopefully sarcastic - they could have given Jeyne any background they wanted from the standpoint of how they met, where her family is, what her personality is, etc. Unless the Westerlings play some more important role in the future, the name change didn't buy anything,

The theory made sense and was quite sound....particularly the part about the little sister seemingly not accounted for as Jaime watches them leave Riverrun.

It was, however, not openly stated in the book and was based on speculation.

What I'm bummed about is that we now may not have the exchange between Jaime and the Blackfish, and we definately won't have the scene where Jeyne or Fake Jeyne has to had the crown over to Jaime. Could have been a good TV moment.

No, the theory was not sound - it was based on nonexistence of information rather than what was given in the books.

I disagree. If anything the gave us a red herring. They went out of their way to point towards Talisa being a spy.

Especially the scene where Tywin says "we are waiting on the young wolf to fail and he will not fail, unless we help him."

The very next scene shows Robb meeting Talisa...

http://www.wetpaint....a-lannister-spy

Red herring, but the evidence was there to support it. Not just overanalyzing.

Agreed - I think this is one of the few times in the TV show they have been able to really pull of a bait and switch.

I doubt the information of 1 bannerman trumps the Will of the dead king.

Well, considering the information that bannerman would have would state that the bastard son of Ned Stark is actually the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar, yeah, it would trump it.

Again, D&D know how it will end. Do you really think if Robb had a baby in the books, and they knew about it, that they would still kill it? That would be way too much of a big thing to change, even they aren't that stupid.

Yes - the killing of the dead usurpers baby wouldn't be a big event from a plot standpoint, we've seen that happen before with the reputation of The Mountain smashing a baby to death. Based on what the Lannisters would know, I could easily see them ordering young Eddard (or whatever the kids name would be) offed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of compelling arguements to be made just based on the book to say Jeyne isn't pregnant. It still doesn't change the fact that Talisa's fate on the show doesn't "prove" anything. It wouldn't prove or disprove the theory any more if Talisa wasn't pregnant on the show. The kid could die later in the books. The Starks could remain so far out of power that the heir just doesn't matter to the final outcome. Xaro has a role in the future while in the show he appears to be left to die and since his character was completely different anyway there isn't much chance he could fill the same role even if he survived being locked in the vault. Jhaqo has a role in the future and has died on the show. Irri and Jhiqui are still alive in the books. The show doesn't necessarily care who is alive or dead in the books.

On a side note, I never agreed with the idea that getting to the same destination means nothing changed. If one person hitch hikes across the country from Los Angeles, gets mugged and has no money or aid, has to sleep outside, beg for food and barely makes it in one piece, and another one takes a first class flight without incident, and they both travel to New York, you can't really say nothing important was different between their experiences because they got to the same spot. The experiences along the way are what shape the character and make the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, considering the information that bannerman would have would state that the bastard son of Ned Stark is actually the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar, yeah, it would trump it.

No, it wouldn't. Why would anybody believe it? Any bannerman of any Lord can make up a story like that, just because it's Howland Reed, people will believe? Makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...