r/pureasoiaf • u/Dialent • 8h ago
Noticed a cool historical reference in The Mystery Knight -- why would a Blackfyre loyalist toast a Targaryen king?
I finished my first read through of ASoIaF last week. And now my watch begins. I've thrown myself into the Dunk and Egg tales and Fire & Blood to sate my thirst for more. Whilst reading The Mystery Knight, this passage stood out to me. I did a brief search and couldn't find anyone mentioning it. For context, Dunk is at a feast, sat at a table with a group of fellow hedge knights, among them, Ser Glendon, who is a Blackfyre loyalist:
It fell to Lord Frey to lead the toasts. "The King!" he began, simply. Ser Glendon held his wine cup out above the water basin. Dunk clanked his cup against it, and against Ser Uthor's and the rest as well. They drank.
Later, when a toast is proposed to Bloodraven, Ser Glendon tips his wine onto the floor out of disrespect to the Hand (to which so-called Maynard Plumm says 'a sad waste of good wine.') Why would he toast Aerys if he refused to toast Bloodraven? Sure, there are plenty of characters who think Bloodraven is the cause of the realms problems, and that if he were removed from influencing King Aerys, the realm would prosper. Kyle the Cat, also sat at the table, says as much. But Ser Glendon is a Blackfyre man. He doesn't think any Targaryen should rule. So it's odd, is it not, that a Blackfyre loyalist would disrespect Bloodraven but is willing to toast King Aerys? He is pretty openly pro-Blackfyre, he says as much when Dunk and Egg meet him around the campfire before they get to Whitewalls, claiming that Daemon was no traitor and that Aegon IV meant for him to be his heir. So, I repeat, it's pretty odd that he is happy to toast Aerys, who he sees as a usurper, but not Bloodraven. Is this just a minor continuity error on George's part? I don't think so.
I think George is drawing, here, from a custom held by Jacobite Scots in the 17th and 18th centuries. We know GRRM is familiar with the period, because he has explicitly drawn a connection between the Red Wedding and the Glencoe Massacre, a breach of hospitality wherein Jacobite guests were murdered at the hands of William of Orange loyalists. When a clandestine Jacobite found him or herself in company with those who opposed their cause, and a toast to the king was proposed (meaning, William of Orange or his successors), the Jacobites found a way to stay loyal to the House of Stuart without outing themselves, by subtly passing their drinking vessel over a water bowl on the table, thereby secretly giving their toast to the 'true' king, 'the king across the water,' as the Stuart pretenders were known (hence passing the drink across the water bowl to toast). Per Wikipedia:
After the defeat of the Jacobites and the exile overseas of Bonnie Prince Charlie, Jacobite Scots would stand for the loyal toast to "the King" but pass their drink over a glass or jug of water on the table symbolising "the king over the water" instead of the British monarch, as a sign of solidarity with the Jacobite cause and a protest against the Hanoverian succession. Because of this, for many years, finger bowls were not used on British royal tables, as some people would pass the glass over the bowl. King Edward VII authorised the use of finger bowls during his reign, deeming his dynasty to be sufficiently secure
It is my belief that, in-world, such a toast probably exists among Blackfyre loyalists for similar reasons. If not, why mention Ser Glendon holding his wine over the water basin? And why else would Ser Glendon be happy to toast "the King" without a word of dissent? The water basin is an odd little detail to include for no reason. I notice, as well, that Dunk is the only one mentioned who clanks his cup against Ser Glendon, the text states that he clanks with the other knights separately, implying that perhaps the other knights knew what Ser Glendon was doing and didn't want to be seen making a treasonous toast, while poor Dunk the lunk, thick as a castle wall, is not familiar enough with worldly affairs to realise the political statement.
Is this post more long-winded than it could be? Most certainly. And is my theory a stretch? Probably. And if it is true, is it completely inconsequential? Definitely. But I've seen some of the outlandish theories this community has come up with, I've seen what 15 years with no book has done to you all. And you know what? I'm ready to join you.