Supreme Court of Westeros, ruling 49

Thursday is court day!

Welcome to the Supreme Court of Westeros! Every week, three pressing questions from the community will be answered by the esteemed judges Stefan (from your very own Nerdstream Era) and Amin (from A Podcast of Ice and Fire). The rules are simple: we take three questions, and one of us writes a measured analysis. The other one writes a shorter opinion, either concurring or dissenting. The catch is that every week a third judge from the fandom will join us and also write a dissenting or concurring opinion. So if you think you're up to the task - write us an email to stefan_sasse@gmx.de, leave a comment in the post, ask in the APOIAF-forum or contact Amin at his tumblr. Discussion is by no means limited to the court itself, though - feel free to discuss our rulings in the commentary section and ask your own questions through the channels above.

One word on spoilers: we assume that you read all the books, including the Hedge Knight short stories, and watched the current TV episodes. We don't include the spoiler chapters from various sources in the discussion, with the notable exception of Theon I, which was supposed to be in "A Dance with Dragons" anyway.

And now, up to ruling 49 of the Supreme Court of Westeros! Our guest judge this week is Paul. He is known as Pod's Plight on the APOIAF forums where he enjoys dabbling in artistic pursuits via MS Paint drawings. He is also an occasional contributor to Vassals of Kingsgrave.

What are your thought on the theory that Little Finger is actually a secret descendant of House Reyne? Which to me would better explain why he is so destructive. I never really got that the whole deal with Cat and his humiliation with Brandon would be enough to make him as malicious as he is. At any rate I would appreciate the perspective of people like yourself to weigh in. On some forums they consider this theory total crackpot, but I am not sure.

Main Opinion: Amin

Total Crackpot is an appropriate classification for it. Littlefinger has enough motivation for his actions, a mixture of innate ambition and the circumstances of his upbringing with the Tullys. He has the motive for his actions, with little to no evidence tying him to House Reyne. Even if his main goal was to take down House Lannister, which it is not, he could have done it far more efficiently than the path that was taken in the books. He has been malicious toward House Stark and Tully, while Lannister is only a potential pawn to him, which may be taken down to further his own advancement. Littlefinger isn’t even directly responsible for Cersei’s fall, he was surprised that she had made so many errors and her rule collapsed faster than he expected or would have liked.

Concurring Opinion: Stefan

Absolutely. I don’t get why people always want to construct greater mysteries about Littlefinger. The guy has a pretty sufficient motivation set already. Let’s see: he’s a total psychopath. He has a deep grudge with the houses of Stark and Tully. He has a mighty inferiority complex. He has deep issues with Catelyn and Sansa. He is out there to show them all and destroy everyone who stands in his way or who he perceives ever wronged him. Why do we need even more on top of that? Plus, being a descendant of house Reyne is not only totally illogical from a story standpoint because we know where he comes from; his family comes from Essos, and his father was friends with Hoster Tully, back from the Ninepenny Wars. That means Hoster knew Littlefinger’s father before the Reynes were destroyed. But it also makes no sense on a narrative level. Is that what the whole story is about? A descendant of House Reyne taking revenge? I mean, seriously? Whoever is interested in the Reynes?

Concurring Opinion: Paul

After preliminary reading, I am not overly predisposed to this theory. It doesn't seem to me that Littlefinger necessitates any further familial motivation for his actions. Being a selfish, indigent, unscrupulous, conniver harboring perceived injustices and personal grievances is fully sufficient fuel for little Lord Baelish's activites. Furthermore, Justice Amin rightly elucidates that Petyr's actions do not strictly mirror those of someone seeking blood vengeance upon Tywin Lannister specifically or House Lannister more generally. Beyond that, turning Littlefinger into the last remnant of a shattered House, rising like a phoenix to avenge himself upon his enemies, simply does not coalesce with my impressions of the character within the narrative of ASOIAF thus far. Even if you happen to be (for some reason) a big fan of Littlefinger it seems more interesting and engaging that he climbs from obscurity and manages to influence and manipulate on a large scale out off pure self-starting gumption, rather than him being a singularly placed individual aiming to surreptitiously circumvent retribution of an ancestral feud.

Final Verdict: No, no, seriosusly, no. Why? No. No. No. And no. No. And no no no no.

Could Bloodraven's mom and Ned's great grandmother be sisters? The timeline matches.

