R+L=J v.157

[Ser Creighton]

8 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

 

 

A Dance with Dragons seems to end a few months before year's end. The storylines are rather synced in time, and Jaime, in one of his last chapters, tells us that Roslin Frey has yet to give birth. Seeing as how Roslin became pregnant during the Red Wedding, which took place about two weeks (if not more) before 300 AC began, and hasn't given birth yet, we can see that, at least with that chapter, we are not yet 9 months into the year. And it seems that Roslin, while close to giving birth, still has some time to go. While time passes since that chapter, we're speaking of weeks, not months, hence, we're still in 300 AC when the book ends.

What it does show is that we seem to be rather far ahead into the year, reaching that period where Jon's nameday is close. We cannot know when exactly Jon's storyline ends, but the passage you are referring to (in your post below, Ser Creighton), take place quite a while before the book ends as well.

 

When he was fifteen, he hadn't been named Lord Commander. He hadn't been ordered to join the wildlings. 

When he was fifteen, life wasn't so complicated yet. Just as it was when he was still at Winterfell, as shown by him immediately following that statement with thinking little sister.

 

I usually go about a slightly different way to determine Dany's moment of birth, but I arrive at the same conclusion.

 

Agreed.

 

Agreed.

I know around the time he turns 15 because of her name day. When she turns 14, Jon is still 14 for a few months right? Dany will turn 15 right around Qarth. Jon will not be 16 for a few months. So Jon's 15th name Day actually includes the Wildlings. They were following the red comet, Mormonts torch when they were North of the wall. He has months after it is gone before he turns 16. 15 is a whole year man. He was not running from the Wildlings for months. At the time of the Red comet Jon is about 6 months or more from his 16th name day. Lets say 7-9 months from Dany's 14th name day to comet. I say 7 because she has a bump, but 9 is fine too. Add about 3 months for Jon's next name day. Comet happens right around Rhaego being stillborn. Jon followed that Comet, just like Dany. Post comet Jon still has several months before he turns 16. He killed halfhand when he was 15, his dad died when he was 15, etc...

Rhaego, Dany, Comet, = Jon north of the wall with plenty of time before his 16th name day, around 6 months of time. So lots of bad stuff happened when he was 15. Lots. Dad  killed, Halfhand, Wildlings, the fist, 6 months from comet to his name day roughly. That is dead Mormont as well. Could even be Jon betraying the Wildlings at that point. Great year.

 

[purple-eyes]

29 minutes ago, Neolaina said:

I don't usually consult an app when trying to deal with things like this because it's less source material and more reference material. Its' nature as canon is irrelevant. You end up getting examples just as we're having to deal with now, a difference in words.

"Born in the year before the rebellion" would tend to mean any time in the 12 months preceding the rebellion, as described. Since the Rebellion didn't start at the turn of the year, it could be any range of 12 months.

"Born in the year prior to the rebellion" again, would effectively mean the same thing. The year preceding the rebellion.

The following "Born in the year prior to the year of the rebellion" would mean something different. Let's say, RR takes place in 282, and it takes place starting in June. If someone stated "Born in the year prior to the year of the Rebellion", wherein the year of the rebellion is 282, we would understand the following to mean "the year prior to 282", or 281.

The other turns of phrase would simply mean, in my mind anyways, the 12 months preceding the rebellion, since he's using the rebellion as a starting point/reference point, and not the year of the rebellion as a reference point.

And, yes, English is my native language.

A native speaker! Thanks. 

Ok, so it can mean he was born from sept of 281 to sept of 282, such as jan of 282, if rebellion started in sept of 282. 

But if I were the author and this is the actual case, I will simply say" he was born shortly before robert's rebellion", not " he was born in the year before robert's rebellion". 

I have no idea why they wanted to write like this. 

[purple-eyes]

Ok. Here are the two quotes from App: 

1. Aegon

Born in the year before Robert's rebellion, rhaegar comes to believe that aegon is the prince that was promised. 

2. Elia 

she gave him two children. A daughter rhaenys who took after her in looks, and a son aegon, who took after his father. Aegon was born in the year prior to Robert's rebellion. 

 

It may mean aegon was born in the same year of Robert rebellion but only a few months earlier than the start of the war, as other people pointed above, but I do feel these two sentences are specifically given to tell us Aegon was born in the year before (the year) of Robert's rebellion. 

