SFDanny

Members
  • Content count

    3,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About SFDanny

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco

Recent Profile Visitors

6,515 profile views
  1. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    No, no apology needed. I take it that both you and @Voice just chose to ignore the argument that motive is not evidence. That we need a actual clue that something is wrong with the universally held view that it was Rhaegar who ran off with Lyanna, for whatever reasons he did so. We can come up with all kinds of schemes in our heads about Tywin did this, or Tywin did that, but we need a clue that he actual may have done anything of the sort, don't you think? So far, I don't see evidence of even a twinkle in his eye towards actually doing this. And I see enormous plot holes if we accept the idea he did. So, let's follow this unsupported idea to logical conclusion. I have to ask, just to make sure here, is Rhaegar involved in the conspiracy to take Lyanna, or not? Is he, for some unknown reasons having someone else do the deed, but he knows of it and approves of his old pal Tywin's plot to pin the act on him? Because if he is a silent partner, and then gets all of the blame for the act, but doesn't get hold of the girl, then how does that make any sense? It doesn't. If that doesn't work, let's go with the idea that Tywin had the act done without Rhaegar's knowledge and Rhaegar for some mysterious reason says nothing and takes the blame. By taking the blame he has placed the target for all the anti-Targaryen alliance squarely on his back. There is no question of getting support to replace his father with himself. He has ended whatever small chance existed after Harrenhal of that taking place. Why then doesn't he come forward and stop the executions of Brandon and Rickard and all the others, by saying he did not do this act; it is someone else who has done the crime? With a not so subtle pointing of a finger at Tywin? If he ever wants to win the fealty of the Starks, the Tullys, the Arryns, or the Baratheons, he needs to do so, but he does not. What we are left with is the dubious idea that what Rhaegar wants is for his father to kill all of the rebel lords, or they kill him, or both, and he will somehow pick up the pieces with no army of his own, and walk through the carnage to sit on the Iron Throne. Perhaps Rhaegar is really smarter than everyone, because he has to be smarter than the reader to come up with this idea and have a real plan to make it work. Otherwise, we are back to the idea he is just taking the blame for an act he didn't do for no reason at all. Your idea also asks the reader to believe Rhaegar starts out with this plan, but then decides "oops, that didn't work" and comes back to save his father and Targaryen rule, but still doesn't deny he took Lyanna. We are then expected to believe that somehow Lyanna's death is held secret until Ned returns from the Tower of Joy (a place, by a strange coincidence, we are told Rhaegar was when Ser Gerold found him to come back and take up the command of the new loyalist army) and on to Starfall. Not only does Ned bring back the news of Lyanna's death, but he also brings back her body. Wait, a minute, Isn't that what we would expect if Rhaegar had left her at the tower? My god, Ned must be part of the conspiracy as well as Rhaegar. I'm guessing they both did it to save Tywin any embarrassment, right? Again, all of this based on no actual clue anyone other than Rhaegar took Lyanna. Pardon me, but you two are too smart to fall down this rabbit hole and think you found the secret of secrets.
  2. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    I see you and @Voice did not read my response to the end. We have lots of clues showing Jon might not be Ned's son. Do I have to list them here? Those many clues casts the common knowledge of Jon being Ned's son in doubt. Here we even have Rhaegar with the opportunity to come forth and declare his innocence of the act when he goes to King's Landing. Yet that's not what Ser Barristan believes. Again, there are no similar clues casting in doubt the story or Rhaegar taking Lyanna. None, nada, zip. There are motives, just as I use in my own crackpot tale, but there are no clues that actually point to something else happening than Rhaegar taking Lyanna. That makes this theory much, much less believable than the tale we are given. It puts it into a territory that should make a reader very, very cautious to take seriously. It puts it into territory of fan's making this stuff out of their own heads, instead of based on the texts. I have to say, to this last point, I find it highly ironic that two such knowledgeable posters as yourselves, don't see the difference between this theory and a text based one. After all the lectures about "canon" vs. "non-canon" we see it doesn't matter if the source is thin air, if it casts a doubt on R+L=J.
  3. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    Yes, because there are actual clues in the text to support a different narrative around the reasons behind the kidnapping. There are no clues to support the idea someone else other than Rhaegar was responsible for the kidnapping. Let me make two points one short and one long to show this. I take as strong evidence when I read something in the books that has a character speaking against his own interests. So, for instance, I find it compelling when Tywin Lannister tells his son he ordered the murders of Rhaegar's children and why he did so. Tywin has no reason to lie in this context. If it were only the Targaryens, or the Martells who told the story this way, I would want to account for bias. Because it is Tywin himself speaking in a place he is not under duress to admit anything he did not do, I weigh this quite heavily towards believing his story. Not necessarily all of it, but the part about him giving the orders I do. So, when the Targaryen side passes down the narrative that has Rhaegar taking Lyanna away, then I have to weigh that very heavily in favor of his having done so. What is the incentive to admit Rhaegar was responsible? They have every incentive to twist a tale of kidnapping and rape into one of love, but none to admit he actually was responsible for the "abduction" if he was not. Then I look to the story as told by the other side of the rebellion and I see they agree with this all important aspect of the story. They certainly disagree that love was the motive for a kidnap and rape, but they agree on the tale in which Rhaegar took Lyanna. Lastly I look for others, less biased in their view, and I see every story agrees on this one touchstone - Rhaegar took Lyanna. That weighs very, very heavily in favor of this part of the tale being true. But what about motive? I absolutely admit there are many, many political players in the pre-rebellion days who have reasons to do Rhaegar harm. But motive is not a clue Rhaegar did not commit this act. Here is the long response. I have a favorite crackpot theory I call "The Two Princes in the Tower." I will try to summarize this quickly to show my points and to explain why, while I love this theory, I still call it crackpot. We know there is an intense rivalry at Aerys's court between those who supported Rhaegar and those who wanted Rhaegar removed as the crown prince. There is also a growing tension between father and son as Rhaegar seemingly goes as far as to plan the tourney at Harrenhal to test out the feelings of Westerosi nobles in calling a council to replace the father with the son. This, among other