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 / On Third Thought...

Next 20 Messages

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 May 17th 7:09 AM
This is actually a continuation of the On Second Thought... board. The discussion has drifted over to young Robert Arryn. I threw out the possibility that Robert Baratheon may have been the child's real father, and Keri Stevenson mentioned that the father might even have been Littlefinger. There has been recent suggestion that perhaps the Lannisters were not behind Jon Arryn's murder at all. What do you think?

labor
User ID: 8479113 May 17th 11:26 AM

Well, why would a son of young and healthy Littlefinger be as sickly as Robert Arryn? IMO it better fits Jon Arryn's parentage, Jon had lots of problems with siring children.

Considering Jon's poisoning - when did Jon fall ill? During the tourney or afterwards? Where the Lannisters still in the city, when he picked the book?

IMO, Pycelle's interpretations of Cersei's looks were just pathetic attempts to claim some official backing for his actions. We have seen, that fear of Varys or no, Cersei had no trouble to vocalise her instructions to Lancel or organize an attempt on Robert during the melee.
Also, rather than murdering Arryn she would likely go directly for Robert, especially as her father was in the city with additional guard and liegemen and could have backed her up.
And finally, she would have destroyed the book.
I don't think that she or Jaime are to blame for Arryn's poisoning.

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 May 17th 12:14 PM
Hmmm. The plot thickens. There seems to be growing (though perhaps not yet majority) sentiment that Lysa may have at least played some role in Jon's death. More opinions, ideas?

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 17th 12:32 PM
I've always felt it likely that Lysa Arryn became aware of the plot . . . but said nothing.

Did she actually go about killing Jon herself, through Ser Hugh? I don't know. It's vaguely possible, although for some reason there's some niggling detail that puts me off of it.

Her sudden flight from the city, perhaps. But the fact that that wasn't a reasonable thing to do if she wanted to seem innocent seems a rather weak limb to stand on given that she's certainly far from reasonable in her behavior.

As to the possibility of Littlefinger ... almost surely he's the one who led Stannis Baratheon (and perhaps Jon Arryn as well, although Stannis suggests that he's the one who started Arryn on that search) to the matter of the bastards. Who else is there? Obviously Varys has known for a long while of the facts, and I actually trust him when he says he didn't set things in motion -- he would have wanted to spring it a bit later.

But I digress. Why should Littlefinger start pointing things out, and then turn around and kill Jon Arryn? It's ... extreme. I don't know. Very tricky. I think SoS may reveal just enough more that we can start coming up with some firm(er) conclusions.

oba
User ID: 8987493 May 17th 2:44 PM
labor, from a biological standpoint, Jon Arryn's age wouldn't be a contributing factor to his son's health.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 17th 2:56 PM
Uhm, actually, it would be oba unless I'm missing something.

With age (and the biological deterioration that comes thereof), the testicles can begin to produce sperm of poorer quality than at the peak. This increases the likelihood of a sub-standard set of genes being made available for the production of an embryo which could ultimately lead to all manner of problems.

The problem's pretty much the same for women, although in a different way. Women only have a finite amount of eggs. And as time goes by, all sorts of things -- chemical imbalances, serious sicknesses, accidents, etc. -- can and _will_ lead to some degree of degradation.

Of course, both of these problems are more pronounced in the modern day than in the past. Not only are folk living longer (although it really only matters for men -- menopause is, I believe, fairly consistent across the board through history although I might be mistaken) but increases in pollutants in everyday life make it a bit easier to mess things up.

Mind, I'm no biologist -- this is just stuff I recall from some biology courses I read some time ago. Text books are notoriously bad at disseminating information, usually, so any errors above are to be blamed squarely on them and not the guy who preferred English lit than the intricate inner workings of amoeba. ;)

KAH
User ID: 9209903 May 18th 4:06 AM
This is a response to a post on the filled-up 'second thought' section.

Markus:

[Robert Arryn's fostering]

I'm not all that sure that Jaime was named Warden of the East because Tywin allowed for Robert's fostering at the Rock. Robert Baratheon and Ned's talk reveals that Robert thinks his namesake is too weak to hold the East. Cersei probably sensed that, and took the advantage to press for Jaime to be named Warden of the East.

