Heresy 152 [Spoilers]

[WeaselPie]

I'm not sure how much to quote as I'm sure Mr Martin and his co-writers won't want big parts in the forum, but one was a Dayne and called 'Sword of the Evening'. Which I presume not to be a mistake and raises the 'Darkstar' name in my head, but maybe it's just a typo/edit error.

So a shapeshifter who was into dark magic, a madman, and Sword of the Evening so far. All Dornish Pre-Nymeria.

[corbon]

What triggered Brandon's ride to King's Landing?

Why did he call Rhaegar out to die?

This is before anything to do with Robert.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Walys Flowers, bastard son of an Archmaester and Hightower girl, was the Maester at Winterfell. I don't know his relation to Gerold, but it always struck me as odd that GRRM made that particular decision... why a Hightower bastard? Why an Archmaester's bastard?

Barbrey Dustin tells Theon all about how influential Maester Walys was to Lord Rickard. Perhaps he was influential in an even broader sense. If he pushed Rickard's Southron ambitions, maybe Lyanna was part of the plan *shrug*

He went missing around the same time Lyanna disappeared/Rickard and Brandon died. I read a small blurb somewhere that he was presumed dead. But not in Winterfell, which meant he left Winterfell, and as a Maester is sworn to his Castle, this is a red flag to me.

Either way, we know Cat brought Luwin to Winterfell, since Robb was born in Riverrun, and Cat tells us he delivered all her children.

Indeed. Add in Walys' father, Archmaester Walgrave - skinchanger, breeder of white ravens, ancient enough to recall the recently deceased Maester Cressen as a novice... and the mystery only deepens.

[MaesterSam]

The WB, in a section known to be written by GRRM, characterizes Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna as "a tale too well-known to warrant repeating." Plus, nobody in text is offering up their alternatives, even in the North.

(...)

An assumption she surely received from Viserys, or the Targ loyalists that helped them escape. Victors, losers, both agree that Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna.

You are completely right of course- nobody makes any attempt to dispute the story. However, I also haven't heard anyone in the series question Jon's parentage, for example, or question whether baby Aegon is really dead. For 15 years, nobody wondered why none of Cersei's children looked like Robert. (Well, LF and Varys knew, but we haven't heard their opinions on the TOJ yet so they don't count).

So overall, these people are only as observant as GRRM wants them to be. They can miss things that we as the readers can catch- because they are busy living their lives while we are busy reading between the lines.

My view is this: the story had to come from somewhere. Somebody witnessed (or claimed to have witnessed) the abduction, and told other people. That's how Brandon knew to go look for Rhaegar. We unfortunately never hear what Rhaegar has to say about the situation, nor Howland. So the abduction story was out there, and the only people who could potentially dispute it are Lyanna and Rhaegar. Both of them died, apparently without defending themselves to the public, and so the story lives on.

I do think they were probably somewhere together for at least part of this time. Because the timing of their disappearances is unlikely to be a coincidence. But I find it more plausible that they both were influenced by something they couldn't control - maybe they got stuck on the IoF, or Howland got jealous and locked them up somewhere, or some more likely theory- than for Rhaegar to kidnap Lyanna. In fact, I would be truly surprised if we learn that is what happened.

A side note and interesting fact about the TOJ and the "naming" of it. The text we do have concerning that reads thus:

"It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory."

As seen from Ned's statement all that is known was Rhaegar calling the place "tower of joy."There is no indication of when he might have called it that in relation to anything having to do with Lyanna or events at that time.There also seems to be a common place attituide about the name it was something that people said.Who said so and when :dunno:

But it seems prudent not to jump and associate Rhaegar naming the place because of Lyanna.It may have had good memories for him i have no doubt but what those memories are.We can't say.

I completely agree. The TOJ was named long before RR; the name is not an acronym for Rhaegar and Lyanna's love nest.

[WeaselPie]

You are completely right of course- nobody makes any attempt to dispute the story.

Also very bizarre that not a single person in the story considers Lyanna might have gotten pregnant during all that time. It's not like she had a close relative who was there at her death, who then showed up with a child he wouldn't explain to anyone.... oops, wait.