 

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

2 hours ago, Ser Creighton said:

I know around the time he turns 15 because of her name day. When she turns 14, Jon is still 14 for a few months right? Dany will turn 15 right around Qarth. Jon will not be 16 for a few months. So Jon's 15th name Day actually includes the Wildlings. They were following the red comet, Mormonts torch when they were North of the wall. He has months after it is gone before he turns 16. 15 is a whole year man. He was not running from the Wildlings for months. At the time of the Red comet Jon is about 6 months or more from his 16th name day. Lets say 7-9 months from Dany's 14th name day to comet. I say 7 because she has a bump, but 9 is fine too. Add about 3 months for Jon's next name day. Comet happens right around Rhaego being stillborn. Jon followed that Comet, just like Dany. Post comet Jon still has several months before he turns 16. He killed halfhand when he was 15, his dad died when he was 15, etc...

Rhaego, Dany, Comet, = Jon north of the wall with plenty of time before his 16th name day, around 6 months of time. So lots of bad stuff happened when he was 15. Lots. Dad  killed, Halfhand, Wildlings, the fist, 6 months from comet to his name day roughly. That is dead Mormont as well. Could even be Jon betraying the Wildlings at that point. Great year.

 

Yes, when Dany turns 14, Jon is still 14 for a few months. And when she arrives in Qarth, Dany has already turned 15 (she conveniently mentions her age in that chapter). Jon will have turned 16 presumably around the start of Storm, depending somewhat on how well his storyline at that moment synced with the others.

Whether the Halfhand died when Jon was still 15, or whether he was already 16 at the time, is a bit vague. But Ned definitly died when Jon was still 15, yes.

Jon definitly  went through a lot when he was 15. But that's the age he mentions, and that's what he thinks to himself shortly before thinking to himself, "little sister", so I can't help but see those two things as related. As Jon hasn't seen Arya since he was 14, he's not simply thinking about the last time period in his life they were together. So, it must be something else. The fact that he now holds command over the NW, is a possibility. And that commands weighs heavily on his shoulders.

 

That's all I can think of at the moment, for an explanation of the sentence. If you have another one, I'd love to hear it

[corbon]

On 22/01/2016 at 5:11 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

At this point all I can do is revert to the old cliche of we will have to agree to disagree (and wait until GRRM reveals the truth). I genuinely believe such a marriage happened and that the clues are abundant and fairly clear.

But there is no agreeing to disagree with purple-eyes. She knows stuff. Simple thinks like evidence, or its lack, aren't relevant. /end sarcasm

On 22/01/2016 at 6:05 AM, purple-eyes said:

I do not think or wish they got married. But I will not deny the fact. 

But you just did? More than once.

On 22/01/2016 at 10:47 PM, purple-eyes said:

No matter how many dragons Jon Snow will manage to ride, he is still a bastard from a union of a hypocrite, selfish woman and a cold-blooded, unfaithful husband (and father).

 

On 22/01/2016 at 0:08 AM, purple-eyes said:

 but we know that Jon snow was born as a bastard from a union of one cheating husband and another woman. There is no doubt about that.

Please try and at least sometimes differentiate between your opinions and facts. The way you write there is almost never any clear differentiation and you have such strong, angry opinions (and often the data supporting them is very limited and quite often contradictory) that it makes it very hard to discuss anything with you.

On 23/01/2016 at 10:22 PM, purple-eyes said:

Nowhere said rhaegar is a good and caring father, we should stop assuming this. 

Not directly. We have two data pieces that suggest he was a good and caring father.
1. He was dutiful above all. There is no greater duty than to be a good and caring father.
2. We have little Rhaenys, no doubt running away from the scary men/happenings to a safe place, being dragged out from under her father's bed. That to me, the behaviour of his daughter in seeking his presence as a safe place, is a very strong clue that Rhaegar was a good father.
That he wasn't there because he'd already died fighting for them doesn't change that.

Against that, we have an assertion from you that he abandoned them, which runs contrary to the facts (he left them in his own very safe holdfast of Dragonstone and they remained in KL at the end by order of the one man whom Rhaegar had no power to gainsay, King Aerys), and... no other evidence of him treating his children badly.
You would do a lot better to stopping assuming, nay, insisting, that he was a bad father.

[purple-eyes]

6 hours ago, corbon said:

But there is no agreeing to disagree with purple-eyes. She knows stuff. Simple thinks like evidence, or its lack, aren't relevant. /end sarcasm

But you just did? More than once.

 

Please try and at least sometimes differentiate between your opinions and facts. The way you write there is almost never any clear differentiation and you have such strong, angry opinions (and often the data supporting them is very limited and quite often contradictory) that it makes it very hard to discuss anything with you.

