Category: Uncategorized

I’ve always wondered why nobody else in King’s Landing was able to figure out the Lysa-Littlefinger conspiracy. What would have happened if anyone had discovered their role in Jon Arryn’s death in GOT? Does the crown invade the Eyrie? Does it delay the inevitable war between Stark and Lannister?

The simple Doylist explanation is that no one else can find out because it would end the plot – if brought to Robert’s or Ned’s attention, Lysa and Littlefinger are attainted for murder and conspiracy to break the King’s Peace, they’re arrested either with or without a brief siege of the Eyrie by loyal Valelords, and the Starks and Lannisters are much less likely to go to war since they’ve just almost been conned into a war – and GRRM needs the plot happen.

The more complicated Watsonian explanation is that the ease or difficulty of detecting a conspiracy depends on how many people are involved and how careful the people in question are being. Most of LF”s plot pre- and during AGOT is him working either solo or through cut-outs, or working just with him and Lysa. All he has to do is persuade Lysa to kill Jon and send the letter, and as long as she doesn’t tell anyone else (and her leaving for the Vale immediately really helps with that) it’s very hard for him to be found out unless you have LF tailed 24/7 and that’s very hard to pull off. 

Speaking of landed knights, what happens when Sylvia Santagar inherits her father’s lands and titles? She’s his heir… but his title is a knighthood, and women can’t be knights, even in Dorne. It kinda feels like the title of landed knighthood, as presented by Martin (because of course there were knights with land in the actual medieval period), is a result of his perhaps-too-through scouring of medieval titles from his feudal rankings.

citadelofoldtown:

racefortheironthrone:

Either she becomes a Dame (which, still possible), or her husband becomes Knight of Spottswood by jure uxoris. 

(This is the asker, by the way.)

I considered both options, and found them… wanting. I dunno, but I feel as if dames were a thing in Westeros, we’d’ve heard about them by now, and… while in any other kingdom of Westeros, I’d buy the jure uxoris answer… in Dorne, I feel like ruling ladies would be especially leery of that kind of thing, for the same reason ruling queens had prince consorts and not kings.

I don’t see what the problem is, per se. 

Why haven’t we heard about them? We hear very little about landed knights period. There’s only seven mentioned in the entire series, and very few of them are significant characters who get much of a mention. But logically speaking, given that we know of some pretty-longed lived houses of landed knights, unless they never had an only-female-heir situation in their entire existance, it must have happened sometime. Also, GRRM in his SoSpartinMartins on the subject has basically said that the only difference between a lordship and a landed knighthood is the title and “powers of rulership,” not property rights. So if there are ruling ladies, I would argue the weight of evidence is toward there being ruling dames.

Jure Uxoris? If as you say, women cannot become knights (which, sidenote, are we sure is actually part of the canons of knighthood and not just a cultural expectation?), jure uxoris is better than being completely disinherited, because your kids will get to inherit. 

Speaking of landed knights, what happens when Sylvia Santagar inherits her father’s lands and titles? She’s his heir… but his title is a knighthood, and women can’t be knights, even in Dorne. It kinda feels like the title of landed knighthood, as presented by Martin (because of course there were knights with land in the actual medieval period), is a result of his perhaps-too-through scouring of medieval titles from his feudal rankings.

Either she becomes a Dame (which, still possible), or her husband becomes Knight of Spottswood by jure uxoris. 

How can deepwood motte be an old castle while being made of wood? why did the glovers never made an actual fortified structure?

Old castles can be made of wood, you just have to keep repairing them.

Wooden structures are actual fortifications, just as much as stone ones. My guess is that, given the location of Deepwood Motte, wood is a plentiful construction material, whereas stone would have to be imported over significant distances through an oldgrowth forest, making it prohibitively expensive for a lesser House like the Glovers. 

What’s the difference between a Master House and a Lordly House? How come the Glovers have vassals if they’re not lords, and why arent they lord when they used to be kings?

Masterly Houses are the Northern version of landed knights. Landed knights have the same military/economic rights to military service, taxes, rents, etc. as lords, but they don’t have some of the broader judicial rights that lords do.

We don’t know why the Glovers were reduced to masterly status – especially since they were once a royal house – but my guess is that it was done to cement Stark authority over their demesne while still operating within the boundaries of feudalism. If it was done early on, it might have been done to emphasize that the Starks were *the* Kings in the North and that petty kings who opposed them would be treated more harshly than those who joined willingly. If done later, maybe it was in response to a rebellion. 

Thoughts on the Captain Marvel trailer?

I’ll put my thoughts below the cut to avoid spoilers:

First, I think the idea of using alien abduction as a way to smuggle in an origin story without it being an origin story is a really clever idea. (And the memory altering stuff is probably what gets Carol to break away from her buddies in Starforce.) Also, I definitely noticed Monica Rambeau’s mom, which is pretty cool. 

Second, the youthifying technology looks shockingly good – which is going to change wider Hollywood in all kinds of interesting and potentially creepy ways – and works great with the whole 90s nostalgia vibe they’re going with.

Third, as everyone guessed from the moment Carol decked a senior citizen, not only are the Skrull in the movies, but they’re clearly drawing from Secret Invasion. (Quick explanation: the Skrull are a galactic empire of shape-shifters who are ancient enemies of the Kree; Secret Invasion is a plotline where Skrull infiltrate Earth in the guise of superheroes, which offers almost unlimited opportunities for retconning shenanigans.) That’s great, because the Skrull are top-notch Marvel Alien Weirdness. 

Fourth, the McKelvie red-and-blue suit looks amazing, as does her powers. Marvel are clearly trying to sell Carol as the most powerful MCU character (probably in preparation for a post-OG Avengers MCU), and it’s looking good so far.

Fifth, I’m kind of interested in what this does to the broader continuity and the way that the MCU is experienced when revisited. For example, given that Ronan and Korath are in this film, will this make their very limited roles in Guardians 1 more interesting in retrospect? How do things change if you’re a younger viewer who didn’t watch Guardians 1 in theaters but who might watch this movie then Guardians 1 on Blu-Ray or streaming?

How much historical basis is there for the trope of the wise fool who is permitted to say what he wishes about the king and is uniquely positioned to speak truth to power?

Jesters were certainly a historical phenomenon, although how much liberty they had on political matters is a matter of some dispute between historians. 

On the other hand, there’s a lot of evidence for a similar phenomeon if you look at the Celtic phenomenon of bardic satire, which was believed to transcend mere verse to afflict its targets with disease and ill luck. And bardic poets were supposed to be inviolable.