Roadside Rose Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Why is Varys eye color never described?There are about ten quotes that describe his 'soft hands' or his 'portly' shape. But not one in which Tyrion describes his eye color. Isn't that really strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindchap Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Why is Varys eye color never described?There are about ten quotes that describe his 'soft hands' or his 'portly' shape. But not one in which Tyrion describes his eye color. Isn't that really strange?If you go through the SSMs, eye color is one of those things that means more to us than to GRRM.Paraphrasing:something he runs it past Ran...like re eye colors. Eye color...he regrets giving anyone colored eyes.He gave a very funny rant about eye color - about how in the real world, we really notice anyone's eye color unless we're very close to them, but in books, everyone has their eye color described. Having to go back and check the eye color he gave for hundreds of characters was an example of a detail that could drive him batty; GRRM said he regretted mentioning the eye color of any of his characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not in the face Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Are house words a First Man tradition or an Andal tradition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Why is Varys eye color never described?There are about ten quotes that describe his 'soft hands' or his 'portly' shape. But not one in which Tyrion describes his eye color. Isn't that really strange?Probably the same as Lemore's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisdaw Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Need help finding a passage. It relates to various colours in swirling water, I thought it was during a Tyrion POV when they're traveling down river but it's not. It may still be a Tyrion POV. I believe it's in ADWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morienthar Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Are house words a First Man tradition or an Andal tradition?First Man,The Stark words are old,So are most of the northern words,along with the words of house Casterly whom the Lannisters consumed and Dayne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Yep, juz wonderin' if someone told him about the will coz he was not a traitor yet before the Red Wedding. If most of Robb's bannermen know about it (those that are with him), why not tell him about it too when they met? Roose would be pissed of being one of the last lords to know (well, some probably don't know it too like Old Frey and Mr. Reed at the time) and might accuse his king of having his favorites. Good for him though for not knowing (if he really doesn't know) coz he'll betray his king anyway (or endanger Jon).Yep he was. He sent Glover and Tallhart with their men to Duskendale of his own volition (he lied about it being Robb's orders) where the majority of them were slaughtered by Randall Tarly. He lingered at the Trident and got his own men across just before a Lannister attack took the Norreys,, Lockes, Burleys and Manderlys stranded on far side. He left Condon and Stout to guard the crossing and arrived at the Twins with a host of (chiefly) Dreadfort men. Basically Roose spent months leading up to the RW bleeding off loyal Northerners from his own force so that he would be left with a solid contingent of men loyal to him. Most likely at the time of the RW only those lords who had signed the will knew about it. Since then there has been plenty of opportunity for word to get around and he may well be aware. Ramsay knowing about it is a pretty good explanation for the Pink Letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Elsa Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Robb had already sent Roose north before the will was drafted and signed:SoS:This is from the conversation with Cat at Oldstones, just before the will is signed, so unless Robb has some off screen time with Roose or one of the other Commanders spills the beans he probably doesn't know or at least he didn't at the RW. He may know it now but I haven't found anything definite yet either way.I think the idea is that Robb or one of his other bannermen might have mentioned it to Roose and/or Walder after they arrived before the nastiness commenced.If Roose knows Robb legitimizes Jon and made him his heir, it would make sense for Ramsay to insult Jon on his bastard letter (if he indeed wrote it) calling him bastard several times and proclaim himself Trueborn Lord of Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Elsa Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Yep he was. He sent Glover and Tallhart with their men to Duskendale of his own volition (he lied about it being Robb's orders) where the majority of them were slaughtered by Randall Tarly. He lingered at the Trident and got his own men across just before a Lannister attack took the Norreys,, Lockes, Burleys and Manderlys stranded on far side. He left Condon and Stout to guard the crossing and arrived at the Twins with a host of (chiefly) Dreadfort men. Basically Roose spent months leading up to the RW bleeding off loyal Northerners from his own force so that he would be left with a solid contingent of men loyal to him. Most likely at the time of the RW only those lords who had signed the will knew about it. Since then there has been plenty of opportunity for word to get around and he may well be aware. Ramsay knowing about it is a pretty good explanation for the Pink Letter.I meant Robb wasn't aware that Roose will betray him until the RW.I agree for the bolded part. I also think now that fArya is gone, Jon is the remaining Stark that threatens their (false) claim to Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedLantern Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Stannis says he's seen a vision of a king being consumed by a burning crown. Is he seeing a vision of Viserys dying? Or has there been some discussion previously on here of other possible explanations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose The Weddingcrasher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Is it known how and why, right before the Battle of the Trident, Arryn, Ned and Robert came to the conclusion, that the latter should be proclaimed King? Wouldn't it have been the most natural thing for them to decide to overthrow the Targaryens without replacing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slackylc Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Is it known how and why, right before the Battle of the Trident, Arryn, Ned and Robert came to the conclusion, that the latter should be proclaimed King? Wouldn't it have been the