Howland Reed?

Dennai
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:33 am

Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:05 pm

Wimsey wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:02 pm
Grandmaester Flash wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:11 am
He can authenticate what is possibly the most important of Bran's disclosures.
Actually, Howland Reed cannot authenticate Bran's claim: all he can do is support Bran's claim. Bran has much better means at his disposal of showing how he'd know things because Bran is going to know all sorts of things that he ought not to know.

However, one possibility that I did not consider above is that Ned might have entrusted Howland Reed with the proofs that Lyanna & Rhaegar were married. Those could be documents, or even perhaps the people who were at the Tower of Joy.
That changes not just Jon's parentage, but also his birth status.
How so? Raeghar was married with Elia Martell (and had kids with her, so it was a consummate marriage). Westeros don't accept poligamy. Nor the Faith of the Seven, nor the Old Gods. For all intents and purposes, Jon still would be an illegitimate child.

User avatar
Raeslewolhn
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:16 am

Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:13 pm

Edit, NVM I see this has been clarified.

But also, what is the stop for the paradox of LC permission for the LC himself to leave?

User avatar
Wimsey
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:11 pm

Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:12 pm

Grandmaester Flash wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:04 pm
As the Lord Commander, he gave himself permission! 8-)
Donald Trump certainly would agree with this idea! :mrgreen:
Dennai wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:05 pm
How so? Raeghar was married with Elia Martell (and had kids with her, so it was a consummate marriage). Westeros don't accept poligamy. Nor the Faith of the Seven, nor the Old Gods. For all intents and purposes, Jon still would be an illegitimate child.
We know that divorce is possible. Renly was scheming to introduce Robert to Margaery and then get Robert to "set aside" (= divorce) Cersei and marry Margaery. Renly even thought that Margaery looked enough like Lyanna that it would sway Robert! (Ned did not think that the picture of Margaery looked that much like Lyanna.)

At this point, the reason why I would lean against that idea is that we probably should have gotten some clue about this by now. However, we cannot rule it out yet.
"If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise, don't put it there."
A. P. Chehkov

User avatar
evenwind
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:07 pm

Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:23 am

Raeslewolhn wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:13 pm
But also, what is the stop for the paradox of LC permission for the LC himself to leave?
I don't think there's a paradox because I don't think the LC has the power to release someone from his oath. There's certainly no wiggle room in the oath itself: "It shall not end until my death" (and there's also the bit about "I shall wear no crowns"). The oath is taken under a weirwood tree, in the sight of the Old Gods. ie: It's a religious ceremony. The LC is a secular leader and not any kind of priest. I don't see how he has the authority to nullify a religious vow.

User avatar
Grandmaester Flash
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:54 pm
Location: England

Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:56 pm

evenwind wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:23 am
I don't think there's a paradox because I don't think the LC has the power to release someone from his oath.
I never said anything about "power to release someone from his oath".
I was talking about giving a member of the NW permission to leave the Wall. That is, to go elsewhere to perform important duties.

User avatar
evenwind
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:07 pm

Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:35 pm

I guess the North could be assuming that Jon is on detached duty, even when we know better. But if that is the case, I'd think it'd be worth at least one line of dialog to explain - even if it was something snarky from LF - just so it makes sense to the viewers.

User avatar
Chilli
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:40 pm

Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:57 pm

I think the other northern lord just don't care. They've lost so many young able men with Rob. All what's left in the north are old men and children, they are glad there is still someone with Stark blood left to lead them. And Sana at that moment hadn't proved herself to be able to lead, maybe that will change now Jon is away.
It would be different if it was peace time and Ned was still alive.

User avatar
Raeslewolhn
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:16 am

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:52 am

evenwind wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:23 am
Raeslewolhn wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:13 pm
But also, what is the stop for the paradox of LC permission for the LC himself to leave?
I don't think there's a paradox because I don't think the LC has the power to release someone from his oath. There's certainly no wiggle room in the oath itself: "It shall not end until my death" (and there's also the bit about "I shall wear no crowns"). The oath is taken under a weirwood tree, in the sight of the Old Gods. ie: It's a religious ceremony. The LC is a secular leader and not any kind of priest. I don't see how he has the authority to nullify a religious vow.
Yes, definitely. I mean permission to take leave. Like if he took a little too long of a leave to go south, who would say what ya know?

User avatar
Raeslewolhn
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:16 am

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:59 am

evenwind wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:35 pm
I guess the North could be assuming that Jon is on detached duty, even when we know better. But if that is the case, I'd think it'd be worth at least one line of dialog to explain - even if it was something snarky from LF - just so it makes sense to the viewers.
Hmm I think I got an explanation.

The NW knows what really happened and haven't sent any word out about a deserter of course. So they all assume he's sanctioned to have left the wall.

Does everyone else know the whole vows? Ned did but he was fucking LoW. I'm guessing most Lord's don't know the entire vows. Maybe they only know ppl who go there as punishment, and also know Jon wasn't a criminal or forced there, so they don't think about him deserting or question it as a problem.

Also, maybe some just don't care too, but I think this is a sufficient cultural and informational state of things for that to work without it being a plot hole....

We often assume things are known by all the characters unless it's made obvious they're not common knowledge.

User avatar
Grandmaester Flash
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:54 pm
Location: England

Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:53 am

Chilli wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:57 pm
I think the other northern lord just don't care. They've lost so many young able men with Rob. All what's left in the north are old men and children, they are glad there is still someone with Stark blood left to lead them. And Sana at that moment hadn't proved herself to be able to lead, maybe that will change now Jon is away.
It would be different if it was peace time and Ned was still alive.
I agree with this.
Bear in mind also that, within living memory, the purpose of the Wall and the Night Watch has been to keep out the Wildlings. That situation has changed now.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests