Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

[St Daga]

5 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I'm glad to see I got your cogs turning. It's kind of an annoying theory, isn't it? Sure, RLJ is stronger, but if you open your mind to this possibility, you can't quite shut up that voice at the back of your mind saying "Ah but if GRRM is being really tricksy, there's always this option. And GRRM likes being tricksy. Damnit, it fits..."

I really like your arguments in favour of Ned being the guilty brother. Driving the Lannister/Stark parallels to the point of your pairing Jaime & Ned is debatable but disturbingly compelling. As I gave my percentage likelihood of the brothers by the method I believe I described as "pulling numbers out of my arse" I wouldn't dismiss the possibility I underestimated the likelihood of Ned due to a subconscious desire for it not to be so.

I do think you give too much leeway on the matter of dating though. The 8-9 months or thereabout thing is pretty solid. Of course we can't dismiss the possibility of a surprise, but it surely has to be considered a major piece of evidence.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the feed back.

I have to say that your light-hearted, humorous take on the subject is the only thing that probably got me through it, because it is a hard idea to think about. I have to treat it pretty flippantly in my head, or the idea hurts. Not the Starks! That kind of thing doesn't happen to them, right?

I think percentages based on arse pulling are just as good as most any other theory crafting! And I love Ned, so I don't want this to have tormented him, but ... 

Once I was allowed myself to think about it, it really stuck with me. I can't help but remember the Jon and Ygritte discussion on incest, marrying your sister/marrying someone from your own village conversation. Ygritte absolutely dissaproves and says so do all men and gods, or some such thing. Why does GRRM create this topic for them? She asks Jon if he would marry his sister, and Jon doesn't answer. (I don't have the books with me at this time for direct quotes, so I am winging it).

This conversation immediately brought to mind Jaime/Cersei and that tangled mess of sibling love.  But I really always thought this hinted at Jon and Arya, who certainly have a connection to one another that seems more like a couple than siblings, but I really for years have had them as cousins in my head, as I have been a believer of R+L=J, since the first time if finished aGoT. But maybe Jon's non-reaction is because on some level he know's about his parents, all of those dreams of the crypts, the Kings of Winter, dreams of his mother. Isn't that a crazy thought?

I am just not sold on the timeline that is presented based on when these kids might have been born. We know when Robb was born, and we have a date for Daenerys, but is that really when/where she was born. And if we are basing Jon's DOB on Dany's DOB, which is questionable, then that leaves some wiggle room.

In the last couple months I have decided to look into parentage claims a bit more, mostly because I just finished another reread of the series and I was struck again with all of the Ashara  and Rhaegar imagery in Dany's story line. And now here I am contemplating Starkcest! It's a slippery slope ...

[a black swan]

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

This conversation immediately brought to mind Jaime/Cersei and that tangled mess of sibling love.  But I really always thought this hinted at Jon and Arya, who certainly have a connection to one another that seems more like a couple than siblings, but I really for years have had them as cousins in my head, as I have been a believer of R+L=J, since the first time if finished aGoT. But maybe Jon's non-reaction is because on some level he know's about his parents, all of those dreams of the crypts, the Kings of Winter, dreams of his mother. Isn't that a crazy thought?

Here is the quote:

Quote

 

“It wasn’t Longspear, then?” Jon was relieved. He liked Longspear, with his homely face and friendly ways.

She punched him. “That’s vile. Would you bed your sister?”

“Longspear’s not your brother.”

 

What prompted Jon to ask the question? In his mind, he already thought the possibility of Longspear/Ygritte and made it clear with his answer that not being her brother was the point.  

 

George continues to create doubt in Jon's mind about Arya:

Quote

“If you kill a man, and never meant’, he’s just as dead,” Ygritte said stubbornly. Jon had never met anyone so stubborn except maybe for his little sister Arya. Is she still my sister? he wondered. Was she ever? - (Jon, A Storm of Swords)

 

[St Daga]

48 minutes ago, DutchArya said:

Here is the quote:

What prompted Jon to ask the question? In his mind, he already thought the possibility of Longspear/Ygritte and made it clear with his answer that not being her brother was the point.  

 

George continues to create doubt in Jon's mind about Arya:

 

Certainly in both Arya and Jon's POV they think of each other and wonder if they will recognize each other any more. Implying a long physical separation can change them, as well as the emotional journeys they have been on. So, truly, they are not the same people that they used to be. Which opens the door for what, exactly?

Ned and Lyanna were separated from each other in their formative years. Ned in the Vale and Lyanna in the north. Maybe that distance of time and emotional journey changed them? Open door, perhaps?

I am not saying I am all in on this theory/idea, but I see possibility, which is the case with most of the parentage theories. It can't hurt to look over and debate what the text gives us, whether we believe it or not.

[a black swan]

17 minutes ago, St Daga said:

Certainly in both Arya and Jon's POV they think of each other and wonder if they will recognize each other any more. Implying a long physical separation can change them, as well as the emotional journeys they have been on. So, truly, they are not the same people that they used to be. Which opens the door for what, exactly?

Ned and Lyanna were separated from each other in their formative years. Ned in the Vale and Lyanna in the north. Maybe that distance of time and emotional journey changed them? Open door, perhaps?

I am not saying I am all in on this theory/idea, but I see possibility, which is the case with most of the parentage theories. It can't hurt to look over and debate what the text gives us, whether we believe it or not.

People tend to ignore your very valid point. Deciding to fall back on the old and tired idea that they are too close as "siblings" and have grown up thinking that. Even though, as you and several others have pointed out, George has created this sense of separation and doubt in both character's minds. The Jon that comes back from the "dead".... will he be unchanged? High unlikely. What Arya is going through has already changed her so much. So it doesn't hurt to explore where George could go with this? 

[St Daga]

1 hour ago, DutchArya said:

People tend to ignore your very valid point. Deciding to fall back on the old and tired idea that they are too close as "siblings" and have grown up thinking that. Even though, as you and several others have pointed out, George has created this sense of separation and doubt in both character's minds. The Jon that comes back from the "dead".... will he be unchanged? High unlikely. What Arya is going through has already changed her so much. So it doesn't hurt to explore where George could go with this? 

GRRM is truly brilliant and this story is amazing. I am just reading aGoT again and every time I open the books, I see more possibilities to debate over. It's like peeling the worlds largest onion!

You are absolutely correct about exploring the ideas! 

[Frey family reunion]

I like this theory a lot more than I thought I would.  The one thing I'm not crazy about is the attempt to finesse the timeline by having Benjen as some sort of Rhaegar/Eddard go between.  I personally think requiring Lyanna's birth of Jon to be at the tower of joy and at the end of Eddard and Howland's battle with the kingsguards to be a mistake.  We really don't know that outside of the chronology and geography of Eddard's dream.  This would have given Jon's birth at around two years after Lyanna's disappearance.  Hell Lyanna could have had two kids in that timeframe.

There is some interesting imagery in AGOT that almost teases this theory a bit, but maybe I'm reading way too much into it:

Quote

His uncle was sharp-featured and gaunt as a mountain crag, but there was always a hint of laughter in his blue-grey eyes.

Shortly thereafter on Jon's trip to the Wall:

Quote

The flint hills rose higher and wilder with each passing mile, until by the fifth day they had turned into mountains, cold blue-grey giants with jagged promontories and snow on their shoulders.  When the wind blew from the north, long plumes of ice crystals flew from the high peaks like banners.

Flint Hills (grandma Flint?) leads the way to blue-grey giants (Benjen and Lyanna?) with snow on their shoulders (Jon?) and when the wind blew from the north (winds of winter?) banners flew from the high peaks (Jon as Corn King?).

[Kingmonkey]

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I like this theory a lot more than I thought I would.  The one thing I'm not crazy about is the attempt to finesse the timeline by having Benjen as some sort of Rhaegar/Eddard go between.  I personally think requiring Lyanna's birth of Jon to be at the tower of joy and at the end of Eddard and Howland's battle with the kingsguards to be a mistake.  We really don't know that outside of the chronology and geography of Eddard's dream.  This would have given Jon's birth at around two years after Lyanna's disappearance.  Hell Lyanna could have had two kids in that timeframe.

I glossed over the timeline question somewhat in the original essay as something I felt had been well enough established elsewhere. One of the surprises to me of this whole essay series has been the degree to which people are not simply open to the possibility of timeline shenanigans, but sometimes quite sure of them. So let me do a quick recap of the reasoning I use here for this essay.

Firstly, I absolutely agree that there should be no such requirement for Jon's birth to have occurred after the battle with the 3KG. That's not even in the dream. It could have occurred some time afterwards, or some time before -- but how much?

Firstly we have the age issue. Robb, we are told, is older than Jon. That may or may not be correct, but it gives us a basis for proximity. Robb and Jon were brought up together in Winterfell from a very young age (a few months old) and babies grow fast. Even allowing for a belief that bastards grow up faster, for Jon to be more than a few months older than Robb would stretch credibility seriously.

Secondly, both Ned and Cat's thoughts point at a close proximity between Jon's birth and Robb's. Cat believes that Jon was conceived after Robb was. Ned's thoughts are far less clear, but he talks about dishonouring Cat, implying the same birthdate assumptions.

Finally there's the 8-9 months thing. That's from GRRM's mouth. The fact of the matter is that we have a pretty clear indication of when that means. Yes some people like to argue that Dany's birthdate might not be what we think it is, but nobody has actually provided any evidence to suggest that as far as I've ever seen. We've been given a story that's corroborated in the ACoK prologue, and the "Stormborn" story is widely known. Ned mentions Dany's age to Robert, and that checks out too. On the flip side, there are a few arguments that are frankly non-sequiturs. Dany's memory of lemon trees may or may not indicate that she spent some time in Dorne when she was say 4 years old, but what bearing does that have on when she was born?

So basically for Jon's birthdate to be more than a month or so from the ToJ, we need to assume that not only is Jon's birthdate not what is generally believed by everyone, but nor is Dany's birthdate what is generally believed by everyone -- and by pure coincidence both of those dates just happen to be off by the same amount. What's more, we need to believe both these things with no evidence to point to either of them.  Of course it's not impossible, but we've got firm reasons to believe that Jon was born somewhere fairly close to the time of the sack of KL, and none to believe otherwise. On this basis I'm going with anything that requires us to go outside that timeline to be significantly less likely than anything that works within that timeline.

 

[Frey family reunion]

On 1/11/2017 at 0:06 AM, Kingmonkey said:

I glossed over the timeline question somewhat in the original essay as something I felt had been well enough established elsewhere. One of the surprises to me of this whole essay series has been the degree to which people are not simply open to the possibility of timeline shenanigans, but sometimes quite sure of them. So let me do a quick recap of the reasoning I use here for this essay.

Firstly, I absolutely agree that there should be no such requirement for Jon's birth to have occurred after the battle with the 3KG. That's not even in the dream. It could have occurred some time afterwards, or some time before -- but how much?

Firstly we have the age issue. Robb, we are told, is older than Jon. That may or may not be correct, but it gives us a basis for proximity. Robb and Jon were brought up together in Winterfell from a very young age (a few months old) and babies grow fast. Even allowing for a belief that bastards grow up faster, for Jon to be more than a few months older than Robb would stretch credibility seriously.

Secondly, both Ned and Cat's thoughts point at a close proximity between Jon's birth and Robb's. Cat believes that Jon was conceived after Robb was. Ned's thoughts are far less clear, but he talks about dishonouring Cat, implying the same birthdate assumptions.

Finally there's the 8-9 months thing. That's from GRRM's mouth. The fact of the matter is that we have a pretty clear indication of when that means. Yes some people like to argue that Dany's birthdate might not be what we think it is, but nobody has actually provided any evidence to suggest that as far as I've ever seen. We've been given a story that's corroborated in the ACoK prologue, and the "Stormborn" story is widely known. Ned mentions Dany's age to Robert, and that checks out too. On the flip side, there are a few arguments that are frankly non-sequiturs. Dany's memory of lemon trees may or may not indicate that she spent some time in Dorne when she was say 4 years old, but what bearing does that have on when she was born?

So basically for Jon's birthdate to be more than a month or so from the ToJ, we need to assume that not only is Jon's birthdate not what is generally believed by everyone, but nor is Dany's birthdate what is generally believed by everyone -- and by pure coincidence both of those dates just happen to be off by the same amount. What's more, we need to believe both these things with no evidence to point to either of them.  Of course it's not impossible, but we've got firm reasons to believe that Jon was born somewhere fairly close to the time of the sack of KL, and none to believe otherwise. On this basis I'm going with anything that requires us to go outside that timeline to be significantly less likely than anything that works within that timeline.

 

Leaving aside my thoughts on Dany's true origin for a moment, the timeline issue is an interesting one because it seems to cause problems for most theories even R + L = J.

Let's assume the SSM is correct, and let us assume that Dany's conception occurred when we think it occurred.  Martin seems to be trying to lineup Jon's birth with Dany's conception (which is interesting by itself).  So that would put Jon's birth shortly after Rhaegar's death at the trident.  Under the traditional line of thinking placing Jon at the tower of joy this raises two problems:

1.  The Sack of King's Landing, Ned finishing up the wars in the south, Ned accepting the surrender of the Tyrell forces at Storm's End, and Ned finding the tower of joy, all had to happen really, really quickly.  

