The Heresy essays: X+Y=J : Arthur + Lyanna=J

[Voice]

No I haven't. Again, it's not Ned's problem.

Methinks you are a bit more callous on this subject than Ned. She isn't Ned's "problem", she's his little sister - a sixteen year old Arya with fear in her eyes, a fever sapping her strength, and asking for a promise in a voice faint as a whisper on her deathbed.

 

This idea that Ned is supposed to compromise his own honor just to protect someone who compromised their own is silly.

Like when he lied to Robert and told him Cat apprehended Tyrion on his orders?

Or when he perjured himself to protect Sansa?

 

There has to be a better reason for him to lie.

Protecting Lyanna's honor and wishes is the simplest, most obvious reason to lie, ser. Remember, in those days, he was estranged from his foster brother. Ned could give a damn about Robert Baratheon, or Rhaegar Targaryen for that matter. But, he loved his sister. She's the frail she wolf in his arms, asking for promises.

And, per the OP, if Ned had just killed her lover, I could see the guilt compelling him to comply all the more strongly.

 

And, as I said above, considering that people knew that it was Rhaegar who kidnapped Lyanna,

People knew Tyrion was a monkeydemon, that Ned plotted to steal Joffrey's crown, and people know that Jon Snow is Ned Stark's son. Some people believe anything they hear, some don't.

 

Ned would be inviting trouble by claiming Jon as his own, if he was in fact Lyanna and Arthur's.

Not at all.

In truth, Jon would be in mortal danger regardless of Ned's actions, and regardless of whoever his father was, if Lyanna is his mother.

The reason? Robert would assume the child were either his own (if he ever had sex with Lyanna), or Rhaegar's (if he didn't). In the first scenario, Jon would be in danger from the Lannisters, as an heir of noble birth (Baratheon+Stark), and conceived only marginally outside of wedlock. (Remember when Cersei wondered why Catelyn had not smothered Jon in his sleep?) In the second scenario, Jon would be in danger from the Lannisters, particularly Cersei (as a competitor to her own children), and from Robert (as an assumed dragonspawn that killed his betrothed).

Rather than inviting trouble, Ned solved all of these issues by claiming Jon as his own. This removes Lyanna from suspicion, as well as whoever his father might be and all the political dangers that might entail. As Ned's natural son, Jon posed a threat to no one who could do him harm. (It just so happens that we've seen this same occurrence with LF and Alayne.)

Ned was the kind of guy who saddled himself with such burdens, I think we can agree.

[J. Stargaryen]

As VOTFM pointed out and its a good point,part of it is about protecting Lyanna's honor no matter who Jon's father is.Lyanna might have cared had she lived.She's dead now and has no care,but Ned would have cared about her name being sullied.

The point i raised upthread to Icefire125 is if you all contend that Robert's wrath is the key factor in hiding Jon.If Arthur is Jon's father then that still applies,being as he was supposedly one of the culprits in the supposed kidnapping.Robert would still name that rape unless told otherwise.Any prospect that includes Rhaegar,Arthur or Whent (if he's a thing) has that as an explanation because they were all " part and parcel" in the crime. You see what i'm saying?

No, Voice did not make a good point, because this is not about protecting Lyanna's honor. Sorry, Voice. Ned's honor does not exist to be sacrificed because someone else sullied theirs. Ned lies to protect the lives of his family. Ned's lie about Jon does nothing to safeguard Lyanna's life.

I don't know who "you all" refers to, but I think Ned protected the baby because that baby, as the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, would have a stronger claim to the throne than Robert in the eyes of many. And that's especially true if the baby was legitimate. As far as Robert's wrath, that could be dealt with if the baby was Arthur's, because there are no political implications involved, unlike if RLJ. Nor did Robert ever remark about sword-and-fallen-star spawn that I recall. If the baby was Rhaegar's, Robert would not let the baby live. If the baby is Rhaegar's and legitimate, Robert could not let the baby live.

Methinks you are a bit more callous on this subject than Ned. She isn't Ned's "problem", she's his little sister - a sixteen year old Arya with fear in her eyes, a fever sapping her strength, and asking for a promise in a voice faint as a whisper on her deathbed.

My phrasing might have been, but the point remains. Ned's honor is not a band-aid to be applied whenever somebody else fucks up.

Like when he lied to Robert and told him Cat apprehended Tyrion on his orders?

Or when he perjured himself to protect Sansa?

Exactly. Why did he lie in those cases, especially the latter one? It's quite clear that he falsely confessed to treason in order to protect the life -- not honor -- of Sansa.

Protecting Lyanna's honor and wishes is the simplest, most obvious reason to lie, ser. Remember, in those days, he was estranged from his foster brother. Ned could give a damn about Robert Baratheon, or Rhaegar Targaryen for that matter. But, he loved his sister. She's the frail she wolf in his arms, asking for promises.

And, per the OP, if Ned had just killed her lover, I could see the guilt compelling him to comply all the more strongly.

First, that's debatable. Second, even if it the simplest, most obvious reason, doesn't make it the right one. The rest is just speculation about motivation.

People knew Tyrion was a monkeydemon, that Ned plotted to steal Joffrey's crown, and people know that Jon Snow is Ned Stark's son. Some people believe anything they hear, some don't.

We don't disagree here. The point I was making was that, if people knew that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, then they're less likely to believe that Arthur is the father.

Not at all.

I'm not sure if you're following me, so let me explain. The first part is, we're going to assume that Arthur is the father. Then, we're going to assume that Ned claims Jon as his son, but gets caught lying. At this point, how many people do you think will believe that it's Arthur who is the father and not Rhaegar? See what I mean? At that point, even if you fess up the truth it probably wouldn't do any good. They're just going to think RLJ.

In truth, Jon would be in mortal danger regardless of Ned's actions, and regardless of whoever his father was, if Lyanna is his mother.

I don't agree with this. At least, I don't think it's a given, if even likely.

---

Hey Voice, I'm wondering if you've been keeping up with GoT S.6 spoilers? I know of one that you might be interested in. PM for details.

[Voice]

 

No, Voice did not make a good point, because this is not about protecting Lyanna's honor. Sorry, Voice. Ned's honor does not exist to be sacrificed because someone else sullied theirs. Ned lies to protect the lives of his family. Ned's lie about Jon does nothing to safeguard Lyanna's life.

I don't know who "you all" refers to, but I think Ned protected the baby because that baby, as the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, would have a stronger claim to the throne than Robert in the eyes of many. And that's especially true if the baby was legitimate. As far as Robert's wrath, that could be dealt with if the baby was Arthur's, because there are no political implications involved, unlike if RLJ. Nor did Robert ever remark about sword-and-fallen-star spawn that I recall. If the baby was Rhaegar's, Robert would not let the baby live. If the baby is Rhaegar's and legitimate, Robert could not let the baby live.

My phrasing might have been, but the point remains. Ned's honor is not a band-aid to be applied whenever somebody else fucks up.

Exactly. Why did he lie in those cases, especially the latter one? It's quite clear that he falsely confessed to treason in order to protect the life -- not honor -- of Sansa.

First, that's debatable. Second, even if it the simplest, most obvious reason, doesn't make it the right one. The rest is just speculation about motivation.

We don't disagree here. The point I was making was that, if people knew that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, then they're less likely to believe that Arthur is the father.

I'm not sure if you're following me, so let me explain. The first part is, we're going to assume that Arthur is the father. Then, we're going to assume that Ned claims Jon as his son, but gets caught lying. At this point, how many people do you think will believe that it's Arthur who is the father and not Rhaegar? See what I mean? At that point, even if you fess up the truth it probably wouldn't do any good. They're just going to think RLJ.

I don't agree with this. At least, I don't think it's a given, if even likely.

---

Hey Voice, I'm wondering if you've been keeping up with GoT S.6 spoilers? I know of one that you might be interested in. PM for details.

Geeze quoting is a pain on this forum. I'll just respond to key points, and I'm sure you'll understand which I'm addressing.

