Jump to content

Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3


wolfmaid7

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Agreed. Or "a man's" nature--any given man, in her mind, can't be changed by love.

No, I think you miss my point. The quote is,

Quote

"Robert let never keep to one bed," Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young lord of Storm's End. "I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale. "Ned had held the babe in his arms. he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before the betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only, smiled. "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature." bold emphasis added

The point is the love that she is talking about which "cannot change a man's nature" is Robert's supposed love for Lyanna. Not Lyanna's love for Robert. She may feel that no love from any woman would change Robert's nature, but that is not what she is talking about. She is saying no matter what love Robert claims for her, it won't change what he will do. She never expresses any love for Robert herself.

 

7 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Maybe--but if that were so, why extrapolate to all men? Or are you assuming that Robert's failure via fathering a child has left her so disappointed and jaded that she's done with men?

Or do you think she's assuming Robert won't change his ways based on what she's already seen of other men?

I do think she is probably effected by her oldest brother's wandering ways, and how she sees him treat women, and that may well explain how she sees so clearly through Robert's charm to his core view of women. I don't think this is a universal condemnation of men by any means. She has a beloved brother standing in front of her that never treats any woman in this kind of way - that we know of, and I'm willing to bet if her little brother Benjen started behaving like Brandon, she would take him to the pond before the weirwood tree and hold his head under until he got some sense. No, this is not a universal statement on "men's nature;" her words are in the singular form "a man's nature." If she was talking about the human species it would be "Man's nature" would it not? And then it would include women as well. No, it's a statement on Robert's nature, and she's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

One cannot separate love from number 1.It is contingent upon love, for it is the variable Ned introduced and the variable to which Lyanna is responding not directly about him by the way but in general.

To save people reading back,

1. Robert's nature is to never keep to one bed.

 When Lyanna says that love will not change a man's nature, she is saying that his nature is not contingent upon love. Now anyone can disagree with Lyanna, but that's what she said, and that's her opinion on the matter. Ned introduced the variable, and Lyanna responded by dismissing the idea that it can have an impact on a man's nature.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I lean toward a different interpretation of Ned's recollection of his conversation with Lyanna.The introduction of love is what changes that particular scene in the brothel. The author extends the context when that conversation doesn't end at " I hear he fathered a child on some girl in the Vale." 

Yes, Lyanna's opinion was that Robert's nature would not change, even for love. Ned however didn't reminisce about this conversation due to the love factor, but the Robert's nature factor. There was nothing about the scene that is concerned with love, and everything about the scene that was concerned with Robert's bed-hopping nature. 

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Kingmonkey "we" can't apply anything to Rhaegar's situation.

Yes, that's MY point. You do remember that this entire debate was a response to you applying Lyanna's opinions of Robert to Rhaegar's situation?

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

She doesn't know Rhaegar.She has no refererence by which to draw from except the obvious if i were to buy this arguement.

That's rather speculative. Especially as she appears to have spent many months with Rhaegar before becoming pregnant.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

He is married,with a child.She has to be all kinds of stupid to think "He's going to do this only to his wife and he's going to stay oyal to me. That is every movie with a mistress or woman on the side who believes "he will leave his wife for me and be faithful."

Whatever the judgement you have of the stupidity of such a thought, it's a thought that people have all the time. It's hardly unrealistic that a 14-15 year-old girl might think that. About 98% of the decisions anyone ever makes in the books are short-sighted and have tragic consequences, why on earth should Lyanna be immune?

Alternatively, maybe she knew something about Rhaegar that we do not. We, after all, never met him. We have a few fragments of second-hand information to go on. She presumably spent several months getting to know him and discover his motivations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

SFDanny your wrong about this my dear...There are characters in the story that tell us Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. NO character said,not one said "they" ran off together.Between the lines there may be some characters believing that yes. But you are confusing what the books say to what characters in the story believe. It is canon that Ned called Jon his son,it is canon that characters in the story believe Ned to be Jon Snow's father....There are hints in the books that lead us to believe what was stated by Ned and what people believe isn't true.Or are you saying that Ned is in fact Jon's dad?

Likewise people believe Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna,people may believe they ran off together there are hints that say neither view is correct.