2.  Since we are told the Siege of Storm's End lasted nearly a year, to get this time frame to add up, nearly a year had to elapse between the Battle of Ashford and the Battle of the Trident.  I know that Robert hid out at the Stoney Sept for a time and we had the Battle of the Bells, but damn, that's a real long time.  That's so long that half the town should now have black hair and blue eyes.

On the other hand, for Jon's conception to have occurred before Lyanna disappeared, no more than nine months could have occurred between the Battle of the Trident and Lyanna's disappearance.  That is a lot to have occurred in a 9 month period, I agree.  It also means that a long period of time elapsed between the Sack and the tower of joy.  I'm actually ok with that second part, because I don't think Jon was born at the toj.  But I do admit that first issue gives me pause, I'm not sure if we can squeeze the events of the war in 9 months.  I would note with amusement, however, that the Worldbook stated that Rhaegar's death occurred in 282 the same year that Lyanna disappeared.  I know Ran has subsequently said that was a mistake, but I wonder if someone slipped up not realizing that it put a lie to everyone's favorite pet theory.  

Now I did look at a fan made timeline to see how much of the current story we could fit in 9 months, Starting with Tyrion's abduction by Cat at the inn, it would take us all the way to Robb's victory at Oxcross in the Westerlands.  So Martin has shown that a lot can happen in 9 months.

[SFDanny]

6 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Leaving aside my thoughts on Dany's true origin for a moment, the timeline issue is an interesting one because it seems to cause problems for most theories even R + L = J.

Let's assume the SSM is correct, and let us assume that Dany's conception occurred when we think it occurred.  Martin seems to be trying to lineup Jon's birth with Dany's conception (which is interesting by itself).  So that would put Jon's birth shortly after Rhaegar's death at the trident.  Under the traditional line of thinking placing Jon at the tower of joy this raises two problems:

1.  The Sack of King's Landing, Ned finishing up the wars in the south, Ned accepting the surrender of the Tyrell forces at Storm's End, and Ned finding the tower of joy, all had to happen really, really quickly.

May I ask why? R+L=J isn't dependent on Jon being born when Ned arrives at the tower of joy. Jon could be something like a month or even two months old when Ned finds him there. It would change what was the likely cause of death for Lyanna if the time of Jon's birth is this early, but it doesn't change the core of the theory. Now, Ned's travel time from King's Landing to Storm's End and onto the Tower of Joy is an interesting topic, but it doesn't change R+L=J if he arrives as Jon is being born or after his birth. I would, of course caution, that Martin has shown over and over again that if he wants to have his characters travel distances in times that defy real world realities that they can do so, but even so a six week or so travel time for Ned to the tower of joy is not out of the question. Most people who have put forward their ideas of the timing of Jon's birth do so using Martin's comments about the relative timing of Jon's and Daenerys's namedays and combine it with a complication of childbirth to get at a likely cause of death, but even here we can have women dying up to a month or so after childbirth from causes from the birth. Perhaps if you describe  what you mean by "really, really quickly" I could better understand your point.

 

6 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

2.  Since we are told the Siege of Storm's End lasted nearly a year, to get this time frame to add up, nearly a year had to elapse between the Battle of Ashford and the Battle of the Trident.  I know that Robert hid out at the Stoney Sept for a time and we had the Battle of the Bells, but damn, that's a real long time.  That's so long that half the town should now have black hair and blue eyes.

There is a period of up to six months or so between the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of the Trident for which we know very little about what happened, but Martin has made it clear he hasn't describe all of the battles and time of the rebellion. The time between Ashford and Stony Sept is likely much, much shorter than what happens between Stony Sept and the Trident. Robert's not in Stony Sept for that long.

 

6 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

On the other hand, for Jon's conception to have occurred before Lyanna disappeared, no more than nine months could have occurred between the Battle of the Trident and Lyanna's disappearance.  That is a lot to have occurred in a 9 month period, I agree.  It also means that a long period of time elapsed between the Sack and the tower of joy.  I'm actually ok with that second part, because I don't think Jon was born at the toj.  But I do admit that first issue gives me pause, I'm not sure if we can squeeze the events of the war in 9 months.  I would note with amusement, however, that the Worldbook stated that Rhaegar's death occurred in 282 the same year that Lyanna disappeared.  I know Ran has subsequently said that was a mistake, but I wonder if someone slipped up not realizing that it put a lie to everyone's favorite pet theory. 