First, wolfmaid was right, I made a great point. And no, I am in no way biased on the subject. I know, first hand, that all of my points are great. LOL

Ned repeatedly uses his own honor as leverage. Hence the guilt. And, unless Jon really is his son, that is exactly what he did when he claimed Jon as his own.

And, my (mutually agreed) excellent point still stands, because Ned used his honor as a leverage (or a bandaid) not only to protect Cat's honor, Sansa's honor, and Lyanna's honor, but to protect the lives of his children - including Jon. Whether or not Jon is Ned's seed, Ned has claimed him as his blood. So, he's still sacrificing his honor to protect the life of a family member, if that is the angle you prefer, JStar.

We don't disagree here. The point I was making was that, if people knew that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, then they're less likely to believe that Arthur is the father.

I'm not sure if you're following me, so let me explain. The first part is, we're going to assume that Arthur is the father. Then, we're going to assume that Ned claims Jon as his son, but gets caught lying. At this point, how many people do you think will believe that it's Arthur who is the father and not Rhaegar? See what I mean? At that point, even if you fess up the truth it probably wouldn't do any good. They're just going to think RLJ.

That was my point as well. The protection of Jon's life remains a viable reason for Ned to lie to Robert and the realm regardless if the father was Rhae or Art. The same justifications apply to both.

I don't agree with this. At least, I don't think it's a given, if even likely.

I'm surprised. It seems rather accurate to me. Lyanna being Jon's mother places Jon in danger simply because of the abduction/rape/love rumors. The mere possibility or suspicion of any child being dragonspawn is a death sentence. Hence the estrangement between Ned and Robert during this time.

I'll PM you about the spoilers. Curious which you found that was up my alley. I've been keeping up on them a bit over on our much-easier-to-use forum. LOL

[wolfmaid7]

 

No, Voice did not make a good point, because this is not about protecting Lyanna's honor. Sorry, Voice. Ned's honor does not exist to be sacrificed because someone else sullied theirs. Ned lies to protect the lives of his family. Ned's lie about Jon does nothing to safeguard Lyanna's life.

I don't know who "you all" refers to, but I think Ned protected the baby because that baby, as the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, would have a stronger claim to the throne than Robert in the eyes of many. And that's especially true if the baby was legitimate. As far as Robert's wrath, that could be dealt with if the baby was Arthur's, because there are no political implications involved, unlike if RLJ. Nor did Robert ever remark about sword-and-fallen-star spawn that I recall. If the baby was Rhaegar's, Robert would not let the baby live. If the baby is Rhaegar's and legitimate, Robert could not let the baby live.

 

JStar,your not telling me anything tangible except what you feel.Its not built on anything but that.You tell me its not about protecting Lyanna's honor because Ned's honor doesn't exist to be sacrificed to protect someone else's.That's an opnion.

Voice's point is valid because this isn't just "anyone" its Ned's sister.The fact is Ned's lie accomplishes a lot.It protects his sister's name and honor and it safeguard's Jon's life.

I meant no offense by using "you all" i am speaking in general to those of you currently that are participating that hold to this arguement.

Again your belief doesn't affect what may or may not be true.You believe that Ned believe's the child would have a stronger claim.That's cool an all but its not the only viable explanation.

You already have a conclusion in your head,therefore all alternatives must fit within the parameters of that conclusion instead of looking at the variable that matters. Jstar come on now ,look at the person we are talking about.

Why does there have to be political implications.You forgetting who we are dealing with ?Robert is going to focus on one thing and it is not going to be political savy at that point.

Why would Robert say anything about Dayne? Rhaegar is the one he believes was responsible for kidnapping Lyanna. What may have happened if this supposed kidnapping took place is what we are debating.Robert and everyone else are likely wrong.They were not there.We have the luxury of looking at te situation throough unbiased eyes and level emotions. 

Robert,Rhaegar,Ned,Dayne are all dead. Robert can't hurt Jon no matter who his daddy is.Is there relevance to Jon being Arthur's son? Yes the Dayne's are still in the mix and they are tied close to the Starks.