most natural thing for them to decide to overthrow the Targaryens without replacing them?Robert led most of the rebellion, and Ned was happy with him taking the crown because Robert had Targaryen blood, and likely also because Ned knew he wasn't well suited for the South and the politics of King's Landing. There would always be a king, there's no way they would've considered overthrowing the Targ's and replacing them with some sort of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Is it known how and why, right before the Battle of the Trident, Arryn, Ned and Robert came to the conclusion, that the latter should be proclaimed King? Because Ned didn't want kingship and Jon was old and childless. Robert, on the other hand, was young and charismatic warrior who did not object to being a King.Wouldn't it have been the most natural thing for them to decide to overthrow the Targaryens without replacing them?I'm not sure I understand you here. How can they overthrow Targaryen dynasty without replacing them? Unless you believe they should abolish the Iron Throne and get back to 7 kingdoms?If that's the case - why would they do so? They had perfect (and deserved) opportunity to grab power - and they did so, by placing Bob as king and Jon as Hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose The Weddingcrasher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 There would always be a king, there's no way they would've considered overthrowing the Targ's and replacing them with some sort of government.I find it rather strange, because for about 4 thousand years there were supposed to be at least 8 independend kingdoms, that were gradually united only because none could withstand the Dragons. With those being long gone, why didn't they just decide to go back to how the things were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose The Weddingcrasher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I'm not sure I understand you here. How can they overthrow Targaryen dynasty without replacing them? Unless you believe they should abolish the Iron Throne and get back to 7 kingdoms?If that's the case - why would they do so? They had perfect (and deserved) opportunity to grab power - and they did so, by placing Bob as king and Jon as Hand.Sorry, it was a rather poor choice of word by me. But that's what I meant. So it was only Robert's (or rather Jon's) power-hunger?Some other questions of mine:Has any house before the Targaryens managed to unite other major westerosi houses beneath its banner, with or without some magical source of their power?How old is the Order of the Maesters and is it known what exactly their origin is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slackylc Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I find it rather strange, because für about 4 thousand years there were supposed to be at least 8 independend kingdoms, that were gradually united only because none could withstand the Dragons. With those being long gone, why didn't they just decide to go back to how the things were?I've thought this before, but I guess after 300 years of rule everyone's used to this and is happy with it. There were seven kingdoms before, and if they all started declaring themselves kings again then there would be infighting and war for decades. Houses would be torn apart with dual loyalties through marriage, and there'd be so much fighting over land.Sorry, it was a rather poor choice of word by me. But that's what I meant. So it was only Robert's (or rather Jon's) power-hunger?Not so much power-hunger, but because the realm was starting to suffer under Aerys's rule. Rightly or wrongly, Jon was working for the good of the realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose The Weddingcrasher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I've thought this before, but I guess after 300 years of rule everyone's used to this and is happy with it. There were seven kingdoms before, and if they all started declaring themselves kings again then there would be infighting and war for decades. Houses would be torn apart with dual loyalties through marriage, and there'd be so much fighting over land.I don't think that would be the case. There certainly would be no war within the former coalition ot the Rebells, Tywin would be pretty happy with the Iron Throne being abolished, since that would mean him getting his son and heir back, and I don't think his ambitions would stretch far beyond calling himself King. Without Robert being declared King, he wouldn't need to wipe out the Targaryens with such a brutality, in order demonstrate some loyalty to the new king. Which means that Dorne would not have a grudge against the Lannisters, and the Tyrells didn't seem especially agressive or ambitious to begin with, rather concerned with the stability of their position, considering how much time they spent besieging a castle with a few hundred men in it with their entire host.I think the only house that might have caused trouble would be the Greyjoys, and they did it anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 How old is the Order of the Maesters and is it known what exactly their origin is?We don't know for sure, but sometime post-Andal invasion and pre-Aegon's conquest. At one point Tyrion suggests that they only became influential in recent centuries.Once theirs had been a powerful guild, but in recent centuries the maesters of the Citadel had supplanted the alchemists almost everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slackylc Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Has any house before the Targaryens managed to unite other major westerosi houses beneath its banner, with or without some magical source of their power?Well before then each kingdom was ruled by a separate king, who in turn was supported by his own bannermen. So each of the great houses had their own king and wouldn't have declared for anyone else. There was still some small conquests, like the Iron Island under House Hoare through their reaving gained a large part of the Riverlands.In response to your next post, the whole rebellion was put behind Robert with the view of making him king. If Tywin has suddenly suggested there be no IT, then he would be arrested for treason; there's no way Robert would allow any part of his kingdom to be broken down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankytoes Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Seven or eight kingdoms would mean constant warfare, only a united throne gives peace. That's why Robert was right to take the whole kingdom, and why the return to seven kingdoms ending idea sucks. Maybe the North, Dorne and the Iron Islands have a logical reason, but not the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.