Someone made a hell of an error in the 282 date for the Battle of the Trident, but I'd like to see a coherent theory that makes a 282 death of Rhaegar work in any timeline. I tried after TWoI&F came out and I don't think it is possible. I remember writing that it was like a scholar of English history had placed the Battle of Hastings in 1065. Remembering the sack and Aerys's death is pegged to 283 and Dany's birth to 284, it is impossible to work out. Ran's explanation of a typo makes much more sense. Although, I haven't seen that typo corrected in any new printing of the book? @Ran or @Rhaenys_Targaryen am I wrong in this?

[The Twinslayer]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:06 AM, Kingmonkey said:

<snip>

Finally there's the 8-9 months thing. That's from GRRM's mouth.

<snip>

 

 

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

<snip>

I have not been following this thread but I dipped in and saw this timeline discussion.  I am just chiming in to say that I don't think the SSM referring to Jon's birth as 8-9 months before Dany's is at all reliable.

There is a link to the SSM at the bottom of this post.  If you read it carefully, you will see why I say this.  First, look at the date. It is after the publication of ACOK but prior to the publication of ASOS.  Second, consider that GRRM writes and re-writes, changing things as he goes.  So this is a snapshot of what he was thinking in July 1999.

Third, look at the question.  The questioner wants to get GRRM to say that there is no way Ashara Dayne can be Jon's mother based on timeline problems.  The purpose of GRRM's answer is to make it clear that the timeline does permit Ashara to be the mother. 

Fourth, look at the way GRRM gives that assurance.  He says that Ashara was not nailed to the floor at Starfall, strongly hinting that Ned and Ashara may have had a meeting 9 months before Jon's birth.  And, he goes further:  "As a matter of fact (a tiny tidbit from SOS), she [Ashara] was one of Princess Elia's lady companions in King's Landing, in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar."

So what is GRRM doing here?  He is working on ASOS and has a draft chapter that says that Ashara lived in King's Landing with Elia in the first few years of Elia's marriage.  And the draft says (or he is planning for it to say) that Ashara was moving around during Robert's Rebellion and that she and Ned met up.  He is trying to figure out how to slot this into the timeline in a way that works.  At this point, he has some wiggle room because he has not established a firm birthdate for Jon yet.  So he is playing with placing Jon's birth around the time of the Sack and setting up the Ned/Ashara meeting to happen nine months before that.

But guess what?  After he gave this SSM, he changed his mind!  ASOS was published about a year later and there is no mention of Ashara and Elia living in King's Landing in the early years of Elia's marriage.  In fact, by the time the world book was published, he had Elia living on Dragonstone in the early years of her marriage while ADWD (Barristan) has Ashara Dayne living "at court," making it unlikely that Ashara was a lady companion to Elia.  There is also no mention in ASOS of a meeting between Ned and Ashara during Robert's Rebellion (although there is nothing to say that did not happen), nor is there even a mention of Ashara roaming around Westeros. 

All of this tells us that GRRM scrapped the draft chapter he had in April 1999, when he gave this SSM, and replaced it with something else.  Most likely, that "something else" is the discussion between Arya and Ned Dayne about Ned, Ashara, Jon and Wylla.  It also tells us that, not only did GRRM leave that chapter out of ASOS, he changed his mind about at least two of the important facts:  where Elia lived and whether Ashara Dayne was one of her companions.  So I think it is only logical to conclude that whatever details he was working on that led him -- at that brief moment -- to think he might peg Jon's birth at 8-9 months prior to Dany's are no longer operative. 

So I would not subscribe to any theory that places any reliance on the notion that Jon was born 8-9 months prior to Dany.  And I would not criticize any theory on timeline grounds just because it has Jon being born many months before or even many months after the Sack. 

Here is the SSM.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1040

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Someone made a hell of an error in the 282 date for the Battle of the Trident, but I'd like to see a coherent theory that makes a 282 death of Rhaegar work in any timeline. I tried after TWoI&F came out and I don't think it is possible. I remember writing that it was like a scholar of English history had placed the Battle of Hastings in 1065. Remembering the sack and Aerys's death is pegged to 283 and Dany's birth to 284, it is impossible to work out. Ran's explanation of a typo makes much more sense. Although, I haven't seen that typo corrected in any new printing of the book? @Ran or @Rhaenys_Targaryen am I wrong in this?

It's a confirmed error, and should have been 283 AC instead.

[SFDanny]

30 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It's a confirmed error, and should have been 283 AC instead.

