Emeralds

[Lyse Stark]

http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/seven-deadly-sins-envy.jpg

I think this is a pretty good image of what envy looks like. The Ivy motif fits in well as it grows, and as it grows, it destroys. And the ram hairstyle fits in the aspect of butting heads. And the snake itself also represents giving into the temptation to destroy what others hold dear.

[Ser Creighton]

Thanks. That's interesting. Why was he called the Winter King?

Henry VII was very unpopular. His first son Arthur had been a popular figure but died young. But his youngest son Henry VIII who was tall and handsome had become a very popular figure as well so when he took the throne following his fathers death, Sir Thomas Moore wrote a coronation poem to celebrate the end of the Darkness that was Henry VII with what he thought would be a great King VIII.

In he Ode to Henry VIII "The crowning of this new king is like the coming of a new season.

So if Henry the VIII was spring, that made Henry the VII winter and thus the Winter King. It's a long ass Ode so I am not going to post the whole thing but you can find it here. http://thomasmorestudies.org/docs/Mores_1509_Coronation_Ode.pdf

Henry VII was a dick basically, he did some good stuff but he was greedy and he really bent the law and abused power. Sometimes he did it for the good of England, but usually for the good of himself. He was often considered a usurper because he had almost no royal blood.

[Ser Creighton]

So I have a question in regards to the stones. Does it matter if they are there or does it just need to be named in the chapter. Like Emerald colored eyes, or talk of stones like when that dude was telling Asha her uncle bought everyone and then named a bunch of stones including giant sapphires? Or do they need to be present like Illyrios rings when he is talking to Tyrion?

[Ser Creighton]

Exactly, this is a good point. "Green with envy" is certainly in line with usurpation.

---

I've been trying to understand why exactly GRRM chose black and green as the two opposing colors that seemingly represent inter-dynastic conflict over the IT. One idea that came to mind is that the IT was forged by the fire of Balerion the Black Dread, who breathed black flame. So, in a sense, the kingdoms of Westeros were united by the color black.

On the other hand, we have wildfire which is green. And wildfire is essentially imitation dragon fire. That is, it's more potent than regular fire, but it's not the genuine item.

I wonder if that isn't maybe what the black and green dichotomy is supposed to represent. Maybe that is why the side with the true claim is always represented by the black, and the side with the lesser, or usurping, claim is always represented by the green.

Another possibly interesting ramification here is that, having been forged in Balerion's super-hot dragon fire, the IT might survive a potential wildfire disaster, even if the rest of KL does not.

Power. Black is generally associated with power. In heraldry Grief.

http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-meaning.html

Dark green is traditionally ambition, greed, jealousy.

That's kind of a traditional color wheel.

[J. Stargaryen]

So I have a question in regards to the stones. Does it matter if they are there or does it just need to be named in the chapter. Like Emerald colored eyes, or talk of stones like when that dude was telling Asha her uncle bought everyone and then named a bunch of stones including giant sapphires? Or do they need to be present like Illyrios rings when he is talking to Tyrion?

A description will do. As far as I can tell anyway. The context of the passage helps. Read the first two examples in the OP from AFfC for a good example.

[Alia of the knife]

I don't think Dany is infertile, as per her final Dance chapter.

We're all making assumptions here.

ETA:

Hopefully GRRM doesn't have to rewrite the ending of ASoIaF due to massive fan outcry. :)

No worries there I think, GRRM has already said he wouldn't change anything, and I think if I heard correctly, he may actually be working backwards from the ending, but I'm not sure.

[Alia of the knife]

Henry VII was very unpopular. His first son Arthur had been a popular figure but died young. But his youngest son Henry VIII who was tall and handsome had become a very popular figure as well so when he took the throne following his fathers death, Sir Thomas Moore wrote a coronation poem to celebrate the end of the Darkness that was Henry VII with what he thought would be a great King VIII.

In he Ode to Henry VIII "The crowning of this new king is like the coming of a new season.

So if Henry the VIII was spring, that made Henry the VII winter and thus the Winter King. It's a long ass Ode so I am not going to post the whole thing but you can find it here. http://thomasmorestudies.org/docs/Mores_1509_Coronation_Ode.pdf

Henry VII was a dick basically, he did some good stuff but he was greedy and he really bent the law and abused power. Sometimes he did it for the good of England, but usually for the good of himself. He was often considered a usurper because he had almost no royal blood.