Indeed. Add in Walys' father, Archmaester Walgrave - skinchanger, breeder of white ravens, ancient enough to recall the recently deceased Maester Cressen as a novice... and the mystery only deepens.

There is something there, and it's huge.

Maybe he was somehow a part of Lyanna's disappearance?

And not to mention how obsessed all the Hightowers are with prophecy. How long have the Mad Maid and Leyton been locked up in that tower anyway?

"We Light the Way"

ETA I think we may have uncovered another possible witness to the events at the ToJ and environs. Actually, if Walys was with Lyanna, he would know the entire story, and would be the only one who does.

[Voice]

The WB, in a section known to be written by GRRM, characterizes Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna as "a tale too well-known to warrant repeating." Plus, nobody in text is offering up their alternatives, even in the North.

Just so. But I think this goes back to Snowfyre's point of the victor (Robert) re-writing history. The WB is a perfect example of how this would play out...

There aren't too many kings who would enjoy the story of the woman they loved, and were betrothed to, running off with another man. No matter our views on RLJ, I think we can all agree this is a general truth we might apply to any king, or any man for that matter.

We kick the rage up a notch when speaking of the boisterous Robert Baratheon - a king who, by all accounts, was quick to love, quick to hate, quick to laugh, and quick to ache.

If one were to take a week doing a King Robert re-read, I think it would quickly jump off the pages that the man spake words illustrating the truth he wished existed, and little else. In Robert's mind, Lyanna was a fair maiden, virgin and innocent, imbued with as much Stark loyalty and devotion as his foster brother Ned. Robert's reality does not include the likes of wolf blood.

"Enough, Ned, I will hear no more. A direwolf is a savage beast. Sooner or later it would have turned on your girl the same way the other did on my son. Get her a dog, she'll be happier for it."

Robert's reality:

“She was more beautiful than that,” the king said after a silence. His eyes lingered on Lyanna’s face, as if he could will her back to life. Finally he rose, made awkward by his weight. “Ah, damn it, Ned, did you have to bury her in a place like this?” His voice was hoarse with remembered grief. “She deserved more than darkness...”

[...]

“She should be on a hill somewhere, under a fruit tree, with the sun and clouds above her and the rain to wash her clean.”

The Stark Truth:

“She was a Stark of Winterfell,” Ned said quietly. “This is her place.”

[...]

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times.

Robert is a passionate man who became a passionate king, with his own version of reality, and his own rose-tinted history. Who, north or south, would dare suggest otherwise? Even Ned walks a very fine line with him. He speaks the truth, but he never directly tells Robert he's wrong about Lyanna. Which of course, we know he is...

Any historian (be they commmoner, a novice forging a chain, a maester, or wiser yet :cool4: ...an aged wetnurse), any one of them caught singing a different tune than Robert about his beautiful dead Lyanna Stark, the one and only love of his life, is going to find their mouth uncomfortably close to a warhammer.

His very Rebellion was based on his version of events. To characterize Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna as anything other than her 'kidnapper' and 'rapist,' undermines his very claim to the throne and is tantamount to treason.

Thus, nobody in text is offering up their alternatives, even in the North.

[wolfmaid7]

You are completely right of course- nobody makes any attempt to dispute the story. However, I also haven't heard anyone in the series question Jon's parentage, for example, or question whether baby Aegon is really dead. For 15 years, nobody wondered why none of Cersei's children looked like Robert. (Well, LF and Varys knew, but we haven't heard their opinions on the TOJ yet so they don't count).

So overall, these people are only as observant as GRRM wants them to be. They can miss things that we as the readers can catch- because they are busy living their lives while we are busy reading between the lines.

My view is this: the story had to come from somewhere. Somebody witnessed (or claimed to have witnessed) the abduction, and told other people. That's how Brandon knew to go look for Rhaegar. We unfortunately never hear what Rhaegar has to say about the situation, nor Howland. So the abduction story was out there, and the only people who could potentially dispute it are Lyanna and Rhaegar. Both of them died, apparently without defending themselves to the public, and so the story lives on.

