R+L=J v.123

[markg171]

If that'd been the case they'd surely missed the bus tractor beam to King's Landing.

King's Landing fell within a week of the battle of the Trident. In one week, Lord Tywin's banners would not have had the chance to ride anywhere close of the Trident, lest King's Landing.

Yes, he sure did.

They marched into the sea and out again!

Take it up with GRRM, not me. That's what he wrote.

The mighty Lannisters of Casterly Rock, the Wardens of the West, had remained aloof from the struggle, ignoring calls to arms from both rebels and royalists.

- AGOT, Eddard II

GRRM says that the Lannisters did not take up arms until after the Trident. Tywin therefore did not call his banners until he heard that Robert beat Rhaegar, then he called his banners and rode for KL to seize it in Robert's name. If you have a problem with how Tywin managed to do all of this before Ned got to KL, as I am also suggesting, take it up with GRRM. Don't act like I'm the idiot here when this is what GRRM wrote.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Fine. We forget about silly theories not textually supported.

I was getting sick of hearing that Jon was born in ToJ. It's pretty crazy and if someone has thought that it was in the text, it only proves that they haven't read carefully.

I'm so glad to know that I won't read that crap again.

Eta: or BR officing R+L wedding ceremony in the Gods Eye via weirnet. At least, this one is funny.

:agree: Or the theory that Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex. Have you heard that one? It's the "Robert Baratheon Theory." Robert's the guy who came up with it, and a bunch of readers follow his lead - there's just nothing whatsoever in the text to confirm it. (Hard to imagine they're going to stop talking about it, though - whatever they say about textual support and evidence.)

[Kingmonkey]

Have you read the posts? Any possibility can be explored.

Why should GRRM bring about a character who looks like Rhaegar?

Eta: I find it a bit stretched, too.

Aurane Waters is from House Velaryon, bastard brother of Lord Monford Velaryon. The Velaryons were a Valyrian house sworn to House Targaryen since before the Doom, who accompanied them to Westeros. Members of House Velaryon can be expected to look like Rhaegar, because what that actually means is "look Valyrian". It would be more peculiar if he didn't look a little like Rhaegar.

Explore all the possibilities, sure -- but a theory should have something to recommend it to be worth going beyond the "hmmm... nah" level of exploration. All this really has to recommend it is that like most people of Valyrian descent, Aurane has the same Valyrian features as Viserys. Against, it's got the serious problem of why the person he'd supposedly switched with would believe he was Viserys.

Aurane Waters, as a character, has a role to play. He's got the new fleet, he's a Velaryon, a house historically closely allied to the Targaryens and currently under a Lord who's 7 years old. Lots of potential there without suspecting Yet Another Hidden Targ.

If there has to be YAHT (and I rather of hope there isn't) there's a character far more suited to the role who has Valyrian features, and no obvious role in the story as yet apart from being extremely mysterious. I'm kind of surprised that I have yet to see any speculation that Darkstar is in fact the other Aegon (Rhaegar's brother) or Daeron.

[Kingmonkey]

Shiny! :)

Ok, this was a question I found myself asking after last thread as I was heading off to bed. We were talking about the message the KG got telling them Aerys/Aegon/Rhaegar/ect were dead, but who sent them that message? It had to be someone who cared about the Targs and someone who knew where they were. It had to be someone in KL who witnessed the sack and could get information out quickly.

It could simply have been a person of no real importance, a servant of Rhaegar or similar.

There's also the possibility that the news arrived not from KL but from Storm's End. Ned would have been stuck there a little time negotiating the end of the war, someone could have easily beat him to the ToJ.

[Kingmonkey]

Tywin never called his banners until he heard that Robert won the Trident. He didn't call them before.

So we're to somehow believe that he managed to rouse all the west and gather all of his troops, and march a further distance than Ned had to, while getting to KL before Ned did, when Ned was only bringing cavalry with him while Tywin marched all of his troops, and Ned had a head start. It doesn't add up.

I'm pretty sure GRRM just made a mistake and thought Casterly Rock was closer to KL, but I'm wondering if it's not a bit more fishy than that.

I think it's a fair bet that Tywin wouldn't have neglected to assemble his forces while there was a massive war taking place around him. He might even have had them mustered on the border so he could act quickly. However there does remain a question of how he beat Ned to King's Landing (though apparently only just). It could be that he had already lead his forces down the Gold Road and was planning to either take KL or defend it depending on news from the Trident, but see my sig.