Thanks, RT, for the link and the response, but that wasn't my question. I was wondering if the error had been corrected in any further publication of TWoI&F. I have an annoying habit of going to bookstores and looking at the editions on the shelves. I've never seen a correction of this error, have you? Have you seen a new edition with any of the corrections all of us noted in the thread you linked to? As you might be able to tell, I'm not impressed with the publisher and its dedication to correcting errors. Perhaps it is only my experience. Thanks again RT.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1 minute ago, SFDanny said:

Thanks, RT, for the link and the response, but that wasn't my question. I was wondering if the error had been corrected in any further publication of TWoI&F. I have an annoying habit of going to bookstores and looking at the editions on the shelves. I've never seen a correction of this error, have you? Have you seen a new edition with any of the corrections all of us noted in the thread you linked to? As you might be able to tell, I'm not impressed with the publisher and its dedication to correcting errors. Perhaps it is only my experience. Thanks again RT.

I've only seen a first print, which contained the error. So I don't know whether it has been corrected in later prints or a digital version or not.

[SFDanny]

3 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I've only seen a first print, which contained the error. So I don't know whether it has been corrected in later prints or a digital version or not.

That's my experience as well. I've both the first print and the digital version, but I have never had a correction for the digital, nor have I seen a new edition that has the correction.

[Kingmonkey]

On 12/01/2017 at 1:53 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Let's assume the SSM is correct, and let us assume that Dany's conception occurred when we think it occurred.  Martin seems to be trying to lineup Jon's birth with Dany's conception (which is interesting by itself).  

If you refer to the original SSM, you'll see that's not really the case.  The lining up of Jon and Dany's conceptions was the question he was asked, whether "Jon was born more than 1 year before Dany..." GRRM was simply replying to the question he was asked.

On 12/01/2017 at 1:53 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Under the traditional line of thinking placing Jon at the tower of joy this raises two problems:

1.  The Sack of King's Landing, Ned finishing up the wars in the south, Ned accepting the surrender of the Tyrell forces at Storm's End, and Ned finding the tower of joy, all had to happen really, really quickly.  

2.  Since we are told the Siege of Storm's End lasted nearly a year, to get this time frame to add up, nearly a year had to elapse between the Battle of Ashford and the Battle of the Trident.  I know that Robert hid out at the Stoney Sept for a time and we had the Battle of the Bells, but damn, that's a real long time.  That's so long that half the town should now have black hair and blue eyes.

The problem here is that we don't have a complete account of the rebellion, but that's not a problem for Jon's conception per se. We know that the Siege of Storm's End started in 282 and ended in 283. However we also know Rob was conceived in 283 some time after the Battle of the Bells, was born 9 months later in that same year, and that Ned and Cat were then apart for about a year. This all adds up to there indeed being somewhere not far off a year between Ashford and the Trident. We simply don't have any information about what happened between Ned's 2 week honeymoon and the Trident, but so what? That doesn't mean it has to have been a short time. 

As for your point 1, yes. Probably no more than 6 weeks at most. It's a bit awkward, but GRRM doesn't worry too much about travel times, and they're often a bit awkward. Let's say that 6 weeks is made up of:

1. Two weeks for Ned + army to get to KL and deal with the sack.

2. Two weeks for Ned + army to get to Storm's End and accept the surrender.

3. Two weeks for Ned+ fast moving small group to race to the ToJ.

The first we know to be the case. The second and third are speculative but are no more unlikely than the first.

On 12/01/2017 at 9:46 PM, The Twinslayer said:

I have not been following this thread but I dipped in and saw this timeline discussion.  I am just chiming in to say that I don't think the SSM referring to Jon's birth as 8-9 months before Dany's is at all reliable.

(snip)

All of this tells us that GRRM scrapped the draft chapter he had in April 1999, when he gave this SSM, and replaced it with something else.  Most likely, that "something else" is the discussion between Arya and Ned Dayne about Ned, Ashara, Jon and Wylla.  It also tells us that, not only did GRRM leave that chapter out of ASOS, he changed his mind about at least two of the important facts:  where Elia lived and whether Ashara Dayne was one of her companions.  So I think it is only logical to conclude that whatever details he was working on that led him -- at that brief moment -- to think he might peg Jon's birth at 8-9 months prior to Dany's are no longer operative. 

Nothing's nailed down until it's in the book, so of course you're free to simply reject the SSM as false and nobody can prove you're wrong. However I feel it's worth pointing out that your conclusion does not follow from the reasoning. Yes, he changed his mind about elements of the story, but when you suggest that impacts the dating, you're making the assumption that "whatever details he was working on that led him -- at that brief moment -- to think he might peg Jon's birth at 8-9 months prior to Dany's..."

There's nothing to imply that he was pegging the difference between them on this information. He was denying that the Ashara option meant that the gap HAD to be more than a year, but that is not the same as saying that it is the Ashara option that makes the gap 8-9 months. You are assuming causation where it is not implied. 