I'm stating, and I think I'm doing so very clearly, that it is canon that Rhaegar and Lyanna go off together, whether one believes that it is from him kidnapping her, or because they loved each other and decide to runoff and live as a loving couple someplace out of everyone else's reach, or some other motivation. There are reasons to believe all of those motivations within the canon. There is nothing within the canon that points to Rhaegar not being the one who runs off with Lyanna.

Let me again be clear as I can here. There are many, many players who could wish to do Rhaegar harm. That does not mean there are clues that anyone of them did so by blaming Rhaegar for a "kidnapping" he did not do. To assert they did is only your assertion without anything in the canon to support it, and everything, from every point of view within the canon supporting the view Rhaegar, for whatever reason, did take Lyanna away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

The point is the love that she is talking about which "cannot change a man's nature" is Robert's supposed love for Lyanna. Not Lyanna's love for Robert. She may feel that no love from any woman would change Robert's nature, but that is not what she is talking about. She is saying no matter what love Robert claims for her, it won't change what he will do. She never expresses any love for Robert herself.

And we actually see even a woman's love unable to change Robert's nature - Barra's mother, whore or not, has apparently fallen for him, yet he never even bothers to come and see her, or his child.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

I do think she is probably effected by her oldest brother's wandering ways, and how she sees him treat women, and that may well explain how she sees so clearly through Robert's charm to his core view of women. I don't think this is a universal condemnation of men by any means. She has a beloved brother standing in front of her that never treats any woman in this kind of way - that we know of, and I'm willing to bet if her little brother Benjen started behaving like Brandon, she would take him to the pond before the weirwood tree and hold his head under until he got some sense.

I think your observation of the Brandon factor is a spot on, and I wholeheartedly agree about the treatment Benjen would receive :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Voice said:

 

Yup. Just want to agree. When Catelyn abducted Tyrion, it attracted quite a bit of attention. When Brienne escorted Jaime (yawn), it attracted quite a bit of attention. It is hard for nobles to traverse the realm unnoticed. Like TMZ, Westerosi citizens seem to know how to spot celebrities doing things they shouldn't be. In the case of Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna, it does all seem to be hearsay rather than firsthand accounts.

Yeah, he was abducted from a busy inn. But note that as soon as Cat strayed from their predicted route (to Winterfell), no-one had the slightes idea where Tyrion might be. As for Jaime/Brienne, much of the attention came from Edmure actively trying to re-capture them. OTOH, Cat and Ser Rodrick managed to avoid detection all the way between KL and the inn - and even then it was an unfortunate coincidence that Tyrion showed up and identified her.

I'm not saying it's not suspicious that this kidnapping business is kept so vague. It's more than enough to cast doubt on it. But more because of the obviousness of the effort to keep it vague than because it's hard to believe that there were few witnesses and even fewer who can still tell us about it.

Quote

Wow, anyway, that was a bit more of a ramble than I intended. I just wanted to agree @LynnS and say that the lack of witnesses is glaring, and has continuously allowed each side to perpetuate their own version of the narrative even 17 years later. And I might add, it is very interesting that while Rhaegar's supporters have rationalized the rumors to paint them in a positive light, not a single one of them bears an account of Lyanna in Rhaegar's presence (let alone custody) after the Tourney of Harrenhall... not even Jon Connington... which is very odd. 

I agree it's somewhat odd that JC doesn't mention Lyanna (for the rest, not so much - I imagine if Rhaegar did kidnap Lyanna, very few people would be in the position to witness it), but you know what's much odder? That no-one ever voices the slightest doubt about the abduction. Not the surviving Kingsguard, not Jon Connington, not the remaining Targaryens. I'm rather fond of the 'Rhaegar was framed' theories, but if Rhaegar was indeed framed, don't you think he'd protest his innocence? Don't you think that while he was dealing with the situation after his return to KL, he would have mentioned to someone that he had nothing to do with the Lyanna business? So yeah, it's very odd that Jaime or Barristan never heard anything like a denial from him. That he never told Rhaella he didn't do it, or that Rhaella didn't pass that info on to her children (well, Viserys at least). JC might have a good excuse in already being in exile by the time Rhaegar showed up, but even then, he'd be just as likely to see Rhaegar without Lyanna after the abduction (thus know he was framed) as to see them together. That he doesn't mention either shows us that ... well, both possibilities are still about as likely as they were before. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the Bella thing
Any attempts to dismiss it as a marketing ploy have to ignore the massive hint Martin gives us in Arya's reaction. 

