Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

It is really weird that somehow to prove R + L were in love, we need "hard textual evidence that they conversed, interacted, blah blah". Where is the evidence for any alternative, I wonder?

Your not serious right? Them having a conversation is not needed.For something that "everyone" knew there should be evidence.Evidence in the form of something substantial.

Let me ask you a question.Where is Arya? Think about that now.

[J. Stargaryen]

29 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

So basically the "tower of joy" phrase is an invention of the ballad singers? 

Since Ned is thinking about the ToJ many years later, isn't it possible he learned after the fight that Rhaegar had named it so? For example, when he went to Starfall to return Dawn.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Why, the author cannot reveal everything or else there wouldn't be a mystery. Oh, wait... double standards 

This is obviously a big problem with these discussions. I think people sometimes forget why RLJ is the most popular theory: because it's the strongest, by far. Sure, RLJ forces you to connect some dots. But look at how twisted the narrative becomes with some of the alternatives: Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna; Dany is not Aerys and Rhaella's daughter; Dany is Rhaegar's daughter; Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ; Jon is 57 years older than Robb, but nobody notices or says anything. But gods forbid if someone speculates that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love.

If people are really interested in finding the truth, then all theories should be held to the same standard.

[Sly Wren]

On August 28, 2016 at 11:17 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

You've gone from "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell," to the Lord/King Stark isn't supposed to leave the North. And also fight the SotM when he does. If you want to argue that the ToJ fight is connected to the return of the Others, fine. But Ned wasn't the Stark in Winterfell at that time.

My apologies--I managed to bury the lead of my own argument.

Yes--I do think the toj fight in and of itself is tied to the return of the Others.

But I also think that part of it is that the Starks belong in Winterfell in service to, well, the North.

Leaving Winterfell? Sure--we know they can do so. But when they put themselves in service to other kings, as we see Ned do for Robert, bad things happen.

Seems like the Starks need to serve the north and stay in the north. And if not, the leaving Stark in question suffers, whether there's another Stark in Winterfell or not.

On August 29, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Black Crow said:

I'm inclined to agree and that the stipulation or whatever it is shouldn't necessarily be so narrowly defined. It appears to be akin to the Musgrave Ritual. Its passed down from father to son for so long that no-one now remembers what it really means of why. On one level, clearly the current generations of Starks believe someone needs to be in residence. As you say Benjen was left in charge of the keys when Lord Eddard went off to the rebellion, then Robb Stark, when Eddard went to King's landing. He in turn left Bran to serve as Stark in Winterfell when he went south to avenge Ned and win himself a kingdom.

Right--but in all of those cases the leaving Starks are doing things not related to guarding the North. In Ned's case, he puts himself in service to another King. And for both Ned and Robb, it ends very, very badly.

So, seems like even if there is another Stark in Winterfell, the Starks are supposed to do Stark-ly things. In the North. Not serving other kings or trying to conquer other lands, etc.

[Sly Wren]

On August 29, 2016 at 0:41 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

The red bolded could be for any prospect to be honest.

Perhaps--but the specificity is worth considering. Jon's a sworn brother on a mission violating his sworn brother vows with a wild northern girl. Not marriage vows--sworn brother vows.

Jon said his to a weirwood. Arthur said his in a sept (blood is the seal of our devotion). But both are members of a sworn brotherhood for life.

If Arthur is Jon's father, Jon could literally be following his father's footsteps. More specifically and clearly than with other options, including Rhaegar or Robert.

And Jon's thoughts about those vows and Ygritte this come in the POV chapter right before his POV chapter where he sees the Sword of the Morning with the Wall. Seems potentially deliberate.

[LynnS]

12 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Since Ned is thinking about the ToJ many years later, isn't it possible he learned after the fight that Rhaegar had named it so? For example, when he went to Starfall to return Dawn.

This is obviously a big problem with these discussions. I think people sometimes forget why RLJ is the most popular theory: because it's the strongest, by far. Sure, RLJ forces you to connect some dots. But look at how twisted the narrative becomes with some of the alternatives: Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna; Dany is not Aerys and Rhaella's daughter; Dany is Rhaegar's daughter; Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ; Jon is 57 years older than Robb, but nobody notices or says anything. But gods forbid if someone speculates that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love.

If people are really interested in finding the truth, then all theories should be held to the same standard.

The real problem here is that people forget the meaning of the word courtesy in public discussion.  I haven't been on this board for 2 years and I'm not sure why I should stay.

[J. Stargaryen]

6 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

snip

Removing the "Stark in Winterfell" part from your argument removes my objection to it.

Just now, LynnS said:

The real problem here is that people forget the meaning of the word courtesy in public discussion.  I haven't been on this board for 2 years and I'm not sure why I should stay.

Sorry you feel that way.

---

Since this thread has moved so quickly, I'm hoping there will be a v.2.

---

Also, wrt to the canon vs. semi-canon debate. As I understand it, GRRM said that only the books are canon, which makes that statement semi-canon. So we can disregard it, at least until it shows up in one of the books.

[Sly Wren]

On August 31, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Kingmonkey said:

It's a very curious and provocative phrase, I agree. It could indeed indicate some esoteric point for the event occurring in the story, but my problem is to why the event took place in world rather than why it was included in the story. I think we all agree that Ned didn't do what he did at the ToJ with the purpose of causing the return of the Others or anything like that -- if there is some causal link, then it's something that happened as an unintended consequence. This leaves the question of why Ned did what he did.

Agreed. 

On August 31, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Kingmonkey said:

Oh sure, I wouldn't dream of saying that there's no way there could be a point, but it would require some additional thing that hasn't been mentioned yet to give us that point, and that I have trouble with. At this point in the story, I think we should have heard something. As for your suggestion above -- yeah, that could just about work. Most scenarios raise a huge problem of why nobody would have mentioned it, but maybe Ned would have kept that quiet for Ashara's sake.

We do have that out of nowhere statement that Barristan thinks Dany looks like Ashara's daughter. It's just a very odd addition.

Throw in the House of the Undying vision with Rhaegar and how much Martin's had Dany connect emotionally with Rhaegar (vs. with Aerys or Viserys) in the novels and it really does seems like he's laid groundwork for Dany's not knowing who her parents are. From her first POV in Game, something is off. So, if Martin's going to tell us Dany is Rhaegar and Ashara's, he's laid some groundwork for that move.

But keeping quiet for Ashara's sake? Yes--but would also be for Dany's--Ned did just see what Robert condoned with Rhaegar's kids. And potentially for Jon's sake--one part of the secret gets out, the whole could get out right after it. 

On August 31, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Kingmonkey said:

Might Ned's anger at Ashara being discussed, and his peculiar sympathies to and with the Daynes, suggest that he'd hide such a massive truth out of respect for Ashara? That's a tricky one. I'm in the camp that suspects Ned had a thing for Ashara and would have done quite a lot for her, but then Ned's attitudes towards Rhaegar doesn't really paint him as Ned's rival in love. 

I, too, like the theories that Ned cared for Ashara. 

But when Ned insists that Cat tell him where she heard "that name," meaning Ashara's, and is so cold about it, and ties it to Jon with his anger--sounds like it's all part of one big secret. If Ned's protecting both kids--Jon and Dany--from the start. if he's in cahoots with the Daynes--that would fit. And would fit the Daynish respect for Ned (which really seems odd otherwise).

And I agree with the bolded: doesn't seem like Ned thinks of Rhaegar as a rival. Or as much of anything. 

On August 31, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Kingmonkey said:

I rather like the Arthur + Lyanna theories. There's some nice symbolism there, and though there's very little indicative of it, in a way that helps the theory, as it means there's not much scope for contradiction either. However, if Lyanna was simply hanging out with her main squeeze Arthur while he was on guard duty, it's hard to see why the misunderstanding would have lasted so long. Couldn't she have just written Ned a letter? And why would Ned have kept it secret? With this scenario, what is there to hide?

Yes--the symbolism is one of the biggest parts of ALJ. 

And I agree--if Lyanna's just hanging out as a Dayne groupie, that would be ridiculous.

For the best model, I keep coming back to Sansa and Arya. Martin's made it clear from Game that those two are echoing their Auntie Lyanna.

Both end up with people who didn't "steal" them but hold onto them for their own ends: Sansa with Baelish (plotter) and Arya (for a while) with the Brotherhood.--who care for her and intend to get her home, but who have their own agenda first.

And their scene with the Hound, where they declare their allegiance to Robert--that has strong echoes of the toj KG. With a Stark Maid right there--who in no way is their primary mission.

One thing the World Book strongly suggests: Rhaegar had an agenda. He wanted Aerys off of the throne. And it seems there's a good chance he was working somewhat with Tywin. And he clearly sat out the war and did not intervene until what was supposed to be his triumphant battle. Rhaegar let that war go without intervening until the opportune moment on purpose.

