A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Song of Ice and Fire / Homages

Next 20 Messages

Lodengarl
User ID: 0798784 Jun 23rd 8:59 AM
We all have heard that GRRM puts in stuff into aSoIaF, homages or allusions to other authors or stories. Can we compile a list? What are the two brothers that killed each other based on? Tad Williams?

Obviously, Samwell Tarly is Samwise Gamgee from LoTR.

Re-reading aGoT, there are about 5 chapters in the early middle part where Ser Rodrik tries to play with whiskers that are not there...GRRM writes it almost the exact same, like 5 times in a very short period. Does anyone else think this is a stab or a joke to RJ's "pulling braids" issue?

Anyone else see homages, besides War of the Roses?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jun 23rd 9:08 AM
Yeah, Josua and Elias of House Willum are a homage to Williams. The arms are too -- three swords beneath a dragonbone skeleton.

There's some others in the heraldry -- House Jordayne of the Tor, with a quill for its arms, for example, or the nine unicorns around a maze for House Rogers of Amberly. And more than that, but I can't say 'em all. ;) I think labor has a couple other ideas as to the heraldry. I can say that there's about half a dozen more which we know of, and a couple which we're iffy on, and no doubt more exist.

One possible homage that's not exactly heraldry: the messanger who shows up at Bitterbridge to tell Renly that Storm's End was under siege from Stannis had a winged helmet. Always wondered whether that was a nod in the slightest to Tolkien and the delivery of the red arrow to Edoras by a messanger with a winged helm.

Having nearly completed _Cugel's Saga_ by Jack Vance, I notice that in passing a group of islands(? apparently -- they're mentioned as a temporary destination for a sea vessel) are named the Three Sisters. They aren't actually visited, and it could just be coincidence. I've got to ask sometime.

Markus
User ID: 8820133 Jun 23rd 12:54 PM
I think there are probably quite a lot of such coincidences, or rather subconscious decisions for names of persons, places and objects, and even plot elements.

I've just reread SWORDS IN THE MISTS, for instance, and the Grey Mouser's most challenging opponent was using a blade called "Needle".

The Heraldry Homages, at least, which we've noticed so far seem a lot more visible. The banners of House Vance and Peake, for example, are hardly coincidental.

Btw, Ran, speaking of your Heraldry page, isn't there a Othell Yarwyck in the novels? First Builder, I think. Might he not be of House Yarwyck?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jun 23rd 1:01 PM
Very good catch, Markus. I tended to recall all the names when GRRM fed us the new houses, but that one skipped me by. :)

Rania
User ID: 0896204 Jun 23rd 9:24 PM
How about House Costayne of the Towers?
The arms are a silver chalice and a black rose. Among the books written by Thomas Costain: The Black Rose, The Silver Chalice and High Towers.

Malice
User ID: 1759784 Jun 23rd 10:13 PM
Well, I'm poking in with some specific Wars of the Roses homages. James Tyr(r)el(l) supposedly killed the Princes in the Tower, and of course, Tyrion is very similar to Richard III (I'm a Ricardian, so I love it!). I Emailed Martin about this and got a pretty brief reply. I still feel that I hit on something significant, though.

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 Jun 23rd 11:16 PM
Who's that? I just read the article on the ten main suspects at the Richard III society site, but I don't remember James Tyrel. Or, do you mean your theory is that it will secretly be a member of the Tyrell family that does in Joff and Tommen?

I have a very strange homage. I am currently watching this old movie "Rio Grande". The instant it started, I thought it was much like a Winterfell setting. Some honorable commander at a fort and his family. Fort Stark. He talks about his duty to perform an execution in the opening scene. The characters are still suffering from what happened 14 years ago in the civil war. Oh, and Maureen O'Hara is the most perfect Catelyn I have ever seen in this, and her character's name is Kathleen. (Catelyn is pronounced like Cat, not Kate, btw, I have heard Martin say it) Supposedly this is a classic. I can't help but wonder if GRRM liked this movie as a boy.

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jun 23rd 11:23 PM
Well to tell the truth, Ned Stark reminds me ALOT of Duke Leto Atreides, from Herbert's classic Dune.