As i said before there is a political reason behind making Edric Dayne (the heir to Starfall ) Jon's milkbrother.That is straight out of binding houses that may have been enemies together.

Is it possible Arthur could have fathered Jon? Yes

 

[Ygrain]

JS, may I opt for those spoilers, as well? :-)

The thought that Ned might have lied to protect Lyanna's honour does have some merit but I don't see why he wouldn't share this secret with Cat, and later on with Jon, because I sure don't see how A+L qualifies as a secret too dangerous to share. And BTW, on the way back from Chataya's brothel when musing about Robert, bastards, Lyanna and Jon, Ned thinks about Rhaegar instead of Arthur because...?

[corbon]

 

Geeze quoting is a pain on this forum.

Mostly, I'm starting to figure out its even easier than before. I just use the multiquote function and usually you can break up posts into multiple parts just by clicking where you want and hitting enter a few times.
Every now'n again though it just won't 'break' the post up for some reason. And if you mess up, it will hold your post in memory and when you come back and try again later you just make a bigger mess inside your old mess. I'm learning to delete everything inside a mess before trying again. I really miss the old format where you could access the what-ever-you-call-it view and actually type in the formatting etc like [ q u o t e ] [ / q u o t e ]. I used to fix things that way a lot.

First, wolfmaid was right, I made a great point. And no, I am in no way biased on the subject. I know, first hand, that all of my points are great. LOL

Nice.

Ned repeatedly uses his own honor as leverage. Hence the guilt. And, unless Jon really is his son, that is exactly what he did when he claimed Jon as his own.

And, my (mutually agreed) excellent point still stands, because Ned used his honor as a leverage (or a bandaid) not only to protect Cat's honor, Sansa's honor, and Lyanna's honor, but to protect the lives of his children - including Jon. Whether or not Jon is Ned's seed, Ned has claimed him as his blood. So, he's still sacrificing his honor to protect the life of a family member, if that is the angle you prefer, JStar.

I'm with JStar. I don't agree that Ned bandied his honour around for less than protecting the lives of his family.

 

JStar,your not telling me anything tangible except what you feel.Its not built on anything but that.You tell me its not about protecting Lyanna's honor because Ned's honor doesn't exist to be sacrificed to protect someone else's.That's an opnion.

Its a textually founded opinion.

Voice's point is valid because this isn't just "anyone" its Ned's sister.The fact is Ned's lie accomplishes a lot.It protects his sister's name and honor and it safeguard's Jon's life.

That too is an opinion. Just not as textually founded, in my opinion.

 

Why does there have to be political implications.You forgetting who we are dealing with ?Robert is going to focus on one thing and it is not going to be political savy at that point.

Thats an opinion. I don't think its a very good one (my opinion too of course). Robert understands politics well enough (to accept the argument that he has to be king because of his family ties to the last dynasty for example), and his fuss about Lyanna is overblown 15 years later due to the way his life turned out. It doesn't stand scrutiny of his actions earlier.

I also don't think its a very good opinion that the secret Arthur+L=J is a secret too dangerous to share (thanks Ygraine). Robert isn't going to come after a rape baby just because of Lyanna. A dragonspawn though, thats where his hate is.

 

Is it possible Arthur could have fathered Jon? Yes

Its possible Billy Bob from over the hill could have fathered Jon too. And as much pointing to it in the text. Except when Ned thinks of bastards and lusts, he thinks of Rhaegar, as Ygrain points out. Not Arthur.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

JS, may I opt for those spoilers, as well? :-)

Now I'm curious as well

 

I'm still waiting for the answer to some of the questions I asked earlier, as to why Hightower would remain at the tower? As well as the question as to why Ned and Arthur would see the need to fight each other, had the child been Arthur's. Actually, I'm adding a third to this short list: why would they decide to stay in the tower, if it had been Arthur's child? Why not Starfall instead, a much better environment?