So, Lyanna's getting caught up in all of that (as Arya and Sansa do) and ending up falling for Arthur in the midst of that (as Jon and Ygritte do), but ultimately being subject to Rhaegar's agenda--under those circumstances, I could see the "secret" behind her disappearance not getting out.

On August 31, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Kingmonkey said:

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with this scenario is the question of why Ned left his army behind and took only six men with him to the ToJ. If we can consider this a final battle of the war where Lyanna just happened to be present, then I'd expect Ned to have turned up with overwhelming force. The fact that he chose not to suggest that he had some reason to suspect, or hope, that a fight wouldn't be necessary.

Agreed--this is a puzzlement. I've wondered (as others have before me) if Ned didn't even know where Lyanna was and this was another sort of engagement entirely--accepting surrender? Negotiation? And finding Lyanna was an accident.

I'm not sure on any of it. But the small force is still a puzzlement to me at times.

On August 31, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Kingmonkey said:

If there was an heir of Rhaegar's by someone other than Lyanna there, then either Ned knew and wanted to seize the heir -- in which case he would have known no compromise was possible and would have brought an army -- or knew and didn't want to seize the heir, in which case there was no reason to fight, or he didn't know, in which case the 3KGs purpose would be far better served by agreeing to hand Lyanna over and slipping away with the real prize rather than making a last stand. 

Or, Ned didn't know about either (hypothetical) child. 

If both Lyanna and the hypothetically pregnant Ashara were at Starfall, and Ned got to Starfall for Lyanna--the secret of Ashara's child would be out (unless they kept Lyanna completely in the dark). 

The KG know what happened in King's Landing with Aerys--seems thus likely they knew what happened to Rhaegar's children. Via the Usurper that Ned serves.

If Lyanna carries Rhaegar's kid, they've got at least some hypothetical leverage with Ned. But with Ashara? Once Ned gets that knowledge, that would be a big risk, no?

[Sly Wren]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

So basically the "tower of joy" phrase is an invention of the ballad singers? 

 

53 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

It might. Or perhaps, when asked about his previous whereabouts after his return to KL, Rhaegar deadpanned something about "the tower of joy" and the word spread.

Martin does give us a potential parallel with Baelish and his "drearfort." 

A joking name for a desolate, miserable little tower that he (Baelish) controls and uses to hide his Stark Maid temporarily during his political machinations.

Though in that case, Sansa the Stark Maid is NOT bride or lover or brood mare. The drearfort becomes a "tower of joy" (complete with sound effects) for Baelish and Lysa--a political marriage.

The Stark Maid is a witness to all of it--but she's not the lover or bride or brood mare at the otherwise unnamed tower. 

4 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Because it's the only theory (so far) that makes the most sense of character's thoughts and actions, that answers the most questions, doesn't create more questions than it answers and doesn't rely on making stuff up to fill in the holes.

Well, some RLJ theory takes more than a few flights of fancy. . . . unavoidable in unfinished books. But certainly not fancy free.

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Since Ned is thinking about the ToJ many years later, isn't it possible he learned after the fight that Rhaegar had named it so? For example, when he went to Starfall to return Dawn.

This is obviously a big problem with these discussions. I think people sometimes forget why RLJ is the most popular theory: because it's the strongest, by far. Sure, RLJ forces you to connect some dots. But look at how twisted the narrative becomes with some of the alternatives: Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna; Dany is not Aerys and Rhaella's daughter; Dany is Rhaegar's daughter; Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ; Jon is 57 years older than Robb, but nobody notices or says anything. But gods forbid if someone speculates that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love.

If people are really interested in finding the truth, then all theories should be held to the same standard.

It's right because its most popular???Jstar this theory hasn't been vetted.We are doing that now.Ygrain says love is the staple of Rlj.We will look at that first..Every claim made to support rlj we will use that as a grid.

You are trivializing the arguements.There great reasons why Dany isn't Aerys.Why Lya was'nt at toj and why Jon isn't 57 yrs older(seriously with the over inflation).

 

Lets be done with this nonsense and get on with facts.

[J. Stargaryen]

24 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

It's right because its most popular???Jstar this theory hasn't been vetted.We are doing that now.Ygrain says love is the staple of Rlj.We will look at that first..Every claim made to support rlj we will use that as a grid.

I didn't say that.

Quote

You are trivializing the arguements.There great reasons why Dany isn't Aerys.Why Lya was'nt at toj and why Jon isn't 57 yrs older(seriously with the over inflation).

The great reasons being, you guys need them to be true in order for your theories to work.

Quote

Lets be done with this nonsense and get on with facts.