Rania
User ID: 0896204 Jun 23rd 11:31 PM
Malice,
As a fellow Ricardian I disagree that Tyrion is Richard III. Richard III IMO is more Ned than anyone else.
The whole Cersei thing is very reminiscent of
EW and Richard III, and what might have happened had Richard not been able to take custody of Edward V at Stony Stratford.
LindaElane,
James Tyrel is supposed to be the guy who actually did the dirty deed and killed the Princes in the Tower according to the Turdo version of events. However, there are some extremely suspicious circumstances surrounding his whole life post Bosworth. First of all he was pardonned by Henry VII , not once (a general pardon for anything he might have done under Richard)and another pardon about a month later.
He also gets assigned the governorship of one of the castles guarding Calais in France but gets lured back to ENgland and executed.
Also, funnily enough, the man who shot William II Rufus in the New Forest was also a Tyrel (Walt Tyrel)

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jun 24th 6:19 AM
So, what excuse do the Ricardians propose for Richard's theft of his nephew's crown? I mean, the whole "bastardy" story sounds as fake as they come. IIRC in that case there wasn't a question whether the boys were Edward's children but someone suddenly "remembered" about some previous secret _betrothal_ (sic!) of Edward's.

As long as we a comparing Richard III with Ned, that is.

Rania
User ID: 0896204 Jun 24th 9:42 AM
Labor,
It was not an excuse.
Bishop Stillington who told Richard about the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) NEVER retracted not even after Henry VII stuck him in jail for years and Richard never gave him any sort of reward for telling him in the first place.
Also, if you check out the chronology of events that May and June you will notice that none of what happened was pre-planned.
If you are really interested, read Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time", she will explain it far better than I ever could.
Oh and before I forget, someone didn't suddenly remember , why do you think George of Clarence was suddenly, and for no really good reason, after all the treasons he had actually committed against his brother, suddenly convicted of an unnamed treason and beheaded? And why did STillingtom also spend some time in the Tower arond the same time that George was there?

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jun 24th 11:42 AM
But contract isn't a marriage, is it? Contracts can be broken.

And I find it extremely suspicious that a king, a rather capable king such as Edward didn't think about breaking the pre-contract before his marriage.

Also, were there witnesses other than Stillington?

I may indeed pick Tey, and I don't know all the details, but IMHO even if Richard didn't kill his nephews (so, why not show them to the public to stop the rumors?), he certainly succombed to lust for power and deprived them of their inheritance on a rather flimsy pretext.
Certainly if he haven't done so, House York might have been alive and well...

Rania
User ID: 0896204 Jun 24th 12:08 PM
Labor,
According to the Church in the Middle Ages, a pre-contract or betrothal is just as binding as a marriage. Edward was not considered married to Elizabeth Woodville because of his betrothal to Eleanor Butler.
Well the only witness that was alive and well at in 1483 was Stillington.
As for Richard his first actions were prompted by
Elizabeth Woodville's actions:
1. She never told him that his brother was dead.
He had to find out from Hastings.
2. Edward made Richard protector, Elizabeth was planning on seizing the govt and have her son crowned before Richard even knew that his brother was dead.
As for Richard killing the boys what good reason did he have?
1. The boys were illegitimate therefore no threat to him.
Turdo on the other hand , legitimized Elizabeth of York (by voiding Titulus Regius, the act that proclaimed the illegitimacy of Edward V and Richard of York) without even having it read in parliament so the instant Elizabeth became legitimate again, guess who become legitimate? Edward V and Richard of York.
There is also the extremely suspicious double pardon of James Tyrrell and the completely different actions by Turdo and Richard towards people who could possibly be considered to come before them to the throne.
Richard did nothing to harm Edward of Clarence (Earl of Warwick) and his sister Margaret
Turdo, had Edward beheaded and Henry VIII did the same to Margaret of Clarence years later. Turdo also beheaded Richard's illegitimate son (John of Gloucester) on the flimsy excuse of his having received a letter from Ireland. Turdo (father and son) also managed to do away with the de la Pole boys (sons of Richard and Edward's sister Elizabeth) and the Courtenays (sons of Edward's daughter Catherine).
I agree that the House of York might have been alive and well if only Richard had been a bit more blood thirsty and suspicious, if he had not let Morton and Margaret Beaufort off more or less
scot free.. and if he had not trusted Buckingham quite so much.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jun 24th 12:12 PM
Richard III's deprivation of the throne from his nephews were granted on the argument of two things: Edward's pre-contract with Elizabeth Butler, and the fact that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been done in secret. They were both legally valid arguments to put forward, although the former in particular was a very difficult one to prove.

www.r3.org/basics/index.html has some information on these things.