GRRM's answer does not close these two elements together. There is no path from one thing -- Ashara's movements -- to the other, in his answer. He talks about how he manages timing, then gives us the 8-9 months thing. After that he segues into a discussion of Ashara's movents with a new paragraph starting "As to your speculations about Catelyn and Ashara Dayne...", which marks this as being a separate concern in his mind, rather than the basis for his prior statement. The more likely assumption is that GRRM had already thought about the sequence of events, and given how much of a central part of the story it is, knew roughly when Jon was born back when he was writing GoT. 

As I said in opening, nothing's nailed down and we can't say the SSM is absolute proof -- but equally there's no good reason to doubt it. 

[The Twinslayer]

54 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

Nothing's nailed down until it's in the book, so of course you're free to simply reject the SSM as false and nobody can prove you're wrong. However I feel it's worth pointing out that your conclusion does not follow from the reasoning. Yes, he changed his mind about elements of the story, but when you suggest that impacts the dating, you're making the assumption that "whatever details he was working on that led him -- at that brief moment -- to think he might peg Jon's birth at 8-9 months prior to Dany's..."

There's nothing to imply that he was pegging the difference between them on this information. He was denying that the Ashara option meant that the gap HAD to be more than a year, but that is not the same as saying that it is the Ashara option that makes the gap 8-9 months. You are assuming causation where it is not implied. 

GRRM's answer does not close these two elements together. There is no path from one thing -- Ashara's movements -- to the other, in his answer. He talks about how he manages timing, then gives us the 8-9 months thing. After that he segues into a discussion of Ashara's movents with a new paragraph starting "As to your speculations about Catelyn and Ashara Dayne...", which marks this as being a separate concern in his mind, rather than the basis for his prior statement. The more likely assumption is that GRRM had already thought about the sequence of events, and given how much of a central part of the story it is, knew roughly when Jon was born back when he was writing GoT. 

As I said in opening, nothing's nailed down and we can't say the SSM is absolute proof -- but equally there's no good reason to doubt it. 

I am open to the possibility that your conclusion is correct, i.e., that GRRM had already decided when Jon's birth was relative to the Sack (or to other events) and he was toying with other ideas relating to the movements of Ned & Ashara during the Rebellion.  I think it is more likely, however, when he wrote AGOT and ACOK, he had not settled on the timeline for Jon's birth -- or for other major events around the time of the Rebellion -- with any great precision.  AGOT in particular is vague enough about the timeline of the Rebellion that he left himself a lot of wiggle room.  I also think that he changed his mind about some things.  For example, Catelyn's chapters from AGOT strongly suggest that she married Ned on the day when she had expected to marry Brandon; that Rickard left Winterfell when he was summoned by Aerys rather than when the time for Brandon's marriage was announced; and that Ned fought in multiple battles during the interval between the Sack and his arrival at the toj.  It appears that he may have subsequently changed his mind about several of these items.  

As for how this affects Jon's birth date, I think that at the time he finished ASOS, he still had no precise date or even a close approximation in his mind.  I think the only reason he was thinking about it in that level of detail when he gave the SSM was because it mattered to something else he was planning -- the revelation of the Ned/Ashara hookup.  Otherwise, there was no need to pin down Jon's birth date with any kind of precision.  It is even possible that the reason he abandoned the revelation of the Ned/Ashara hookup was because it would force him to put Jon's birth date close to the Sack and that that does not really fit very well with the rest of the timeline.

So my conclusion is that, because GRRM definitely changed his mind about some of the information conveyed in that SSM, the rest of the information -- most significantly, the information about Jon's birthdate -- is questionable at best.  It might be true or it might not.  Which means that, in my view, it is not a useful piece of information either pro or con any particular theory.   

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

If you refer to the original SSM, you'll see that's not really the case.  The lining up of Jon and Dany's conceptions was the question he was asked, whether "Jon was born more than 1 year before Dany..." GRRM was simply replying to the question he was asked.

The problem here is that we don't have a complete account of the rebellion, but that's not a problem for Jon's conception per se. We know that the Siege of Storm's End started in 282 and ended in 283. However we also know Rob was conceived in 283 some time after the Battle of the Bells, was born 9 months later in that same year, and that Ned and Cat were then apart for about a year. This all adds up to there indeed being somewhere not far off a year between Ashford and the Trident. We simply don't have any information about what happened between Ned's 2 week honeymoon and the Trident, but so what? That doesn't mean it has to have been a short time. 