things, has led to a growing rift between Rhaegar and Aerys. Now, fast forward a bit to when, after the rebellion starts, Rhaegar returns to King's Landing to take up the command of a new army to fight the rebels. During this time Elia is held hostage against Dornish behavior, and Aerys explicitly does the same with Rhaegar's children after his death. I would argue that Rhaegar has every motivation, along with Elia, to get their children out of Aerys's control. If he can't convince his father to let them to return to Dragonstone, as they obviously don't do, then he has every reason to try to smuggle the children out some way. Let's supposed that the "pisswater prince" story is true, and during the months he is in King's Landing, he or his agents instead of Varys, find a child they think will pass muster as a substitute for young Aegon and have a trusted friend (Lady Ashara?) take the child to the one place in the control of people the Prince trusts to follow his orders - the Tower of Joy. Now, fast forward again, to when Ned arrives at the Tower of Joy and he finds two children there. One the newborn child of his sister who she pleads for him to save from Robert's wrath, and the other the older, with shaved head, still nursing at his wet nurse "mother's" breast. Ned finds the Lady Ashara there as well and the three of them travel with the two children and Howland Reed to Starfall, with Lady Ashara clearing their way through any Dornish questions of the travelers. When Ned leaves with Jon, Ashara takes Aegon with her to the Free Cities and fakes her death to cover her trail. Ned is never the wiser of the identity of the wet nurse's child. Much later Varys finds out about the smuggling of the child (the father comes to the Red Keep looking for an new bottle of Arbor Gold, perhaps?) and searches for Aegon and Lady Ashara throughout the Free Cities. Now, I can show how all of this is possible. I can show how all of the characters have motive to do these things. What I can't show is a clue that points to any of it actually happening. That makes it crackpot. Give me a clue that says Rhaegar tried to do this, or that Lady Ashara left King's Landing during this period, or a host of other things we can look on as evidence, and I'd be very happy. This idea that Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna fails the same test. It has much less to support it in terms of the motive and ability of people to pull off the needed tasks than my crackpot tale, and it relies on Rhaegar never proclaiming his innocence for an act he did not do. Which makes it not only crackpot, but firmly into tin-foil conspiracy tales territory.
  4. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    That depends on what you mean. It makes very little sense for the daughter of a High Lord to be traveling by herself, unless she ran away from her escort, she should have a group of Winterfell guardsmen with her. Along with a septa or a older woman like Old Nan to attend her. That is what we should expect. Except the author has gone to great lengths to present one side of the story of the "kidnapping" and to carefully lay clues that that view of the event may not be true. So, from the standpoint of the author it would make no sense to reveal the mystery too early by forcing a witness to come on page and give their account. When he wants us to know what happened when Rhaegar "fell upon" Lyanna we will get the account, and no sooner. It's no accident this account is treated in Martin's histories as common knowledge. It's just common knowledge unknown to the reader.
  5. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    True. Very true. Thank you. As you might suspect, I've seen big sisters in action.
  6. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    I'm stating, and I think I'm doing so very clearly, that it is canon that Rhaegar and Lyanna go off together, whether one believes that it is from him kidnapping her, or because they loved each other and decide to runoff and live as a loving couple someplace out of everyone else's reach, or some other motivation. There are reasons to believe all of those motivations within the canon. There is nothing within the canon that points to Rhaegar not being the one who runs off with Lyanna. Let me again be clear as I can here. There are many, many players who could wish to do Rhaegar harm. That does not mean there are clues that anyone of them did so by blaming Rhaegar for a "kidnapping" he did not do. To assert they did is only your assertion without anything in the canon to support it, and everything, from every point of view within the canon supporting the view Rhaegar, for whatever reason, did take Lyanna away.
  7. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    No, I think you miss my point. The quote is, The point is the love that she is talking about which "cannot change a man's nature" is Robert's supposed love for Lyanna. Not Lyanna's love for Robert. She may feel that no love from any woman would change Robert's nature, but that is not what she is talking about. She is saying no matter what love Robert claims for her, it won't change what he will do. She never expresses any love for Robert herself. I do think she is probably effected by her oldest brother's wandering ways, and how she sees him treat women, and that may well explain how she sees so clearly through Robert's charm to his core view of women. I don't think this is a universal condemnation of men by any means. She has a beloved brother standing in front of her that never treats any woman in this kind of way - that we know of, and I'm willing to bet if her little brother Benjen started behaving like Brandon, she would take him to the pond before the weirwood tree and hold his head under until he got some sense. No, this is not a universal statement on "men's nature;" her words are in the singular form "a man's nature." If she was talking about the human species it would be "Man's nature" would it not? And then it would include women as well. No, it's a statement on Robert's nature, and she's right.
  8. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    There is something else going on here as well. Ned is trying to convince his sister that Robert's love for her is what matters, not what he did before. And her response is that love won't change his nature. Not that her love for Robert is incapable of changing his nature. Because she doesn't even consider that possibility. Why? Because she exhibits no love for Robert. There is no sadness for her love not being able to change the man, only about Robert's love for her not being able to change himself. He will continue to sleep with others, no matter how much he professes love for her. Bella and Gendry prove her right.
  9. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    Let's not get too cute by half here. You are arguing the "kidnapping" or "running off together" did not happen. That Rhaegar was framed. We are not just discussing which view of the event - Robert's or the Targaryen's is more accurate - or even that there might be a different view altogether. You are saying it is not "canon" that Rhaegar and Lyanna went away together, by force or by consent, and that is just wrong. The books tell us clearly they did go off together. That is canon. If you want to argue that is not the truth, that is, of course, fine. But you have to provide more to back up the assertion than the assertion itself. So far, all I see are tortured readings of the text and assertions made up out of thin air.
  10. Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