Not directly. We have two data pieces that suggest he was a good and caring father.
1. He was dutiful above all. There is no greater duty than to be a good and caring father.
2. We have little Rhaenys, no doubt running away from the scary men/happenings to a safe place, being dragged out from under her father's bed. That to me, the behaviour of his daughter in seeking his presence as a safe place, is a very strong clue that Rhaegar was a good father.
That he wasn't there because he'd already died fighting for them doesn't change that.

Against that, we have an assertion from you that he abandoned them, which runs contrary to the facts (he left them in his own very safe holdfast of Dragonstone and they remained in KL at the end by order of the one man whom Rhaegar had no power to gainsay, King Aerys), and... no other evidence of him treating his children badly.
You would do a lot better to stopping assuming, nay, insisting, that he was a bad father.

Because many times we were not mainly talking about this polygamy marriage. 

When that is not the main topic, then I would not bother to say: 

Jon snow is a bastard ( oh, plus, I agree there is some chance that he is not since they can get married . Etc.)

i only express the most likely opinion of mine when I am not mainly debating this topic.

Like we say:  how many I have to pay for month parking if 5 bucks for day? Oh, 150. I will not say too much like for 31 days, 155, for 29 days 145, for 28 days, 140. 

Of course I agree if grrm wants, he can surely tell us there was a secret wedding. But IMHO, it is very unlikely. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

7 hours ago, corbon said:

But there is no agreeing to disagree with purple-eyes. She knows stuff. Simple thinks like evidence, or its lack, aren't relevant. /end sarcasm

 

Believe me -- I know this information as well as you. But I just keep trying. I can be a bit stubborn that way.

[Daendrew]

AI haven't followed these threads in all my years here in the forum. Can someone please explain to me what there is to say about R+L=J that we need 157 threads with 30 pages each?

Is Lyanna secretly Benjen?

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 hour ago, Daendrew said:

AI haven't followed these threads in all my years here in the forum. Can someone please explain to me what there is to say about R+L=J that we need 157 threads with 30 pages each?

Is Lyanna secretly Benjen?

Different people come in and out of the discussion from time to time. So the discussion is not necessarily unique conversations for 157 versions -- but rather a similar discussion by somewhat different people over time. By the way -- it is 20 pages each -- not 30 -- but that is just a quibble. 

This "mystery" was the first one from this series that got major attention -- and has the strongest evidence -- and arguably is the central mystery of the entire series -- so it has good reason to have lots of interest. And over time -- especially when pinned to the top of the board -- different people will visit and have questions or comments -- and regulars tend to answer those questions or address those comments.

[Daendrew]

6 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Different people come in and out of the discussion from time to time. So the discussion is not necessarily unique conversations for 157 versions -- but rather a similar discussion by somewhat different people over time. By the way -- it is 20 pages each -- not 30 -- but that is just a quibble. 

This "mystery" was the first one from this series that got major attention -- and has the strongest evidence -- and arguably is the central mystery of the entire series -- so it has good reason to have lots of interest. And over time -- especially when pinned to the top of the board -- different people will visit and have questions or comments -- and regulars tend to answer those questions or address those comments.

I know. I was joking and being facetious.

It blew my mind when I first heard it and that was when I realized what a great big puzzle it all is. 

Back of the envelope math of 157 threads with 20 pages each runs up to over 3,000 pages. That's a lot of R+L. All the five books add up to over 4,000. We almost beat him.

 

[Lord Varys]

On 27.1.2016 at 8:19 AM, corbon said:

Not directly. We have two data pieces that suggest he was a good and caring father.
1. He was dutiful above all. There is no greater duty than to be a good and caring father.
2. We have little Rhaenys, no doubt running away from the scary men/happenings to a safe place, being dragged out from under her father's bed. That to me, the behaviour of his daughter in seeking his presence as a safe place, is a very strong clue that Rhaegar was a good father.
That he wasn't there because he'd already died fighting for them doesn't change that.

Just a (not so) short comment on that.

The only somewhat functional family in a modern sense in the series are the Starks, but even there the main attachment figures are the servants on the house (Old Nan, Maester Luwin, and the others). Eddard and Catelyn are the lord father and the lady mother to their children.

It is clear that Catelyn has a strong mother instinct, but she has her favorite, Bran, and almost exclusively reserves her love and affection for him, ignoring the other children in the process (pretty much evident during her mental breakdown in the aftermath of the accident). Her personal relationship with her daughters and Rickon is pretty much absent from the first and only retroactively sort of written into the later books.