 

Mostly, I'm starting to figure out its even easier than before. I just use the multiquote function and usually you can break up posts into multiple parts just by clicking where you want and hitting enter a few times.

I hadn't figured out that feature yet, that's a useful one!

 

[Sly Wren]

I'm with JStar. I don't agree that Ned bandied his honour around for less than protecting the lives of his family.

 

Its a textually founded opinion.

That too is an opinion. Just not as textually founded, in my opinion.

Thats an opinion. I don't think its a very good one (my opinion too of course). Robert understands politics well enough (to accept the argument that he has to be king because of his family ties to the last dynasty for example), and his fuss about Lyanna is overblown 15 years later due to the way his life turned out. It doesn't stand scrutiny of his actions earlier.

I also don't think its a very good opinion that the secret Arthur+L=J is a secret too dangerous to share (thanks Ygraine). Robert isn't going to come after a rape baby just because of Lyanna. A dragonspawn though, thats where his hate is.

Its possible Billy Bob from over the hill could have fathered Jon too. And as much pointing to it in the text. Except when Ned thinks of bastards and lusts, he thinks of Rhaegar, as Ygrain points out. Not Arthur.

But all of the above seems to assume that Ned sat down and made a carefully worked out, rational plan. Perhaps with a pro-con list.

But that isn't what the text tells us. It tells us that Lyanna extracted that promise on her deathbed. Her voice barely audible. Her face full of fear until Ned makes the promise. And afterwards, Ned's so overcome, he barely knows what's happening. And, if the OP is right, all after Ned's killed Lyanna's lover. And after he's lost so much with Brandon and Rickard.

That's not a moment of rational, balanced thought. We've see older and wiser Ned make decisions that seem rather impractical and unwise without a tenth of that emotion and misery. 

And yes, Ned might have stopped afterwards and thought, "Huh. Maybe this isn't the best plan." But that "promise me, Ned" seems to keep haunting him. A reminder that he promised.

Ned is practically the Horton the Elephant of the story. If he promised Lyanna, he'd keep that promise. Regardless of the practicality. Regardless of the price. Really seems like Ned's hearing "promise me, Ned" could be about precisely that.

ETA: Thanks for posting the multi-quote info! Very helpful.

[Ygrain]

I'm still waiting for the answer to some of the questions I asked earlier, as to why Hightower would remain at the tower? As well as the question as to why Ned and Arthur would see the need to fight each other, had the child been Arthur's. Actually, I'm adding a third to this short list: why would they decide to stay in the tower, if it had been Arthur's child? Why not Starfall instead, a much better environment?

And I would add: if Jon is Arthur's child, why are we getting a ton of information about Rhaegar but so little on Arthur? Given the importance for a major character as well as the mystery, this is a huge disproportion. 

[Sly Wren]

I'm still waiting for the answer to some of the questions I asked earlier, as to why Hightower would remain at the tower? As well as the question as to why Ned and Arthur would see the need to fight each other, had the child been Arthur's. Actually, I'm adding a third to this short list: why would they decide to stay in the tower, if it had been Arthur's child? Why not Starfall instead, a much better environment?

I've no idea what superuknown5's take on this is, but:

1. The text has not yet established that anyone is in the tower or that the KG are guarding anyone it in or that the KG have been staying there vs. just having arrived. So,

2. I agree. Going to Starfall makes a lot more sense. 

3. Why fight Ned? First up, can't see any reason why Ned must have known Arthur was the lover and protector if the common assumption is that it is Rhaegar.

4. The best potential echo I can think of in the text is Jon. Soiling his black fuzzy cloak with a woman. His black brothers not wanting him back, but deciding that the situation is dire. So he's pulled back into the fight. It would be a rough echo at best, but if Arthur's been brought back into the KG fold--desperate times, desperate measures--might explain why his vow drives him to fight the brother of his lover. No wonder that moment would haunt Ned.

[Sly Wren]

And I would add: if Jon is Arthur's child, why are we getting a ton of information about Rhaegar but so little on Arthur? Given the importance for a major character as well as the mystery, this is a huge disproportion. 