    Of course it does. You may think the books are lying, but the books unequivocally tell us Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna. Truth does not equal canon, or vice versa.
  11. Not a thing, my friend, not a thing. Excellent as always. When I worked on most of that information in 2008, I wish I had your input. It would have been much easier. I still think that by using the sequencing of name days, and how they fall around certain events we can construct a workable timeline. I've kicked around some ideas in my head since then, so if I can contribute to your effort along with anyone else who is actual serious about the task, just let me know. We agree on this as well.
  12. Ahhh, no rush, just let me know.
  13. @Macgregor of the North & @Rhaenys_Targaryen I'd also add into the timeline the events proceeding the sack, such as Rossart's elevation to being the Hand and the Flight to Dragonstone, and those taking place right after, such as Robert's coronation etc.
  14. @Macgregor of the North and @Rhaenys_Targaryen I'd add Margaery's birth into the late 283 events after Robb is born, but it's a good working hypothesis. I'd also put a little separation between the Battle of the Bells, which could take place in very late 282, and the wedding that has to take place in 283. Can't say how long it takes for the armies to march from Stony Sept to Riverrun, but a Martin "fortnight" is a good possibility. Good stuff. edit: Let me also add I wouldn't worry if the start of the Rebellion is a little longer than a year before the sack of King's Landing. The quote is "The war raged for close to a year." (AGoT 96) So I don't see much problem if it goes a little longer or a little shorter than a year. Which reminds me, do you want quotes to back up Margaery's birth in 283? If so, let me know, and I'd be happy to provide it.
  15. I agree with all your other points, but Daenerys was born in 284, with her name day falling some time around mid year. I believe RT has some supporting evidence in the wiki, but if you want we can go over it here. @Macgregor of the North first you couldn't get a better person to work with on the timeline than RT. Good luck and if any of the work I've done on name days and the timeline will help I will gladly chip in. I would say the range for some of the things in your OP seems to me to be a little larger, but I don't disagree that a September date for the sack is most likely, or that Jon's name day is likely in late September/ early October. Of course, the problem with Jon's name day is we don't know if the day he celebrates is a lie. We know the day he celebrates falls after Robb's and Bran's, and before Margaery's and Sansa's. All of which comes in the last quarter of the year. But because of the doubt about Ned telling the truth of Jon's name day we can't be sure if any of those markers tells us just when. So we are left with Martin's "eight or nine months, or thereabouts" comment on the difference between Jon and Daenerys's births. To the question about Rhaegar's order to the Kingsguard, I would only say that the orders to the three men do not have to be the same. Long ago, a reader named Enguerrand suggested it made more sense for Rhaegar to use Hightower in particular for other reasons than just to stand around the Tower of Joy. Think along the lines of a mission to Essos to get help for the loyalist cause (enlist the Golden Company, find the sword Blackfyre, etc.) I'm not saying any of this occurred, I am saying we should leave ourselves open to the possibility that not all the Kingsguard were given the same orders, or stayed at the tower for the whole time. Anyway, great thread.