[JonSnow4President]

:agree: Or the theory that Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex. Have you heard that one? It's the "Robert Baratheon Theory." Robert's the guy who came up with it, and a bunch of readers follow his lead - there's just nothing whatsoever in the text to confirm it. (Hard to imagine they're going to stop talking about it, though - whatever they say about textual support and evidence.)

Explicitly (besides Robert, and maybe Bran if I'm recalling right), no. However, multiple references of Rhaegar being in love, Lyanna dying in relation to a term used exclusively for childbirth, phallic imagery at Harenhall, Rhaegar crowing her queen of love and beauty, Rhaegar's obsession with prophecy, and his apparent knowledge that the PTWP's song is that of Ice and Fire all suggest they did. Honestly, suggesting they didn't is just a hair less crazy than saying Ned was really a transgender woman who pleasured Catelyn with a strap-on because the book doesn't flat out say he's a man

disclaimer: It probably does. I'm not trying to present a theory, but say how insane rejecting the idea R+L = sexy sexy fun time (for at least Rhaegar) really is because "the book doesn't say they did."

[markg171]

I think it's a fair bet that Tywin wouldn't have neglected to assemble his forces while there was a massive war taking place around him. He might even have had them mustered on the border so he could act quickly. However there does remain a question of how he beat Ned to King's Landing (though apparently only just). It could be that he had already lead his forces down the Gold Road and was planning to either take KL or defend it depending on news from the Trident, but see my sig.

I should probably correct myself I suppose. Tywin showed up at KL with 12,000 men. So he didn't actually raise the west and then march. From the amount of troops he had, it seems like he called his banners, but marched with whatever forces he had at Casterly Rock and picked up whatever he could on the way. Otherwise he should have had more troops if he'd called all of his banners and then marched with all the forces of the west like I originally said.

But from everything we've heard, he did sit out the war at Casterly Rock. Hiding under it is the words the Joffrey and Tyrion actually use and those words unnerves Tywin. So it is true that he didn't call to arms until he heard of the Trident

I'd agree with you though that he assembled some forces around Casterly Rock as that's where we're told he waited out the war until then and probably wanted to feel secure if Robert marched on him too. But yeah, him beating Ned doesn't really make sense, but that's probably just a distance mistake by GRRM.

While re-reading some passages looking into this, I noticed something odd though. Tywin in ASOS Tyrion VI mentions that when he raced to KL, he thought that it might come to swords between him and Ned's army. Why would he have had to fight Ned to get to KL, if he was declaring for Robert?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

While re-reading some passages looking into this, I noticed something odd though. Tywin in ASOS Tyrion VI mentions that when he raced to KL, he thought that it might come to swords between him and Ned's army. Why would he have had to fight Ned to get to KL, if he was declaring for Robert?

Because he did not want to fight at all. It was his plan to 'rescue' King's Landing with help of maybe Pycelle, Varys or whoever it took to whisper in Aerys' ear to let him in as the rescuing party. He had to get there first... or otherwise fight the rebels on his way to King's Landing to either actually have Aerys win or at least convince him of being loyalist after all.

Back to Ned's view of things: he is unreliable in what he tells us.

Tywin had set his troops to march before he knew of the outcome at the Trident. That's not too much of a puzzle, the battle was prepared, he learned of it, he would be known as a traitor if he had stayed in Casterly Rock whatever the outcome of the Trident would have. So he must have left as soon as he learned the battle at the Trident might decide the Robellion. That's before the battle, make it a few weeks and the timeline works fine.

[King Tyrion XX]

There is a 0% chance that Jon was secretly 12 when everyone thought he was 14.

The idea that every "possibility" should be entertained is ridiculous. Any possibility which is completely unsupported by evidence can, and should, be dismissed (and no, I don't necessarily mean trying to fill narrative holes in known information - but such guessing is still complete speculation and should be treated as such). Even aside from leaping at shadows of shadows of unsubtantiated nonsense leading to ridiculous conclusions, it's also impossible to have a productive discussion as there is nothing to actually discuss outside of what people are able to conjure up in their imaginations.