I do think they were probably somewhere together for at least part of this time. Because the timing of their disappearances is unlikely to be a coincidence. But I find it more plausible that they both were influenced by something they couldn't control - maybe they got stuck on the IoF, or Howland got jealous and locked them up somewhere, or some more likely theory- than for Rhaegar to kidnap Lyanna. In fact, I would be truly surprised if we learn that is what happened.

I completely agree. The TOJ was named long before RR; the name is not an acronym for Rhaegar and Lyanna's love nest.

This may be a case of, as stated upthread the victor deciding what info to decimanate.As of yet i can't understand where Robert came up with the notion that Lyanna and was raped by Rhaegar.Did someone check her Hymen post mortem of something?

When it comes to Jon and his parentage the story that seems to be the one most perpetuated is Ned and Ashara and that seemed enough for anyone.The one thing i realize about characters in this story is that they seldom question things.Hence,things going over heads and many inaccuracies in the story.Sadly,we as readers do it as well.Case in point the naming of the TOJ and how with nothing more than wishful thinking it was associated with Lyanna when nothing in text gives us a time on when this may have happened. I agree with you that he called it so before RR the fact that it's name was to the point of it being described under the heading of "it was said" there is noway it had anything to do with Lyanna because....Duhhhh no one knew she was there or that Rhaegar was there.

So scratch that bit about "he named it because of Lyanna"

[Matthew.]

His very Rebellion was based on his version of events. To characterize Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna as anything other than her 'kidnapper' and 'rapist,' undermines his very claim to the throne and is tantamount to treason.

Thus, nobody in text is offering up their alternatives, even in the North.

To be clear, I'm not just talking about it in the context of an unwanted abduction, I mean even the losers of the war agree that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together. Viserys' version of events (as per Dany) is that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and "stole her from her betrothed." Abduction and rape is Robert's version of events, which isn't the version Viserys puts forth, but he does reinforce the idea that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and possibly that he ran off with her, depending on how you want to interpret "stole her from her betrothed."

The whole point of what I was saying was specifically in response to the notion that the foundation for R+L is Robert's comment, when it isn't--there are other characters that place Lyanna and Rhaegar together.

[MaesterSam]

Walys Flowers, bastard son of an Archmaester and Hightower girl, was the Maester at Winterfell. I don't know his relation to Gerold, but it always struck me as odd that GRRM made that particular decision... why a Hightower bastard? Why an Archmaester's bastard?

Barbrey Dustin tells Theon all about how influential Maester Walys was to Lord Rickard. Perhaps he was influential in an even broader sense. If he pushed Rickard's Southron ambitions, maybe Lyanna was part of the plan *shrug*

He went missing around the same time Lyanna disappeared/Rickard and Brandon died. I read a small blurb somewhere that he was presumed dead. But not in Winterfell, which meant he left Winterfell, and as a Maester is sworn to his Castle, this is a red flag to me.

Either way, we know Cat brought Luwin to Winterfell, since Robb was born in Riverrun, and Cat tells us he delivered all her children.

Do you remember where you read this? I just reread the lady Dustin passage and that part is not in there.

It does, however, mention that lady D. thinks the Tully marriage was Walys' idea. Not sure if that matters.

Indeed. Add in Walys' father, Archmaester Walgrave - skinchanger, breeder of white ravens, ancient enough to recall the recently deceased Maester Cressen as a novice... and the mystery only deepens.

How do you know Walgrave is his father? That would be super creepy!

Wow, how did I miss this entire sub-plot?? :stunned:

[Voice]

To be clear, I'm not just talking about it in the context of an unwanted abduction, I mean even the losers of the war agree that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together. Viserys' version of events (as per Dany) is that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and "stole her from her betrothed." Abduction and rape is Robert's version of events, which isn't the version Viserys puts forth, but he does reinforce the idea that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and possibly that he ran off with her, depending on how you want to interpret "stole her from her betrothed."

The whole point of what I was saying was specifically in response to the notion that the foundation for R+L is Robert's comment, when it isn't--there are other characters that place Lyanna and Rhaegar together.