OTOH, fostering Robert Arryn might make sense anyhow, since it would create valuable bonds with a future Warden of the East - not something to dismiss. So that might be an alternative explanation for the fostering.

I just think the timing was a bit too convenient. But then again, Jon Arryn had plans for sending his son to Dragonstone, and Tywin could hardly second-guess _him_.

Keri Stevenson
User ID: 9872353 May 18th 7:15 AM
I'm not saying for sure that Littlefinger is Robert Arryn's father; it's really an extreme possibility. But I think there are ways he could be so, reasons that do not completely disqualify him on the basis of health.

1. We don't know that he would necessarily sire healthy children; after all, he doesn't have any others.

2. Although somewhat diminished by the fact that Catelyn has borne healthy children, there could be something from Lysa's side interfering.

3. Jon Arryn's age might be a factor... or might not. If Littlefinger really was in love with Lysa (or, even more likely, saw her as his possession) he might want to keep Jon from fathering a child on her. There would be ways to do that, or to induce miscarriage.

4. Robert Arryn might not really be sickly, just weak. After all, no one can get him away from his mother long enough to be sure.

I think Pycelle did have something to do with Jon Arryn's death, but if so... it would almost have to come from that book. And he was the one who gave the book to Ned! Why didn't he destroy the book? Does he just like killing Hands? Or did he not know about the incest, and just decide that killing Jon Arryn was in the best interests of House Lannister? (And if so, that still doesn't explain why he would help Ned along the same path).

That book is really starting to bother me...

Jeff
User ID: 8506593 May 18th 8:10 AM
The book bothers me as well, Keri. I can't help but think that Varys knew about the book and Arryn's focus on it as well. Why didn't _he_ destroy it if he wanted to cover up the whole incest thing?

Claidhaim
User ID: 9544623 May 18th 8:28 AM
Varys must not have wanted to cover up the incest. Things were going just fine with the suspicion of the Starks fully on the Lannisters till someone interfered and attempted to end Bran's life. Someone certainly accelerated the time table for the little tussle between Lion and Wolf for their own purposes. Was it just to screw with Varys? Or is there some more sinister ulterior motive?

Markus
User ID: 2547224 May 18th 8:48 AM
Kay-Arne,

I suggested Jaime's appointment as a possible explanation, next to the already mentioned establishment of bonds to the Eyrie.

The real reason why Tywin agreed to foster young Arryn is still unclear, but I think we _have_ sensible alternatives to explain it. It isn't all that mysterious in my opinion.

Note, my points shall only explain why _Tywin_ agreed to foster Robert Arryn. Cersei's reasons might still have been to have a hostage against Lysa's accusations that the Lannisters murdered Jon Arryn.

oba
User ID: 8987493 May 18th 3:40 PM
I also wonder why Pycelle didn't get rid of the book. The only thing I can think of is the fact that his getting rid of it would alert Cersei, Jaime, Varys and whoever else knows about the incest that he (Pycelle)also knows about it. Cersei might be the type who agrees with the old adage that 3 people can only keep a secret if 2 of them are in their graves.

Jeff
User ID: 8506593 May 18th 3:55 PM
Getting rid of the book wouldn't seem to be too difficult. Just explain that it had been replaced or that someone must have taken it without permission.

oba
User ID: 8987493 May 18th 4:08 PM
I agree it wouldn't be that difficult. But, I'm operating under the assumption that, even if Pycelle professes loyalty to the Lannisters, any loyalty is tempered by a keen instinct for self-preservation, which is how he's lasted as long as he has in a place like King's Landing. If I were in Pycelle's shoes I would not want to arouse _any_ suspicion that I knew such a dangerous secret. I think, arguably, leaving the book right where it is does this. Pycelle already had to confess to Ned that he sent away Maester Colemon. If, on top of that, the Book vanishes or is destroyed on his watch, it looks even fishier.