But as with most jerks, he is enjoying another look, because I believed the same thing. :D

Alison Weir is pretty spot on about her analysis of historical figures, so I'll know more about what she says about Henry after I read her book, "Elizabeth of York."

It is the conclusion that Henry and Elizabeth of Yorks marriage was one of the great love marriages of the Monarchy, but she has long been an enigma, so in looking at the impact she had on the Tudor Dyanasty, (like the fact that Henry VIII revered his mother so much that no other wife would ever stack up), we will get more of an image of Henry.

In short, Henry was very frugal- cheap, but there are always two sides to every story. He was cheap and enriched his own coffers because it would ensure his dyanasty would not have to form alliances in order just to shore up finances.

He inherited an absolute mess due to the lavish, hedonistic spending of his father-in-law, and there were also people "out to get him."

(A little like Aerys who might have been paranoid and mad, but not necessarily wrong).

However, there was nothing "mad" about Henry, and one of his contemporaries referred to him as a "spider" due to his own political shrewdness.

But, it's also interesting that when another pretender came along, Henry pardoned him, and even gave him a job in his kitchens rather than killing him, which leads some to believe there may have actually been something to the other pretender, Warbeck who was executed.

And lastly, the guy was dull. He was not a party guy, and his Court reflected his reserve, so it's not surprising that the moment he died and the impetuous Henry VIII got his hands on the treasury, his spending nearly destroyed the economy despite the healthy one his father left him.

There were many similarities between Henry VIII and his grandfather, Edward even down to their treatment of women. While Edward loved Elizabeth Woodville in his own way, he treated and discarded his mistresses with almost contempt, though it didn't rise to the level of his grandsons treatment.

Anyway, the truth with most historical figures always lies somewhere between, so true of Henry VII as well.

[Ser Creighton]

But as with most jerks, he is enjoying another look, because I believed the same thing. :D

Alison Weir is pretty spot on about her analysis of historical figures, so I'll know more about what she says about Henry after I read her book, "Elizabeth of York."

It is the conclusion that Henry and Elizabeth of Yorks marriage was one of the great love marriages of the Monarchy, but she has long been an enigma, so in looking at the impact she had on the Tudor Dyanasty, (like the fact that Henry VIII revered his mother so much that no other wife would ever stack up), we will get more of an image of Henry.

In short, Henry was very frugal- cheap, but there are always two sides to every story. He was cheap and enriched his own coffers because it would ensure his dyanasty would not have to form alliances in order just to shore up finances.

He inherited an absolute mess due to the lavish, hedonistic spending of his father-in-law, and there were also people "out to get him."

(A little like Aerys who might have been paranoid and mad, but not necessarily wrong).

However, there was nothing "mad" about Henry, and one of his contemporaries referred to him as a "spider" due to his own political shrewdness.

But, it's also interesting that when another pretender came along, Henry pardoned him, and even gave him a job in his kitchens rather than killing him, which leads some to believe there may have actually been something to the other pretender, Warbeck who was executed.

And lastly, the guy was dull. He was not a party guy, and his Court reflected his reserve, so it's not surprising that the moment he died and the impetuous Henry VIII got his hands on the treasury, his spending nearly destroyed the economy despite the healthy one his father left him.

There were many similarities between Henry VIII and his grandfather, Edward even down to their treatment of women. While Edward loved Elizabeth Woodville in his own way, he treated and discarded his mistresses with almost contempt, though it didn't rise to the level of his grandsons treatment.

Anyway, the truth with most historical figures always lies somewhere between, so true of Henry VII as well.

Yes he did love his wife very much and his son Arthur. But according to records, he was pretty much a tool.

Nice little BBC documentary on Henry, they are usually not this good. Cheap is no the word to describe Henry, he was very lavish and this is where the Tudor style originates. He built a lot of lavish things, usually for himself. It's a good historical account of him including his private journal, and the records of parliament.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6K5_gcu9Boo

Weir wrote mostly about Elizabeth of York and Henry VIII wives, her focus that I know of was not Henry VII, ever. She is a popular historian, and does a lot of good research but given she is writing about history, I was always surprised by her lack of direct references to sources. You also have to separate her speculation from fact. Not to say she doesn't do that, she does, but there is a lot of speculation in her books as well as facts.

Anyway this is not really the place to discuss this, it's J Star's thread about Emeralds, and I was just answering a question about the Winter King. Enjoyable a topic as it is, I don't want to screw up a thread he worked hard on.

[Alia of the knife]

Yes he did love his wife very much and his son Arthur. But according to records, he was pretty much a tool.

Nice little BBC documentary on Henry, they are usually not this good. Cheap is no the word to describe Henry, he was very lavish and this is where the Tudor style originates. He built a lot of lavish things, usually for himself. It's a good historical account of him including his private journal, and the records of parliament.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6K5_gcu9Boo

Weir wrote mostly about Elizabeth of York and Henry VIII wives, her focus that I know of was not Henry VII, ever. She is a popular historian, and does a lot of good research but given she is writing about history, I was always surprised by her lack of direct references to sources. You also have to separate her speculation from fact. Not to say she doesn't do that, she does, but there is a lot of speculation in her books as well as facts.

Anyway this is not really the place to discuss this, it's J Star's thread about Emeralds, and I was just answering a question about the Winter King. Enjoyable a topic as it is, I don't want to screw up a thread he worked hard on.

Agreed which is why I was answering the question as short and sweet as I could that he put to me regarding the reason they called him "The Winter King."

[Ser Creighton]

Agreed which is why I was answering the question as short and sweet as I could that he put to me regarding the reason they called him "The Winter King."

I know, I was talking about myself, that's why I said "I don't want to." I have done that before as you know but I like J. Star, so I don't want too.

[Ser Creighton]

Exactly, this is a good point. "Green with envy" is certainly in line with usurpation.

---

I've been trying to understand why exactly GRRM chose black and green as the two opposing colors that seemingly represent inter-dynastic conflict over the IT. One idea that came to mind is that the IT was forged by the fire of Balerion the Black Dread, who breathed black flame. So, in a sense, the kingdoms of Westeros were united by the color black.

On the other hand, we have wildfire which is green. And wildfire is essentially imitation dragon fire. That is, it's more potent than regular fire, but it's not the genuine item.

I wonder if that isn't maybe what the black and green dichotomy is supposed to represent. Maybe that is why the side with the true claim is always represented by the black, and the side with the lesser, or usurping, claim is always represented by the green.

Another possibly interesting ramification here is that, having been forged in Balerion's super-hot dragon fire, the IT might survive a potential wildfire disaster, even if the rest of KL does not.

Jon if I may? I think what you looking at is cause and effect with usurper. If Martin is making an allegorical reference with Emeralds and Sapphires etc... Then it's probably alluding to a theme and while Usurper is the effect, the cause is greed, envy, jealousy, etc. While you have the effect, the cause is really just arrguing semantics as the words are all interconnected. It's like discussing anger or hate leading to a fight. Don't limit the cause as they are all interconnected. Roberts rebellion, and the Green fork. One of the main reasons Robert did what he did is jealousy, it's one of his most consistent themes.

As for black. Black is far to broad spectrum to be limited to one theme in the books. The undying or the faceless men, the black and white doors of both. Used to show polarity between life and death. If green is what you say it is which looks more than possible, then black is being used as a polar opposite. If white is life black is death. If green is a usurpers claim then black is the rightful claim.

Black being a far less specific word than Emerald, probably has a less specific meaning. "The night was black" "bacon burnt black" 'black pepper corns. It's almost impossible to limit black to one theme, where emerald is different it a much more specific color or item. So chances are it acts in different ways for effect. Like just the word green, the grass was green, probably doesn't mean much, but the grass was emerald green, different meaning.

Not sure if any of that helps as you have a far better grasp on your own theory than me. But I thought I would throw in my two cents. Anyway off to the coin store to satisfy my greed, I think I will wear green, although I don't need to as they take plenty of my green when I get there. Gold and silver, give me, give me, give me. Yes it's a nerdy thing to do even for a guy who posts regularly when not banned about fantasy novels. But I don't care it's shinny and pretty.