Indeed. And I'm saying all characters, winners and losers alike must accept the victor's version of the events that led up to the rebellion, or face his wrath. It's true Rhaegar abducted Lyanna, because King Robert says so. Contrary opinions would not be voiced in text, because they undermine the context upon which Robert won the throne.

I think Ser Barristan characterizing Rhaegar as "loving" Lyanna is one example of an alternative history that was only safe to say aloud after Robert's death, and across the globe in Essos.

[MaesterSam]

This may be a case of, as stated upthread the victor deciding what info to decimanate.As of yet i can't understand where Robert came up with the notion that Lyanna and was raped by Rhaegar.Did someone check her Hymen post mortem of something?

When it comes to Jon and his parentage the story that seems to be the one most perpetuated is Ned and Ashara and that seemed enough for anyone.The one thing i realize about characters in this story is that they seldom question things.Hence,things going over heads and many inaccuracies in the story.Sadly,we as readers do it as well.Case in point the naming of the TOJ and how with nothing more than wishful thinking it was associated with Lyanna when nothing in text gives us a time on when this may have happened. I agree with you that he called it so before RR the fact that it's name was to the point of it being described under the heading of "it was said" there is noway it had anything to do with Lyanna because....Duhhhh no one knew she was there or that Rhaegar was there.

So scratch that bit about "he named it because of Lyanna"

So, here's a question: how did Ned tell Robert that Lyanna died? Did he make up a cause of death, or say it was in childbirth? I had always assumed it was the latter, and that that's how Robert knew they hooked up. Since he was assuming Lyanna was taken against her will, finding her pregnant would logically imply she was raped.

On the other hand, would Ned really want to bring it up? Imagine the conversation:

"Your Grace, I am so sorry. Lyanna is with the gods."

"The Others take your gods! Why? How?"

"She died in childbirth."

"Where's the baby?"

"It was stillborn"

"What about that baby?"

"Oh, this baby? This baby that I'm holding? This is not hers, it's mine. My bastard. He happened to be down in Dorne too."

[corbon]

This may be a case of, as stated upthread the victor deciding what info to decimanate.

Sorry, nerd moment. Its disseminate, from the same root as inseminate, nothing to to with deci/tens.

As of yet i can't understand where Robert came up with the notion that Lyanna and was raped by Rhaegar.Did someone check her Hymen post mortem of something?

I think that relates directly to Robert's fantasy version of reality as shown by VotFM #46.

Is it really possible for Robert to maintain his fantasy vision of Lyanna and him and her loving each other under any other R+L version than Rhaegar abducted and raped her?

When it comes to Jon and his parentage the story that seems to be the one most perpetuated is Ned and Ashara and that seemed enough for anyone.The one thing i realize about characters in this story is that they seldom question things.

I'm not sure its entirely that they don't question things (though no doubt there is an element of that - its not much of a questioning society), its just that they already have entirely reasonable (to them, based on what they know/have heard) answers.

I think almost all readers struggle to separate out what we know from what the characters know.

So, here's a question: how did Ned tell Robert that Lyanna died? Did he make up a cause of death, or say it was in childbirth? I had always assumed it was the latter, and that that's how Robert knew they hooked up.

Why tell Robert anything? Or just say 'a fever took her' or something similar.

Its pretty clear that the hookup was implied long before Ned came back from ToJ. From the naming of the QoLaB at Harrenhal, to Brandon's ride to KL its clear that the characters 'know' (accurately or not) something about Rhaegar and Lyanna 'hooking up'.

Since he was assuming Lyanna was taken against her will, finding her pregnant would logically imply she was raped.

But atthe same time, Robert cares only about fighting, drinking and fucking. If he abducted a woman he liked, he'd be fucking her, willing or not probably. Or at least he'd be wanting to enough to impute those actions to the man who stole his 'beloved' without any evidence necessary.

So on the whole, I don't see Robert's comments about Lyanna being raped as anything to do with knowing of a pregnancy.