One point on the polygamy thing: the idea that we have instances where it seems that polygamy would require the king's consent, so polygamy is not legal in and of itself, does not necessarily follow I do not think. For example, Daemon Blackfyre is brought up and his hopes that he could marry Princess Daenerys as well as Rohanne of Tyrosh, and he had hoped Aegon would allow that. The idea that Daemon would have needed Aegon's leave doesn't necessarily tell us anything about polygamy, does it? Even if Daemon had been unwed, he still would have needed the king's leave to marry Daenerys because the king arranges a princess's marriage. Our only information about Daemon considering polygamy specifically involves him taking Princess Daenerys as his second wife, not taking a second wife in general. Our other instances of people considering polygamy likewise involve marriages into the royal family, do they not? So again we have instances where the king's permission would be necessary even if the marriages weren't polygamous.

Tyrion guessed that he was 12? That's terrible considering Jon was 14-15.

[JonSnow4President]

Tyrion guessed that he was 12? That's terrible considering Jon was 14-15.

Some people (read: me) are awful at guessing ages. I've looked at myself in prior pictures from between middle and high school (14), and I could swear I was 10 or 11 based on how I looked. Keep in mind, I've had other people have always guess my age as 2+ years above my age all my life (I'm tall), so I'm particularly bad in my age-guessing abilities.

I still think both of my 13 year old cousins are 10-11, and that my 10 year old cousin is still 8-9 until I say something about it and they get mad at me.

[markg171]

Because he did not want to fight at all. It was his plan to 'rescue' King's Landing with help of maybe Pycelle, Varys or whoever it took to whisper in Aerys' ear to let him in as the rescuing party. He had to get there first... or otherwise fight the rebels on his way to King's Landing to either actually have Aerys win or at least convince him of being loyalist after all.

Back to Ned's view of things: he is unreliable in what he tells us.

Tywin had set his troops to march before he knew of the outcome at the Trident. That's not too much of a puzzle, the battle was prepared, he learned of it, he would be known as a traitor if he had stayed in Casterly Rock whatever the outcome of the Trident would have. So he must have left as soon as he learned the battle at the Trident might decide the Robellion. That's before the battle, make it a few weeks and the timeline works fine.

He'd already decided Robert had won the war after the Trident. Ned, Arryn, and Hoster Tully and all their bannermen were backing Robert. Robert was of course backing himself. Dorne was smashed at the Trident. The only people left in the war were him and Mace Tyrell, and Mace Tyrell had decided to sit out at Storm's End and wasn't a threat. The royals had lost, and he knew it. There was never any chance that he was actually going to join Aerys after the Trident, nor is that ever hinted at. Sure he wanted to get there first so he could prove his loyalty to Robert, but there was never any reason that he would have had to fight Ned if he ran across him on the way to King's Landing like he says. Fighting Ned would ensure that Robert would turn his wrath upon him and Tywin had already decided that Robert had won so he wouldn't cause any reason for Robert to decide to wipe him out as well as Aerys. If he'd seen Ned's army he would have bent the knee and merged their two armies together, not fight him.

As to the second, Ned isn't the only one who tells us that Tywin sat out the war at Casterly Rock and didn't stir himself until Robert won the Trident. Joffrey and Tyrion both do too, and Tywin doesn't deny it. Tywin even himself specifically says that's why he had to take KL and kill Rhaegar's children as he'd sat back and done nothing but stay at Casterly Rock all war. So I'm not sure why you're trying to argue otherwise. It's a logistical issue that GRRM screwed up. We don't have to go around inventing things that contradict the text to cover GRRM's mistakes.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Hindsight and circlic argument.
Tyrion does not say that Tywin marched after the Trident.
Joffrey probably did neither but does that matter as he was born more than a year after the Trident?

[BearQueen87]

I apologize for late replies. Just got home...getting caught up

Just found it and now am listening to Radio Westeros E09 The BwB - The Last King's Men - thanks Yolkboy & Lady Gwyn for the christmas present!

Score!!!

Oh, my. It seems we are again at the misconception that all opinions are created equal and that not considering options with zero text support equals narrow-mindedness, if not outright harrassment. Great.

I attempted to actually start another topic wrt who sent the message to the 3KG...thought that might be more fruitful. I'll stay in my perfect world bubble.

:agree: Or the theory that Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex. Have you heard that one? It's the "Robert Baratheon Theory." Robert's the guy who came up with it, and a bunch of readers follow his lead - there's just nothing whatsoever in the text to confirm it. (Hard to imagine they're going to stop talking about it, though - whatever they say about textual support and evidence.)