As for your point 1, yes. Probably no more than 6 weeks at most. It's a bit awkward, but GRRM doesn't worry too much about travel times, and they're often a bit awkward. Let's say that 6 weeks is made up of:

1. Two weeks for Ned + army to get to KL and deal with the sack.

2. Two weeks for Ned + army to get to Storm's End and accept the surrender.

3. Two weeks for Ned+ fast moving small group to race to the ToJ.

The first we know to be the case. The second and third are speculative but are no more unlikely than the first.

I'm not alleging that GRRM is stating that Jon was born around the time of Dany's conception, but the 8 to 9 month period is a bit of a give away.  You say 8 to 9 months when you are estimating a gestational period, IMO.  

While we know that Cat and Ned were apart about a year after they conceived Robb, that doesn't necessarily mean that there was a year between Ashford and the Trident.  It could mean that Ned's post Sack activities took a lot longer than most have been assuming.  

Keeping an army in the Riverlands for almost a year, doesn't seem possible.  I know Martin had to have enough time for the Dornish army to join the fray, but a year between major battles would be extremely unusual.  

Having said that I think it is more probable that Jon's conception occurred after Lyanna' disappearance, because I think too much happened for it to neatly fit in a 9 month period.  Even though I still find it funny that the Worldbook still states both events occurred in 282.  That doesn't mean I think Rhaegar was necessarily responsible for her initial disappearance.  I just think he was blamed for it, whether or not it was true.  So if she ran off with someone it was either Rhaegar (and his 6 buddies), or someone else but her brother assumed that Rhaegar was responsible.  So my guess is Ben probably did not also disappear at the same time.  But I do wonder if Ben could have helped Lyanna out with he plans to run off, which might explain why Ben got shuttled off to the Wall after the events died down.  

I highly doubt that Ben could have/ would have impregnated his sister while acting as a go between in her hiding spot.  If they conceived a child before her "disappearance" it would give an interesting motive for her to have run off, and might explain Ned's subconscious horror over the events surrounding his sister's deathbed, but if we're not comfortable with allowing for that timeline than I can't go with this theory, as much as it grew on me.

I also doubt that Lyanna died either during childbirth or soon after childbirth, because I think a lot more time elapsed between the Trident and Ned and company's arrival at the tower than most are assuming.  Once you allow for the possibility that Lyanna's death occurred before the tower of joy battle it becomes much easier to fit the events within the timeline.

[maudisdottir]

Wasn't Benjen like 12 years old?  I can't imagine Lyanna hooking up with her pre-pubescent little brother.  If there was any Starkcest (please, no) it would be with hottie Brandon.

[SFDanny]

23 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Wasn't Benjen like 12 years old?  I can't imagine Lyanna hooking up with her pre-pubescent little brother.  If there was any Starkcest (please, no) it would be with hottie Brandon.

The problem with Brandon in this little scenario is that he is dead. Both Brandon and Rickard are murdered before the war starts and it makes it very unlikely, unless Martin brings in Hermione's Time Turner, that either one could be Jon's father when he is conceived some three to four months into the rebellion. Not that we can rule out incest before Rhaegar kidnaps Lyanna, but if it happened it did not result in Jon Snow. There is also the fact nothing points to it ever happening.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

1. Two weeks for Ned + army to get to KL and deal with the sack.

2. Two weeks for Ned + army to get to Storm's End and accept the surrender.

3. Two weeks for Ned+ fast moving small group to race to the ToJ.

The first we know to be the case. The second and third are speculative but are no more unlikely than the first.

A slight correction here, if I may. The important quote is from Daenerys.

Quote

She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight, while a raging summer storm threatened to rip the island fastness apart. (AGoT 25) bold emphasis added.

The start of the nine month period is given from the time of Rhaella and Viserys flight from King's Landing, not from when Ned leaves the battleground of the Trident to go to King's Landing. Rhaella and Viserys leave after the news of the Trident reaches the city and after Aerys burns his Hand and then rapes Rhaella. We don't know the exact timing of this, but we know Ned is likely already well on his way to King's Landing when the ship to Dragonstone leaves. The departure from King's Landing is likely very close to when Tywin arrives and the sack begins. Ned's arrival is the same day, and Robert's coronation, and the fight with Ned sometime not long after. A better guess, in my opinion, is less than a week from Flight to Ned's departure, and about four weeks to Storm's End, and another two to three weeks between Storm's End and the Tower of Joy. If Jon is born around eight months before Dany's birth this puts him born a week or two before Ned arrives. But, please, note that Martin's quote isn't "eight or nine months" difference. It is eight or nine months or there abouts. This is an approximation - not a definitive and precise limit of time between the two births.