Which facts though? The fact that the only evidence that exists places Lyanna at the ToJ. Yet a bunch of you don't believe that, because ... because?

[Little Scribe of Naath]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Your not serious right? Them having a conversation is not needed.For something that "everyone" knew there should be evidence.Evidence in the form of something substantial.

Let me ask you a question.Where is Arya? Think about that now.

That was not my point. JStargaryen made it here:

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

This is obviously a big problem with these discussions. I think people sometimes forget why RLJ is the most popular theory: because it's the strongest, by far. Sure, RLJ forces you to connect some dots. But look at how twisted the narrative becomes with some of the alternatives: Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna; Dany is not Aerys and Rhaella's daughter; Dany is Rhaegar's daughter; Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ; Jon is 57 years older than Robb, but nobody notices or says anything. But gods forbid if someone speculates that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love.

If people are really interested in finding the truth, then all theories should be held to the same standard.

Everyone is here to find out the truth, not to win an argument, I suppose. R + L = J is not most likely because it's popular, it's the most likely theory because it's what makes sense based on information we have currently in the books, explains the various character motivations well, ties up more plot holes than it creates. Basically, undermining  R + L = J does not make the other alternatives more likely - the proposed alternative theory has to be able to stand on it's own.

[SFDanny]

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I'm wary of the Wiki and the App at the best of timers, and especially in this case because the Tower of Joy is a piece of fan-fiction.

Black Crow, the app and the Wiki are clearly very different sources. The wiki has been put together by a tremendous amount of time and effort by fans, and any fan can participate, but the author has nothing to do with it. With the app, he has reviewed and approved it and the information in it. As such, the app contains information the author wants the readers to have. Perhaps some of it is information that is part of his plan to misdirect the reader, to lay false trails, or cook up red herrings, but he wants all of this information in there even if he didn't type every word. It's up to us to evaluate each bit of information and figure out the value - just as we need to do with information straight from the books.

[wolfmaid7]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

It's an empiric observation which roused suspicion about Cersei's children. And genetics or not, the literary plot point is that so far, all of Robert's children were black-haired.

Unless you claim for a fact something that is not.

And I was ROFLing at your assumption that you are the only person here who knows a fig about myths.

It is a concern about a possible, and probable, negative behaviour. Negative.

You mean they were being empirical.....Yeah they were it doesn't mean they were right.GRRM's own words blows that method out of the water.Same thing can be said and was said i believe of the Tullys.they had a certain look and when Arya saw that she deviated from the norm she was scared she was a bastard.

Lesson to be learned you can't dictate how genes express themselves and the whole " blood will tell" is the same type of method that leads to things like this Ygrain.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Unless you claim for a fact something that is not.

And I was ROFLing at your assumption that you are the only person here who knows a fig about myths

Have no intention of doing that,i hope you don't either.I'm not assuming anything that's your peception.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

It is a concern about a possible, and probable, negative behaviour. Negative.

Her concern is negative,Robert hadn't cheated on anyone except to Cersie.She's the only one that has something to bitch about in that department.

[wolfmaid7]

4 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I didn't say that.

The great reasons being, you guys need them to be true in order for your theories to work.

Which facts though? The fact that the only evidence that exists places Lyanna at the ToJ. Yet a bunch of you don't believe that, because ... because?

You sure?Its how it came across.

And no.Nobody is needing them to be untrue for their theories to work.The timeline is shit all around and let's be honest the basis for the timelines who all have enacted is based off faulty reasoning.I.e. Cat's belief about when Ned fathered Jon having anything to do with when Jon was fathered.

Some of you resort to incorrectly saying what posters are saying no matter how man times they tell you no. Case in point....I never said no one noticed Jon's difference.Its clear they did that's why we get that statement from Luuwin.Also,and made this point they noticed what are they going to do with that info.Jon is a bastard what someone is going to stand up and declare Jon is clearly Ned's first born at WF to what end?That's why no one never said anyting because that would upset the status quo,they have no reason to upset the status quo. So thi notion that nobody would notice is inconsequential they have no reason to act if they notice.

Jstar what is the quality of that evidence that you speak of? Is it a gun with somebody else finger print on it?

In this case,It is a dream,a fever dream.

It is a fever dream when recounted by the same person in waking moments negate important facts.Could it be that the only thing they have in common is sharing space in a dream.

Not to mention for cripes sake.It is a dream and dreams aren't always literal.they contain elements that have nothing to do with each other when it comes to space and or time.But that GRRM cautions that it is in the context of a dream doesn't seem to bother you guys.Some things are clearly symbolic we know that anyone can recognize that.So somthing other than the symbolism is off.