*sigh*

But there is stuff in the text to confirm. His name is Jon. Honestly. This is a case of "Martin hasn't said so...so therefore not real!" Well George doesn't need to tell me that the sun rises in Westeros every day for me to know it does, now does he?

There are hints. You keep dismissing them because they don't fit into what you want to be true (Jon is not Rhaegar's son, GRRM is playing some sort of long con on his audience...). So, honestly, stop saying there is nothing just because you don't like it.

[J. Stargaryen]

The phrases "argument from ignorance" and "god of the gaps" get thrown around here a lot to dismiss ideas that don't fit the pre-approved storyline(s) advocated by RLJ regulars.

Yet it's worth pointing out that the argumentum ad ignorantium is simply an appeal to a lack of evidence to the contrary in order to "prove" one's point. It is the claim that X must be true because it has not been proven false... or the other way 'round: that Y must be false, because it has not been proven true.

In other words, the argument from ignorance is essentially a demand that others either admit the truth of your position, or come up with something better and more convincing to take its place.

(Now where have I heard that before?)

A more interesting and rewarding discussion might be possible if we admitted that we are all just speculating and attempting to fill gaps Martin's left in his story. And if we acknowledge that, so far anyway, we have insufficient information to know with confidence whether any of the more interesting theories are right or wrong.

.

Maybe we'd be less dismissive if you learned the difference between literary analysis and fan fiction.

More interesting and rewarding for you perhaps. Apparently many of us don't feel that way. And I call BS on "insufficient information." AGoT itself must contain sufficient information, since GRRM's American editor was able to figure out Jon's parentage from the manuscript.

Totally agreed. Dismissing R+L because "there are gaps" and we "don't have the whole story yet", then using the same gaps to make up a scenario out of thin air... You know what that reminds me of - the South Park episode where Cartman was a political speaker and claimed that Wendy had eradicated the smurf race, and the whole time he was "just asking questions" :D

:agree:

:agree: Or the theory that Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex. Have you heard that one? It's the "Robert Baratheon Theory." Robert's the guy who came up with it, and a bunch of readers follow his lead - there's just nothing whatsoever in the text to confirm it. (Hard to imagine they're going to stop talking about it, though - whatever they say about textual support and evidence.)

Jon Snow exists. You can work backwards from there, if you know about the birds and the bees.

[markg171]

Hindsight and circlic argument.

Tyrion does not say that Tywin marched after the Trident.

Joffrey probably did neither but does that matter as he was born more than a year after the Trident?

Well you can make up whatever story you want I suppose. I'll stick with the story.

[BearQueen87]

It could simply have been a person of no real importance, a servant of Rhaegar or similar.

There's also the possibility that the news arrived not from KL but from Storm's End. Ned would have been stuck there a little time negotiating the end of the war, someone could have easily beat him to the ToJ.

Sorry, wanted to come back to this.

I have an issue with your first one because it implies that Rhaegar suddenly decided to trust this n00b when it seems sort of clear that Rhaegar wasn't trusting anyone outside of his inner circle (he never told Barry any of his plans, for instance, despite Barry being KG like Dayne and Whent).

I actually like your second one more because I think (think think think) that Ashara might have been at Storm's End. We know that she wasn't "nailed to the floor" (as GRRM put it once, I do believe) and that after SE, Ned takes off for the TOJ. So if Ned arrives with news that R, A and Aegon are dead, then maybe Ashara sends word to Starfall, who sends word to the TOJ, who get the news only a very short time before Ned arrives.

[Kingmonkey]

Last thread there as some talk of changes to the FAQ at the start of the thread. I think this is a good idea, if only because there are a few questions that are frequently asked but aren't covered in the FAQ.

The question of balance has been raised. I am fully in agreement with those who say it's simply not the place of that thread to offer counter-arguments opposing R+L=J. It should however answer those counter-arguments, and I think it's fair to say that without a balanced approach, you're not going to answer people's objections satisfactorily. There are places in that FAQ where the answers are quite honestly a touch dubious, presenting opinion as fact. We who support R+L=J should be prepared to show that R+L=J can stand up even with alternative interpretations where things are not explicit. The answers given should not be easily dismissed by people who don't already accept those interpretations.