Keri Stevenson
User ID: 9872353 May 19th 7:18 AM
Does anyone remember who first told Ned that Jon Arryn had been reading a book right before his death? (I thought it was Pycelle, but now I'm not sure, and I don't have my copy of _A Game of Thrones_ with me to check). If it wasn't Pycelle, then I could see him being forced into doing it; he couldn't simply pretend not to know what Ned was talking about...

Or could he?

After all, at that time Ned was looking for *clues* to Jon Arryn's death; he didn't know for certain that the book would be such a clue, or even that Jon Arryn had died because of a secret. (Lysa's letter, or Littlefinger's, or whoever sent the @#%! thing wasn't particularly coherent in that regard). Pycelle could simply have pretended that he hadn't noticed the book the Lord of the Eyrie was reading. Even if he had, he didn't have to go and fetch it. I remember clearly that he did give the book to Ned, even if he wasn't the one who told him in the first place.

Either he didn't know about the incest, which would make him stupider than I think he is and make his poisoning of Arryn all the stranger, or...

What?

Maybe he really did want the Lannisters to go down, and was trying his best to turn traitor to them without being caught. Maybe he was just more terrified of Ned in that moment than the Lannisters. I'm not sure.

Thoughts?

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 19th 10:56 AM
Keri,

It was Pycelle, yes. When Ned was interviewing him about the incident, Pycelle casually said that Jon Arryn came looking for a book. When Ned asked what the book was, he described it as some old dusty tome, rather dry reading -- and when Ned asked for it, he said sure, he'll find it, may take a little while.

Keri Stevenson
User ID: 9872353 May 20th 7:12 AM
Thanks, Ran. Then that scene bothers me all the more. It seems too casual, meaning the book isn't really that important after all.

And yet, Ned was able to learn the truth from it.

I suppose it could be that Jon learned the truth somewhere else, and then borrowed the book to confirm it, and Ned simply followed his trail by accident. Then Pycelle's reaction would depend on how paranoid he was, and if he thought the book was a clue after all. I'm starting to wonder if the Lannisters had any idea what he was doing.

Maybe not. I think Cersei would have ordered the book destroyed.

oba
User ID: 8987493 May 21st 10:10 AM
We know that Cersei and Jaime both know that Jon Arryn had pretty much figured out the whole incest-thing. But, who told them? Hugh seems like a possibility. I think Littlefinger, Pycelle and Varys recognize that if they reveal their knowledge to Cersei they'll end up in some pretty hot water. This would also give Cersei or Jaime a motive for "suggesting" to Gregor that he eliminate Hugh if given the chance. BTW, how are opponents chosen/drawn at these tourneys, anyway?

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 21st 11:14 AM
Re: how are opponents chosen at tourneys.

It depends, Oba. To quote Martin from a mail he sent me April 29th:

"Medieval tourneys were never governed by a single set of rules or rulesmakers, like NCAA football or major league baseball or even (shudder) boxing. In essence, every tourney had its own rules. The lord or king who was staging the event would usually choose the format of the tournament in the broadest sense, and then appoint a "master of the games" to run the event and make all the "fine print" decisions."

So, there's lots of variations. The next applies much more to this specific case.

. . .

"Of the ones so far... well, the Hand's tourney at King's Landing was put together hastily, on Robert's whim, and so was relatively small, which
allowed the single-elimination tilting format, which your opponents are chosen simply by the luck of the draw, and only one champion remains at the
end."

Notice 'luck of the draw.' Well . . . we all know that 'luck of the draw' can be fixed. On the other hand, however . . .

That was Gregor's second joust. It's understandable if they expect him to get that far. However, what if it was Hugh's second joust? He could have lost his first and not turned up at all. Of course, it might well have been his first, and he simply got a 'by' for some reason.

Or, I suppose, they might have fixed it so that his opponent (a Lannister bannerman or the like) would purposefully drop so that he made it to Gregor.

Claidhaim
User ID: 9544623 May 21st 11:18 AM
I think it's a real stretch to link the death of Ser Hugh to a Lannister plot to silence him re. the death of Jon Arryn. The whole misadventure of Ser Hugh at the Hand's Tourney was nothing more than coincidence. After all, although structured and using jousting lances, serious injuries do occur. And we all know that Gregor loathes violence and wouldn't even dream of killing someone out of hand, or inflicting maximum injury on anyone he faced.

