Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

[Kingmonkey]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.  

I agree entirely, which I think strengthens my argument that GRRM was not "pegging" Jon's conception to Ashara's whereabouts but rather to the flight of Rhaella to Dragonstone. It's 9 months from then to Dany's birth, because that's how long human gestation takes. Jon is born a bit after the flight to Dragonstone / sack, so it's not the full 9 months, it's "probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts." I'd say it's a solid bet that GRRM was pretty much thinking "Welp, Jon was born I dunno, a couple of weeks after the sack or so," in his normal keep-timelines-vague way. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.  

Do not forget that we have about a year for the siege of Storm's End. That started after Ashford.  As Trident-sack is about 2 weeks, for the gap between Ashford and Trident to be a whole lot less than a year, we have to assume that there was a much longer gap between the Sack and the lifting of the siege. This seems rather unlikely. Ned left KL after the sack, still in a fury at Robert over the death of the Targ kids, and while Robert was still too wounded to take part in the final battles, which suggests it was pretty prompt. So where does the delay come from to make the siege last a year?

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.  

More like 6 months than a year, but yeah there appears to be an unexplained gap between the marriage and the Trident. I just don't see a way around that without assuming that Ned took a long vacation before relieving SE . I think we can assume that there was a lot of politicking and a few minor battles that haven't been mentioned in the intervening period.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

  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'm missing a step with that "So my guess"... why does Lyanna running off with Rhaegar or someone else make it any less (or more) likely that Ben disappeared at the same time?

Wearing my more regular "I don't actually believe Ben is Jon's dad" hat, I share your speculation on the reason for Ben's exile to the wall. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

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.

Even if you ignore GRRM's 8-9 month timing implying a proximity between Jon's birth and Lyanna's death, we also have Lyanna lying in her "bed of blood", which I think is rather hard to explain away unless her death was fairly soon after giving birth. 

44 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

Right. So if Dany is conceived just after the Trident Jon is born say 2 weeks after Dany is conceived, and is say 2 weeks old when Ned arrives at the ToJ, that gives 6 weeks from the Trident. 

I agree with your point entirely though though, there's a bit of wiggle-room if needed. If the flight from KL was the day before the sack and 8-9 months or thereabouts was really 7.5 months, we could have Jon's birth 6 weeks after the sack. If he was 2 weeks old when Ned arrived, that gives us about 8 weeks between sack and toj. I really don't see a problem here, given GRRM's vagueness with timeline specifics (see note in sig).

 

[Kingmonkey]

2 hours 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.

We don't know how old Benjen was at the time, only that he was younger than Lyanna. As in Bran's vision he appears to briefly mistake Lyanna and Benjen for himself and Arya, it's fair to assume that the age gap was similar. However just to be provocative, I'd point out that we don't know for sure that they weren't actually twins. Lyanna was born first so we assume a minimum of 9 months, but it could have been 9 minutes instead. 

[SFDanny]

40 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

Right. So if Dany is conceived just after the Trident Jon is born say 2 weeks after Dany is conceived, and is say 2 weeks old when Ned arrives at the ToJ, that gives 6 weeks from the Trident. 

I agree with your point entirely though though, there's a bit of wiggle-room if needed. If the flight from KL was the day before the sack and 8-9 months or thereabouts was really 7.5 months, we could have Jon's birth 6 weeks after the sack. If he was 2 weeks old when Ned arrived, that gives us about 8 weeks between sack and toj. I really don't see a problem here, given GRRM's vagueness with timeline specifics (see note in sig).

I did say a "slight" correction. We agree in the approximate times, but I'm trying to nail down, as best we can the landmarks we know in all of this mess. While I'm at it, let me say the two week travel time of Ned from the Trident comes from the time given for Ned and company to travel along with the King's carriage the same distance fifteen years later. My guess is that given that he is described as "racing" to King's Landing with the rebel army's van, I'd suggest that is likely a few days slow. But that is my guess.

31 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

We don't know how old Benjen was at the time, only that he was younger than Lyanna. As in Bran's vision he appears to briefly mistake Lyanna and Benjen for himself and Arya, it's fair to assume that the age gap was similar. However just to be provocative, I'd point out that we don't know for sure that they weren't actually twins. Lyanna was born first so we assume a minimum of 9 months, but it could have been 9 minutes instead. 

In Bran's vision of Benjen and Lyanna playing at swords before the Winterfell weirwood he thinks that the age difference is like that of himself and Arya, or about two years. Not that you couldn't be right, but it is ... unlikely. Good provocation though! Got me to thinking if it could be true.

As to your sig about George and numbers, I agree when it comes to Martin and real world travel times. One just has to accept they work or you will have a stroke trying to figure it all out. That doesn't mean Martin is sloppy about detail, especially in the ordering of events. He spent years trying to figure out how he could get his Meereenese knot untangled, by which he meant the order of events necessary to bring characters to together and the right events in certain storylines to happen in the right order for the story to make sense. When it comes to this type of question, I think we can assume George has given it quite a bit of thought. So, I don't think his estimate of the difference between Jon and Dany's name days is just off the cuff. It is likely he knows this quite well.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

We don't know how old Benjen was at the time, only that he was younger than Lyanna. As in Bran's vision he appears to briefly mistake Lyanna and Benjen for himself and Arya, it's fair to assume that the age gap was similar. However just to be provocative, I'd point out that we don't know for sure that they weren't actually twins. Lyanna was born first so we assume a minimum of 9 months, but it could have been 9 minutes instead. 

Actually, the family trees in the world book list twins, and do not list Lyanna and Benjen as such, so I'd say that we do know for sure that they weren't twins.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

More like 6 months than a year, but yeah there appears to be an unexplained gap between the marriage and the Trident. I just don't see a way around that without assuming that Ned took a long vacation before relieving SE . I think we can assume that there was a lot of politicking and a few minor battles that haven't been mentioned in the intervening period.

I think your assumption is spot on. Martin has had this to say, as far back as July of 1999, about some of the "missing events" of the rebellion.

Quote

Why did mighty lords of Mace Tyrell and Paxter Redwyne's calibre waste their time and efforts in besieging an untested young lord with (apparently) only a few thousand men (and those weakened more and more of hunger to boot)? Meanwhile their overlord were losing the war?

The Targaryens had lost a number of battles (and had also won some), but they weren't really losing the war until the Trident and the Sack of King's Landing. And then it was lost. And sieges were a crucial part of medieval warfare. Storm's End was not geographically strategic, but it was the base of Robert's power, as important to House Baratheon as Winterfell was to the Starks. If it had fallen, Robert would have lost his home and his lands... and two of his brothers would have been hostages in enemy hands. All important chips. Also the fall of Storm's End might have convinced many of the storm lords supporting him that the time had come to bend the knee. So the castle was hardly unimportant.

Tyrell had a sizeable host, but some of his strength was with Rhaegar, certainly. Rhaegar actually outnumbered Robert on the Trident, although Robert's troops were more battle-tested. I haven't gone into the whole history of the fighting, but there was a good deal more to it than just two armies meeting on the Trident. There were a number of earlier battles, sieges, escapes, ambushes, duels, and forays, and fighting in places as farflung as the Vale and the Dornish Marches.

 

SSM bold emphasis added

[Kingmonkey]

5 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Actually, the family trees in the world book list twins, and do not list Lyanna and Benjen as such, so I'd say that we do know for sure that they weren't twins.

Ah, hadn't seen that. That does make it at least almost for sure -- leaving some tiny room for an intentional omission, anyway. In which case, we're back to at least 9 months, but no other solid info. There's Benjen's claim he was younger than Jon the first time he got drunk and the possibility he was referring to Harrenhal which might give us a rough estimate, but it doesn't really help much as it lands us in the same ballpark.

[The Twinslayer]

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I think your assumption is spot on. Martin has had this to say, as far back as July of 1999, about some of the "missing events" of the rebellion.

SSM bold emphasis added

That one is interesting.  I think it provides further support for my belief that in 1999, GRRM was playing around with the timeline of the Rebellion and that he made some statements that reflected his then-current thinking but which he ultimately decided to abandon.  For example, in the part you quoted, GRRM said that when King's Landing was sacked, "it was lost."  Meaning that the war was essentially over at that point.  Further down from the part you quoted, GRRM said this about Mace Tyrell and the end of the siege of Storm's End:  "Tyrell's surrender was pretty much warfare as usual. If he had =tried= to give battle to Ned in a lost cause, he might well have found his more opportunistic bannermen deserting to the other side."  Suggesting that Mace never tried to fight Ned but instead surrendered as soon as Ned showed up. 

We know from AGOT that Ned left King's Landing within a few days of the Sack, went to Storm's End, and after that went to the toj and then Starfall.  We also know that Storm's End was in bad shape after almost a year under siege, so it is safe to assume that Ned went there as quickly as he could with a large army at his back.  So the war was over as soon as the Sack happened and Ned got to Storm's End relatively soon after.  But we get this interesting piece of information from Kevan Lannister in the Epilogue to ADWD, when Mace refers to Aerys as "mad":  "That would be the same father that Highgarden and House Tyrell supported to the bitter end and well beyond."  And that brings us back to Ned's memory of leaving King's Landing after the Sack, in AGOT:  "Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south." 

That tells me this:  when he wrote AGOT, GRRM's timeline had Ned fighting "battles" in "the south" after the Sack.  Presumably, including at least one battle against Mace Tyrell's forces.  Also, when he wrote ADWD, GRRM's timeline had Mace Tyrell fighting on for the Targaryen's "well beyond" the "bitter end" -- meaning long after the Sack.  But in 1999, when he was writing ASOS -- which has a lot of detail about the events of the Rebellion -- he was playing with some different ideas (like Jon being born 8-9 months before Dany, Ashara living with Elia in King's Landing, and Mace Tyrell surrendering immediately after the Sack) that he abandoned because they don't fit.  Much the same way he worked through numerous iterations of the timeline for ADWD before settling on a way to resolve the Meereenese Knot. 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

That one is interesting.  I think it provides further support for my belief that in 1999, GRRM was playing around with the timeline of the Rebellion and that he made some statements that reflected his then-current thinking but which he ultimately decided to abandon.  For example, in the part you quoted, GRRM said that when King's Landing was sacked, "it was lost."  Meaning that the war was essentially over at that point.  Further down from the part you quoted, GRRM said this about Mace Tyrell and the end of the siege of Storm's End:  "Tyrell's surrender was pretty much warfare as usual. If he had =tried= to give battle to Ned in a lost cause, he might well have found his more opportunistic bannermen deserting to the other side."  Suggesting that Mace never tried to fight Ned but instead surrendered as soon as Ned showed up. 

We know from AGOT that Ned left King's Landing within a few days of the Sack, went to Storm's End, and after that went to the toj and then Starfall.  We also know that Storm's End was in bad shape after almost a year under siege, so it is safe to assume that Ned went there as quickly as he could with a large army at his back.  So the war was over as soon as the Sack happened and Ned got to Storm's End relatively soon after.  But we get this interesting piece of information from Kevan Lannister in the Epilogue to ADWD, when Mace refers to Aerys as "mad":  "That would be the same father that Highgarden and House Tyrell supported to the bitter end and well beyond."  And that brings us back to Ned's memory of leaving King's Landing after the Sack, in AGOT:  "Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south." 

That tells me this:  when he wrote AGOT, GRRM's timeline had Ned fighting "battles" in "the south" after the Sack.  Presumably, including at least one battle against Mace Tyrell's forces.  Also, when he wrote ADWD, GRRM's timeline had Mace Tyrell fighting on for the Targaryen's "well beyond" the "bitter end" -- meaning long after the Sack.  But in 1999, when he was writing ASOS -- which has a lot of detail about the events of the Rebellion -- he was playing with some different ideas (like Jon being born 8-9 months before Dany, Ashara living with Elia in King's Landing, and Mace Tyrell surrendering immediately after the Sack) that he abandoned because they don't fit.  Much the same way he worked through numerous iterations of the timeline for ADWD before settling on a way to resolve the Meereenese Knot. 

Then you would be wrong in doing so.

Quote

Stannis Baratheon's foragers had cut the trees down for his siege towers and catapults. Catelyn wondered how long the grove had stood, and whether Ned had rested here when he led his host south to lift the last siege of Storm's End. He had won a great victory that day, all the greater for being bloodless. (ACoK 352) bold emphasis added.

This is from A Clash of Kings which is published before Martin's remarks. Clearly he has Ned leading his army south to relieve the siege of Storm's End and also has Ned doing so without fighting a battle and spilling blood.

Also, I know you keep writing about this, but you do know, don't you, that Ashara does live in King's Landing?

Quote

His choice would have been a young maiden not long at court, one of Elia's companions ... though compared to Ashara Dayne, the Dornish princess was a kitchen drab. (A Dance with Dragons 879) bold emphasis added

Ser Barristan make it clear that it was not something Martin thought to do but changed his mind. He has Ashara living at court during the time of the Harrenhal tourney as a companion to Elia. When Ashara leaves and whether she comes back is a open question, but she is there just as Martin says in the SSM that gives the relative time of Jon and Dany's births.

[The Twinslayer]

35 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Then you would be wrong in doing so.

This is from A Clash of Kings which is published before Martin's remarks. Clearly he has Ned leading his army south to relieve the siege of Storm's End and also has Ned doing so without fighting a battle and spilling blood.

Also, I know you keep writing about this, but you do know, don't you, that Ashara does live in King's Landing?

Ser Barristan make it clear that it was not something Martin thought to do but changed his mind. He has Ashara living at court during the time of the Harrenhal tourney as a companion to Elia. When Ashara leaves and whether she comes back is a open question, but she is there just as Martin says in the SSM that gives the relative time of Jon and Dany's births.

I will admit to having overlooked Catelyn's belief that Ned's victory at Storm's End had been bloodless.  In which case we now have a conflict between that quote from Catelyn and Kevan's belief that Mace fought to the bitter end and beyond, and we need to come up with an explanation for Ned's belief that he fought "battles in the south" after the Sack of King's Landing.  Perhaps this is just a continuity error, perhaps Catelyn is mistaken (her beliefs are not infallible -- after all, in AGOT she thinks Ned married her in Brandon's place because that is what tradition required, but we are later told that it was to get Hoster Tully to call his banners), or perhaps Mace's forces fought Ned's somewhere between King's Landing and Storm's End. 

Also, I disagree with you on the Barristan quote, because it does not resolve the conflict between the 1999 SSM and what we learned in ASOS and it does not resolve the conflict between the SSM and the world book. 

The 1999 SSM clearly states that ASOS is going to reveal that Ashara was a companion to Elia in King's Landing "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar."  The first conflict is that this information is not revealed in ASOS.  So GRRM definitely changed his mind about that.  The second conflict is that the world book says that Elia did not live in King's Landing "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar."  The world book describes the Rhaegar/Elia wedding and then says "When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew..."  It has to be either one or the other -- Elia either lived on Dragonstone (world book) or in King's Landing (1999 SSM).  Both can't be correct.  Rhaegar and his new wife either lived in King's Landing during the first years after their wedding or they lived on Dragonstone.  My money is on the world book being correct and the 1999 SSM being wrong.   

Finally, the Barristan quote does not contradict the world book.   It simply says that Ashara was a maid "not long at court, a companion to Elia."  There are two ways in which Barristan's comments can be reconciled with the world book.  The first is that he is referring to Rhaegar's "court" on Dragonstone.  While "court" is often used to describe the court at King's Landing, it is also often used for the courts of other lords.  In AGOT, we are introduced to Lysa's court in the Eyrie and Randall Tarly's court at Horn Hill.  Maester Aemon served at "some lordling's court" after he forged his chain.  Mace Tyrell keeps singers at his court (ASOS), Ser Arys visits the Dornish court (AFFC), Davos visits the merman's court (ADWD), Luke Velaryon's death was witnessed by the court at Storm's End, and so on.  (Of course, this raises the intriguing possibility that Barristan was assigned to live on Dragonstone with Rhaegar rather than in King's Landing).

The second possibility is that, contrary to the 1999 SSM, Elia (and Ashara) did not live in King's Landing in the first years of Elia's marriage but that they moved there in the year of the False Spring, "not long" before the Harrenhal tournament.  That would still mean that the 1999 SSM is wrong, because she can't have been a companion to Elia in King's Landing during the first years of the marriage while Elia lived on Dragonstone. 

I suppose the reason I have raised this a few times is that discussions of Jon's birth often start from the premise that it happened around the time or the Sack or about a month after that, and it is all based on an SSM that seems very likely to be wrong.  I think these discussions would benefit from dropping that premise (including the R+L=J theory, which makes a lot more sense to me if Jon was born a few months after the Sack rather than at the same time or only a few weeks later).  

[maudisdottir]

17 hours ago, SFDanny said:

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.

Well IMO the timeline is the least of this theory's problems.  I don't subscribe to Starkest in any permutation, but if Lyanna was going to be bumping it with any of her brothers, do you (not you, personally) think it would be with her younger brother whose balls probably hadn't even dropped yet, when she has a dashing hottie ladies' man for an older brother?

There are people who truly believe Benjen may be the father - all I can say to that is, as a former 14 year old girl, I can guarantee that Lyanna wasn't fooling around with her little brother.  Twelve year old boys are some of the grossest creatures on the planet (ask any mother of teenagers) so unless Benjen was some kind of precocious Barney Stinson, he wasn't getting any action with the big sister who was betrothed to the Lord of Storms End and had been singled out by the Prince of Dragonstone for her beauty.  Not happening.

 

[SFDanny]

6 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I suppose the reason I have raised this a few times is that discussions of Jon's birth often start from the premise that it happened around the time or the Sack or about a month after that, and it is all based on an SSM that seems very likely to be wrong. 

Let me start here, my friend. I think this is a fundamental mistake. Because there are things within Martin's wide ranging response in 1999 that you think may have been changed, or modified, does not at all mean that everything within Martin's remarks are changed, or modified, or no longer valid. Whether or not Lady Ashara and Elia are in King's Landing during certain periods of time of the days leading up to the rebellion has nothing to with Martin's remarks about the time between Jon and Dany's namedays. These two very different subjects are talked about in the same interview, but other than that, there is no dependency of one set of facts to the other. You are trying to discredit the one by raising questions about the other, but all you are doing is, if you are right which I don't think you are, is to show why you think Martin might have changed his mind about Ashara' and Elia's locations and wrongly apply this as evidence of change to something that it is not tied to in the least.

What we are agreed upon is that Martin has made it clear, that his past remarks should not be held against him if chooses to make changes. He reserves the right to change his mind about anything and everything up until it is published. And even then he can still change things as he sees fit, but you and I are much more likely to get an explanation of why a change was made. All of his remarks outside of the published material should be used with this understanding. So, yes, a published interview from 1999 or from 2017 may include information that will change when further books are published.

Of course, that doesn't mean all of George's remarks will change or that they are meaningless. I'd argue they tell us a great deal. But it also means we have to use this type of information carefully. In particular, we have to look for how either published information or subsequent remarks may reflect changes our author has decided to make. But your questions about Ashara and Elia's locations have nothing to do with Martin's information on the time difference between Jon and Dany's namedays other than the fact they appear in the same interview.

Give me something that questions George's remarks on the time difference here, either in subsequent interviews, or in material published at a later date, and we have then a reason to question if the 1999 interview is still valid on this point, but up until then I don't see we have a real debate.

That doesn't mean your claimed contradictions about Ashara and Elia's locations are not interesting concerning that topic, but I think if we look at them we find rather than the contradictions you claim, we have an exercise in tilting against windmills. They might be giants tearing apart our understanding of Martin's story, but upon a closer look they show themselves to be windmills signifying no contradictory change.

Let me go back then, and deal with them outside of claims about Jon and Dany's namedays.

6 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I will admit to having overlooked Catelyn's belief that Ned's victory at Storm's End had been bloodless.  In which case we now have a conflict between that quote from Catelyn and Kevan's belief that Mace fought to the bitter end and beyond, and we need to come up with an explanation for Ned's belief that he fought "battles in the south" after the Sack of King's Landing.  Perhaps this is just a continuity error, perhaps Catelyn is mistaken (her beliefs are not infallible -- after all, in AGOT she thinks Ned married her in Brandon's place because that is what tradition required, but we are later told that it was to get Hoster Tully to call his banners), or perhaps Mace's forces fought Ned's somewhere between King's Landing and Storm's End.

Is there a conflict between Cat's thoughts and Kevan's? I don't think so. Let's look again.

Quote

Stannis Baratheon's foragers had cut the trees down for his siege towers and catapults. Catelyn wondered how long the grove had stood, and whether Ned had rested here when he led his host south to lift the last siege of Storm's End. He had won a great victory that day, all the greater for being bloodless. (ACoK 352) bold emphasis added.

Quote

"As mad as her father," declared Lord Mace Tyrell.

That would be the same father that Highgarden and House Tyrell supported to the bitter end and well beyond. (ADwD 947) bold emphasis added

The key word here is "supported" as opposed to your "fought." The "bitter end" is Aerys's death, and the "well beyond" is the continuance of the siege after word had surely reached them of the sack and the outcome of the battle at the Trident. There may have been schemes later on as well that Kevan knows of that we do not. But we have no confirmation of contradictory information about battles fought by Mace Tyrell.

Regarding Ned's thoughts concerning "battles in the south" lets look again at that quote.

Quote

Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south. (AGoT 93-94)

What this says is the purpose of Ned's mission after his fight with Robert. It says nothing about whether those battles were in fact fought. He rides out with his host to lift the siege at Storm's End, but is able to get the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne to surrender without bloodshed. He may well have thought he would also have to fight against Dorne, but that eventuality never occurs. The "why" of his riding out is not the same as saying these battles happened.

With regard to the reason Ned marries Catelyn, custom and the need for military support are not contradictory. In fact, what we find out is there are a confluence of reasons for the marriages of Ned and Jon to Catelyn and Lysa. Ned is bound by custom, but Jon is not. Jon needs a young fertile wife after the death of his heir and Lysa is proven to be so. Hoster needs some respectable marriage of his youngest daughter after she is no longer a virgin because of her affair with Littlefinger. And all the rebels need Hoster's military support. There is no contradiction here.