[Alia of the knife]

I know, I was talking about myself, that's why I said "I don't want to." I have done that before as you know but I like J. Star, so I don't want too.

Yep, a JS fan myself :)

What I think is interesting is Martins use of colors as well as gems as a whole in symbolism.

And speaking of documentaries, there was the reference to some of the powerful families of the Medieval era as being somewhat "gang like," in their origins until they developed the mystique of nobility around them, so the idea of aSoIaF families having their own "colors" is interesting.

[Fire Eater]

Trope subversion. Sacrifice. Irony. Also, Jon doesn't have to rule, especially permanently, to make use of his birthright.

GRRM is not a liar. If Dany dies, and there is foreshadowing that she does, then if he doesn't rule then the other contender for the IT will be Cersei. I don't think he would want to inflict her upon the realm.

Even if he tells Dany who he is, which I do suspect will happen, that doesn't mean he will rule as a Targaryen. Regardless of what Jon chooses to call himself, he's still the superior claimant in the Targaryen succession.

If he is to maintain and press his legitimacy as the rightful Targaryen heir than he should use the name. This is a feudal environment where there is power in names, and names are important in terms of knights and lords being sworn by heredity to a certain name: Targaryen. Targaryen loyalists might see making himself a Stark as selling out his Targaryen heritage, an insult to his late family's memory and no one likes a wannabe. To put it in perspective, what if Robb decided to change his name to Tully, how would his Northern bannermen feel?

They might also be worried about the thought of a king becoming too powerful with the North as possibly his personal fief.

Back to green, the rose on the royal chalice given Joffrey is emerald. As Olenna said, the Tyrells had never been kings like many of the other Great Houses, and they abandoned the Targaryens after they were overthrown plotting to make Margaery Robert's new queen, and usurp Cersei's place. The Tyrells later in a way, usurp Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey. Mace also envied the position of the Hand of the King.

[J. Stargaryen]

GRRM is not a liar. If Dany dies, and there is foreshadowing that she does, then if he doesn't rule then the other contender for the IT will be Cersei. I don't think he would want to inflict her upon the realm.

Uh, simply stating that GRRM is not a liar does not in any way validate your argument. Nice try though.

Btw, (f)Aegon is a contender for the IT. So, no, it's not just Jon, Dany, or Cersei.

If he is to maintain and press his legitimacy as the rightful Targaryen heir than he should use the name. This is a feudal environment where there is power in names, and names are important in terms of knights and lords being sworn by heredity to a certain name: Targaryen. Targaryen loyalists might see making himself a Stark as selling out his Targaryen heritage, an insult to his late family's memory and no one likes a wannabe. To put it in perspective, what if Robb decided to change his name to Tully, how would his Northern bannermen feel?

I never said that he would press his claim through Rhaegar. Only that if R+L=J is revealed to Dany, she should theoretically recognize his authority regardless of what Jon names himself.

Lol at this "Targaryen loyalist" argument you keep bringing up. Yeah, maybe Ser Barristan and those couple of green boys he knighted will flock to Jon's cause, as long as he names himself Targaryen.

Your 'Robb Tully' argument fails pretty hard because the lords were supporting a Stark. Many of those same lords who will make up Jon's power base. Which is why it makes sense for him to be a Stark instead of a Targaryen.

You want to know what loyalty is? Here are a couple of examples:

Stannis read from the letter. "Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. A girl of ten, you say, and she presumes to scold her lawful king.” His close-cropped beard lay like a shadow over his hollow cheeks. “See that you keep these tidings to yourself, Lord Snow. Karhold is with me, that is all the men need know. I will not have your brothers trading tales of how this child spat on me.”

- ADwD, Jon I

“I know about the promise,” insisted the girl. “Maester Theomore, tell them! A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf’s Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!”

- ADwD, Davos III

ETA: Fire Eater, you talk about the worth of a name, but that's an argument that plays right into the Jon Stark case. People want the wolves to return. In contrast, who is giving the impassioned Targaryen loyalty speeches?