I do agree that the Richardian apologists really can't give a good explaination for why Richard III would allow these relatively trivial matters remove his nephews from their appropriate place in the succession. The only clear one is that, as labor says, Richard preferred the throne for himself and was willing to lock up his nephews on the basis of technicalities.

He's gotten a pretty bum rap over the years, but there's only so far one can go in exonerating him within reason.

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 Jun 24th 12:15 PM
Under medieval law, any marriage made whilst you have a marriage contract with another person was invalid. Marriage contracts (engagements) were almost like marriages themselves, but they could be broken. Point is that Edward 4th never broke his. Very important counterpoint is that the woman he was precontracted to died in 1368, only four years after he married Eleanor Woodvile, a marriage which lasted over 20 years, I believe. So, its almost like he had initially committed bigamy. However, most scholars agree that in a case like this a marriage should be considered valid if the first spouse and/or contractee dies. You can't be a bigamist with only one living spouse/contractee.

Thats my best understanding after looking at Ricardian sites for a couple of days. Someone will probably be along to correct me, however.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jun 24th 12:33 PM
So, the word of a single witness... Hm... Even more suspicious.

The contract which wasn't broken off properly? When speaking about an otherwise quite competent monarch? I know that it was possible to break them. Hell, certain royal children went through half a dozen different betrothals and not only because their counterpart died. Extremely unlikely, IMHO.

Also wasn't marriage a sacrament at that point while betrothal wasn't?

As to Elizabeth Woodville, it seems to me that she had a very good reason to have her son crowned as soon as possible in the view of Richard's subsequent actions. Nor would it be the first time when a minor heir was deprived of the throne of England (i.e. Arthur, son of Jeffry, the middle brother of Richard Lionheart).

What would Richard gain by murdering the boys? Their "illegitimacy" depended on the word of a single witness. Many would have thought the whole thing a complete sham and naked grab for power using the heir's minority, as I do. And if he didn't murder them why wasn't he able to demonstrate them when the damaging rumors gained in strength?

IMHO, Richard owed it to his brother to protect, defend and serve his sons and he betrayed that trust in a most appalling way.
He certainly wasn't the most ruthless and immoral person of his time (regardless whether he had the boys murdered or not) and he did have more "right" to the throne than Henry Tudor, but he was no Ned, IMHO. When forced to chose between power and decency he chose the former.

And if there were 3 direct heirs to the House of York instead of just one, it would have been much more likely to survive. Not to mention that IIRC Richard taking the crown anatgonized quite a lot of people who might have supported the House of York if he contented himself with taking his rightful role of regent.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jun 24th 12:41 PM
BTW, might be best to move the Richard III discussion to Tidbits of English History II, to try and keep this thread on topic. :)

Malice
User ID: 1759784 Jun 24th 10:39 PM
Excellent suggestion, Ran. I posted my own little (or not so little) reply on the TOEH II board.

Hwyl,
M.

Omer
User ID: 9551723 Jun 25th 3:56 PM
back to the Homages, I think Is aw an interesting one. In WILD CARDS, Melinda Snodgrass Character Tachyon has a code naem 'Dancer'. He's refered to as 'Dancer' several times. Since Snodgrass helped Martin several times, maybe Dancer is a tribute for Tachyon?

Markus
User ID: 8820133 Jul 1st 2:59 PM
Speaking of WILD CARDS, it would appear as if Martin has even given a nod to himself.

He has apparently created a figure called Thomas Tudbury, nicknamed "The Great and Powerful Turtle", in the Wild Cards universe. And there is a House Tudbury which has a turtle in its banner.

Skimming a web page revealed that there are at least two more characters in WILD CARDS, named Meadows and Blackwood, who might have been the origin of the respective Houses in ASoIaF.