Here's the problem you guys don't give anyone a chance to explore that because as soon as any conversation goes south of what you all believe you all start the insults,the name calling etc. I can have a civil conversation with the Arthur people and help them sharpen things with their theory and feel no offense or need to shit on them.They can talk to me about my theory and help me sharpen things eventhough they believe something else.

So what is your guys problem.You all behave as if people trying to steal your bread and butter.None of this at the end of the day is going to affect the outcome.We,all sides and theories are either going to be right or wrong.

4 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That was not my point. JStargaryen made it here:

Everyone is here to find out the truth, not to win an argument, I suppose. R + L = J is not most likely because it's popular, it's the most likely theory because it's what makes sense based on information we have currently in the books, explains the various character motivations well, ties up more plot holes than it creates. Basically, undermining  R + L = J does not make the other alternatives more likely - the proposed alternative theory has to be able to stand on it's own.

Did i quote you? I was on my mobile so things get a bit muddled sometimes.I respect your opinion on why you believe the way you do.Most liekt theory IN YOUR MIND.RLJ has never been vetted exactly because most people just went with what their brains recognized from our indoctrination.

We have someone who is "the monster" the drunk womanizing fat king who turned away at the murder of children and wanted to kill a 14yr old pregnant girl who did nothing to him.

And the Prince who played his harp singing love songs,who loved taking long walks in ruins and giving girls roses.

Now!!! Imagine the maiden hand in marriage is given to the monster and Prince comes along and gives her a rose.It is love at first sight they have to be together.Or they have to be together in order to save the world from an evil that is about to befall it....SIGH.

Ok cool i respect your belief .

But telling me they loved each other because everyone and their mother "believed" they ran off together(Ygrain said this).

Because one person who acknowledged he don't know and didn't know why Rhaegar did what he did made aechoed what everyone thought is evidence.

And Little scribe based on the info in the current books to some of us RLJ makes no sense.So where does that leave us.It leaves us with varsity having the advantage.

It was stated that RLJ foundation is the love between Rhaegar and Lyanna.Ygrain said this i want to her to pen what this is based on and see its quality against others.

I want every arguement used as proof of rlj to be peened and held up in the light against the others.

No more sweeping rhetoric,or or glossing over things.Point for point,arguement for arguement let us line these arguements us side by side.

[Lady Dyanna]

Just as an FYI: If anyone has a desire to read any of the parentage essays again, they are currently being gathered and reposted HERE. The majority have already been posted. The essay on Howland Reed will be available in the near future.  Thanks to all of the authors for both participating in this project and allowing your work to be reposted! An especially big thanks to @wolfmaid7 for all the hard work she has put into seeing this project through! 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

Okay, going to break this up....

12 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

It actually isn't a matter of my interpretation.GRRM is the one who said this and he wasn't being fast or loose with his words in this instance.He is simply pointing out a social ideology that doesn't stand in the way of proving 100% who a child's parent is.And i will point out simplest doesn't mean correct,there seems to be confusion about things like that.This isn't rocket science 

Context is needed.Ned had only one bit of info coming into this....The Lannisters killed Jon Arryn.Therefore,when he was told Jon Arryn was reading from:

'The Lineages and Histories of the Great Houses of the Seven Kingdoms,With the Descriptions of Many High Lords,Noble Ladies and their Children."

He had only one point of reference whereby to look in that book anything else would imply he knew what he was looking for.It was the one lead he had...Lannisters

"There was something here,some truth behind these yellow brittle pages."<snip>"The tome was over a century old .Scarecly,a man now alive,had yet been born when Maellon had compiled his dust lists of wedding,births and death."

Note: The book was a bit over a hundread years as Ned said there were few men living who had been born when it was written.So we have an estimated time of the contents in the book....Moving on

"He opened to the section on House Lannister once more,and turned the pages slowly,hoping against all hope that something would leap out at him..(Got,Ned.pg 274).

So now we know what section Ned was looking at.Later on he goes to the garden confronts Cersie and she cops to the kids being Jamie's which prompts this thought from Ned.

"The seed is strong, Jon Arryn had cried on his deathbed, and so it was. All those bastards, all with hair as black as night. Grand Maester Malleon recorded the last mating between stag and lion, some ninety years ago,...Their only issue, an unnamed boy described in Malleon's tome as a large and lusty lad boar with a full head of black hair. ... No matter how far back Ned searched in the brittle yellowed pages, always he found the gold yielding before the coal"

There you have it.Ned's context and what he got from it.Note to attributes are continually brought up.It was stated in the books and reaffirmed over and over.These kids are strong.