Ned has a relationship with his sons, and eventually Arya, but its nature is mainly defined by the function his children fulfill for House Stark. Robb is groomed to be the new lord, Bran prepared to eventually become Robb's vassal, the girls are prepared to marry somebody to secure alliances for the family, etc. 

Now, Rhaegar is the Crown Prince. He has been surrounded by a much bigger army of servants and caretakers than the Starks. He is male, and has thus little to nothing to do with the upbringing of infants. We know he wanted sons, but spend only a very short time with his first son, Prince Aegon, pursuing other interests shortly after his birth.

Technically he could have spend more time with Princess Rhaenys, but we have no reason to assume that he did. Instead we know that Rhaegar was occupied with political matters during the time of her birth. He was scheming against his father, had severe issues with many of his father's closest advisors, and was arranging the whole Harrenhal tourney thing. We know he presented his firstborn child to the court and his royal parents, but that seems to have been of an official court ceremony. The king had to see and recognize his firstborn grandchild, after all.

Duty in a feudal/noble/monarchic setting has pretty much nothing to do with a good parent or husband. All marriage is in such a world is an institution to produce legitimate offspring and strengthen the political power/overall wealth of the family. Whether you like or love your spouse or children doesn't figure into that at all, and we happen to know that Rhaegar did not romantically love his wife, Princess Elia. That doesn't mean that he also didn't love his own children, of course, but it also doesn't confirm that.

Even if we assume Rhaegar was also dutiful in the family department, this doesn't mean he was a warm or caring father. Just a dutiful one. Say, the type of father you have awkward conversations with once a week about what your hobbies or how things go at school, but who clearly is more occupied with his own interests and thoughts while he is talking to you.

And the Rhaenys episode with the bed technically could be a clue for a distant father as much as for a caring father (Rhaegar certainly would have been an absent father during the Rebellion and even before that, so one really wonders how the hell the little girl could have bonded with him). Children who desperately crave the love of an absent father often idolize him and/or form attachments to the places they spend time with there father when he is there, or to the things they do with their father, so Rhaenys hiding under her father's bed could simply be a hint that she wanted that her father was with her to protect her, but not necessarily that Rhaegar was a loving father.

Not to mention that Rhaegar's bed could have been the only place Rhaenys could have reasonably hidden beneath. I mean, we don't know whether she was with Elia and Aegon when Tywin's men came, but it is clear that Rhaegar and Elia had different apartments in KL, not a bedroom they shared (as befit a royal couple, of course), and we don't know whether those places were actually interconnected or not. Say, Rhaegar's/the Prince of Dragonstones rooms were across the hallway of the rooms of the Princess Consort of Dragonstone, and Aerys kept Rhaenys in Rhaegar's apartments rather than with Elia and Aegon in Elia's rooms, then Elia wouldn't have had any way to reach Rhaenys when Gregor's men came coming knocking at her door.

I remember suggesting myself that Elia told Rhaenys to run and hide until the worst was over (she may have believed that neither she nor Rhaenys were in any danger of being killed since they were both female, and would have made nice hostages against Prince Doran). Children's favorite hiding places often are beneath beds, so the fact that she happened to reach Rhaegar's bedchamber and hid beneath the bed could just be a hint that she took her favorite hiding place. She was still two years old when she died (unless we assume that the Rebellion ended in the last months of 283 AC, which I don't think it did), suggesting that she didn't think all that much about her hiding place...

If we want to speculate about Rhaegar's own relationship to his parents (which, in turn, could have shaped his own view on his children) there is a good chance that both Aerys and Rhaella very much doted on him. After all, he was their only child for a very long time, and the losses of Rhaegar's little siblings would have only strengthened the bond they had with their only child. Especially Rhaella's - young Aerys had his mistresses to keep him company and distract him, of course, but there is at least one hint that the pre-Duskendale Aerys was very proud of his son. He heartily laughed when Rhaegar proved his mettle as a tourney knight during the Lannisport tourney.

And then we have also to consider Aerys and Rhaella's own dutiful nature. Yes, Aerys entertained a lot of mistresses, but he had taken his sister to wife just as his father had commanded, and he remained married to Rhaella until the day he died instead of eventually setting her aside to replace her with a wife who actually could bear living children. We know that the reason for that marriage was the promised prince prophecy in addition to the Ghost's prophecy, and one assumes that it was Aerys/Rhaella who fed Rhaegar the idea that he must be the promised prince. The basis for Rhaegar's belief to that account was clearly the promised prince prophecy in combination with the Ghost's prophecy, and while Aerys and Rhaella had no other children Rhaegar was the best candidate to be the promised prince - especially if the prophecy was interpreted in the sense that one of Rhaella's children by Aerys would be the promised prince. And the weaker interpretation would still have made Rhaegar very crucial because he, as the only child of Aerys and Rhaella, would be the one to continue the line who would eventually bring forth the promised prince.