Next 20 Messages

Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	May 17th 7:09 AM This is actually a continuation of the On Second Thought... board. The discussion has drifted over to young Robert Arryn. I threw out the possibility that Robert Baratheon may have been the child's real father, and Keri Stevenson mentioned that the father might even have been Littlefinger. There has been recent suggestion that perhaps the Lannisters were not behind Jon Arryn's murder at all. What do you think?
labor User ID: 8479113	May 17th 11:26 AM Well, why would a son of young and healthy Littlefinger be as sickly as Robert Arryn? IMO it better fits Jon Arryn's parentage, Jon had lots of problems with siring children. Considering Jon's poisoning - when did Jon fall ill? During the tourney or afterwards? Where the Lannisters still in the city, when he picked the book? IMO, Pycelle's interpretations of Cersei's looks were just pathetic attempts to claim some official backing for his actions. We have seen, that fear of Varys or no, Cersei had no trouble to vocalise her instructions to Lancel or organize an attempt on Robert during the melee. Also, rather than murdering Arryn she would likely go directly for Robert, especially as her father was in the city with additional guard and liegemen and could have backed her up. And finally, she would have destroyed the book. I don't think that she or Jaime are to blame for Arryn's poisoning.
Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	May 17th 12:14 PM Hmmm. The plot thickens. There seems to be growing (though perhaps not yet majority) sentiment that Lysa may have at least played some role in Jon's death. More opinions, ideas?
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 17th 12:32 PM I've always felt it likely that Lysa Arryn became aware of the plot . . . but said nothing. Did she actually go about killing Jon herself, through Ser Hugh? I don't know. It's vaguely possible, although for some reason there's some niggling detail that puts me off of it. Her sudden flight from the city, perhaps. But the fact that that wasn't a reasonable thing to do if she wanted to seem innocent seems a rather weak limb to stand on given that she's certainly far from reasonable in her behavior. As to the possibility of Littlefinger ... almost surely he's the one who led Stannis Baratheon (and perhaps Jon Arryn as well, although Stannis suggests that he's the one who started Arryn on that search) to the matter of the bastards. Who else is there? Obviously Varys has known for a long while of the facts, and I actually trust him when he says he didn't set things in motion -- he would have wanted to spring it a bit later. But I digress. Why should Littlefinger start pointing things out, and then turn around and kill Jon Arryn? It's ... extreme. I don't know. Very tricky. I think SoS may reveal just enough more that we can start coming up with some firm(er) conclusions.
oba User ID: 8987493	May 17th 2:44 PM labor, from a biological standpoint, Jon Arryn's age wouldn't be a contributing factor to his son's health.
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 17th 2:56 PM Uhm, actually, it would be oba unless I'm missing something. With age (and the biological deterioration that comes thereof), the testicles can begin to produce sperm of poorer quality than at the peak. This increases the likelihood of a sub-standard set of genes being made available for the production of an embryo which could ultimately lead to all manner of problems. The problem's pretty much the same for women, although in a different way. Women only have a finite amount of eggs. And as time goes by, all sorts of things -- chemical imbalances, serious sicknesses, accidents, etc. -- can and _will_ lead to some degree of degradation. Of course, both of these problems are more pronounced in the modern day than in the past. Not only are folk living longer (although it really only matters for men -- menopause is, I believe, fairly consistent across the board through history although I might be mistaken) but increases in pollutants in everyday life make it a bit easier to mess things up. Mind, I'm no biologist -- this is just stuff I recall from some biology courses I read some time ago. Text books are notoriously bad at disseminating information, usually, so any errors above are to be blamed squarely on them and not the guy who preferred English lit than the intricate inner workings of amoeba. ;)