6 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The 1999 SSM clearly states that ASOS is going to reveal that Ashara was a companion to Elia in King's Landing "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar."  The first conflict is that this information is not revealed in ASOS.  So GRRM definitely changed his mind about that.  The second conflict is that the world book says that Elia did not live in King's Landing "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar."  The world book describes the Rhaegar/Elia wedding and then says "When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew..."  It has to be either one or the other -- Elia either lived on Dragonstone (world book) or in King's Landing (1999 SSM).  Both can't be correct.  Rhaegar and his new wife either lived in King's Landing during the first years after their wedding or they lived on Dragonstone.  My money is on the world book being correct and the 1999 SSM being wrong.

Changing what will be published in the upcoming A Storm of Swords to part of the material (Meera's tale, Ned Dayne's story) being in that book, and the information about Ashara being Elia's "companion" to appear in A Dance with Dragons makes this into a contradiction how? It doesn't. It just means that parts of the planned material were switched to be revealed in a later volume. That is all.

The world book does not say what you say it does regarding Rhaegar and Elia (and Ashara) residing on Dragonstone. We don't know how long after the wedding this decision was made, nor do we know how long Elia and Ashara are present in King's Landing before the wedding. We just know they chose to go to Dragonstone some time after the wedding, and Elia and Ashara are together at Harrenhal. We also know that Elia and her children end up in King's Landing and are present there during the sack. So, yes, both can be true. It just means we are talking about different periods of time from the arrival of Elia and Ashara at court in preparation for the wedding to the time of the sack. What we are getting is the gradual filling in of detail, but nothing that indicates there was any real change from 1999 until now. There is a delay of certain details to later books. Nothing other than that to indicate anything else in the 1999 SSM is changed.

Sorry, have to go. More later.

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, maudisdottir said:

Well IMO the timeline is the least of this theory's problems.  I don't subscribe to Starkest in any permutation, but if Lyanna was going to be bumping it with any of her brothers, do you (not you, personally) think it would be with her younger brother whose balls probably hadn't even dropped yet, when she has a dashing hottie ladies' man for an older brother?

There are people who truly believe Benjen may be the father - all I can say to that is, as a former 14 year old girl, I can guarantee that Lyanna wasn't fooling around with her little brother.  Twelve year old boys are some of the grossest creatures on the planet (ask any mother of teenagers) so unless Benjen was some kind of precocious Barney Stinson, he wasn't getting any action with the big sister who was betrothed to the Lord of Storms End and had been singled out by the Prince of Dragonstone for her beauty.  Not happening.

 

I agree, and thank you for the laugh.

[SFDanny]

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Finally, the Barristan quote does not contradict the world book.   It simply says that Ashara was a maid "not long at court, a companion to Elia."  There are two ways in which Barristan's comments can be reconciled with the world book.  The first is that he is referring to Rhaegar's "court" on Dragonstone.  While "court" is often used to describe the court at King's Landing, it is also often used for the courts of other lords.  In AGOT, we are introduced to Lysa's court in the Eyrie and Randall Tarly's court at Horn Hill.  Maester Aemon served at "some lordling's court" after he forged his chain.  Mace Tyrell keeps singers at his court (ASOS), Ser Arys visits the Dornish court (AFFC), Davos visits the merman's court (ADWD), Luke Velaryon's death was witnessed by the court at Storm's End, and so on.  (Of course, this raises the intriguing possibility that Barristan was assigned to live on Dragonstone with Rhaegar rather than in King's Landing).

The second possibility is that, contrary to the 1999 SSM, Elia (and Ashara) did not live in King's Landing in the first years of Elia's marriage but that they moved there in the year of the False Spring, "not long" before the Harrenhal tournament.  That would still mean that the 1999 SSM is wrong, because she can't have been a companion to Elia in King's Landing during the first years of the marriage while Elia lived on Dragonstone.

I agree the Barristan quote does not contradict The World of Ice & Fire. These are the quotes that I see as important:

Quote

As to your speculations about Catelyn and Ashara Dayne ... sigh ... needless to say, All Will Be Revealed in Good Time. I will give you this much, however, Ashara Dayne was not nailed to the floor in Starfall, as some of the fans who write me seem to assume. They have horses in Dorne too, you know. And boats (though not many of their own). As a matter of fact Ia tiny tidbit from SOS, she was on of Princess Elia's lady companions in King's Landing, in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar. (SSM 1040)

next Ser Barristan's thoughts

Quote

Rhaegar had chosen Lyanna stark of Winterfell. Barristan Selmy would have made a different choice. Not the queen, who was not present. Nor Elia of Dorne, though she was good and gentle, had she been chosen, much war and woe might have been avoided. His choice would have been a young maiden not long at court, on of Elia's companions ... compared to Ashara Dayne, the Dornish princess was a kitchen drab. (ADwD 879)

followed by the world book

Quote

Early in the year 279 AC, Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone, was formally betrothed to Princess Elia Martell, the delicate young sister of Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne. They were wed the following year, in a lavish ceremony at the Great Sept of Baelor in King's Landing, but Aerys II did not attend. He told the small council that he feared an attempt upon his life if he left the confines of the Red Keep, even with his Kingsguard to protect him. Nor would he allow his younger son, Viserys, to attend his brother's wedding.

When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew think and fast across the Seven Kingdoms. Some claimed that the crown prince was planning to depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself, whilst others said that King Aerys meant to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys heir in his place. Nor did the birth of King Aerys's first grandchild, a girl named Rhaenys, born on Dragonstone in 280 AC, do aught to reconcile father and son. When Rhaegar returned to the Red Keep to present his daughter to his own mother and father, Queen Rhaella embraced the babe warmly, but King Aerys refused to touch or hold the child and complained that she "smells Dornish." (TWoI&F 120-121)

and,

Quote

The False Spring of 281 AC lasted less than two turns. As the year drew to a close, winter returned to Westeros with a vengeance. On the last day of the year, snow began to fall upon King's Landing, and a crust of ice formed atop the Blackwater Rush. The snowfall continued off and on for the best part of a fortnight, by which time the Blackwater was hard frozen, and icicles draped the roofs and gutters of every tower in the city.

As cold winds hammered the city, King Aerys II turned to his pyromancers, charging them to drive the winter off with their magics. Huge green fires burned along the walls of the Red Keep for a moon's turn. Prince Rhaegar was not in the city to observe them, however. Nor could he be found in Dragonstone with Princess Elia and their young son, Aegon. With the coming of the new year, the crown prince had taken to the road with half a dozen of his closest friends and confidants, on a journey that would ultimately lead him back to the riverlands. Not ten leagues from Harrenhal, Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna Stark of Winterfell, and carried her off, lighting a fire that would consume his house and kin and all those he loved - and half the realm besides. (TWoI&F 127)

If I'm missing some of import for this discussion let me know.

What then does the above tell us about Elia's location during this time period. 

• Princess Elia and her companions arrive in King's Landing sometime from about the time of the announcement of the betrothal in 279 AC to her wedding in the early months of 280. From betrothal to wedding could be up to a year's time at court in King's Landing. If Ashara is part of Elia's companions during this time is unknown.
• Sometime after the wedding in early 280 the Prince and Princess of Dragonstone remove themselves from King's Landing and take up residence on Dragonstone. If Ashara is part of this is unknown.
• Sometime after Rhaenys is born, the Prince, and perhaps Princess, bring their daughter to King's Landing to present her to the King and Queen. How long they are there is unknown, as is if Ashara is there with them.
• By the time of the tourney at Harrenhal we know that Ashara is a companion of Elia and is, along with her, at the tourney. Somehow Ashara is dishonored at the tourney, perhaps by a Stark. The dishonor seems likely to do with a stillborn daughter Ashara has after this.
• By New Year's 282 AC we know Elia is on Dragonstone with the newborn Aegon, but Rhaegar is traveling the Riverlands (and other places?) with close companions. Does either party include Ashara is unknown.
• By the end of the rebellion in 283 we know Elia and her children are in King's Landing. Where Ashara is in unknown until we hear of her death in Starfall after Ned's trip there to return Ser Arthur's sword Dawn to the Daynes.