Rhaegar's apparent reluctance to move against his father later on (he didn't go through with Harrenhal, and postponed the Aerys issue until after he had dealt with the rebels - one really wonders how the Trident would have gone if Robert had stood against King Rhaegar I Targaryen there, or against the Prince Regent Rhaegar, with the Mad King confined to his apartments in Maegor's Holdfast...) could also be a hint that the son did not really grow to hate his father.

But there is a core trait in Rhaegar that seems to be lacking in both Rhaella and Aerys - his melancholic nature. That would have made it very difficult for him, I think, to really love or open up to anyone until he met Lyanna (perhaps he had some sort of special relationship to Arthur Dayne, but all his other relationships seem to be rather distant friendships, like the ones the Conqueror had to anyone else besides Rhaenys and Orys Baratheon). In light of that I really don't think the pre-Lyanna Rhaegar would have been a very good father. And perhaps not even the post-Lyanna Rhaegar. Falling in love/feeling close to somebody doesn't necessarily mean you become a great father.

But if you break it down it is pretty much irrelevant whether Rhaegar had the potential to be a good or a bad father. He never got the chance to be a father, really. He spend little to no time with his children, and he never got the chance to make up for that in later life.

By the way: I hope Aegon is going to talk about his early memories later in the series. If he is the real deal, he might have some faint memories of Elia and Varys - especially of that latter, if he wasn't sent across the Narrow Sea immediately after the Sack. And even if not, his own early memories could provide clues to the reader who his actual parents were.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I remember suggesting myself that Elia told Rhaenys to run and hide until the worst was over (she may have believed that neither she nor Rhaenys were in any danger of being killed since they were both female, and would have made nice hostages against Prince Doran). Children's favorite hiding places often are beneath beds, so the fact that she happened to reach Rhaegar's bedchamber and hid beneath the bed could just be a hint that she took her favorite hiding place. She was still two years old when she died (unless we assume that the Rebellion ended in the last months of 283 AC, which I don't think it did), suggesting that she didn't think all that much about her hiding place...

Why not?

It kind of depends of which months you still count as "the last months of the year", but I'd say that Rhaenys was born around the start of October 280 AC, and that, if she hadn't reached her third nameday yet when she died, she was extremely close to it.

[Wall Flower]

Lord Varys, I don't think it's at all fair to say that Cat almost exclusively reserves her love and affection for Bran. He is her favourite but he is also younger than Robb and the girls, which may factor into her wanting him to stay at Winterfell. Staying by his bed when he was comatose probably qualifies as special circumstances - even so she went off to KL and then accompanied Robb to try to give him guidance and support in his new role. We don't see her really interact with the girls but she seems the only one frantic to get them back - to the extent that she releases Jaime.

I agree that Rhaegar probably had little time to bond with his children but I doubt that Rhaenys hiding under his bed was accidental - there are no accidents in a novel.

Sigmund Freud could probably get a book out of the relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar but I have trouble seeing Aerys as an easy man to have as a father. I can't really see him being the kind of mentor and model that Ned was to his children and I believe Rhaegar was still quite young when Aerys accused Rhaella of adultery and confined her to the maidenvault. The fact that Aerys' men were able to mock young Rhaegar as 'Baelor the Blessed' probably suggests that they didn't expect to pulled up on it by their master. Perhaps things improved once Rhaegar better fulfilled Aerys idea of an heir, although he seems to have developed some mistrust and perhaps jealousy of his son later on. I imagine that pleasing a father like Aerys would have been no easy task.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Why not?

It kind of depends of which months you still count as "the last months of the year", but I'd say that Rhaenys was born around the start of October 280 AC, and that, if she hadn't reached her third nameday yet when she died, she was extremely close to it.

Because we only know the Rebellion began in 282 AC at an unspecified time and know that the fighting only took 'close to a year', making it entirely possible that the Sack occurred, say, in April or May 283 AC, not in October or November 283 AC.

But it could have been just eleven months, or even ten months or a few years. I'm with you with the date on Rhaenys' birth, but the Sack easily could have been in the earlier months of 283 AC.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because we only know the Rebellion began in 282 AC at an unspecified time and know that the fighting only took 'close to a year', making it entirely possible that the Sack occurred, say, in April or May 283 AC, not in October or November 283 AC.