[J. Stargaryen]

snip

I think your point about the cause and effect is correct. If anything, the wildfire is green because of what green symbolizes. It's certainly the basis for the black vs. green dichotomy.

Yep, a JS fan myself :)

:blushing: :cheers:

[Fire Eater]

Uh, simply stating that GRRM is not a liar does not in any way validate your argument. Nice try though.

If you recall my previous post, you would find that I was referring to the SSM I quoted.

Btw, (f)Aegon is a contender for the IT. So, no, it's not just Jon, Dany, or Cersei.

Do you think that Dany is going to let (f)Aegon live?

I never said that he would press his claim through Rhaegar. Only that if R+L=J is revealed to Dany, she should theoretically recognize his authority regardless of what Jon names himself.

Rhaegar is where his claim comes from. After R+L=J is revealed, Jon could theoretically name himself, but to reveal it in the first place he would need to call himself a Targaryen. Dany is going to be skeptical, and calling himself a name besides Targaryen would hurt his credibility

Lol at this "Targaryen loyalist" argument you keep bringing up. Yeah, maybe Ser Barristan and those couple of green boys he knighted will flock to Jon's cause, as long as he names himself Targaryen.

The Targaryens still benefit from residual loyalty. Plus, people still think of Rhaegar well and talk about him like the Northmen do regarding Ned.

Your 'Robb Tully' argument fails pretty hard because the lords were supporting a Stark. Many of those same lords who will make up Jon's power base. Which is why it makes sense for him to be a Stark instead of a Targaryen.

You failed to answer my question, and by looking at your response, I think you read too quickly. I obviously know Robb was a Stark. I was asking how would the Northmen take it if Robb decided to name himself his mother's name, Tully, instead of Stark?

Northmen alone won't win Jon the IT, and lords aren't bound to the Starks south of the Neck. He wouldn't need to be a Stark to win the Northmen given he has Stark blood being Ned's nephew, was raised by Ned in the North and there is Robb's will naming Jon KitN. Dany's army will likely be larger, and the Southron lords, until the riverlands recently, have never known fealty to the Starks with the name Stark carrying little weight south of the Neck, but the same could not be said for the Targaryens whom the lords traditionally owed fealty to. Even the Northmen had traditionally sworn fealty to the Targaryens since Aegon's Conquest. The name Targaryen overall, carries more weight than Stark throughout Westeros.

You want to know what loyalty is? Here are a couple of examples:

- ADwD, Jon I

- ADwD, Davos III

They are loyal to the Starks, but these same Northern lords are now swearing fealty to Stannis, who IIRC, isn't a Stark. They are willing to compromise as long as there is a Stark as their liege lord in WF, and the kings aren't Lannisters. If they would go with Stannis as their king then Jon should have no problem given he has a Stark mother, and is gaining a good reputation among the Northmen along with all the other reasons stated above.

ETA: Fire Eater, you talk about the worth of a name, but that's an argument that plays right into the Jon Stark case. People want the wolves to return. In contrast, who is giving the impassioned Targaryen loyalty speeches?

Barristan thinks of Rhaegar well, and the Martells are loyal to the Targaryens along with likely Mathis Rowan who was disgusted by Rhaenys and Aegon's deaths. To be fair, no Targaryens are currently in Westeros and Wylla was speaking months after the RW while the Targaryens were overthrown 14 years before so there is an apparent lack of teenage girls who are old enough to remember and give impassioned speeches. Also, the majority of the POVs are people who come from families that sided with Robert in the war, and few people would likely say something similar to what Wylla said in front of high-ranking Baratheon supporters at the time.

[J. Stargaryen]

If you recall my previous post, you would find that I was referring to the SSM I quoted.

I'm well aware of the interview you're referencing. The thing is, you can't just say: I've found some hints that I think point in a certain direction, and GRRM said he's not a liar, so therefore my argument is correct!

If that's not what you're saying, please explain.

Do you think that Dany is going to let (f)Aegon live?

Are you sure that she's going to be able to kill him?

Rhaegar is where his claim comes from. After R+L=J is revealed, Jon could theoretically name himself, but to reveal it in the first place he would need to call himself a Targaryen. Dany is going to be skeptical, and calling himself a name besides Targaryen would hurt his credibility

Jon's claim, at least initially, will derive from Robb's will. There's no guarantee that R+L=J becomes widely known. And even if it does, there's no guarantee that there is accompanying proof of his legitimacy. In both cases, he will still have Robb's will.