Next 20 Messages

Lodengarl User ID: 0798784	Jun 23rd 8:59 AM We all have heard that GRRM puts in stuff into aSoIaF, homages or allusions to other authors or stories. Can we compile a list? What are the two brothers that killed each other based on? Tad Williams? Obviously, Samwell Tarly is Samwise Gamgee from LoTR. Re-reading aGoT, there are about 5 chapters in the early middle part where Ser Rodrik tries to play with whiskers that are not there...GRRM writes it almost the exact same, like 5 times in a very short period. Does anyone else think this is a stab or a joke to RJ's "pulling braids" issue? Anyone else see homages, besides War of the Roses?
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jun 23rd 9:08 AM Yeah, Josua and Elias of House Willum are a homage to Williams. The arms are too -- three swords beneath a dragonbone skeleton. There's some others in the heraldry -- House Jordayne of the Tor, with a quill for its arms, for example, or the nine unicorns around a maze for House Rogers of Amberly. And more than that, but I can't say 'em all. ;) I think labor has a couple other ideas as to the heraldry. I can say that there's about half a dozen more which we know of, and a couple which we're iffy on, and no doubt more exist. One possible homage that's not exactly heraldry: the messanger who shows up at Bitterbridge to tell Renly that Storm's End was under siege from Stannis had a winged helmet. Always wondered whether that was a nod in the slightest to Tolkien and the delivery of the red arrow to Edoras by a messanger with a winged helm. Having nearly completed _Cugel's Saga_ by Jack Vance, I notice that in passing a group of islands(? apparently -- they're mentioned as a temporary destination for a sea vessel) are named the Three Sisters. They aren't actually visited, and it could just be coincidence. I've got to ask sometime.
Markus User ID: 8820133	Jun 23rd 12:54 PM I think there are probably quite a lot of such coincidences, or rather subconscious decisions for names of persons, places and objects, and even plot elements. I've just reread SWORDS IN THE MISTS, for instance, and the Grey Mouser's most challenging opponent was using a blade called "Needle". The Heraldry Homages, at least, which we've noticed so far seem a lot more visible. The banners of House Vance and Peake, for example, are hardly coincidental. Btw, Ran, speaking of your Heraldry page, isn't there a Othell Yarwyck in the novels? First Builder, I think. Might he not be of House Yarwyck?
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jun 23rd 1:01 PM Very good catch, Markus. I tended to recall all the names when GRRM fed us the new houses, but that one skipped me by. :)
Rania User ID: 0896204	Jun 23rd 9:24 PM How about House Costayne of the Towers? The arms are a silver chalice and a black rose. Among the books written by Thomas Costain: The Black Rose, The Silver Chalice and High Towers.
Malice User ID: 1759784	Jun 23rd 10:13 PM Well, I'm poking in with some specific Wars of the Roses homages. James Tyr(r)el(l) supposedly killed the Princes in the Tower, and of course, Tyrion is very similar to Richard III (I'm a Ricardian, so I love it!). I Emailed Martin about this and got a pretty brief reply. I still feel that I hit on something significant, though.
LindaElane User ID: 0276214	Jun 23rd 11:16 PM Who's that? I just read the article on the ten main suspects at the Richard III society site, but I don't remember James Tyrel. Or, do you mean your theory is that it will secretly be a member of the Tyrell family that does in Joff and Tommen? I have a very strange homage. I am currently watching this old movie "Rio Grande". The instant it started, I thought it was much like a Winterfell setting. Some honorable commander at a fort and his family. Fort Stark. He talks about his duty to perform an execution in the opening scene. The characters are still suffering from what happened 14 years ago in the civil war. Oh, and Maureen O'Hara is the most perfect Catelyn I have ever seen in this, and her character's name is Kathleen. (Catelyn is pronounced like Cat, not Kate, btw, I have heard Martin say it) Supposedly this is a classic. I can't help but wonder if GRRM liked this movie as a boy.
Relic User ID: 9328513	Jun 23rd 11:23 PM Well to tell the truth, Ned Stark reminds me ALOT of Duke Leto Atreides, from Herbert's classic Dune.