There is also his almost forgotten comment about how Rhaegar has her now (even though he's killed Rhaegar a thousand time in his dream). Subconciously, perhaps even buried consciously, Robert actually knows Lyanna and Rhaegar were together, and not by rape.

On the other hand, would Ned really want to bring it up? Imagine the conversation:

"Your Grace, I am so sorry. Lyanna is with the gods."

"The Others take your gods! Why? How?"

"She died in childbirth."

"Where's the baby?"

"It was stillborn"

"What about that baby?"

"Oh, this baby? This baby that I'm holding? This is not hers, it's mine. My bastard. He happened to be down in Dorne too."

Indeed. This conversation certainly never happened, or there would be many more questions and much awkwardness.

Its clear Ned never told Robert much, and Robert never asked more.

Jon is Ned's son by Wylla, and thats enough for Ned. It makes Robert feel better about his own flaws to 'know' that even his never-the-boy-you-were friend Ned could forget his precious honour for a moment and slip up once.

Heck, Jon even looks like Ned!

[wolfmaid7]

Indeed. And I'm saying all characters, winners and losers alike must accept the victor's version of the events that led up to the rebellion, or face his wrath. It's true Rhaegar abducted Lyanna, because King Robert says so. Contrary opinions would not be voiced in text, because they undermine the context upon which Robert won the throne.

I think Ser Barristan characterizing Rhaegar as "loving" Lyanna is one example of an alternative history that was only safe to say aloud after Robert's death, and across the globe in Essos.

That's a perfect example that can be sumed up in the rose colred glasses analogy when looking at the same event. To Viserys Rhaegar died for the woman he loved and Robert killed Rhaegar for the rape of the woman he loved.I wouldn't be suprised if at the end the black and white Rhaegar abducted Lyanna or Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar will both be wrong.

I agree with you though and have said this before,absent any real facts about why Rhaegar and Lyanna went off the grid individuals formed their own conclusion based on the preceeding.

So, here's a question: how did Ned tell Robert that Lyanna died? Did he make up a cause of death, or say it was in childbirth? I had always assumed it was the latter, and that that's how Robert knew they hooked up. Since he was assuming Lyanna was taken against her will, finding her pregnant would logically imply she was raped.

On the other hand, would Ned really want to bring it up? Imagine the conversation:

"Your Grace, I am so sorry. Lyanna is with the gods."

"The Others take your gods! Why? How?"

"She died in childbirth."

"Where's the baby?"

"It was stillborn"

"What about that baby?"

"Oh, this baby? This baby that I'm holding? This is not hers, it's mine. My bastard. He happened to be down in Dorne too."

This part isn't clear either.It has always intrigued me how and why Robert jumped to rape versus he (Rhaegar) was just holding Lyanna hostage.I would have liked to have bee a fly on that Wall when Ned and Robert hooked up again exactly what was said.

[Voice]

That's a perfect example that can be sumed up in the rose colred glasses analogy when looking at the same event. To Viserys Rhaegar died for the woman he loved and Robert killed Rhaegar for the rape of the woman he loved.I wouldn't be suprised if at the end the black and white Rhaegar abducted Lyanna or Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar will both be wrong.

Very true. The rose-colored glasses idea can go either way, and no doubt, Viserys wore his until the end. Still, if Rhaegar would have lived, Lyanna would have been his blushing bride that unfortunately perished on their honeymoon. Because Robert lived instead, the 'abduction' has become canonical Westrosi history for all characters in Westeros.

I agree with you though and have said this before,absent any real facts about why Rhaegar and Lyanna went off the grid individuals formed their own conclusion based on the preceeding.

This part isn't clear either.It has always intrigued me how and why Robert jumped to rape versus he (Rhaegar) was just holding Lyanna hostage.I would have liked to have bee a fly on that Wall when Ned and Robert hooked up again exactly what was said.

If we're wishing to be flies on the wall, we might as well be in the toj or Starfall... or even better, a moth on the bark on the Isle of Faces ;)

[wolfmaid7]

Sorry, nerd moment. Its disseminate, from the same root as inseminate, nothing to to with deci/tens.