But that might depend on what you mean by "so little."

Storm has multiple Dayne references. Jaime can barely get through a chapter without thinking of him. Arya learns about Jon's potential connection to Starfall--and remember Arthur. Jon has him symbolic moment with the Sword of the Morning.

Throughout the novels, Arthur and the Daynes keep coming up. Little and big details. If they and Arthur are unimportant, why are they continually brought up and symbolically tied to the Starks--historical defenders of the Wall and the North against the Walkers?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I've no idea what superuknown5's take on this is, but:

1. The text has not yet established that anyone is in the tower or that the KG are guarding anyone it in or that the KG have been staying there vs. just having arrived. So,

2. I agree. Going to Starfall makes a lot more sense. 

3. Why fight Ned? First up, can't see any reason why Ned must have known Arthur was the lover and protector if the common assumption is that it is Rhaegar.

4. The best potential echo I can think of in the text is Jon. Soiling his black fuzzy cloak with a woman. His black brothers not wanting him back, but deciding that the situation is dire. So he's pulled back into the fight. It would be a rough echo at best, but if Arthur's been brought back into the KG fold--desperate times, desperate measures--might explain why his vow drives him to fight the brother of his lover. No wonder that moment would haunt Ned.

1. Seeing as we have semi-canon information placing Lyanna at ToJ at her death, we know there was at least one person there. 

3. I agree that Ned probably only learned the truth, in whatever scenario, upon finding Lyanna. But that is not as important, as it isn't Ned who initiates the fight. One could even argue that by bringing only six of his men, instead of the army he had with him at Storm's End, Ned wanted to avoid fighting, (as well as might have expected what he'd find, to some degree, I've speculated about that before). By unsheating his swords and stating "And so it begins", Arthur initiates the fight. If he is the father of Lyanna's child, why would he initiate the fight with Ned?

4. That doesn't explain Gerold's presence. In addition, what desperate times were there, to reinstate Arthur in the KG, only to keep him far away from any action during the war? He was not protecting his king, not protecting a member of the royal family, not leading any loyalist armies into war... He was far away, and out of sight.. 

[wolfmaid7]

 

I'm with JStar. I don't agree that Ned bandied his honour around for less than protecting the lives of his family.

 

Its a textually founded opinion.

That too is an opinion. Just not as textually founded, in my opinion.

Thats an opinion. I don't think its a very good one (my opinion too of course). Robert understands politics well enough (to accept the argument that he has to be king because of his family ties to the last dynasty for example), and his fuss about Lyanna is overblown 15 years later due to the way his life turned out. It doesn't stand scrutiny of his actions earlier.

I also don't think its a very good opinion that the secret Arthur+L=J is a secret too dangerous to share (thanks Ygraine). Robert isn't going to come after a rape baby just because of Lyanna. A dragonspawn though, thats where his hate is.

Its possible Billy Bob from over the hill could have fathered Jon too. And as much pointing to it in the text. Except when Ned thinks of bastards and lusts, he thinks of Rhaegar, as Ygrain points out. Not Arthur.

1. Where is it a textually founded opnion,please enlighten me? 

2.Yes it is textually based how many pages of this we have in the series now.Robert's anger and rashness is the first to be displayed.That is textuall.

Robert's understanding of politics doesn't exclude his foremost rection which in this case would be the same because how would he look at it. Now i was seriously asking why it had to be a reason of politics for Ned when he has again and again demonstrated what honor means to him.

The issue is and you all can deny that til the sky burns but Robert would come to the same conclusion about Arthur  unless told otherwise....In his mind it would be rape .That's what you are missing.So yes he would go after a rape baby.He may or may not have done anything to the Dornish but he probably would have demonized the KGs because that's what the man does.

Serously guys really,......He thinks of Rhaegar???? He thinks of Rhaegar. Aren't you all forgetting something and aren't you all misrepresenting that quote? Lets not resort to this.

[wolfmaid7]

Again i am asking you all to keep the Rhaegar dumps to the Rhaegar thread,this has a tendency to throw the threads off.