Rania User ID: 0896204	Jun 23rd 11:31 PM Malice, As a fellow Ricardian I disagree that Tyrion is Richard III. Richard III IMO is more Ned than anyone else. The whole Cersei thing is very reminiscent of EW and Richard III, and what might have happened had Richard not been able to take custody of Edward V at Stony Stratford. LindaElane, James Tyrel is supposed to be the guy who actually did the dirty deed and killed the Princes in the Tower according to the Turdo version of events. However, there are some extremely suspicious circumstances surrounding his whole life post Bosworth. First of all he was pardonned by Henry VII , not once (a general pardon for anything he might have done under Richard)and another pardon about a month later. He also gets assigned the governorship of one of the castles guarding Calais in France but gets lured back to ENgland and executed. Also, funnily enough, the man who shot William II Rufus in the New Forest was also a Tyrel (Walt Tyrel)
labor User ID: 0798784	Jun 24th 6:19 AM So, what excuse do the Ricardians propose for Richard's theft of his nephew's crown? I mean, the whole "bastardy" story sounds as fake as they come. IIRC in that case there wasn't a question whether the boys were Edward's children but someone suddenly "remembered" about some previous secret _betrothal_ (sic!) of Edward's. As long as we a comparing Richard III with Ned, that is.
Rania User ID: 0896204	Jun 24th 9:42 AM Labor, It was not an excuse. Bishop Stillington who told Richard about the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) NEVER retracted not even after Henry VII stuck him in jail for years and Richard never gave him any sort of reward for telling him in the first place. Also, if you check out the chronology of events that May and June you will notice that none of what happened was pre-planned. If you are really interested, read Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time", she will explain it far better than I ever could. Oh and before I forget, someone didn't suddenly remember , why do you think George of Clarence was suddenly, and for no really good reason, after all the treasons he had actually committed against his brother, suddenly convicted of an unnamed treason and beheaded? And why did STillingtom also spend some time in the Tower arond the same time that George was there?
labor User ID: 0798784	Jun 24th 11:42 AM But contract isn't a marriage, is it? Contracts can be broken. And I find it extremely suspicious that a king, a rather capable king such as Edward didn't think about breaking the pre-contract before his marriage. Also, were there witnesses other than Stillington? I may indeed pick Tey, and I don't know all the details, but IMHO even if Richard didn't kill his nephews (so, why not show them to the public to stop the rumors?), he certainly succombed to lust for power and deprived them of their inheritance on a rather flimsy pretext. Certainly if he haven't done so, House York might have been alive and well...
Rania User ID: 0896204	Jun 24th 12:08 PM Labor, According to the Church in the Middle Ages, a pre-contract or betrothal is just as binding as a marriage. Edward was not considered married to Elizabeth Woodville because of his betrothal to Eleanor Butler. Well the only witness that was alive and well at in 1483 was Stillington. As for Richard his first actions were prompted by Elizabeth Woodville's actions: 1. She never told him that his brother was dead. He had to find out from Hastings. 2. Edward made Richard protector, Elizabeth was planning on seizing the govt and have her son crowned before Richard even knew that his brother was dead. As for Richard killing the boys what good reason did he have? 1. The boys were illegitimate therefore no threat to him. Turdo on the other hand , legitimized Elizabeth of York (by voiding Titulus Regius, the act that proclaimed the illegitimacy of Edward V and Richard of York) without even having it read in parliament so the instant Elizabeth became legitimate again, guess who become legitimate? Edward V and Richard of York. There is also the extremely suspicious double pardon of James Tyrrell and the completely different actions by Turdo and Richard towards people who could possibly be considered to come before them to the throne. Richard did nothing to harm Edward of Clarence (Earl of Warwick) and his sister Margaret Turdo, had Edward beheaded and Henry VIII did the same to Margaret of Clarence years later. Turdo also beheaded Richard's illegitimate son (John of Gloucester) on the flimsy excuse of his having received a letter from Ireland. Turdo (father and son) also managed to do away with the de la Pole boys (sons of Richard and Edward's sister Elizabeth) and the Courtenays (sons of Edward's daughter Catherine). I agree that the House of York might have been alive and well if only Richard had been a bit more blood thirsty and suspicious, if he had not let Morton and Margaret Beaufort off more or less scot free.. and if he had not trusted Buckingham quite so much.