So, my question is where is the contradiction that you think makes the SSM outdated? I think Ser Barristan's quote confirms the relationship of Ashara as one of Elia's companions. The locations confirmed in the the world book have times in which Elia is at King's Landing , "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar." Note that the SSM does not say Elia or Ashara are in King's Landing "all" of the time making up the years following the wedding. My friend, there is no contradiction here.

[The Twinslayer]

21 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Whether or not Lady Ashara and Elia are in King's Landing during certain periods of time of the days leading up to the rebellion has nothing to with Martin's remarks about the time between Jon and Dany's namedays. These two very different subjects are talked about in the same interview, but other than that, there is no dependency of one set of facts to the other.

Is there a conflict between Cat's thoughts and Kevan's? I don't think so. Let's look again.

The key word here is "supported" as opposed to your "fought." The "bitter end" is Aerys's death, and the "well beyond" is the continuance of the siege after word had surely reached them of the sack and the outcome of the battle at the Trident. There may have been schemes later on as well that Kevan knows of that we do not. But we have no confirmation of contradictory information about battles fought by Mace Tyrell.

Regarding Ned's thoughts concerning "battles in the south" lets look again at that quote.

What this says is the purpose of Ned's mission after his fight with Robert. It says nothing about whether those battles were in fact fought. He rides out with his host to lift the siege at Storm's End, but is able to get the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne to surrender without bloodshed. He may well have thought he would also have to fight against Dorne, but that eventuality never occurs. The "why" of his riding out is not the same as saying these battles happened.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, then.  But here are a few quick thoughts on the parts of your posts that focus on the pieces I believe to be the most important (the rest I snipped).

1.  I think the discussion of Ashara's movements are critical to GRRM's thinking about Jon's birth date.  The entire point of the question and answer in the SSM was the questioner's belief that the timeline rules out Ned and Ashara as Jon's parents.  The purpose of GRRM's answer is to make clear that that belief is wrong: the timeline is fully consistent with Ned and Ashara being the parents.  He then goes on to give some support for that answer, which naturally is all about where Ashara was at the relevant time -- which, at that moment, he was planning to reveal in ASOS.  I grant you that it is possible that he had already decided Jon's birth date and he was trying to figure out movements for Ashara (and Ned) that would match up with that date.  But it is also possible that Jon's birth date was a variable that he had been moving around in order to fit whatever he was planning to say about Ashara's movements.  And if that is what he was doing (as we know he did with the timelines in Meereen when he wrote ADWD), then the need to fix Jon's birth date disappeared when he made the decision to eliminate the revelations about Ashara's movements during the Rebellion.  

I really think the latter is the most logical reading of the SSM, because otherwise there was no need for him to fix a birth date for Jon with any kind of precision at all.  For example, placing Jon's birth date 8 or 9 months before Dany's isn't really relevant to the R+L=J theory, which works just fine if Jon is born a few months before or a few months after the Sack.   

2.  Cat's thoughts vs. Kevan's.  I just don't buy that Mace Tyrell supporting Aerys to the "bitter end" and "well beyond" means merely that he waited to break the siege of Storm's End for the amount of time it took Ned to get from King's Landing to Storm's End. If that is all he did, I think Kevan would just have said "to the bitter end." 

3.  Ned's "last battles."  I could accept your reading of that phrase if we saw Ned saying or thinking that in real time:  "I am going to fight the last battles in the south now."  But it's a little tortured when we know this is something he remembers from 14 or 15 years ago.  And, when Ned left King's Landing, he knew that there was a Targaryen fleet guarding Rhaella and Viserys on Dragonstone (which, to Ned, is in "the south.").  So he would have expected that one of the remaining battles was going to take place at Dragonstone. 

I don't think it is possible that Ned believed that, by marching from King's Landing, he was on his way to lift the siege of Storm's End and then go attack Dragonstone on his own.  The natural reading of this phrase is that Ned remembers that after he left King's Landing, he led Robert's forces in the final battles of the war, of which there were at least two.     

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

If I'm missing some of import for this discussion let me know.

What then does the above tell us about Elia's location during this time period. 

• Princess Elia and her companions arrive in King's Landing sometime from about the time of the announcement of the betrothal in 279 AC to her wedding in the early months of 280. From betrothal to wedding could be up to a year's time at court in King's Landing. If Ashara is part of Elia's companions during this time is unknown.
• Sometime after the wedding in early 280 the Prince and Princess of Dragonstone remove themselves from King's Landing and take up residence on Dragonstone. If Ashara is part of this is unknown.
• Sometime after Rhaenys is born, the Prince, and perhaps Princess, bring their daughter to King's Landing to present her to the King and Queen. How long they are there is unknown, as is if Ashara is there with them.
• By the time of the tourney at Harrenhal we know that Ashara is a companion of Elia and is, along with her, at the tourney. Somehow Ashara is dishonored at the tourney, perhaps by a Stark. The dishonor seems likely to do with a stillborn daughter Ashara has after this.
• By New Year's 282 AC we know Elia is on Dragonstone with the newborn Aegon, but Rhaegar is traveling the Riverlands (and other places?) with close companions. Does either party include Ashara is unknown.
• By the end of the rebellion in 283 we know Elia and her children are in King's Landing. Where Ashara is in unknown until we hear of her death in Starfall after Ned's trip there to return Ser Arthur's sword Dawn to the Daynes.

So, my question is where is the contradiction that you think makes the SSM outdated? I think Ser Barristan's quote confirms the relationship of Ashara as one of Elia's companions. The locations confirmed in the the world book have times in which Elia is at King's Landing , "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar." Note that the SSM does not say Elia or Ashara are in King's Landing "all" of the time making up the years following the wedding. My friend, there is no contradiction here.

I think you have the right quotes from the world book.  The specific statement from the 1999 SSM is that Lady Ashara was a companion to Elia in King's Landing in the early years of Elia's marriage.  The marriage happened in either 279 or 280.  For the 1999 SSM to be correct, Elia would have to have lived in King's Landing (at a minimum) from some time in 279 until some time in 281, or from some time in 280 until some time in 282.  If Elia moved to Dragonstone before the end of 281, the SSM is incorrect. 

Now, go back and look at your quotes.  Elia moved to Dragonstone when she was Rhaegar's "new wife."  She gave birth to Rhaenys on Dragonstone in 280.  That alone tells us that the SSM is wrong because it has Elia living on Dragonstone less than two years after her marriage.  We also know that Elia was on Dragonstone at the end of 281, when the False Spring ended -- strongly suggesting that Elia lived on Dragonstone from 279 (or 280) until at least early 282.  

So that proves that Ashara was not a companion to Elia in King's Landing in the early years of her marriage, because Elia lived on Dragonstone in the early years of her marriage.   

Finally, all of this does suggest another explanation for Barristan's comment that Ashara was "not long at court."  It could be that Ashara was at court in King's Landing briefly before Elia's wedding, or that she accompanied Rhaegar (and possibly Elia) when they visited King's Landing to present Rhaenys.  That would ensure that Barristan's comments were consistent with the world book (but not with the old SSM). 