But it could have been just eleven months, or even ten months or a few years. I'm with you with the date on Rhaenys' birth, but the Sack easily could have been in the earlier months of 283 AC.

The moment of Rhaego's birth places Dany's nameday at the middle of the year, and we know she was born nine months after Rhaella's flight, meaning her birth was some 8,5 to 9 months after the Sack. That would place the Sack, the war's official ending, in the later months of 283 AC.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Lord Varys, I don't think it's at all fair to say that Cat almost exclusively reserves her love and affection for Bran. He is her favourite but he is also younger than Robb and the girls, which may factor into her wanting him to stay at Winterfell. Staying by his bed when he was comatose probably qualifies as special circumstances - even so she went off to KL and then accompanied Robb to try to give him guidance and support in his new role. We don't see her really interact with the girls but she seems the only one frantic to get them back - to the extent that she releases Jaime.

I agree that Rhaegar probably had little time to bond with his children but I doubt that Rhaenys hiding under his bed was accidental - there are no accidents in a novel.

Sigmund Freud could probably get a book out of the relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar but I have trouble seeing Aerys as an easy man to have as a father. I can't really see him being the kind of mentor and model that Ned was to his children and I believe Rhaegar was still quite young when Aerys accused Rhaella of adultery and confined her to the maidenvault. The fact that Aerys' men were able to mock young Rhaegar as 'Baelor the Blessed' probably suggests that they didn't expect to pulled up on it by their master. Perhaps things improved once Rhaegar better fulfilled Aerys idea of an heir, although he seems to have developed some mistrust and perhaps jealousy of his son later on. I imagine that pleasing a father like Aerys would have been no easy task.

The Catelyn thing was just an example for a mother who had favorites. Rickon is much younger than Bran, and certainly much more in need of his mother, yet Catelyn deliberately and consciously ignores him and his needs while she has her breakdown. Not to mention that her own POV strikingly reveals that she has very little issues at all allowing the girls to go with Ned. And later on she distances herself from all her children but Robb because she feels it is her duty to exclusively guide him.

This is no attempt at Catelyn bashing, however, it was just supposed to show that even a 'good noble mother' in this setting isn't really great according to modern standards, especially not one who also happens to be 'dutiful' like Rhaegar supposedly was.

Well, I never said that Rhaenys supposedly hiding under Rhaegar's bed was an accident. I just pointed out that hiding under your father's bed when you happen to be in your father's bedchamber or close to it doesn't necessarily mean that you have had a good relationship with your father but rather that you felt the need to hide somewhere. If we knew for a fact that Rhaenys deliberately chose to ignore a lot of better or equally good hiding places this would make some sense. Or if we could reasonably claim that she was in a state of mind or mental development that would allow her to actually make good choice about where to hide (very unlikely for a girl her age).

And by the way, remember, all of that is hearsay, not established fact in-universe. People tell tales and speculate about the murder of Rhaegar's children. Whether there is any truth to the tale where Rhaenys hid remains to be seen (or will never be answered). We don't even know for a fact that Aegon was ripped from Elia's breast when Gregor crushed his skull. That's just part of the tale. I don't doubt he did rape and kill Elia and crush her skull, he himself admitted that, but the details might still be slightly different since we don't really know whether there were actual witnesses to all that. It is just as possible that somebody just witnessed the later rape and murder of Elia, and deduced the Aegon episode simply by looking at the corpse of the babe.

As to Rhaegar-Aerys:

Well, one wonders how the men mocking Rhaegar this way talked about their beloved monarch himself, who as far as we know never excelled at arms all that much. During Aerys' early years he mostly comes off as a mixture of Aenys I (fondness for balls, masquerades, dancing, etc.) and Aegon the Unworthy (many mistresses).

I never saw that as mocking the Crown Prince but rather as friendly bantering. Little Rhaegar didn't looked like a promising warrior, but that was a flaw in many Targaryen kings (Jaehaerys II, Aerys I, Daeron II, Aegon IV, Baelor I, Aegon III, Viserys I, and Aenys I), and only a few of them faced uprising because of that.