KAH User ID: 9209903	May 18th 4:06 AM This is a response to a post on the filled-up 'second thought' section. Markus: [Robert Arryn's fostering] I'm not all that sure that Jaime was named Warden of the East because Tywin allowed for Robert's fostering at the Rock. Robert Baratheon and Ned's talk reveals that Robert thinks his namesake is too weak to hold the East. Cersei probably sensed that, and took the advantage to press for Jaime to be named Warden of the East. OTOH, fostering Robert Arryn might make sense anyhow, since it would create valuable bonds with a future Warden of the East - not something to dismiss. So that might be an alternative explanation for the fostering. I just think the timing was a bit too convenient. But then again, Jon Arryn had plans for sending his son to Dragonstone, and Tywin could hardly second-guess _him_.
Keri Stevenson User ID: 9872353	May 18th 7:15 AM I'm not saying for sure that Littlefinger is Robert Arryn's father; it's really an extreme possibility. But I think there are ways he could be so, reasons that do not completely disqualify him on the basis of health. 1. We don't know that he would necessarily sire healthy children; after all, he doesn't have any others. 2. Although somewhat diminished by the fact that Catelyn has borne healthy children, there could be something from Lysa's side interfering. 3. Jon Arryn's age might be a factor... or might not. If Littlefinger really was in love with Lysa (or, even more likely, saw her as his possession) he might want to keep Jon from fathering a child on her. There would be ways to do that, or to induce miscarriage. 4. Robert Arryn might not really be sickly, just weak. After all, no one can get him away from his mother long enough to be sure. I think Pycelle did have something to do with Jon Arryn's death, but if so... it would almost have to come from that book. And he was the one who gave the book to Ned! Why didn't he destroy the book? Does he just like killing Hands? Or did he not know about the incest, and just decide that killing Jon Arryn was in the best interests of House Lannister? (And if so, that still doesn't explain why he would help Ned along the same path). That book is really starting to bother me...
Jeff User ID: 8506593	May 18th 8:10 AM The book bothers me as well, Keri. I can't help but think that Varys knew about the book and Arryn's focus on it as well. Why didn't _he_ destroy it if he wanted to cover up the whole incest thing?
Claidhaim User ID: 9544623	May 18th 8:28 AM Varys must not have wanted to cover up the incest. Things were going just fine with the suspicion of the Starks fully on the Lannisters till someone interfered and attempted to end Bran's life. Someone certainly accelerated the time table for the little tussle between Lion and Wolf for their own purposes. Was it just to screw with Varys? Or is there some more sinister ulterior motive?
Markus User ID: 2547224	May 18th 8:48 AM Kay-Arne, I suggested Jaime's appointment as a possible explanation, next to the already mentioned establishment of bonds to the Eyrie. The real reason why Tywin agreed to foster young Arryn is still unclear, but I think we _have_ sensible alternatives to explain it. It isn't all that mysterious in my opinion. Note, my points shall only explain why _Tywin_ agreed to foster Robert Arryn. Cersei's reasons might still have been to have a hostage against Lysa's accusations that the Lannisters murdered Jon Arryn.
oba User ID: 8987493	May 18th 3:40 PM I also wonder why Pycelle didn't get rid of the book. The only thing I can think of is the fact that his getting rid of it would alert Cersei, Jaime, Varys and whoever else knows about the incest that he (Pycelle)also knows about it. Cersei might be the type who agrees with the old adage that 3 people can only keep a secret if 2 of them are in their graves.
Jeff User ID: 8506593	May 18th 3:55 PM Getting rid of the book wouldn't seem to be too difficult. Just explain that it had been replaced or that someone must have taken it without permission.
oba User ID: 8987493	May 18th 4:08 PM I agree it wouldn't be that difficult. But, I'm operating under the assumption that, even if Pycelle professes loyalty to the Lannisters, any loyalty is tempered by a keen instinct for self-preservation, which is how he's lasted as long as he has in a place like King's Landing. If I were in Pycelle's shoes I would not want to arouse _any_ suspicion that I knew such a dangerous secret. I think, arguably, leaving the book right where it is does this. Pycelle already had to confess to Ned that he sent away Maester Colemon. If, on top of that, the Book vanishes or is destroyed on his watch, it looks even fishier.