Wolfmaid, Ned was trying to make sense of why Jon Arryn had to be silenced. He didn't just consult the book, he went and visited the same kids that JA and Stannis also did.

Quote

Ned smiled. "Did you make a falcon helm for Lord Arryn?"

Tobho Mott paused a long moment and set aside his wine. "The Hand did call upon me, with Lord Stannis, the king's brother. I regret to say, they did not honor me with their patronage."

Ned looked at the man evenly, saying nothing, waiting. He had found over the years that silence sometimes yielded more than questions. And so it was this time.

.....

The boy shoved a fresh fall of black hair off his forehead. "She died when I was little. She had yellow hair, and sometimes she used to sing to me, I remember. She worked in an alehouse."

"Did Lord Stannis question you as well?"

"The bald one? No, not him. He never said no word, just glared at me, like I was some raper who done for his daughter."

Quote

"The boy says that they visited a brothel."

"A brothel?" Ned said. "The Lord of the Eyrie and Hand of the King visited a brothel with Stannis Baratheon?" He shook his head, incredulous, wondering what Lord Renly would make of this tidbit. Robert's lusts were the subject of ribald drinking songs throughout the realm, but Stannis was a different sort of man; a bare year younger than the king, yet utterly unlike him, stern, humorless, unforgiving, grim in his sense of duty.

"The boy insists it's true. The Hand took three guardsmen with him, and the boy says they were joking of it when he took their horses afterward."

"Which brothel?" Ned asked.

"The boy did not know. The guards would."

Quote

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she'd been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough. She had light red hair and a powdering of freckles across the bridge of her nose, and when she slipped free a breast to give her nipple to the babe, he saw that her bosom was freckled as well. "I named her Barra," she said as the child nursed. "She looks so like him, does she not, milord? She has his nose, and his hair …"

"She does." Eddard Stark had touched the baby's fine, dark hair. It flowed through his fingers like black silk. Robert's firstborn had had the same fine hair, he seemed to recall.

 

If JA + Stan's hypothesis was purely: "Lannister gold yields before Baratheon black" ....why would they have to take a look at Bob's bastards with non-Lannister women?

The only explanation is: Their hypothesis was that the Baratheon seed is strong and produces black hair/blue eyes in all the kids sired by Baratheons, no matter who the mother is.

The kids of Robert with non-Lannister women cannot be evidence if the hypothesis of JA and Stannis is purely Lannister Gold < Baratheon Black. And it's plainly stated that there would be no other reason they would even visit those kids, so the only possibility is that they were evidence of Cersei's incest.

Let's look at the very first sentence in the quote you provided:

Quote

The seed is strong, Jon Arryn had cried on his deathbed, and so it was. All those bastards, all with hair as black as night. 

He's finally understood why JA had to visit the bastards. He realises there what is meant by "the seed is strong".  

Logically, he's investigating Robert +  Cersei, so obviously after this, he's going to look at Baratheon-Lannister couples and then find "the gold yielding before the coal."  

 

I'll respond to the rest a while later.

[J. Stargaryen]

34 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

You sure?Its how it came across.

Maybe how it came across to you, but that's not what I wrote.

34 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

And no.Nobody is needing them to be untrue for their theories to work.The timeline is shit all around and let's be honest the basis for the timelines who all have enacted is based off faulty reasoning.I.e. Cat's belief about when Ned fathered Jon having anything to do with when Jon was fathered.

Well, it's a fact that you need Jon to be much older than the evidence shows. Otherwise RB+L=J doesn't work.

34 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Some of you resort to incorrectly saying what posters are saying no matter how man times they tell you no. Case in point....I never said no one noticed Jon's difference.Its clear they did that's why we get that statement from Luuwin.Also,and made this point they noticed what are they going to do with that info.Jon is a bastard what someone is going to stand up and declare Jon is clearly Ned's first born at WF to what end?That's why no one never said anyting because that would upset the status quo,they have no reason to upset the status quo. So thi notion that nobody would notice is inconsequential they have no reason to act if they notice.

For starters, and I thought this was clear, the last line (57 years older) was hyperbolic.

But I wonder, why would there be this really awkward, open secret if Jon's age, relative to Robb's, was inconsequential.

34 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Jstar what is the quality of that evidence that you speak of? Is it a gun with somebody else finger print on it?