I have made an effort to re-write the FAQ with all this in mind. I've simplified a couple of things, added a few answers, and tweaked the layout for flow, while adding spoiler tags because otherwise it gets a bit long with the extra answers. While I don't expect anything could please anyone, hopefully this is a decent balance of making the case without hand-waving the difficult questions or trying to dismiss them with theory rather than fact. What do you all think? Suggestions, questions, don't care?

One question I have myself, in the section on whether Jon is a bastard. "For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles." I'm not sure which two linked articles are intended here, and scanning back through the threads to older versions doesn't enlighten me. Any thoughts what should be done with this? I think we need more representation of the legit Jon arguments than we currently have here.

How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?

Targaryens are not immune to fire. This is simply a myth, there are numerous examples of Targaryens being burned. Even Danaerys' fire immunity when she hatched the dragon eggs has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. For more information about the myth of Targaryen fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?

Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?

This is author misdirection. Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna - join the dots. Jon's resemblance to Ned is because he is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar.

Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be?

Ned quite specifically states to Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. A lie can be honourable, but cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son.

How can Jon be half Targ if he has a direwolf?

Because he's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about

anyone being his mother. If he did, GRRM would not have a mystery. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think of Wylla is the mother.

If Jon wasn't Ned's bastard, why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn to avoid hurting her?

We don't know exactly what Ned promised to Lyanna, but we do know that he took his promises very seriously. If he promised not to tell anyone, then he wouldn't. Furthermore, we see in

A Game of Thrones ch. 45 that Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children.

Doesn't Ned refer to Jon as one of his sons in AGoT chapter 1, contradicting the claim that he never calls Jon his son?

Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. Saying "Come, let us see what mischief my sons and Jon have rooted out now," would be a bit of a give-away, wouldn't it? The claim is that Ned never

thinks of Jon as his son. Indeed when talking to Cersei in the chapter mentioned above, Ned mentally lists his children and explicitly excludes Jon from the list.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

Possibly, but by no means necessarily. There is a long history of polygamy amongst Targaryens. While we know that polygamy is opposed by the Faith, the Targaryens have ignored that in the past. It is therefore entirely reasonable to believe that Rhaegar had married Lyanna.

It is speculated by believers in Jon's legitimacy that the presence of the three Kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

Can we be sure polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. It is rumoured that Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre considered it as an option for Daemon, and Jorah Mormont suggested it to Dany as a viable option. Daenerys later had a similar thought about Quentyn Martell.

It's important to recognise that Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law somewhat tenuous. The examples above demonstrate that it was considered an option.

There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys or Rhaegar, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned?

It is argued by some that even had they been ordered to do so, their Kingsguard vows would have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir, unless there was an heir that took precedence (Jon). Even if you do not accept this and believe the Kingsguard were there under orders, guarding Lyanna as a hostage makes little sense. She would fulfil the role of a hostage more effectively at King's Landing, and would not require such important guards. The presence of the three Kingsguards implies some more important role, such as guarding members of the royal family at least, even if not the heir.

Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son predeceasing the king, a grandson comes before a younger son.

The world book quote is a curious one. As it is written with a pro-Lannister bias it may be an lie to draw attention away from what happened to Aegon, or an attempt to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens by pretending that Elia's son had been disinherited. It might even just be an error. These theories are often promoted by those who believe the three Kingsguard would be duty bound to attend the heir.

It is however also possible that it's true. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council once the rebellion was over. The Great Councils of the past dealt with the matter of succession, leaving the possibility that Rhaegar and Aerys were at odds over the succession. It is speculated by some that the three Kingsguards, or at least Dayne and Whent, had already given their loyalty to Rhaegar over Aerys at this stage.

But Ned is dead, who's going to tell anyone about it?

There are a number of ways the information could be found out. Some speculate Bran will find out through the weirwood network, some that Benjen knows. Others point to Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed, the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, who GRRM has stated has not yet appeared because

he knows too much about the central mystery of the book.

Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story?

The careful way GRRM has created a mystery of Jon's parentage is reason to believe it's important, but what impact it will have on the rest of the series is simply unknown. See above about Howland Reed and the central mystery of the book, too.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

There are two ways it might be considered "too obvious".