[wolfmaid7]

JS, may I opt for those spoilers, as well? :-)

The thought that Ned might have lied to protect Lyanna's honour does have some merit but I don't see why he wouldn't share this secret with Cat, and later on with Jon, because I sure don't see how A+L qualifies as a secret too dangerous to share. And BTW, on the way back from Chataya's brothel when musing about Robert, bastards, Lyanna and Jon, Ned thinks about Rhaegar instead of Arthur because...?

Wow its amazing how you all twists stuff.Just for accuracy what and who was the subject of the entire thought process Ygrain.Rhaegar was a passing thought.And again in this scenario no one would have known Arthur's role.

You all don't seem to realize how GRRM works .Run down the entire Jon Arryn murder again.

1.Who was said to have done it?

2. Who fit the bill seemingly perfectly?

3. Until the day Ned died who did he think did it?

4. Who actually Did it

5.Did his murder have anything to do with 'the secret" for which he found out?

 

[Sly Wren]

Seeing as we have semi-canon information placing Lyanna at ToJ at her death, we know there was at least one person there. 

Seeing as we have semi-canon info placing Lyanna at the tower at her death, we know that there might have been at least one person there.

 But the text itself is far from clear on that subject. 

3. I agree that Ned probably only learned the truth, in whatever scenario, upon finding Lyanna. But that is not as important, as it isn't Ned who initiates the fight. One could even argue that by bringing only six of his men, instead of the army he had with him at Storm's End, Ned wanted to avoid fighting, (as well as might have expected what he'd find, to some degree, I've speculated about that before). By unsheating his swords and stating "And so it begins", Arthur initiates the fight. If he is the father of Lyanna's child, why would he initiate the fight with Ned?

Agreed--Arthur initiates it. And I agree that Ned seems reluctant to pursue the fight.

But Jon fought at the Wall knowing full well Ygritte was out there. He fought for his vow and his brothers. He prayed Ygritte would not be there. But even when he saw her, he might not have fired, but he didn't stop fighting. The KG swore a vow to the king Ned helped depose. Their situation is even more hopeless than Jon's at Castle Black. They may not be able to win, but they can go out fighting.

A garbled echo shows up in Oakheart. Seems like there's a case to be made he was made of weaker stuff than Arthur, but when his plan (tied to soiling his cloak) goes all wrong, he chooses suicide by combat. Maybe that's part of it as well. The first thing Ned thinks about Arthur in the dream is that he had a "sad smile on his lips."

That doesn't explain Gerold's presence. In addition, what desperate times were there, to reinstate Arthur in the KG, only to keep him far away from any action during the war? He was not protecting his king, not protecting a member of the royal family, not leading any loyalist armies into war... He was far away, and out of sight.. 

Gerold's presence might make sense if they were at Starfall. Gerold's sent to find Rhaegar. Rhaegar orders him to stay in Dorne, out of the fight--he's planning changes, after all. Keeping Gerold away from his father while putting those plans into action might be a very good idea. And Gerold would have to follow that order. . . if he's half as dogmatic as the snippets of info we've been given have painted him to be.

And then it all fails. And Whent and Dayne are there to face their (probably hostile) Lord Commander. So loyal to Aerys he takes Jaime to task for being horrified by the burnings. As Jon eventually has to face the Watch leadership, many of whom do not like him. And Janos Slynt, who betrayed Ned and is backed by Tywin.

As superunknown5 pointed out earlier, Lucamore the Lusty was castrated and sent to the Wall. Perhaps joining Gerold back into a last-ditch fight against the usurper and his dogs seemed like a better option. That conversation they have at the tower has a lot of potential meanings, but one of them has to be that they are furious at being kept out of the fight. They could not save the cause on the Trident and kill the Usurper. They could not save Aerys. All of that sticks in their craws. But now, now they can fight. 

[Sly Wren]

Run down the entire Jon Arryn murder again.

1.Who was said to have done it?

