the sixth book will come out...?
It's expected for next year*
In english, but in spanish when will it be?
They promised to give us the manuscript prior to the release date in english, so there won't be a big difference.
But surely it will be next year, no?
Yes. Well, let's see, sure... a meteorite might fall.
* We have contacted Gigamesh and they told us that (this whole thing about) the release of The Winds of Winter in 2016 is more or less what we all know. / (Note: the original sentence is in impossible spanish)
ETA: JCRB translation is better
Buried in Winterfell, yes; the crypts, no ...where are the mothers of the Starks? o even, why Ned mom isn't in the crypts if she is a Stark both by birth and by marriage? why only Lyanna there?
I don't have any theory about it, only the questions.
according to the wiki, Brandon died after Rickard. Knowing that Ned thought of himself as the replacement -telling Catelyn that Brandon was the one raised to be Lord, father of queens, etc, and he wasn't- I can see why he would give him that treatment.
I don't read the text you quoted as you do. "their" is more likely referring to Robb's and whomever is recounting, not necessarily the girls having places. If this is a recounting from Arya, then I'm wrong, but if it's Bran, I'm still playing.
As Artos having a place, I'm lost. The wiki says he killed Raymun, who killed Willam "the lord". I don't have Stark lore knowledge but maybe Edwyle (father of Rickard) was a little boy when this happened and even if he was alive and well, Artos acted as Lord until he came of age, hence the statue? >>> pure speculation.
Te very presence of Lyanna in the crypts hints that she isn't a regular Stark woman. Where are buried, the wives, (the mothers!) of the lords of Winterfell/kings of winter and/or their unmarried daughters?
The right to be there, the belonging, is a theme explored with several characters (Bran, Jon, even Theon). The only explanation of Lyanna being there comes from Bran telling Osha that his father "loved her so much".
To me her presence in the crypts is a very elliptical explanation that she, somehow, had more rank than a Lord of Winterfell and that is only possible if she was a royal princess. Since Ned is the one that places her there, and considering the events (largely discussed here) that took place between Ned and the KG at the ToJ, the chances that Jon is legitimate are very high.
I think the keyword is "potential".
Since the Targaryens and their dragons came to Westeros, the kingdom that didn't fight them and actually knelt to them was the North. Knowing the overall things that we know about the people in the North and the Starks of old... nobody find that at least suspicious?
All we know is that Thorren Stark knelt (and where!) and that's it. I want to know why.
My pet theory is that Targs and Starks measured each other... The firsts had dragons (hey! that fire spitting creatures may be handy if the Long Night come again!) and the lasts had the ability to actually be inside animals (... (?) (?) (?)). The math is easy.
This is why I think they let each other be for centuries. The Targs married almost (or all?) the major houses in the Seven Kingdoms but the Starks. The potential is too dangerous.
We start the story with a Westeros that is very different from that, with the dragons extinct, with sayings and customs that seem to have lost their meaning ("there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" or "three horns means...") and a bastard boy who found some direwolves.
Why Jon's parentage is relevant? adding up to everything said upthread, is relevant because Jon may be the first product of Stark + Targ and this surely will have consequences. I don't know if he is going to skinchange into a dragon, but he potentially could.
P.S.: this is not crackpot, not a theory, not something I want to happen...it's only an impression I have.