Slackylc Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Did Melisandre actually ask for Mance's son to be sacrificed? Or was it rather Jon that suspected Mel could do it?Jon suspects. He heard her say there's power in King's blood, hence why he sent Aemon away too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 I love Jon, but this is the only decision he made I really cannot understand! And it might come back to bite him in the ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Berg Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Jon suspects. He heard her say there's power in King's blood, hence why he sent Aemon away too.So it is Jon's assumption that Melisandre could actually find interesting the son of a self-proclaimed King beyond the wall.'cause I've always believed that the "little" power Melisandre found within Stannis'blood was due to the fact he had an ancestor of Targaryen family, which in turn do have a lot of connections with magic stuff & dragons.. ..all things related to Melisandre's fire religion. She used once Stannis'blood and could not use it again, this was also for me a clue that she sucked in the small Targaryen blood part within Stannis, and consumed it all with a single spell.IMHO Jon's decision will be revealed to be unnecessary at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Egeman Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 I think this serves to show that baby switches ate possible, or it can be a plot device to seperate Mel and Stannis. When she offers a King's blood sacrifice but it does not work, Stannis would distrust Mel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Cassel Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Val does know about the baby swap. She tells Jon before she leaves to get Tormund that she doesn't care about the little monster because she knows that he's Craster's son. I'd find the passage but I don't have time now...She does know, she cares about the child nonetheless.So it is Jon's assumption that Melisandre could actually find interesting the son of a self-proclaimed King beyond the wall.'cause I've always believed that the "little" power Melisandre found within Stannis'blood was due to the fact he had an ancestor of Targaryen family, which in turn do have a lot of connections with magic stuff & dragons.. ..all things related to Melisandre's fire religion. She used once Stannis'blood and could not use it again, this was also for me a clue that she sucked in the small Targaryen blood part within Stannis, and consumed it all with a single spell.IMHO Jon's decision will be revealed to be unnecessary at some point.As the child's father was burned and Jon knows about Edric, it's actually a completely valid suspicion, imo.And I'm not sure what you mean with the second paragraph, king's blood is not necessary to make shadow babies, she asks Davos to make one with her, actually. Oh, and she used Stannis for shadow-babies twice, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Saga Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Yes, the basic idea seems to be that if they ever did try to burn the child, Jon Snow woulf confess to them that the child is now very far away ("suckers!"), and the one at the wall is actually Gilly's child.There is of course the chance that Melisandre would not believe him, but she could probably see what is true once she hears it. It is totally in Jon's character to do it, I'm sure she can see that.However there's a complication:Jon Snow just got stabbed, and he was the only person that could have told them this important information who is still at the Wall.If they go to burn Gilly's baby and Jon is not around to tell them no, well... :frown5:I thought Dolorous Edd was aware of the baby swap,or am i mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightAurora Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Gilly was in on the swap as Aemon points out that to Sam and why she cries. It is also is implied before when Gilly is in LS chamber and comes out crying and before she leaves she angrily tells Jon not to name the child and to find the boy a good wetnurse and states your promised. I am curious to know what promises/threats Jon had to make in order for her to go with the plan. I was also thinking what is Mel did a glamor thing on the children too, but ffrom Sam's chapter it is unlikely so maybe she showed interest in Mance's child so he would send the child away, but in reality she wants Gilly's child and now she has no obstacles.If King's blood is required for Mel's sorcery than why ask Davos to help her get a "child"? As far as we know Davis has no King's blood same as Mance, but both have high honor especially Davis because he always does the right thing and is truthful.I am just getting into ADWD and reading ti slow on purpose in hopes that I can drag it out and not have to wait do long for book 6. It seems like there will be a wait though anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James March x2 Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 As the child's father was burned and Jon knows about Edric, it's actually a completely valid suspicion, imo.And I'm not sure what you mean with the second paragraph, king's blood is not necessary to make shadow babies, she asks Davos to make one with her, actually. Oh, and she used Stannis for shadow-babies twice, btw.Clear! It was "officially" burned, but it wasn't a sacrifice intended to result into a magic spell, it was a sacrifice like any other.There are NO valid assumptions, assumptions are always wrong because are based on nothing.You're just lucky to not being proved wrong, most of the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Cassel Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Clear! It was "officially" burned, but it wasn't a sacrifice intended to result into a magic spell, it was a sacrifice like any other.There are NO valid assumptions, assumptions are always wrong because are based on nothing.You're just lucky to not being proved wrong, most of the times.Sorry, but could you phrase your point a bit more coherently? I'm trying to make sense of it, but I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.