Main Opinion: Amin

Just to clarify, this information is from a sample from the World of Ice and Fire, which will be officially release shortly after the release of this week’s ruling. Looking at the chart in my press review copy, I see that Ned’s great-grandmother on his father’s side was Melantha Blackwood. Bloodraven’s mother was Melissa Blackwood. I am not great with timelines, but it seems that they could be sisters or at least in a cousin or aunt/niece relationship. What matters is that they are related, providing a blood connection between the current generation of Starks and Bloodraven (and potentially second connection between Jon and Bloodraven). The infusion of Blackwood blood might have something to do with why the current Starks have such strong skinchanger abilities, given that Bloodraven himself was a prodigy. Not that the Starks didn’t have the ability before (I think they did), but the Blackwood blood could only help.

Concurring Opinion: Stefan

I guess Martin is really laying some groundwork of blood relations between the major players as one of the things he doesn’t revise in his otherwise revisionist fantasy tale. So, yes, the evidence points in the direction that there’s more to Bloodraven’s obsession with Bran than just Bran’s abilities.

Concurring Opinion: Paul

Being a lowly smallfolk, unlike my esteemed colleagues, I lack the insight of as-of-yet unreleased World of Ice and Fire material which may shed some light on this matter, thus I duly bow to their discretion. That being said, the Blackwood connection is noteworthy. Cursory research of the dates available to to me, indicates that Brynden Rivers was born in 174/175AC and Eddard Stark was born in 262/263AC making Bloodraven approximately 88 years older than Ned. I suppose the generations could be stretched and finagled so that Ned's great grandmother was of an age with Bloodraven's mother, but even if they were not direct sisters, it is still an interesting connection to be made.

Final Verdict: Might be. Some connection at least seems to be there. 

Was Arthur Dayne Jon Snow’s father?

Main Opinion: Amin

Short summary judgement on it: no, Arthur Dayne clearly was not Jon’s father. There is not a single shred of credible evidence that I can think that supports that assertion. The R+L=J is one of the most established theories in the fandom. To challenge it, you need a lot of good evidence and argument, and I cannot see it in regards to Arthur Dayne. I am fan of extravagant theories as much as the next person, but you need to fill in the gaps, not take on the equivalent of a juggernaut with only a butter knife.

Concurring Opinion: Stefan

Could we please just stop making shit up just so the story gets more convoluted all the time? Again, ask the narrative question: Arthur Dayne, THE PRODIGY KNIGHT OF THE KINGSGUARD WHO IS NOT ALLOWED TO FATHER SONS, is fathering Jon Snow? Why the hell? Why would Eddard keep this a secret? If that would be true, he could have simply dropped the child off at Starfall, or have taken him to Winterfell telling everyone that he was the bastard child of his late sister (or anyone else, really) and raise him as such. But again, searching for the logic within the story is beside the point. This reveal would amount to exactly nothing in narrative terms. Why would George make Jon’s parentage such an important thing and then let him be the bastard of some random guy?

Concurring Opinion: Paul

If you're playing the "random character X is actually character Y" game and it happens to be Jon Snow's parents week, then Arthur Dayne is as fun a guess as anyone. However, it is difficult to put much credence in this assertion since there is such limited textual evidence beyond, "hey that guy's really cool. wouldn't it be neat if..." In situations like this, I'm inclined to reference notable friend of the Court, Sean T Collins. While refuting an unrelated, but similarly baseless, theory he wrote the following: "...and MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, that in making this a secret, Martin had some larger goal beyond 'ooh it’s a secret, maybe some redditors or Westeros forum denizens or tumblrites will play Where’s Waldo with it.' THAT’S the most important thing, for serious. Why would Martin choose to make this a secret? What does it communicate about the world, about the characters? How does it help articulate his themes? In what way does it further the narrative, or enrich the narrative, or complicate the narrative, or subvert the narrative? Is it even cool, or is it just a parlor trick?" This particular case has the added caveat that it is refuting one of the most widely believed and supported theories in the series. R+L=J is a major reason why the fandom fabricates these theories in the first place. Your secret daddy theory is going to have to be quite something to unseat the original, and I'm afraid that old meteorite sword of the morning isn't up to the task. Now if you were to tell me that virile ladykiller Myles Manwoody sired young Jon, then I would certainly hear you out. 

Final Verdict: Fuck no. Really not. No. No. No.