The first objection is being too obvious to the readers. This is easy to say in hindsight, but the fact is that most readers [bold]don't[/bold] pick up on the possibility in the first reading. Since A Game of Thrones came out in 1996, it has been picked apart by thousands of enthusiastic readers on the Internet. This kind of crowd-sourced mystery solving inevitably will make any solvable mystery seem a little more obvious in hindsight. GRRM has in fact mentioned this exact issue.

The second objection is the idea that the hidden prince motif is too much of a cliché for GRRM. Objectors point to GRRM's reputation as a breaker of tropes. How do you break a trope if it's not there in the first place to break? We don't know what will happen to Jon in the future. Believing he is the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the happy fairy-tale ending normally associated with this trope.

Since this theory is so popular and well known, won't Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans?

He has stated that

he won't change the outcome of the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle.

[markg171]

Question regarding Ned's statement that he's lived his lies for 14 years. I've seen it thrown around on here a lot that Ned's lies refer to Jon being his son.

"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said. The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there. "Do you remember the Trident, Your Grace?"

"I won my crown there. How should I forget it?"

"You took a wound from Rhaegar," Ned reminded him. "So when the Targaryen host broke and ran, you gave the pursuit into my hands. The remnants of Rhaegar's army fled back to King's Landing. We followed. Aerys was in the Red Keep with several thousand loyalists. I expected to find the gates closed to us."

Robert gave an impatient shake of his head. "Instead you found that our men had already taken the city. What of it?"

"Not our men," Ned said patiently. "Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery."

The war had raged for close to a year. Lords great and small had flocked to Robert's banners; others had remained loyal to Targaryen. The mighty Lannisters of Casterly Rock, the Wardens of the West, had remained aloof from the struggle, ignoring calls from both rebels and royalists. Aerys Targaryen must have thought that his gods had answered his prayers when Lord Tywin Lannister appeared before the gates of King's Landing with an army twelve thousand strong, professing loyalty. So the mad king had ordered his last mad act. He had opened his city to the lions at the gate.

"Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well," Robert said. The anger was building in him. "Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it."

"You were not there," Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. he had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. "There was no honor in that conquest."

Ned goes on to talk more about the Sack, revealing truths that were not known. The entire conversation is about Ned telling Robert the truth of the Sack, reversing the lies that have been told since it occurred. So my question is, why does no one bring up the fact that he mentions this in relation to the Sack, not Lyanna or Rhaegar or Jon or anything? He starts things off by deciding he's going to tell the truth, then he mentions that he's been telling lies for 14. They're connected.

[BearQueen87]

Nice job KingMonkey. I'd like to maybe mention a few things.

1) Targ looks: There are a lot more than Baelor Breakspeak and Rhaenys. Maybe we could bullet point all of them?

2) Love the Howland Reed stuff. HR is a big red arrow for us.

[Kingmonkey]

I have an issue with your first one because it implies that Rhaegar suddenly decided to trust this n00b when it seems sort of clear that Rhaegar wasn't trusting anyone outside of his inner circle (he never told Barry any of his plans, for instance, despite Barry being KG like Dayne and Whent).

I think we have to assume that there were at least some other people who were not Rhaegar's inner circle, but were nonetheless involved. I doubt Dayne would be happy doing the laundry at the Tower of Joy, and Whent would have made a terrible midwife (however many times he might have tried persuading Lyanna he was an accredited ob/gyn, the sick little f...), so there were probably a small number of trusted servants involved in the scheme. Trusting random n00b no indeed, but a trusted servant, a little Poderick all of Rhaegar's own, possibly.

I actually like your second one more because I think (think think think) that Ashara might have been at Storm's End. We know that she wasn't "nailed to the floor" (as GRRM put it once, I do believe) and that after SE, Ned takes off for the TOJ. So if Ned arrives with news that R, A and Aegon are dead, then maybe Ashara sends word to Starfall, who sends word to the TOJ, who get the news only a very short time before Ned arrives.

I'm not sure what Ashara would have been doing at Storm's End. If she wasn't at Starfall, I'd think KL or Dragonstone more likely, though I favour KL and Ashara as Ned's source of information. I rather like the idea that Ned knew to go to the ToJ before he went to Storm's End to end the war, as that adds a little more tragedy to the whole duty vs. family thing.

I would go with Storm's End as the most likely source of the KG's info though. As far as we can tell the 3KG aren't surprised at the news of Storm's End falling, which suggests they have received news that beat Ned from Storm's End.