The Starks may even have their own distant claim to the IT via Stark-Targaryen marriages. If that's the sort of thing that is needed in story.

The Targaryens still benefit from residual loyalty. Plus, people still think of Rhaegar well and talk about him like the Northmen do regarding Ned.

Some individuals, sure. But are you saying that Rhaegar still inspires the same widespread loyalty that the Ned does?

You failed to answer my question, and by looking at your response, I think you read too quickly. I obviously know Robb was a Stark. I was asking how would the Northmen take it if Robb decided to name himself his mother's name, Tully, instead of Stark?

I read your question just fine, but it doesn't make any sense. Why would Robb 'turn' Tully? He's a Stark, his bannermen are supporting House Stark, so he stays a Stark. Jon, according to Robb's will, is now a Stark. Why would he 'turn' Targaryen? If the Northern clans are going to support Jon according to Robb's will, then they except to support a Stark, not a Targaryen.

Look at the emphasis on "Stark" in the two cited examples from my previous post. The Lyanna Mormont one even specifically states the name they support is "STARK."

Northmen alone won't win Jon the IT, and lords aren't bound to the Starks south of the Neck. He wouldn't need to be a Stark to win the Northmen given he has Stark blood being Ned's nephew, was raised by Ned in the North and there is Robb's will naming Jon KitN. Dany's army will likely be larger, and the Southron lords, until the riverlands recently, have never known fealty to the Starks with the name Stark carrying little weight south of the Neck, but the same could not be said for the Targaryens whom the lords traditionally owed fealty to. Even the Northmen had traditionally sworn fealty to the Targaryens since Aegon's Conquest. The name Targaryen overall, carries more weight than Stark throughout Westeros.

As a historical artifact – yes. As it currently stands – no.

Let's put it this way: poll everyone in Westeros, and ask them if they'd be willing to fight and die for 1) the Starks, 2) the Targaryens, 3) none of the above. Between groups 1 and 2, which one do you think is going to be bigger?

They are loyal to the Starks, but these same Northern lords are now swearing fealty to Stannis, who IIRC, isn't a Stark. They are willing to compromise as long as there is a Stark as their liege lord in WF, and the kings aren't Lannisters. If they would go with Stannis as their king then Jon should have no problem given he has a Stark mother, and is gaining a good reputation among the Northmen along with all the other reasons stated above.

GNC? Are we sure Stannis is going to live? It seems to me like you think he's going to die since you didn't name him as a contender for the IT.

Barristan thinks of Rhaegar well, and the Martells are loyal to the Targaryens along with likely Mathis Rowan who was disgusted by Rhaenys and Aegon's deaths. To be fair, no Targaryens are currently in Westeros and Wylla was speaking months after the RW while the Targaryens were overthrown 14 years before so there is an apparent lack of teenage girls who are old enough to remember and give impassioned speeches. Also, the majority of the POVs are people who come from families that sided with Robert in the war, and few people would likely say something similar to what Wylla said in front of high-ranking Baratheon supporters at the time.

Don't forget about the green boys Ser Barristan knighted.

[Cas Stark]

That would be an interesting poll. Starks would take the North, Riverlands and the Vale, probably...but why wouldn't the Targaryens get the vote in the Stormlands, the West, the Reach and Dorne?

[J. Stargaryen]

That would be an interesting poll. Starks would take the North, Riverlands and the Vale, probably...but why wouldn't the Targaryens get the vote in the Stormlands, the West, the Reach and Dorne?

Well, the Baratheons are Lords Paramount of the Stormlands, so I think they would definitely not side with the Targaryens. But, I didn't mean that everyone in Westeros would have to choose one or the other. You could choose 3) none of the above.

That might not be clear from the wording, sorry. The point was to show that people still care about the Starks. Does anyone seriously think the same can be said of the Targaryens?

ETA: Adjusted the previous post for clarity.

[Revmaynard]

I wonder what significance would be behind the glass candles being black and green. (3 black, 1 green)