Keri Stevenson User ID: 9872353	May 19th 7:18 AM Does anyone remember who first told Ned that Jon Arryn had been reading a book right before his death? (I thought it was Pycelle, but now I'm not sure, and I don't have my copy of _A Game of Thrones_ with me to check). If it wasn't Pycelle, then I could see him being forced into doing it; he couldn't simply pretend not to know what Ned was talking about... Or could he? After all, at that time Ned was looking for clues to Jon Arryn's death; he didn't know for certain that the book would be such a clue, or even that Jon Arryn had died because of a secret. (Lysa's letter, or Littlefinger's, or whoever sent the @#%! thing wasn't particularly coherent in that regard). Pycelle could simply have pretended that he hadn't noticed the book the Lord of the Eyrie was reading. Even if he had, he didn't have to go and fetch it. I remember clearly that he did give the book to Ned, even if he wasn't the one who told him in the first place. Either he didn't know about the incest, which would make him stupider than I think he is and make his poisoning of Arryn all the stranger, or... What? Maybe he really did want the Lannisters to go down, and was trying his best to turn traitor to them without being caught. Maybe he was just more terrified of Ned in that moment than the Lannisters. I'm not sure. Thoughts?
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 19th 10:56 AM Keri, It was Pycelle, yes. When Ned was interviewing him about the incident, Pycelle casually said that Jon Arryn came looking for a book. When Ned asked what the book was, he described it as some old dusty tome, rather dry reading -- and when Ned asked for it, he said sure, he'll find it, may take a little while.
Keri Stevenson User ID: 9872353	May 20th 7:12 AM Thanks, Ran. Then that scene bothers me all the more. It seems too casual, meaning the book isn't really that important after all. And yet, Ned was able to learn the truth from it. I suppose it could be that Jon learned the truth somewhere else, and then borrowed the book to confirm it, and Ned simply followed his trail by accident. Then Pycelle's reaction would depend on how paranoid he was, and if he thought the book was a clue after all. I'm starting to wonder if the Lannisters had any idea what he was doing. Maybe not. I think Cersei would have ordered the book destroyed.
oba User ID: 8987493	May 21st 10:10 AM We know that Cersei and Jaime both know that Jon Arryn had pretty much figured out the whole incest-thing. But, who told them? Hugh seems like a possibility. I think Littlefinger, Pycelle and Varys recognize that if they reveal their knowledge to Cersei they'll end up in some pretty hot water. This would also give Cersei or Jaime a motive for "suggesting" to Gregor that he eliminate Hugh if given the chance. BTW, how are opponents chosen/drawn at these tourneys, anyway?
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 21st 11:14 AM Re: how are opponents chosen at tourneys. It depends, Oba. To quote Martin from a mail he sent me April 29th: "Medieval tourneys were never governed by a single set of rules or rulesmakers, like NCAA football or major league baseball or even (shudder) boxing. In essence, every tourney had its own rules. The lord or king who was staging the event would usually choose the format of the tournament in the broadest sense, and then appoint a "master of the games" to run the event and make all the "fine print" decisions." So, there's lots of variations. The next applies much more to this specific case. . . . "Of the ones so far... well, the Hand's tourney at King's Landing was put together hastily, on Robert's whim, and so was relatively small, which allowed the single-elimination tilting format, which your opponents are chosen simply by the luck of the draw, and only one champion remains at the end." Notice 'luck of the draw.' Well . . . we all know that 'luck of the draw' can be fixed. On the other hand, however . . . That was Gregor's second joust. It's understandable if they expect him to get that far. However, what if it was Hugh's second joust? He could have lost his first and not turned up at all. Of course, it might well have been his first, and he simply got a 'by' for some reason. Or, I suppose, they might have fixed it so that his opponent (a Lannister bannerman or the like) would purposefully drop so that he made it to Gregor.
Claidhaim User ID: 9544623	May 21st 11:18 AM I think it's a real stretch to link the death of Ser Hugh to a Lannister plot to silence him re. the death of Jon Arryn. The whole misadventure of Ser Hugh at the Hand's Tourney was nothing more than coincidence. After all, although structured and using jousting lances, serious injuries do occur. And we all know that Gregor loathes violence and wouldn't even dream of killing someone out of hand, or inflicting maximum injury on anyone he faced.