Unfortunately we don't know whether Aerys actively groomed Rhaegar for his later role as an early child, but there are hints that this might have been the case. For one, we know that the young Targaryen kings who already had heirs of their own (Aegon I, Viserys I, Rhaenyra) kept their chosen heirs close to them and had them attend council and court at their side, grooming them to rule one day. One assumes that Aerys did something of this sort during the 260s and early 270s while he was not yet mistrusting Rhaegar. The fact that Rhaegar later had no office of any sort on the council, moved to Dragonstone with Elia, and was not even considered as a candidate for the position of the Hand in the wake of Tywin's resignation makes it clear that Aerys did not trust Rhaegar after Duskendale. And one can also assume that Rhaegar spoke up against some of the more stupid ideas of Aerys' lickspittle advisers - there has to be some reason why those people thought Rhaegar becoming king was a very bad idea in the aftermath of Duskendale.

In addition, there is Rhaegar being present during the Duskendale affair, and Tywin actually suggesting that Rhaegar would be a better king. If Tywin wasn't meaning that just in the broad sense that everybody would be a better king than Aerys, then we have to assume Tywin had an opportunity to assess and observe Rhaegar's abilities in a future ruler, and that would presumably have happened during the council sessions Rhaegar was attending, too. We know from both Ned and Tyrion's times as Hand that the Hand does not necessarily spend much time around the royal children.

But there are other hints that Aerys didn't really hate or despise Rhaegar. There is his happiness over Rhaegar's success at the Lannisport tourney, there is the fact that he never disinherited or executed Rhaegar, and there is the fact that he actually decided to trust Rhaegar enough to allow him to command the Targaryen army that marched against Robert at the Trident. It was Aerys decision to allow that - any scenario in which Rhaegar had the strength to force his father to put him into such a position has to answer/deal with the question why the hell such a powerful Rhaegar didn't just depose Aerys at this point (and what we know about things like the wildfire plot, the treatment of Queen Rhaella, and Aerys burning people as usual during the last days of the war doesn't suggest Rhaegar had much influence at court or over his father at that point).

I'm not sure if I see Aerys being jealous of Rhaegar in any sense. I rather think the whole wedge between father and son came from Aerys' belief that others - especially Tywin - wanted to turn Rhaegar against him and install him as king in his place.

38 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The moment of Rhaego's birth places Dany's nameday at the middle of the year, and we know she was born nine months after Rhaella's flight, meaning her birth was some 8,5 to 9 months after the Sack. That would place the Sack, the war's official ending, in the later months of 283 AC.

Hm. But wouldn't that essentially make 282 AC 'the year in which pretty much nothing happened'. I'm not sure on which basis we determine when exactly the series begins, but it would be rather odd if it turned out that Rhaegar's journey took half a year or more.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Hm. But wouldn't that essentially make 282 AC 'the year in which pretty much nothing happened'. I'm not sure on which basis we determine when exactly the series begins, but it would be rather odd if it turned out that Rhaegar's journey took half a year or more.

Well, not necessarily, no.

The entire war lasted "close to a year". I've asked multiple native speakers about how that could be interpreted, and the majority agrees that "close to a year" can be used both to describe a period slightly less than 12 months, or slighty more than 12 months. You can both be rounding up or down.

We know that the war lasted "close to a year", but so did the Siege of Storm's End. The Siege ended rather quickly after the war did, with Ned riding out to lift the siege only days after King's Landing had fallen. However, the Siege started quite a while into the war.. Imagine all that needed to have happened before the Siege began. The war starts officially when Jon Arryn calls his banners. First, there is fighting in Gulltown, after which Robert Baratheon travels to Storm's End (personally, I assume he went by ship, making his journey rather fast). At SE, Robert calls his own banners, and marches to Summerhall to fight his "three battles in a day", after which he returns to SE, where, implied by Stannis's tale, he stayed for some time, turning his enemies into friends. Several of these men were amongst those who accompanied him to Ashford, where they fought, and lost, when Randyll Tarly defeated him. Only after this battle, could Mace march to Storm's End to start the siege. All of these events, already cover multiple months, which perhaps is a suggestion that the "close to a year" of the Siege indicates a period less than 12 months (11 months? 10 months even, perhaps?), while the "close to a year" of the entire war indicates a period longer than 12 months ( for example 13, perhaps even 14?). We don't know exactly, but, with both ending shortly apart, and with one starting so much later, it seems quite possible, to me..

So if the war ended (Sack of KL) around the end of September/start of October (mentioning specific months here only to make the example a bit easier and more visual), and lasted slightly more than 12 months, it began roughly around August or July, 282 AC.