Quote

The girl did have hair like the old king's, Arya thought; a great thick mop of it, as black as coal. That doesn't mean anything, though. Gendry has the same kind of hair too *WINK, WINK, same as Gendry, ha-ha see what I did there?*. Lots of people have black hair.

So yes, I'm pretty sure that Bella is indeed Robert's. It doesn't make sense to do all that winking only to later ... how is it going to be revealed, anyway? Instead of a secret wedding in front of a weirwood, will Bran see a scene with all the whores in the brothel swarming Robert and him saying "Nope, nope, damnit, I don't want anything to do with you lot, Lyanna might yet be mine again"?

Nah, I think, rather than assume that Robert was resisting the charms of ladies while hiding in a brothel for days? weeks? I'll just assume that Ned forgave him for not resisting and had some other reason to believe that he loved Lyanna.

 

Re: Robert's nature and child in the Vale

I see two possibilities, either

1. Lyanna knew of Robert's womanising, or

2. she jumped to conclusions from the single fact that he fathered a child in the Vale (which some posters seem to argue)

What would each of these mean for the Rhaegar situation?

1. She's fully aware of Robert's 'nature' and objects to it. As unfaithfulness is part of that nature, and Rhaegar supposedly courting her is an act of unfaithfulness, that probably wouldn't make her favourably disposed towards going along with it. However, we don't know that, it's just a fairly reasonable assumption. Robert's nature has other aspects that Rhaegar's doesn't. So her objection to Robert doesn't automatically mean she has to object to Rhaegar as well or be a hypocrite.

2. In this case, yes, the Robert and Rhaegar situations are much the same. If she makes such a sweeping conclusion from one misstep of Robert, then she should by all means do the same for Rhaegar.  But then the very maturity that makes it so hard to believe that she'd do something as stupid or hypocritical as objecting to Robert's 'nature' and then running off with Rhaegar is greatly undermined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

And we actually see even a woman's love unable to change Robert's nature - Barra's mother, whore or not, has apparently fallen for him, yet he never even bothers to come and see her, or his child.

True. Very true.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I think your observation of the Brandon factor is a spot on, and I wholeheartedly agree about the treatment Benjen would receive :D

Thank you. As you might suspect, I've seen big sisters in action. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

It was so much nicer when we could edit the source for replies and insert a "[/quote]" where needed. The updated board software is a big step backwards, unfortunately. 

As a mod of another forum I know I'm not exactly unbiased, but fawk. It's awful! At first I was glad they finally added quick quote, but then I realized the quick quotes are harder to get rid of than greyscale. I'd say it would be nice if they reverted back to the old software, but no doubt that would cause another purge of posts and OPs.

And there's no Tapatalk support!? C'mon now. Anyway, let us throw words...

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

All true. However GRRM presents us with a mystery as to what Rhaegar was doing after the birth of Aegon. That mystery invites speculation.

Did Rhaegar believe that Aegon was the promised Saviour, and then abandon him to shack up with a northern floozy, just for kicks? This seems out of character for the man as he has been presented, a man convinced of the importance of prophecy and burdened by a sense of duty. Thus we are lead to speculate that there might have been some other reason for Rhaegar's absence, something more compatible with what we believe we know about his character.

Yet, as you say, there is nothing there in black and white in the books to elucidate the situation. Of course, if there was, then there wouldn't be a mystery. As GRRM has given us a mystery, by necessity he cannot have told us what was going on.

We agree that such kicks seem out of character for Rhaegar, but to differing degrees.

While it is true the books are mysterious, enigmatic, and raise more questions than answers, we cannot dismiss that Rhaegar himself gave us the answer to the mystery of the identity of tptwp.

And while it is true that he ceased sharing Aemon's view, and formed his own, I think it is quite a stretch to assume that Rhaegar spent the rebellion working on a prophecy.

