I posted this in the other thread as well – I’m more and more confident that the Umbers (and Rickon) are playing Ramsay. The producers of the show made a choice as to what prop would represent the wolf-head that Umber presents to Ramsay – and they chose one not nearly as impressive in size as the wolf-head that represented Grey Wind after the Red Wedding episode. If the producers wanted viewers to be absolutely sure that this was Shaggydog, they would have chosen a massive wolf’s head, or even had Umber’s men bring in the whole huge carcass. But they picked a head that wasn’t that big.
So either Umber and Rickon are playing Ramsay and plan to betray him (and hopefully they have a plan to keep Rickon safe), or the producers want us, the viewers, to believe that this is possible. I lean towards the first, since it seems to me that Ramsay is being set up for a big fall.
Additionally, the books involve a scene were Manderley captures Davos and tells the Lannisters that he had him executed, and shows them his head and hands mounted on spikes on the walls as proof.
In reality, Manderley is a Stark supporter. He secretly had some other prisoner executed in Davos’ place, and releases Davos once the Lannister supporters leave.
The wolf’s head seems like the show’s version of this scene.
What’s with the writers and actors saying, in interviews, essentially “everyone always thought Ned was an honorable guy, but through this vision we see that’s not the case.” What did he do that wasn’t honorable? I would understand the argument, but disagree, if they said Howland Reed wasn’t honorable, but Ned did absolutely nothing that would challenge that notion of him.
Weird discrepancy between what they think they showed and what was on screen. Kinda like Jaime/Cersei next to Joffrey’s corpse.
I don’t think it’s what he did, it’s that he lied about it. I still disagree, but at least you can make the argument that taking credit for beating the sword of the morning when your friend stabbed him in the back is somewhat dishonorable.
Well, one way to look at it is that our impression of Ned thus far is as a totally by-the-book, honor above all else, do what’s right despite the ramifications, the ends don’t justify the means kinda guy, etc. I think what this shows us is that he’s at least gone along with the story all these years that the slaying of Arthur Dayne was some kind of heroic feat, rather than call out Reed as a backstabber and liar.
I haven’t seen the quotes you’re referring to (though I’ve seen some similar, probably) – they may not be saying that he’s particularly dishonorable, but rather that he’s not the superhuman morality-bot he seemed to be. Which is interesting, because as he’s apparently so honest about everything else, it seemed extraordinary or out of character for the R+L theory that he would be telling lies about Jon’s parentage all these years. We do see now that maybe it’s not as extraordinary as we thought for him to be a little less than completely honest.
Yeah, Ned was never the type to crow about his victories-- even real ones. I can’t see him going around tell how he beat the dawn sword when we now know the real story. This also fits in with the J+L=J. He presented the baby as his own but never, ever actually explained how he fathered it. It looks like he came home with a baby that he claimed as his own and never said anything else about it.
Regarding the actor playing young Ned not saying “No. Now it ends…” …“Sadly” as appears in the book. I want to point something out.
That’s via a dream or hallucination of Ned’s under the influence of the Poppy. It makes perfect sense that in a dream of a real event where one knows the outcome…one would supplant “No. Now it ends” with an air of sadness… If you know what i mean. I stated that awkwardly.
And to me it makes more sense for Young Ned to say it with a bit of arrogance since he is so young.
Revisiting these scenes on TV has kind of highlighted how needlessly obscure the dialogue is.
Ned is a blunt man, always has been. Arthur Dayne is portrayed as an honourable and decent guy. The fact that at no point do we get dialogue like:
“I know you are here to protect the baby. This is my sister’s child. You can trust me not to harm it.”
“That child is Prince Rhaegar’s and the true heir to the Iron Throne. I am sworn to protect it with my life and though I may trust you I do not trust Robert Baratheon.”
becomes even more unrealistic on review. I know there’s a “We are men of honour, and bound to our vows come what may. Let us not insult each other by attempts at persuasion” thing going on, but that doesn’t preclude people using the words “child” “Rhaegar” and “sister”.
Ned was there to rescue his sister who had been kidnapped by Prince Rhaegar. Arthur Dayne was defending her from being “rescued” on the orders of the prince.
That was obvious to both of them. The only question was whether or not it was actually a kidnapping, which was irrelevant anyway so far as Ser Arthur was concerned. As a Kingsguard, he was just following orders.
At this point, Ned had no idea there was a newborn child inside the tower, and Arthur had no reason to tell him.
It therefore would not make any sense for them to be discussing the fate of the child.
Ned doesn’t know there’s a child at this point. His sister was kidnapped quite a long while ago.
Both characters knew what was up, and that the only way to resolve their conflicting motivations was a fight. Spelling it out like that would just be exposition.
There was clearly regret on both sides. Neither wanted to kill the other, but they were put into a situation where they had to. They all clearly knew what was up and that a fight would be necesary.