As I said, perhaps we should agree to disagree.  But I would bet a lot that if you asked GRRM now if it is true that Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany, his honest answer would be "I don't know, I haven't figured that out yet."     

[Kingmonkey]

2 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The purpose of GRRM's answer is to make clear that that belief is wrong: the timeline is fully consistent with Ned and Ashara being the parents.  He then goes on to give some support for that answer, which naturally is all about where Ashara was at the relevant time -- which, at that moment, he was planning to reveal in ASOS.  I grant you that it is possible that he had already decided Jon's birth date and he was trying to figure out movements for Ashara (and Ned) that would match up with that date.  But it is also possible that Jon's birth date was a variable that he had been moving around in order to fit whatever he was planning to say about Ashara's movements. 

The suggestion that he was trying to fit Jon's birthdate into Ashara's movement is contrary to what he actually says in his reply though. He points out that the timeline is fully consistent with Ned and Ashara being the parents because he has not revealed Ashara's movements at the time:

"Ashara Dayne was not nailed to the floor in Starfall, as some of the fans who write me seem to assume"

The questioner's suggestion which GRRM responded to was "Catelyn seems a little thick when she thinks that Ned fathered Jon as he returned 'Dawn' to Ashara Dayne." GRRM points out that this wasn't the only time when Ned and Ashara could have been together. There is no explanation necessary. 

2 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I really think the latter is the most logical reading of the SSM, because otherwise there was no need for him to fix a birth date for Jon with any kind of precision at all.  For example, placing Jon's birth date 8 or 9 months before Dany's isn't really relevant to the R+L=J theory, which works just fine if Jon is born a few months before or a few months after the Sack.   

There was no need to fix a birthdate for Jon to answer this issue, because Ashara's movements, being entirely unknown, raise no questions as to Jon's birthdate.

On the other hand, the idea that GRRM had not plotted the course of events before attempting to recount them is extremely unlikely. He probably wouldn't have specific dates in mind, but he wouldn't fail to plan out the sequence of events. That's why his answer was in the form "probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts." He knows roughly when Jon was born within a sequence that includes Dany's conception just before the flight to Dragonstone. He could equally say that Jon was born some time shortly after the sack, because that's what gives us 9 months minus a bit. 

9 months before that date, "some time shortly after the sack", where was Ashara? It's never been mentioned. We don't have any details of Ashara's movements between Harrenhal and Ned's visit to Starfall, so there is obviously no difficulty to resolve between Ashara and Ned's movements for any date of birth for Jon between 9 months after the Tourney of Harrenhal (first time they met) and the day Ashara died. There is also no chance that Jon could have been conceived outside of these dates anyway. Therefore there was no need for GRRM to figure Jon's birthdate based on Ashara's movements. The idea there is a connection just does not compute. 

 

 

[The Twinslayer]

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

The suggestion that he was trying to fit Jon's birthdate into Ashara's movement is contrary to what he actually says in his reply though. He points out that the timeline is fully consistent with Ned and Ashara being the parents because he has not revealed Ashara's movements at the time:

"Ashara Dayne was not nailed to the floor in Starfall, as some of the fans who write me seem to assume"

The questioner's suggestion which GRRM responded to was "Catelyn seems a little thick when she thinks that Ned fathered Jon as he returned 'Dawn' to Ashara Dayne." GRRM points out that this wasn't the only time when Ned and Ashara could have been together. There is no explanation necessary. 

There was no need to fix a birthdate for Jon to answer this issue, because Ashara's movements, being entirely unknown, raise no questions as to Jon's birthdate.

On the other hand, the idea that GRRM had not plotted the course of events before attempting to recount them is extremely unlikely. He probably wouldn't have specific dates in mind, but he wouldn't fail to plan out the sequence of events. That's why his answer was in the form "probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts." He knows roughly when Jon was born within a sequence that includes Dany's conception just before the flight to Dragonstone. He could equally say that Jon was born some time shortly after the sack, because that's what gives us 9 months minus a bit. 

9 months before that date, "some time shortly after the sack", where was Ashara? It's never been mentioned. We don't have any details of Ashara's movements between Harrenhal and Ned's visit to Starfall, so there is obviously no difficulty to resolve between Ashara and Ned's movements for any date of birth for Jon between 9 months after the Tourney of Harrenhal (first time they met) and the day Ashara died. There is also no chance that Jon could have been conceived outside of these dates anyway. Therefore there was no need for GRRM to figure Jon's birthdate based on Ashara's movements. The idea there is a connection just does not compute. 

 

 

I just disagree.  The question was designed to get GRRM to agree that Catelyn's (and Cersei's) belief that Ned and Ashara may have had Jon was impossible.  GRRM deliberately had those two characters name Ashara as the mother and he knew that there were fans like that questioner who were trying to poke holes in that idea.  The whole purpose of his answer was to refute that criticism.  So in GRRM's mind, just like the mind of the questioner, it matters where Ashara was and who she was with when Jon was conceived.  And, he was planning to answer your question --where was Ashara when Jon was conceived -- in ASOS, but then he changed his mind.

But consider this from another angle.  It is implied that Robb may be older than Jon.  If so, for the 1999 SSM to be correct, Robb would have to have been born around the time of the Trident/Sack or earlier.  But we know he was not conceived until after the Battle of the Bells--probably at least a few weeks after.  

That would mean that virtually everything we know about the rebellion prior to the Trident would have had to have happened in well under three months:  Gulltown, the Summerhall battles, Ned's journey from the Eyrie to Winterfell, Ned calling his banners, Robert calling his banners, Ned moving the Northern host from Winterfell to Stony Sept, the rebels moving from Stony Sept to Riverrun, Ned's wedding and two week honeymoon, and so on.  All in well under 90 days.

Then, nothing happens for 9 months (the time Robb is gestating) except that Barristan gathers the Targaryen army from Stony Sept and Llewyn Martell collects the Dornish army marching up the boneway so they can join Rhaegar en route to the Trident.

That makes no sense.  What makes a lot more sense is if the events between Ned's departure from the Eyrie and his honeymoon with Cat last 6 or 7 months and he leaves Cat to go fight on the Trident.  Robb and Jon are then both born several months after the Sack, and the reason Ned returns to Cat a few months after that, is that he was busy fighting further battles (those "last battles" he remembers fighting alone) and then searching for Lyanna after the Sack.

When GRRM gave the 1999 SSM, he was in the middle of writing the book that fleshed out much of what we know about the events between the death of Rickard and the Sack.  I think that the reason he abandoned some of the things he said in that SSM was because he realized that the timeline he had in mind when he made that statement just does not work with the other information that he did wind up including in ASOS.

 

[SFDanny]

16 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, then.  But here are a few quick thoughts on the parts of your posts that focus on the pieces I believe to be the most important (the rest I snipped).

1.  I think the discussion of Ashara's movements are critical to GRRM's thinking about Jon's birth date.  The entire point of the question and answer in the SSM was the questioner's belief that the timeline rules out Ned and Ashara as Jon's parents.  The purpose of GRRM's answer is to make clear that that belief is wrong: the timeline is fully consistent with Ned and Ashara being the parents.  He then goes on to give some support for that answer, which naturally is all about where Ashara was at the relevant time -- which, at that moment, he was planning to reveal in ASOS.  I grant you that it is possible that he had already decided Jon's birth date and he was trying to figure out movements for Ashara (and Ned) that would match up with that date.  But it is also possible that Jon's birth date was a variable that he had been moving around in order to fit whatever he was planning to say about Ashara's movements.  And if that is what he was doing (as we know he did with the timelines in Meereen when he wrote ADWD), then the need to fix Jon's birth date disappeared when he made the decision to eliminate the revelations about Ashara's movements during the Rebellion. 