2. Who fit the bill seemingly perfectly?

3. Until the day Ned died who did he think did it?

4. Who actually Did it

5.Did his murder have anything to do with 'the secret" for which he found out?

No way around this.

Plus, in the scene where Lysa reveals all of this, Martin's very clearly echoed Lyanna and Rhaegar with Sansa and Marillion. Has Marillion the bard tell the stolen Stark maiden, who's all dressed in blue, that he's making a song for her about being an irresistible roadside rose.

Almost like Martin's asking us to pay attention to this reveal. . . because it might have bearing on another one. 

[SFDanny]

 

Seeing as we have semi-canon info placing Lyanna at the tower at her death, we know that there might have been at least one person there.

 But the text itself is far from clear on that subject. 

The text does place her in the mountains of Dorne at the time of her death.

{LYANNA}, his younger sister, died in the mountains of Dorne (AGoT 678)

Which is not only consistent with her dying at the tower as the app states, but also eliminates some other theories like Lyanna dying in Starfall. The Mountains of Dorne covers a lot of territory, but we have no hint of a connection of Lyanna to anywhere else in them other than the tower.

[Sly Wren]

 

The text does place her in the mountains of Dorne at the time of her death.

Yes--but that same Appendix page (at least in my edition) lists Jon as Ned's son.

And a few pages earlier lists Joff, Myrcella, and Tommen as Robert's children. Even though the previous text has proven that completely untrue (as per Cersei).

So, I can't see how an appendix listing rules things out categorically. Lyanna might very well have died in the tower. But--like Jon is probably not Ned's son and Cersei's children are definitely not Robert's--seems like there's still the option that the listing is an assumption. Not a fact.

[Ygrain]

Wow its amazing how you all twists stuff.Just for accuracy what and who was the subject of the entire thought process Ygrain.Rhaegar was a passing thought.And again in this scenario no one would have known Arthur's role.

Lol, a passing thought? It was a culmination.

- But regardless: you muse about your best friend's shortcomings and failures, about his lack of commitment and his uncared-for bastard children, you turn your thoughts to your dead sister who had correctly evaluated this lack of commitment and to her child who has to live the life of a bastard - and then you give a passing thought to a guy who has nothing to do with Lyanna, her child or her reproach of Robert's infidelity. That doesn't sound legit at all.

And excuse me, no-one would have known Arthur's role when? At ToJ? Perhaps. Fourteen years later? Impossible. There would be absolutely no basis for the later reveal. Ned would have had to know, but there is a sad lack of such knowledge anywhere in his PoVs. 

You all don't seem to realize how GRRM works .Run down the entire Jon Arryn murder again.

Er, no. You do not seem to be able to distinguish between what the characters know and what the reader knows.

1.Who was said to have done it?

2. Who fit the bill seemingly perfectly?

3. Until the day Ned died who did he think did it?

4. Who actually Did it

5.Did his murder have anything to do with 'the secret" for which he found out?

1. Cersei. And then Tyrion.

2. Cersei. Except that ridiculous claim of Lysa's that it was Tyrion.

3. What Ned thought was absolutely insubstantial. The reader should have noted that there is something fishy going on - that Tyrion was framed first by Petyr and then by Lysa and that Lysa is unreliable and unstable like hell, henceforth anything she claims should be taken with more than just a grain of salt, and Petyr turns out to be a master schemer. Hence, the whole accusation against Cersei loses ground - she sure had motive, but there is actually not a single hint of her involvement.

4... and the whole network of hints pointing towards it which perfectly fit in retrospect. We know there was some foul play, we know that Lysa was unstable and fiercely protective of her child, we know that Sweetrobin was to be fostered and there was contradicting information where to, we know that Petyr had a strong influence with Lysa, we know that it was her letter that dragged the Starks into the conflict with the Lannisters... need I go on? The bits were all there.

5. It actually did, because Colemon might have saved Jon Arryn, had Pycelle not intervened on Cersei's behalf.

 

So, what GRRM does is that he keeps dropping bits of information, some of them fitting together, others contradicting. He never does no information whatsoever.