I think that relates directly to Robert's fantasy version of reality as shown by VotFM #46.

Is it really possible for Robert to maintain his fantasy vision of Lyanna and him and her loving each other under any other R+L version than Rhaegar abducted and raped her?

I'm not sure its entirely that they don't question things (though no doubt there is an element of that - its not much of a questioning society), its just that they already have entirely reasonable (to them, based on what they know/have heard) answers.

I think almost all readers struggle to separate out what we know from what the characters know.

Why tell Robert anything? Or just say 'a fever took her' or something similar.

Its pretty clear that the hookup was implied long before Ned came back from ToJ. From the naming of the QoLaB at Harrenhal, to Brandon's ride to KL its clear that the characters 'know' (accurately or not) something about Rhaegar and Lyanna 'hooking up'.

But atthe same time, Robert cares only about fighting, drinking and fucking. If he abducted a woman he liked, he'd be fucking her, willing or not probably. Or at least he'd be wanting to enough to impute those actions to the man who stole his 'beloved' without any evidence necessary.

So on the whole, I don't see Robert's comments about Lyanna being raped as anything to do with knowing of a pregnancy.

There is also his almost forgotten comment about how Rhaegar has her now (even though he's killed Rhaegar a thousand time in his dream). Subconciously, perhaps even buried consciously, Robert actually knows Lyanna and Rhaegar were together, and not by rape.

I am fully aware of the difference and the spelling.But thank you for correcting my typo :rolleyes:

There is just somethings that sings BS and at best those we would consider "inner circle" should have been asking some type of question.Whatever may have been believed about Lyanna and Rhaegar running away or him raping her aside.They go missing,were said to be at the Tower of Joy she dies under mysterious circumstances.Your besty comes back from area where she was said to have died with a babe he claimes to be his and you don't ask questions.Really????? One would expect the wider community to swallow such tales.

That Rhaegar and Lyanna were together romantically is something i think get blown up. He crowning her doesn't imply a hook up.We have repeated texts about what Rhaegar and Robert felt or may have felt we het nothing from her .

However,I have to give Robert his due for being a passionate man,he was sure broken up about a girl he hardly knew.I mean he was really really broken up about it. That scene in the crypts was right in the feels for a man relationship was a "blue rose" (figment).

[Voice]

I think that relates directly to Robert's fantasy version of reality as shown by VotFM #46.

Is it really possible for Robert to maintain his fantasy vision of Lyanna and him and her loving each other under any other R+L version than Rhaegar abducted and raped her?

Precisely. Robert's version of events makes him into the knight in shining armor; riding off to win back the hand of the maiden fair he loves. He speaks of an imagined reality, as if it were real, because he won. And being the king, his word is law. That makes it real.

Rebellion can always be dressed up as noble, once it is won. Otherwise, it's egocentric terrorism (see: Greyjoy's Rebellion).

Meanwhile, back in the real world... Robert was a chauvanistic womanizer, turned traitor, prone to bouts of masochism and drunkenness, who went on to incite treason because his pride was bruised. Robert doesn't seem the type to own up to his shortcomings. Even in the end, on his deathbed, he wanted Ned to watch over Joffrey until he could sit the throne. Despite knowing "his son" was a monster, his pride wanted Ned to sit him upon it.

Funny, I'm usually the guy defending Robert on these forums. Now I can't think of why LOL

[King Tyrion XX]

Just caught up on 151. After reading your Ronin post BC I think that if it was stickied in General with an essay from JNR alongside it a certain group of members would only number 5-6 tops.

[corbon]

There is just somethings that sings BS and at best those we would consider "inner circle" should have been asking some type of question.

Why? Or at least, why in more depth? They have some basic answers, there is a good fit, why push deeper when the conclusions are right in front of them?

Whatever may have been believed about Lyanna and Rhaegar running away or him raping her aside.They go missing,were said to be at the Tower of Joy

Were they?

Said by who?

she dies under mysterious circumstances.

What mysterious circumstances?

She was abducted and disappeared for over a year. She died at some stage during that time. What is so mysterious? A fairly large portion of the population has probably just died over the last year as a result of a vicious civil war.