In this case,It is a dream,a fever dream.

Regardless of the quality of evidence, it's still greater than the evidence that she wasn't there, which is nothing. You guys are saying: "Hey, you know how the only evidence we have on the subject places Lyanna at the ToJ? Well, I think that means she wasn't there!" It's a tad counter intuitive, to say the least.

It's hard to compare facts and evidence the way you want to, when you ignore every single inconvenient fact or piece of evidence you encounter.

34 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Here's the problem you guys don't give anyone a chance to explore that because as soon as any conversation goes south of what you all believe you all start the insults,the name calling etc. I can have a civil conversation with the Arthur people and help them sharpen things with their theory and feel no offense or need to shit on them.They can talk to me about my theory and help me sharpen things eventhough they believe something else.

So what is your guys problem.You all behave as if people trying to steal your bread and butter.None of this at the end of the day is going to affect the outcome.We,all sides and theories are either going to be right or wrong.

If you think anyone is insulting you, or calling you names, you should report them.

I'm pro-exploring ideas. But I'm also pro-honestly evaluating evidence to the best of our abilities. You and anyone else are welcome to explore ideas all you want. Just like the rest of us are allowed to have a higher standard for evidence and theories.

[Lady Dyanna]

18 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Thank you Lady Dy for all the hard work on the blog.I had a peak.Great Job.

    The timing seems to have worked out perfectly!

[Kingmonkey]

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

I think i can explain this all to you in one para.I'am an initiate in Gardenerian wicca.I am also "Famtrad".Gardner employed rituals from many many famtrad groups in England because he was afraid withcraft was dying in England.It wasn't that though,it was that the craft was after the mystery school system and its teachings are suppose to be in secret.Gardner took alot of flack for bringing some rituals to ligt it was seen as a betrayal of some of the family tradition.Some tracing all the way back to Ancient Egypt.He wasn't working on a fragmentary tradition but traditions.However, somethings have remained the same through the ages.

Your background in Gardnerian wicca (shouldn't that be wica?  ) and famtrad is obvious, don't worry. That's fine. What's problematic is that you're working from this basis without acknowledging that this symbolism is widespread beyond those traditions. It's part of a living tradition of mayday rituals that have taken place throughout England for hundreds of years, it has been widely explored by comparative mythologists such as Graves, Campbell and Frazier, and through them has become part of the common language of mythic fantasy ever since. There is no basis for assuming that the Gardnerian version is the one that GRRM was working with.

I don't want to get into a discussion of Gardner with you, I'm sure you're far more widely read on Gardner than I am, but Gardner himself did readily state that he didn't get the rituals in whole cloth and added to them. I'm fairly sure that "fragmentary" is Gardner's own description. We know, for example, that he borrowed heavily from Crowley for the Book of Shadows. 

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

 The horned god is essentially,the first shepard,hunter,gardner etc.

Don't forget "Master of Animals". The oldest associations (possibly excluding Brueil's dubious if wonderful reconstruction the Sorcier des Trois-Frère) generally follow that common motif. 

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

I never said in "real life" they had to have actuall sex,that's something different.When it comes to this story i'm saying:

The argument you made is that the very existence of the symbolism demands that Robert and Lyanna had sex at Harrenhal. This is a fundamentally flawed claim for two reasons.

1. As you now seem to acknowledge, the sexual act does not actually have to take place; it may only be represented symbolically. This is in fact the case in, for example, the dozens of traditional May festivities held throughout Britain every year. 

2. It presupposes that the ritual followed the script. Everything we know tells us that the tourney of Harrenhal did not follow the script. It's therefore more than reasonable to presume that the symbolism is also of a ritual going off-script.

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

2. Robert and Lyanna excluding all the other evidence did have sex at Harrenhall because GRRM didn't just superimpose some obscure mythology that you and a lot of people had to google to get an idea about it for nothing.

Just no. Please don't jump to conclusions. I certainly didn't have to google it to find out what you were talking about, I was perfectly able to spot the Horned King references myself on first reading, as I am sure were many other people. Kudos to you for running this one and looking at it in depth, but don't kid yourself you have a unique knowledge of this and nobody else is qualified to challenge you on it. I'll readily admit your knowledge of the Gardnerian stuff far outstrips mine. I've only really looked at that in passing, as my knowledge of this stuff comes from an academic interest. I think it's equally clear that I have a greater knowledge of the broader context than you do. 

