SFDanny

Members
  • Content count

    2,876
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SFDanny

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Location San Francisco

Recent Profile Visitors

5,825 profile views
  1. R+L=J v.160

    Leave for a few weeks and all kinds of interesting posts appear! Let me weigh in on Rhaegar and his political motives at Harrenhal. I think what we have in his crowning of Lyanna is primarily a political act. It is a statement to the realm that the Crown Prince claims an interest in Lyanna. Not a statement he wants her romantically, though that may be developing too. It is a statement to the STAB alliance that he disapproves of their proposed alliances and that he stands with his father against attempts to remove the Targaryen dynasty from power. Why does he do this? Because he called the Harrenhal tourney as a way to circumvent the STAB alliance grab for power and to offer himself as a peaceful candidate to resolve their concerns around his father's madness. The road not taken is indeed a council to replace Aerys.The STAB alliance spits in his face. They have no interest in replacing the father with the son, but want to do away with Targaryen rule. This comes to a head with the dishonoring of the Lady Ashara, lady-in-waiting to the Prince's wife and sister to his best friend. The best candidate for this act is the heir to the North himself. It looks like Brandon sleeps with Ashara with no intention of ending his impending marriage to Catelyn. He treats her, along with her close relationship to Rhaegar and Elia, as unworthy of respect. If I'm right, I'm pretty sure Brandon had every understanding of what were the political consequences of his actions. Rhaegar's response is to say I will support my father rather than allow this web of alliances to comeinto being and this new power replace the Targaryen's rule. He is not being stupid in rejecting the people he needs for a successful council replacing Aerys. He is recognizing the political reality that the STAB alliance has gone too far in its ambitions and can never be part of his proposal. He has very little choice other than to stand with Aerys. But how he does it is perhaps the most interesting part. He does it by "honoring" Lyanna. Just as Aerys did on the first day of the tourney by "honoring" Jaime with his selection to the Kingsguard. Both of these acts are pointed not only at sending a lesson to High Lords the Targaryens see as disloyal, but also at the alliance in particular. Rhaegar proclaims his interest in Lyanna who is to be married to Robert, and Aerys takes away Jaime's ability to marry Lysa and expand the STAB alliance to include the Lannisters. So, we see in the course of the tourney, the swing of the political fortunes of Westeros. Rhaegar offers a hand of peace and unity in replacing his father, and it is slapped away. Anyway, my thoughts on the subject in a nutshell. One of these days I will finish an essay on the subject, but life keeps getting in the way.
  2. R+L=J v.160

    Not a problem. I was only trying to clarify the need to keep the show/book discussions separate. Again, welcome, and feel free to advance your theory for discussion.
  3. R+L=J v.160

    This from the show, not the books. Welcome to the forums, but this is in the wrong space for this discussion, There is another area on this site for show discussions. What Ned said to Jon in the show - in this case, at least - has nothing to do with what happened between them in the books.
  4. R+L=J v.160

    Done. Hope that fixes the numbering problems and has the right links. If not, let me know and I will fix them again.
  5. Rhaegar and Lyanna timeline question.

    Martin tells us that Jon is "eight or nine months" older than Dany, so, yes, there is time enough between the two - barely - to be siblings. The problem is, depending on who she thinks are the parents of the two, is getting the characters in the same place at the needed time.
  6. R+L=J v.160

    Reference guide The R+L=J theory claims Jon Snow most probably is the son of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Ned's sister Lyanna Stark. The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory: Jon Snow's Parents And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary: Jon Snow's Parents A Wiki of Ice and Fire: Jon Snow Theories Radio Westeros podcast: A Dragon, a Wolf and a Rose Frequently Asked Questions: How can Jon be a Targaryen if ordinary fire burned his hand? Targaryensarenot immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. Seethis threadon Targaryen fire immunity. Don't all Targaryens havehallmark Valryiansilver-golden hair and purple eyes? Not all of them: Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Bittersteel, who like Jon was half first men blood, had brown hair. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had the Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin). Rhaenyra Targaryen's three sons all had brown hair and brown eyes even though both their parents had light silver-gold hair. Had Jon Valyrian features, it would give his parentage away: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded,a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Tyrion got the bit about the mother wrong, though: his mother was the Stark. If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him? Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon 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 tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son. How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf? He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn 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 Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother. There's a hidden hint at who Jon's mother might be: In chapter 4, Eddard's internal monologue goes "Lyanna ... Ned had loved her with all his heart." and in chapter 6, Catelyn thinks "Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely". Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn? We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, 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. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side. Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as "my sons in the very first chapter? In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon and explicitly excludes Jon from the list. ADwD Chapter 34 has Bran's vision of younger Ned in the Winterfell godswood: "...let them grow up close as brothers,with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive..." which not make sense if they are brothers. Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard? He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: 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. Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal? Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell. George R.R. Martin says inthis SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is alsothis SSMpredating the worldbook. On Polygamyessay by Ygrain with additions by Rhaenys_Targaryen Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage? If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir. Frequently suggested readings:At the tower of joyby MtnLion andsupport of the toj analysisby Ygrain Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though? The SSMyou may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else." We know from Barristan,protecting the kingis the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order. "Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J. 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 dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparentvs.heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens)and in hindsightby maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see thenext answer. Are matters of succession just as clear as presented here? Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking. Ned is dead. Who's going to tell anyone about it? Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know.Checkov's CrannogmanHowland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and George R.R. Martin has stated he has not yet appeared becausehe knows too much about the central mystery of the book."Theyhad found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body" tells that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned. Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story? The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown. This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true? It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the readership. Also,A Game of Throneshas been out since 1996. That's more than 18 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight. George R.R. Martin is a "breaker of tropes, there can be no hidden prince, it's simply too cliché. In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope. Is there a list of allR+L=J clues that have been found? There is alist of R+L=J hints, clues and foreshadowingcompiled by sj4iy. Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans? He has stated thathe won't change the outcomeof the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle. A threadfor discussing strengths and weaknesses of the theory that Jon Snow's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna. Previous editions: Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread
  7. The hypocrisy of ned

    There is way too much to deal with here with the short time I have, but I just wanted to point out in the case cited above Ned already has Cersei's confession that her children are hers and Jaime's, not Robert's. Ned isn't making a decision based on what others who don't know the truth will think of what he does. He is deciding to spare his friend a very painful truth on his deathbed without rewarding those who have conspired, lied, and likely killed Robert in their lust for power. This is not a decision based onthe looks of Cersei's children. Ned's honor is shown in his attempt to not only save his friend this pain, but to save Cersei's children if he can, and to do what is right in the succession. An awful lot to try to accomplish, and he fails in the attempt. It does, however, show the honorable core of the man. "To begin with I don't kill children ...". Would that a few others in Westeros could claim the same.
  8. Jon was born in starfall

    The problem is not the designation of different sources as canon or semi-canon, but rather what does that mean? Martin wants this designation so readers who hear him talk, hear him read, etc. know that that material may change. He doesn't like readers coming back at him saying "but you said ..." That doesn't mean he wants readers to ignore everything he says, or not listen to what he reads, or what he decides to publish in a different form than the books - i.e. the app. Nor does it mean that once something appears in the books there will never be any change. There has, and there likely will more of that in the future. If you don't believe that then get back to me when Jon Snow is alive again in book six.The designation "canon" or "semi-canon" just doesn't mean what you think it means in this regard, in my opinion. For instance, there is a fierce debate over the character Young Griff and his story claiming to be Rhaegar's son, Aegon. Many of us argued pieces of text in the books such as the Mummer's dragon phrase and what that meant prior to the introduction of Young Griff in A Dance with Dragons. Did it mean there would be a false Targaryen, or simply a Targaryen controlled by a mummer (aka Varys.) One of the crucial bits of information in this debate was the refusal of George to comment on whether or not Aegon was dead. He was very clear and open about Rhaenys fate - simply she is dead - but wouldn't comment about Aegon. Which lead many of us to concluded we would hear more about Aegon before that was true. Should we have refused to draw any conclusion about Aegon from George's "no comment"? I think it is silly to say so. Yet, that is what you would wish us to do. Ignore the author's own words. Ignore information the author is giving us not because we can show he has gone in another direction, and that is not longer sound information, but because you want us to ignore anything not sourced directly from the five main books in this series. The problem is NOT that semi-canon material is categorically untrustworthy and should therefore never be cited. The problem is the need for evaluation of all material from whatever sourceit comes from, canon or semi-canon. So tell me that Ned's fever dream needs to be looked at with caution, and I'll agree with you even though it is a "canon" source. Tell me Lyanna died in Starfall and I can't reference the app saying directly she died at the Tower of Joy because you don't like the "semi-canon" nature of thesource, and we will always have an argument.
  9. Was there any foreshadowing for Aegon living?

    We only have an estimation of Septa Lemore's age given by Tyrion in ADwD. We only have a range of what Ashara's age would be from Martin's 2002 SSM. Clearly we can't eliminate Ashara being Septa Lemore based on this information. Ashara being in her late thirties (38 or 39 would be Ned and Brandon's ages at this time) who looks a few years older than she is based on living a life outdoors and much harder life than an averagenoble woman of Westeros would fit the description of Septa Lemore.So, no, it's not settled. Others think it settled, but it's not.
  10. Was there any foreshadowing for Aegon living?

    Connington cannot claim to have raised Aegon from the sack forward, as his history from his exile to the time with the Golden Company and on to his supposed death is too well known. Lord Jon has enough to do just to convince the Lords of Westeros he is who he says he is. No, for this story to be believed it needs someone who can convince Prince Doran it is true. That does not mean Adrianne cannot be fooled into going to war, or that there will be reasons for the Martells to join with the Golden Company, if it has success, against the Lannisters. It just means that Doran is not going to go into this alliance without knowing the truth. He may decide to do so knowing Aegon is a pretender, but he isn't going to let Varys place a pretender on the throne for his own advantage and control. You are right, that the news of both Quentyn's death and the supposed death of Daenerys, may force the Martells into desperate action, but I'm more inclined to think this would be directed towards the Lannisters and against Cersei's person than an open war against the Throne, facing the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and whoever else is still willing to fight with them. Still even if it comes to open warfare between the Martells and the Lannister alliance, that is not the same as Prince Doran believing Aegon is his nephew. Martin set this up with this high bar to overcome and with this specific plot hole to be answered for a reason. I don't believe for a second we won't see how Varysand Illyrio have planned to answer it. I think that means they have Ashara in their pocket, or think they have, to do just that.
  11. Was there any foreshadowing for Aegon living?

    LV, As I know you are aware, my friend, there is a huge difference between getting Dorne into a war by convincing Arianne, which may well happen, and convincing Prince Doran that his nephew is really alive, and he is not being taken for a ride courtesy of one of Varys's plots. Sooner or later, the five year gap has to be explained, and explained in a way that is not only believable to Doran, but to the reader as well. And perhaps just as important Varys and Illyrio know theanswers to the Prince's questions must be believable, and delivered by some one who can persuade him. That's not Connington. That's not Varys or Illyrio themselves.The only way I see that happening is Ashara. As in Ashara saying she took the infant Aegon from King's Landing and took care of him for those five years. True or not.I can't imagine that George set up this five year period of unaccountability and is going to just let it lay there unresolved.
  12. Jon was born in starfall

    I think it is pretty clear that even if something is in the books it is still "open to adjustment." Martin has also made it clear, especially in his readings and his answers to questions, that things may change and what he said or read at one time may no longer be where he is headed. In that regard the caution on the use of "semi-canon" material is important to keep in mind. So, for the reader the lesson is, in my opinion, not toignore what the author says, reads, or puts out in the app, but to evaluate this material for change and soundness. So, keep reading what Martin says, keep listening to his readings, look for updates in the app, etc. My problem is withthe categorical elimination without evaluation of material that gives us important insight into the story and the author's thinking. I think this later approach is fundamentally flawed and without merit. This is unfortunately what happens with the app's Lyanna entry. There is no evaluation of this material to show it is out of date, that is in conflict with the canon material, or evaluated in any other way than to just dismiss it because of where it is published. The simple fact it is in lockstep agreement with the other sources I cited should give people pause for a categorical dismissal of the app's information. But unfortunately it doesn't. Instead what we get is some highly entertaining, and some not so entertaining, scenarios that startwith dismissing out of hand the app's agreement with canon sources that point to Lyanna dying at the tower. It's not a good place to start. No, I think not. I listed evidence that supports and outright says Lyanna dies in the Tower, but let me add one that all but eliminates her giving birth to Jon in Starfall. The conversation between Ned Dayne with Arya Stark about Wylla. In this conversation young Ned makes his surprise clear that Arya does not knowWylla is Jon's mother. This is a simple fact that should be known to all, from his perspective. For this to be true, either Jon's mother had to have given birth to Jon and brought him to Starfall claiming him as her own, or his mother had to have given birth in Starfall itself. If Lyanna did this, then obviously, the people of Starfall, including their lord, would not think Wylla was Jon's mom. They do, so it is highly unlikely a pregnant Lyanna was there amongst them for any length of time, much less that she actually gives birth in Starfall and the people don't take note that Lyanna is no longer pregnant, and Wylla,a previously not pregnant woman claims a new born baby as hers. It is one thing for the Lords of Starfall, to hide Wylla in their household for almost two decades, but it is altogether unbelievable to think they have silenced all the people of the castle in to not talking about such a notable birth and what they know of it.
  13. Jon was born in starfall

    Sorry, I thought people were repeating points made not so long ago in another thread, and that I'd make sure all the information on both sides was repeated. I thought the points I made, although not original,were indeed getting ignored. I see the dream sequence ably argued by yourself and corbon, but these other little points - of canon and semi-canon origin- seem to be left out. Remembering not everyone shares your disdain for the app.
  14. Jon was born in starfall

    How does one ignore the appendix information in A Game of Thrones in which Lyanna is said to have "died in the mountains of Dorne"? (AGoT 678) How does one read the description of Starfall in The World of Ice and Fire in which Starfall is said to be "[A]t the mouth of the Torrentine, House Dayne raised its castle on an island where the roaring, tumultuous river broadens to meet the sea" (TWoI&F 238)and not see the contradiction of the first quote with the second. Starfall is on an island where the the river meets the sea, not in the mountains of Dorne. How does one read from Lyanna's entry in the GRRM authorized app A World of Ice and Fire and see it clearly said Lyanna is found dying by Ned and Howland "in the red mountains of Dorneat the place Rhaegar called the Tower of Joy" and reach the conclusion "maybe Starfall"? How does one read all of the above which unconditionally supports the interpretation in Ned's dream sequence that ties Lyanna's death to the Tower of Joy and the fight that takes place there between Ned's seven and the Kingsguard's three and come to the conclusion that Starfall makes more sense for a location in which Lyanna dies? One has to close one's eyes to all this evidence in order to believe Lyanna dies anywhere other than the tower of joy. On the other hand, that doesn't mean Jon is born at the Tower. He could be born at Starfall - if Lyanna is not his mother. Both the Wylla as Jon's mother, or the Ashara as Jon's mother scenarios are not troubled in the least by the above evidence. By many other things, yes, but not by this.
  15. The hypocrisy of ned

    I think there is good reason to think Ned believes Jon bastard born. I think there is also good reason to believe that is not the case. We should not assume Ned knows everything about Lyanna's life with Rhaegar because they had a death bed conversation that had to be preoccupied with getting Ned to agree with what Lyanna wanted himto promise.