She's not anyone personally special to anyone except Ned, Benjen and Robert. And Robert is not a deep person. He gets a simple answer from Ned (a fever, happens to be true) and he's perfectly capable of, even inclined towards, fleshing at all the rest of the story to satisfy his own needs and believing it fully.

Your besty comes back from area where she was said to have died with a babe he claimes to be his and you don't ask questions.Really?????

Your besty is the person you most trust in all the world. He says the child is his (it even looks like him) and is being all noble and honourable about it and that answer is exactly what you want to think anyway - it makes you feel better about your own behavour to know that he can slip up too, and you don't want to even imagine that there was anything more than rape between Lyanna and Rhaegar.

Don't forget, Robert doesn't want to think about any of this deeply. At a really deep level he knows the truth too (he says that Rhaegar has her after all), so he really doesn't want to think about it.

One would expect the wider community to swallow such tales.

Robert is more capable, and more inclined, than anyone else to swallow such tales. In fact he probably made them up himself out of minimalist answers from a reticent Ned, just like the Wylla story where its Robert making all the statements and wild assumptions and Ned subtly misleads him by answering the actual question asked, rather than the one that seems forefront to the casual reader.

Nobody else cares, except perhaps Benjen, who mysteriously joins the NW.

That Rhaegar and Lyanna were together romantically is something i think get blown up. He crowning her doesn't imply a hook up.We have repeated texts about what Rhaegar and Robert felt or may have felt we het nothing from her .

I agree that the crowning doesn't imply a hookup. I don't think there was one at Harrenhal FWIW.

But between the crowning and Brandon's ride to KL demanding Rhaegar come out and die... there's something linking Brandon's fury to Rhaegar at that point, and thats before Robert has had any involvement.

Why is it necessary to fight against something that both sides claim (in varied ways) and all the circumstantial evidence leads to? Yes, question the details, and yes, its ok to question whether its the truth or not, but in the end all the facts we have lead to the same conclusion. There comes a point where in the absence of new evidence, that conclusion just has to be accepted - for now.

However,I have to give Robert his due for being a passionate man,he was sure broken up about a girl he hardly knew.I mean he was really really broken up about it. That scene in the crypts was right in the feels for a man relationship was a "blue rose" (figment).

I think his feels are all related to the disaster that his marriage to Cersei has become, and his own life partly as a result (at least thats his excuse) and how his fantasy Lyanna is really the happy alternative that never happened was prevented from happening. I don't think it has much to do with his actual relationship with the real Lyanna at all.

[corbon]

Meanwhile, back in the real world... Robert was a chauvanistic womanizer, turned traitor, prone to bouts of masochism and drunkenness, who went on to incite treason because his pride was bruised.

Well, to be fair, Aerys demanded Robert's head when if anything Robert was an aggrieved and innocent party.

I don't think that its entirely fair to call Robert a traitor or claim he incited treason. I think Aerys fairly clearly started that path well before Robert.

[Voice]

Well, to be fair, Aerys demanded Robert's head when if anything Robert was an aggrieved and innocent party.

I don't think that its entirely fair to call Robert a traitor or claim he incited treason. I think Aerys fairly clearly started that path well before Robert.

I am not arguing Aerys was sane. His actions were bound to cause an uproar (haha, fire~uproar), such is the fate of those who abide a monarchy. You get to rejoice under a gentle king, and cower beneath a tyrant. If the king demands your head, it is treason to deny him. Brandon calling for the crown prince to come out and die, is also treason.

Robert called the banners of men sworn to him as the Lord of Storm's End, against the King of the Seven Kingdoms, to which they have all pledged their allegiance. That, is treason. Subjects of the king do not have the privilege of only being loyal when the king is behaving rationally or reasonably, and then justly evade his justice and sentence when they fall on the wrong side of it.

Would I have done the same in his position? In a heartbeat... But, that doesn't legitimize or legalize the rebellion.

Being the victor of his rebellion, Robert holds the quill, and may rewrite history any way he likes. We hold a copy of one such tome, called the World Book ;)