Of course, that would be Arryn calling his banners. We have quite some stuff happening before. Rickard was summoned to KL, and depending on where he was (he seems to have been on his way to Riverrun already when Brandon rode off), he would have needed several weeks to reach KL -perhaps even as much as a month. (I'd assume that Rickard travelled on to Riverrun.. both closer to wherever Brandon rode off to, in case he didn't know, as well as closer to the last known location of Lyanna - It's pure speculation, though, and would in part depend on where in his journey Rickard already was).

Before Rickard was summoned, Brandon had to ride to KL, from wherever between Winterfell and Riverrun he was at that moment..

Before Brandon could ride off, we first need to have Lyanna disappear, and then, that news has to reach our Heir of Winterfell. Both things take time. In addition, we don't know exactly when Rhaegar left Dragonstone. He left early in the year ("with the coming of the new year, the prince had taken to the road [...]", quoting from memory), yes, that we know, but when exactly, is still left a bit vague, imo. What we do know, however, is that whatever journey he took, his travels would have been slower than normal, due to the snowfall that had been almost constant for two weeks. It leaves Rhaegar unaccounted for for a few months... But definitly not a year, or anything close.. We have no idea where Rhaegar travelled to, what is original destination was, and such. All we know is that his journey "ultimately" took him back to the riverlands. To me, that doesn't sound like a journey that directly took him to he riverlands, but I could be wrong.

If, say, the Sack occured a few weeks before Rhaenys's third nameday, all is moved back a few weeks. But based on the info we have regarding Dany's nameday, which in turn is based on Rhaego's stillbirth,  there isn't much wiggleroom to allow one to place the Sack so much earlier in the year. 

 

We can't know the timeline with 100% certainty. But we can make fairly good estimations about the possibilities with all the info available to us.

[UnmaskedLurker]

11 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Well, not necessarily, no.

The entire war lasted "close to a year". I've asked multiple native speakers about how that could be interpreted, and the majority agrees that "close to a year" can be used both to describe a period slightly less than 12 months, or slighty more than 12 months. You can both be rounding up or down.

 

I am a native English speaker and basically deal in the nuances of the meaning of words for a living. While I cannot be sure how GRRM means those words, if someone told me that some event lasted "close to a year" -- I would NEVER think that it could mean something more than a year. Close to a year -- to me -- would always mean almost as much as a year, but not quite an entire year. It requires an extremely strained and awkward use of the English language to interpret "close to a year" to mean possibly a little over a year. Sure, in parsing the words, the word "close" can as a technical matter mean close in either direction. But, for example, if someone says they are close to 6 feet tall -- they mean they are just under 6 feet tall. They don't mean they might be a little over or under.

In the case where a person means maybe a little under or maybe a little over, the person would say "about a year" or "about 6 feet tall." Those words reasonably could mean more or less. But IMHO, "close to a year" means less than a year but almost an entire year.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I am a native English speaker and basically deal in the nuances of the meaning of words for a living. While I cannot be sure how GRRM means those words, if someone told me that some event lasted "close to a year" -- I would NEVER think that it could mean something more than a year. Close to a year -- to me -- would always mean almost as much as a year, but not quite an entire year. It requires an extremely strained and awkward use of the English language to interpret "close to a year" to mean possibly a little over a year. Sure, in parsing the words, the word "close" can as a technical matter mean close in either direction. But, for example, if someone says they are close to 6 feet tall -- they mean they are just under 6 feet tall. They don't mean they might be a little over or under.

In the case where a person means maybe a little under or maybe a little over, the person would say "about a year" or "about 6 feet tall." Those words reasonably could mean more or less. But IMHO, "close to a year" means less than a year but almost an entire year.

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

With native speakers also arguing that it could mean a little over a year, is it possible that his is a region-related thing?

 

In any case, even if the war lasted less than a full year (like 11,5 months, as a maximum), that still doesn't leave an entire year in which nothing happened. The war would have begun, in that case, around September/October (as it is supposed to end around that time a year later). There are still a few months of activities before, as described above, leaving only about some 5 to 6 months in which we have yet to learn what happened..

[tf13]

This probably has been brought up, but something stuck out to me in Jon's first chapter.   It probably ties in with the whole "bastards hitting princes" portion in the yard of Winterfell:

"His father had talked of him often: the peerless Robert Baratheon, demon of the Trident, the fiercest warrior of the realm, a giant among princes."

While this, of course, could refer to a many things, Jon (through Martin) is quick to identify Joff as the "crowned prince".  While Martin uses "princes" in the text, it leads the reader to assume that there's (possibly) more than one prince there.  Technically, Tommen is a prince, too, but Jon doesn't remark him that way.