The timeline as put by the questioner does rule out Ned and Ashara as Jon's parents. The questioner does indeed think Catelyn is stupid if she thinks Ashara is Jon's mother. But the reason the questioner thinks this is why Martin responds in the way he does and why he brings Ashara's ability to move outside of Starfall into the question. The questioner thinks it is stupid of Catelyn to think Ned conceived Jon with Ashara during his trip to Starfall to return Dawn. If that was what Catelyn really believed then she would be as stupid as the questioner thinks she is, but that is not what Catelyn believes. The scenario assumes Jon is a child probably a year and a half younger than Robb and is mistaken by Catelyn for a child who is born in the same year as Robb, and separated in age by only weeks or at most months.

What Martin says in response is that some fans don't realize that, as we have talked about in the past, that Ashara can travel during the rebellion and therefore by implication there is a chance that Ned could meet her sometime not long after he leaves Riverrun. Therefore, Martin tells the questioner, he is mistaken in his assumptions. Assumptions that he not only corrects concerning a difference in Jon's name day and Dany's, but in rejecting the idea that Catelyn must think this stupid idea of child conceived after the Tower of Joy when that is obviously not the case. Martin is correcting more than one assumption here.

Basically, Martin's response boils down to, "NO, NO, you have it all WRONG!" But that response does not mean what he says about Ashara not being nailed to the floor in Dorne, and Ashara being in King's Landing for an unknown period of time after Elia and Rhaegar's wedding as Elia's companion, and what is the real difference in time between Jon and Dany's nameday are all somehow tied together. These are separate issues.

[Kingmonkey]

23 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Then, nothing happens for 9 months (the time Robb is gestating) except that Barristan gathers the Targaryen army from Stony Sept and Llewyn Martell collects the Dornish army marching up the boneway so they can join Rhaegar en route to the Trident.

That makes no sense.  What makes a lot more sense is if the events between Ned's departure from the Eyrie and his honeymoon with Cat last 6 or 7 months and he leaves Cat to go fight on the Trident.  Robb and Jon are then both born several months after the Sack, and the reason Ned returns to Cat a few months after that, is that he was busy fighting further battles (those "last battles" he remembers fighting alone) and then searching for Lyanna after the Sack.

I appreciate the point; we've all wondered about what was actually going on with that strange concentration of events. Where I think you go wrong is that you assume that "nothing happens for 9 months" simply because we have not been told about much happening in that time period. This could have been a period of consolidation and frequent small battles rather than the nothing you assume. The remains of Connington's forces had to be rallied, and we're told that Barristan and Darry went to Stony Sept to do so. But wait, didn't the rebels win the battle? What would the remains of the Targ army be doing still there, and why would Barristan and Darry think it was safe to visit? Apparently the retreat from Stony Sept wasn't as thorough as we might have assumed. We know Hoster Tully fought again loyalist riverlords at the time. How many battles were there? We don't know. GRRM has indicated that there were smaller battles that he hasn't reported. They can be at least as well placed before the Trident as after the Sack. 

The solution you offer simply transplants the problem rather than actually solving it. Every month you shave off one side of the sack gets added on the other side, equally unexplained. 

Awkward as that gap between Stony Sept and the Trident appears, that's the story we've been told. Remember that we are told that the siege of Storm's End lasted about a year. We are told that Cat and Ned were apart about a year. The long gap between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident makes sense of this. Your timeline just doesn't fit what we're told. You have Ned leaving to fight on the Trident, which would make it a month or two before the Sack, but Ned was still fighting when Robb was born, meaning your version of events needs a good seven months of war after the fall of the Targs. This despite the fact that Ned's victory at Storm's End was bloodless. Sure it could explain why Stannis doesn't seem to be too enamoured of Ned if it took him half a year to find Storm's End to accept the Tyrell surrender and end the seige, but I think you need to rethink your timeline. 

[SFDanny]

On 1/19/2017 at 5:41 PM, The Twinslayer said:

That would mean that virtually everything we know about the rebellion prior to the Trident would have had to have happened in well under three months:  Gulltown, the Summerhall battles, Ned's journey from the Eyrie to Winterfell, Ned calling his banners, Robert calling his banners, Ned moving the Northern host from Winterfell to Stony Sept, the rebels moving from Stony Sept to Riverrun, Ned's wedding and two week honeymoon, and so on.  All in well under 90 days.

Then, nothing happens for 9 months (the time Robb is gestating) except that Barristan gathers the Targaryen army from Stony Sept and Llewyn Martell collects the Dornish army marching up the boneway so they can join Rhaegar en route to the Trident.

I know we are well off topic here, so if we want to continue we should probably do so in another thread, but let me ask you where you get these figures? My own figures of the time period between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident has it at possibly 6 months or thereabouts, not 9 months. The Citadel essay on this, "What Happen When During Robert's Rebellion?" puts it at seven months. I've never seen anyone figure it to 9 months.

The three months is unlikely as well for the period between the start of the rebellion and the Battle of the Bells. Could you, if you want to continue let me know where you got the figures or why you think they are appropriate. Thanks

[St Daga]

On 1/18/2017 at 3:22 PM, maudisdottir said:

There are people who truly believe Benjen may be the father - all I can say to that is, as a former 14 year old girl, I can guarantee that Lyanna wasn't fooling around with her little brother.  Twelve year old boys are some of the grossest creatures on the planet (ask any mother of teenagers) so unless Benjen was some kind of precocious Barney Stinson, he wasn't getting any action with the big sister who was betrothed to the Lord of Storms End and had been singled out by the Prince of Dragonstone for her beauty.  Not happening.

Hahaha! Thanks for the laugh! Some 12 yrs old boys are very gross, but some girls don't really care. I will say in all seriousness though, I personally know a 12yr old boy who got a 16yr old girl pregnant. He was in the 7th grade, she was a sophomore. These things can and do happen, although it is not common. 

In this world that GRRM has created, many things are possible. For instance, Dalton Greyjoy ...

One such was Dalton Greyjoy, the wild young son of the heir to Pyke and the Iron Islands. Of him Hake writes, "He loved three things: the sea, his sword, and women." A fearless child, headstrong and hot-tempered, he is said to have been rowing at five and reaving at ten, sailing with his uncle to the Basilisk Isles to raid the pirate towns for plunder.

By the age of ten-and-four, Dalton Greyjoy had sailed as far as Old Ghis, fought in a dozen actions, and claimed four salt wives. TWOIAF 

Dalton was not typical, but he existed, and even if some of this is lore. Lore has to be based on some type of truth.

But if Starkcest is a thing, I don't think it's Benjen (although many do). I think it's Ned.

My rationale is based on two things: blood and the parallel's in the series between House Stark and House Lannister.

Blood

It seems like GRRM writes to show us that blood is important, so it has to have a payoff in the end. That is one of the reasons that R+L=J fits so nicely (it matches the books series title like a glove), the idea of Fire and Ice is cool as shit, and I believed it to probably be the answer for a long time. But maybe its not as simple as that, and why should it be? That is why I have been recently looking into other parentage options for Jon and Dany (again, I might add, because there is a mystery about them both, and I felt it from the first time I read aGoT years ago). It does not seem like GRRM is a fan of simple at all. Or protecting feelings of his readers. So Starkcest would not be simple or easy on the reader! 