This is by no stretch some obscure mythology. It's a keystone of the work of Frazier and those who followed him, and as a consequence it's very widely known amongst students of anthropology, mythology and fantasy fiction. You'll find elements of it in the popular cult 80s TV series Robin of Sherwood, in Lloyd Alexander's seminal Book of Three fantasy series, in several of  Rosemary Sutcliffe's (one of GRRM's favourite authors) novels, and was the basis of Pat Mills'  multi-award winning comic Slaine: The Horned God. Just a few examples of what is a common staple of fantasy fiction. 

Of course GRRM didn't overlay this symbolism for nothing, nobody is claiming that. My suggestion is that just as the actual event (the tourney) did not go as planned, nor did the symbolic one. 

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

There's actually no reason to put that there if in the case that Rhaegar and Lyanna got together and Jon is theirs its not neccessary.All of that would be observable form just eyeballing the mudane,the perceptions and opinions.

Just as there is nothing in the text that actually says Robert and Lyanna had sex, nor is there anything in the text that states that Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex. I'm sure we both agree on that.

You propose that the symbolism here is a way of hinting that Robert and Lyanna did have sex. Fair enough.

I am proposing that the symbolism here is a way of hinting that Rhaegar did not just take Lyanna away from Robert (which we know happened) but that he actually supplanted Robert's intended role as Lyanna's sexual partner. So yes, there's still a reason for the symbolism to be there.

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

 I'm not asserting there's a single tradition,i know that.I have friends in several traditions initiated and famtrad.Though there are somethings that are a secret this isn't one of them. I have never in all my years as a Pagan been to any Beltane( i use that for ease) where the "may pole" dance happened before the ritualized or real sex act. Even when an invocation or chant is done its always along the lines of..

A ritualized sex act does not result in babies, only a real one does. Thus the ritual act may take place first (this is, after all, the basis of a marriage ceremony), but the actual one can still take place at night at the end of the ritual. 

When Rhaegar placed the crown on Lyanna's lap from the tip of his lance, he was symbolically performing a symbolic sex act. The question is whether Robert had actual sex with Lyanna before the symbolic one took place. Do I understand right that in your thinking, Rhaegar's lance is the maypole and thus the sex act must have taken place before this? 

The ritualised sex act, whether symbolic or actual, takes place between the queen and king of may. This is frequently symbolised by a crowning ceremony. That indeed would take place before the may pole dance, as the may pole dance is where the process of pairing off follows the pyramid down from the king and queen to the rest of the participants in the festival. 

However, there's no question when the crowning takes place. The tourney ends when the champion is crowned, and in turn crowns the QoLaB. Rhaegar crowned Lyanna.

Yes, Robert was supposed to be the horned god and Lyanna was supposed to be his may queen. But that was not supposed to happen at Harrenhal. Everyone was shocked when Lyanna was crowned there. By crowning Lyanna at Harrenhal, when everyone expected him to crown Elia, Rhaegar claimed Lyanna as his may queen -- apparently before Robert had the chance to do so. 

On 02/09/2016 at 5:30 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Oh gosh no, i see what you are saying and i'm in noway saying its the only feasible interpretation.Every and i mean every theory on here has another feasible interpretation when you think about it.Is it unlkley when viewed in totality but certainly not the "only" feasible one.

Well then we don't really have an argument here! It was specifically your use of the word "certainly" I was objecting to. I suggested "arguably" instead. We can debate how strongly arguable (I still contend that when every single other usage of hooded cloaks is different, it's not a very strong case) but I'm not opposed to the notion that it was someone else disguised as Rhaella. Likely, no, but possible. However when you make an argument predicated on such an assumption, you really need to demonstrate the assumption is at least likely. In this case the only evidence provided for that not being Rhaella is the cloak and hood, and as we've seen, there isn't a single example elsewhere of that being used to designate a false identity rather than concealment.

[Kingmonkey]

9 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Jstar this theory hasn't been vetted.We are doing that now.Ygrain says love is the staple of Rlj.We will look at that first..Every claim made to support rlj we will use that as a grid.

Don't you think that would be more appropriate for the pinned R+L=J thread? This is the xyj wrap up thread, and regardless of Ygrain's ideas, the R+L=J essay I wrote in this series does not utilise the theory that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love as evidence. I specifically set out to demonstrate that RLJ has a solid basis without all that widely questioned stuff. 

I'd love to see more vetting of the RLJ essay I wrote for this series. So far the vast majority of this thread has dealt with the RB+L and AD+L essays. Dig in, swing away, take your best shot -- but please don't take aim at targets that aren't even in it.