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jun 24th 12:12 PM Richard III's deprivation of the throne from his nephews were granted on the argument of two things: Edward's pre-contract with Elizabeth Butler, and the fact that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been done in secret. They were both legally valid arguments to put forward, although the former in particular was a very difficult one to prove. www.r3.org/basics/index.html has some information on these things. I do agree that the Richardian apologists really can't give a good explaination for why Richard III would allow these relatively trivial matters remove his nephews from their appropriate place in the succession. The only clear one is that, as labor says, Richard preferred the throne for himself and was willing to lock up his nephews on the basis of technicalities. He's gotten a pretty bum rap over the years, but there's only so far one can go in exonerating him within reason.
LindaElane User ID: 0276214	Jun 24th 12:15 PM Under medieval law, any marriage made whilst you have a marriage contract with another person was invalid. Marriage contracts (engagements) were almost like marriages themselves, but they could be broken. Point is that Edward 4th never broke his. Very important counterpoint is that the woman he was precontracted to died in 1368, only four years after he married Eleanor Woodvile, a marriage which lasted over 20 years, I believe. So, its almost like he had initially committed bigamy. However, most scholars agree that in a case like this a marriage should be considered valid if the first spouse and/or contractee dies. You can't be a bigamist with only one living spouse/contractee. Thats my best understanding after looking at Ricardian sites for a couple of days. Someone will probably be along to correct me, however.
labor User ID: 0798784	Jun 24th 12:33 PM So, the word of a single witness... Hm... Even more suspicious. The contract which wasn't broken off properly? When speaking about an otherwise quite competent monarch? I know that it was possible to break them. Hell, certain royal children went through half a dozen different betrothals and not only because their counterpart died. Extremely unlikely, IMHO. Also wasn't marriage a sacrament at that point while betrothal wasn't? As to Elizabeth Woodville, it seems to me that she had a very good reason to have her son crowned as soon as possible in the view of Richard's subsequent actions. Nor would it be the first time when a minor heir was deprived of the throne of England (i.e. Arthur, son of Jeffry, the middle brother of Richard Lionheart). What would Richard gain by murdering the boys? Their "illegitimacy" depended on the word of a single witness. Many would have thought the whole thing a complete sham and naked grab for power using the heir's minority, as I do. And if he didn't murder them why wasn't he able to demonstrate them when the damaging rumors gained in strength? IMHO, Richard owed it to his brother to protect, defend and serve his sons and he betrayed that trust in a most appalling way. He certainly wasn't the most ruthless and immoral person of his time (regardless whether he had the boys murdered or not) and he did have more "right" to the throne than Henry Tudor, but he was no Ned, IMHO. When forced to chose between power and decency he chose the former. And if there were 3 direct heirs to the House of York instead of just one, it would have been much more likely to survive. Not to mention that IIRC Richard taking the crown anatgonized quite a lot of people who might have supported the House of York if he contented himself with taking his rightful role of regent.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jun 24th 12:41 PM BTW, might be best to move the Richard III discussion to Tidbits of English History II, to try and keep this thread on topic. :)
Malice User ID: 1759784	Jun 24th 10:39 PM Excellent suggestion, Ran. I posted my own little (or not so little) reply on the TOEH II board. Hwyl, M.
Omer User ID: 9551723	Jun 25th 3:56 PM back to the Homages, I think Is aw an interesting one. In WILD CARDS, Melinda Snodgrass Character Tachyon has a code naem 'Dancer'. He's refered to as 'Dancer' several times. Since Snodgrass helped Martin several times, maybe Dancer is a tribute for Tachyon?
Markus User ID: 8820133	Jul 1st 2:59 PM Speaking of WILD CARDS, it would appear as if Martin has even given a nod to himself. He has apparently created a figure called Thomas Tudbury, nicknamed "The Great and Powerful Turtle", in the Wild Cards universe. And there is a House Tudbury which has a turtle in its banner. Skimming a web page revealed that there are at least two more characters in WILD CARDS, named Meadows and Blackwood, who might have been the origin of the respective Houses in ASoIaF.