If the Targaryens wed brother to sister to keep some aspect of their blood strong, who is to say in the past, that other houses did not do the same.  The maesters might not write of it, or even know about it. The story telling of the First Men is oral in tradition, so some information is lost, especially when it does not jive with current accepted practice. Things changed in Westeros when the Andals arrived.

So, when RIckard married his cousin Lyarra and had children, they doubled up their Stark genes. Maybe their children then doubled up and made an even stronger Stark. Maybe the Starks have created a super Stark by doubling up on their DNA. Jon is very much a Stark!

SuperStark! I am saying this over in my head much like Mary Katherine Gallagher in Superstar!

Stark/Lannister parallel

There are many mirrors or parallels in this story between the Stark and Lannister families. One of the reasons I can see the possibility is that the Stark vs Lannister set up has always been a contrast and comparison. It starts out pretty black and white, as in Good Stark and Bad Lannister, and as characters and plots develop, we see that the contrasts are not as blunt and the comparisons are more similar than we ever thought they would be. So Ned and the Starks start as the paragons of honor and Jaime/Cersei and the Lannisters as the immoral demons, but will it end with Ned the big baddie and Jaime is glowing with heavenly light. Dear GRRM, please do not do that to my Ned! 

So there are mirror's between many characters, Jaime/Ned, Cersei/Lyanna, Joffrey/Jon, Tywin/Rickard (although we really don't know much about Rickard Stark, which must be a purposeful omission, but maybe Rickard was as evilly devious and ambitious as Tywin). So, if the Lannisters have committed the big bad sin of fornication with a sibling, does that mean the Stark's have, too? Not everything has a mirror in this series, but there are a lot of them. So once, I wrapped my head around this idea of possible Jon is a Stark/Stark, thoughts and possibilities just started to pour out. It’s worth thinking about, even if you don't want to believe it or do not actually believe it at all.

We know that Ned loved Lyanna with all his heart, he was with her when she died, he blacked out after her death, and he is haunted by her memory. This is all from Ned's POV, so we should accept it. Ned loved Lyanna just slightly less than Robert, who was going to marry her. Does this mean that Ned loved her enough to marry her, oops, except he can't because she is his sister? I really don't have a flipping idea, but ... I see parallel with Ned and Jaime all through the novels. So we know that Jaime had a incestuous relationship with his sister, one that Cersei pursued even though Jaime knew it wasn't right, that Jaime and Cersei created Joffrey (as well as Myrcella and Tommen), a relationship so dangerous that it started the War of the Five Kings. So, to parallel this, could Ned and Lyanna have had an incestuous relationship, possibly pursued by Lyanna even though Ned knew it wasn't right (or vice versa for an inverted parallel), possibly created Jon (and maybe more babes if Lyanna had not died), which just maybe started the war we know as Robert's Rebellion? So...

I think it is more possible that he will show us that the people of these families are not so different from each other. Most likely a repeated incest would be too much a parallel between the two families, but the idea still lingers for me, much like the taste of onions. Not a lot of proof, just some speculation and reading between the lines.

And on the taboo subject of incest

Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such
wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. We get this information from both Ygritte and Catelyn.

So we see that incest was an abominable sin to the Old gods as well; so would the nobles of the household engage in such an act thus angering the gods they hold dear.

We get Ygritte telling us that incest is not approved of by Wildlings, but I wonder if that is a view only shared by her villiage/tribe, or some wildlings but not all. I am sure there is much complexity to the different wildling peoples, and some besides Craster might practice incest.

I wonder if many of the first men didn't practice incest, as well as polygamy and the lords right to the first night (and other things we have not heard of yet like infant sacrifice). I think the book hints that the Boltons and Umbers still practice the lords right to the first night. And some traditions are hard to stop, so are therefore kept as a secret. I think many things have changed over the years, because of the Andals, the Rhoynar, the Targaryens, etc, but I wonder if these things were not much more commonly practiced than we know. 

All I really know is that we won't know much more until we get tWoW!

I believe it was @Voice that said “You'll find no lack of sick perversion in this series”. And I have to agree. Not only are they there, but we get used to them. We grow accustomed to them, and they seem almost normal. Look, Joffrey was an ass, but Myrcella and Tommen are kind, decent kids. It wasn't the incest that made Joffrey a dick, it was the fact that Tywin and Cersei are sociopaths, and he got that gene! As far as sympathizing or empathizing with these characters, GRRM is a genius. If we could get into the Mountain that Rides head, we might find some empathy for him as well. GRRM is that good!

14 hours ago, SFDanny said:

On 1/19/2017 at 6:41 PM, The Twinslayer said:

That would mean that virtually everything we know about the rebellion prior to the Trident would have had to have happened in well under three months:  Gulltown, the Summerhall battles, Ned's journey from the Eyrie to Winterfell, Ned calling his banners, Robert calling his banners, Ned moving the Northern host from Winterfell to Stony Sept, the rebels moving from Stony Sept to Riverrun, Ned's wedding and two week honeymoon, and so on.  All in well under 90 days.

Then, nothing happens for 9 months (the time Robb is gestating) except that Barristan gathers the Targaryen army from Stony Sept and Llewyn Martell collects the Dornish army marching up the boneway so they can join Rhaegar en route to the Trident.

17 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

The solution you offer simply transplants the problem rather than actually solving it. Every month you shave off one side of the sack gets added on the other side, equally unexplained. 

Awkward as that gap between Stony Sept and the Trident appears, that's the story we've been told. Remember that we are told that the siege of Storm's End lasted about a year. We are told that Cat and Ned were apart about a year. The long gap between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident makes sense of this. Your timeline just doesn't fit what we're told. You have Ned leaving to fight on the Trident, which would make it a month or two before the Sack, but Ned was still fighting when Robb was born, meaning your version of events needs a good seven months of war after the fall of the Targs. This despite the fact that Ned's victory at Storm's End was bloodless. Sure it could explain why Stannis doesn't seem to be too enamoured of Ned if it took him half a year to find Storm's End to accept the Tyrell surrender and end the seige, but I think you need to rethink your timeline. 

14 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I know we are well off topic here, so if we want to continue we should probably do so in another thread, but let me ask you where you get these figures? My own figures of the time period between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident has it at possibly 6 months or thereabouts, not 9 months. The Citadel essay on this, "What Happen When During Robert's Rebellion?" puts it at seven months. I've never seen anyone figure it to 9 months.

The three months is unlikely as well for the period between the start of the rebellion and the Battle of the Bells.

As for timeline discrepancies during Robert's Rebellion, we will just have to wait until GRRM gives us more information. It is his timeline to mess with, and I have no doubt he will. Just like we need more information on Lyanna, Rhaegar, Ned, Ashara, Arthur, and the rest of the gang. He has given us little bits of information about the past, scattered among different POV's. We need more information on Harrenhal, Lyanna's "kidnapping", on the Bael the Bard story, the Rebellion, etc. When we got aDwD, our idea's on so many of the possibilities changed in huge ways. How many months was Robert hanging in Stoney Sept banging all the whores? What? Ned was in Sisterton? With a fisherman's knocked up daughter? I though he was fighting a war south of the neck! And Jonno was Lord Commander, until he was betrayed and possibly murdered! And Dany's had dragons, until she lost one and locked two up, and then her whole story went sideways. So much changed in that one book, and those are just a few thoughts. We can assume that tWoW will alter our thoughts as much, if not more, than aDwD did.

So, it's all really circular debate until we get a new book! Anytime now, GRRM, any time!