As you say, does seem more dutiful than that. And while he may have hoped for a ptwp before Aegon's birth, I think it odd he would be overcome with that prophecy following Aegon's birth.

Why?

Well, there are several reasons. 

Rhaegar tells us himself, in no uncertain terms (see Mel/Stannis/Aemon's uncertainty for contrast), that Aegon is tptwp. Then, the rebellion erupts. Then, Rhaegar tells us himself, in no uncertain terms, that he means to call a council and make some changes.

If Rhaegar was burdened by duty, his duty at the time was not to knock up Robert's betrothed. Even if he wanted to sire a hero to save the world, he first needs to end the civil war or there might not be a realm left to save. 

I understand passions can interfere with logic, but Rhaegar is supposed to be more thoughtful and dutiful than Robert. If he impregnated Lyanna during the Rebellion, he wasn't.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Agreed, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have his characters go that route. It is that very path we see Stannis going down. We can even say that it appears to be something of a family weakness for Targs. Egg's actions at Summerhall, the great tragedy that almost wrecked House Targaryen, appears to have been caused by Egg's sense of duty getting the better of him in a rather similar fashion. There are also pretty clear hints of the dangers of a messiah complex in Dany's story.

While I agree there is plenty precedent for Targaryen zealots, I think you might be overstating the "duty" angle. We do not yet know enough about Aegon's mental state at Summerhall to assume he was acting out of duty. And I think Dany's story is the perfect example of how a messianic complex will detract from a sense of duty, rather than strengthen it.

In thinking about Summerhall, I am reminded of this passage:

"Yes. And yet Summerhall was the place the prince loved best. He would go there from time to time, with only his harp for company. Even the knights of the Kingsguard did not attend him there. He liked to sleep in the ruined hall, beneath the moon and stars, and whenever he came back he would bring a song. When you heard him play his high harp with the silver strings and sing of twilights and tears and the death of kings, you could not but feel that he was singing of himself and those he loved."

 

It is borrowed from a short story GRRM published in 1975. I highly recommend it. Here's a link.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Surely that would apply in the case of ANY parentage issue? We simply don't get anything from Ned's thoughts about Jon Snow's parents. Obviously it would be rather awkward if we did, as that would make it hard for GRRM to keep it a mystery.

Well, that isn't true at all if Lyanna is indeed Jon's mother.

If Lyanna is Jon's mother, then obviously, Ned thinks about her all the time.

And if his guilts are related to that parentage, then clearly, Ned thinks of Lyanna so often because she is Jon's mother, rather than because she is his dead sister. By comparison, he doesn't think of brother Brandon very often, nor of his own mother and father.

Lyanna haunts him. Rhaegar does not.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

There is the oddity of Ned's "for the first time in years", but as I showed in the essay, that's simply not true. It may have been the first time that Ned had given serious thought to Rhaegar's nature as a man, but it's not the first time in years that Ned had thought of Rhaegar, it's only the first time in that chapter.

We see Ned thinking of Rhaegar in Eddard 1, Eddard 2, Eddard 7 and Eddard 8 before that "for the first time in years he found himself remembering Rhaegar" line in Eddard 9. That's just the times we get to see. Clearly Rhaegar is not nearly that absent from Eddard's thoughts. However Eddard seems extraordinarily circumspect even in his own head. Robert lives in the past. Eddard tries to avoid it.

Yup. I did read your essay KM. Several times. You should know that by now. :)

Appreciate the recap anyway, but it changes my point not at all.

Rhaegar not only fails to inspire any emotion for Ned, he is a forgettable man.

That forget-ability makes sense if Rhaegar is just a dead prince.

It doesn't make sense if Rhaegar is Jon's true father and Ned has been protecting Rhaegar's dragonspawn from Robert.

 

This is one of the areas in which I think the strength of argument for Lyanna as Jon's mother is often used as collateral for the strength of argument for Rhaegar as Jon's father.

The two are far from equal - a point on which I remember you agreeing.

So while Ned thinks of Rhaegar often, it is the lack of substance, emotion, and gravitas of those thoughts that stands out to me. Compared to the amount of sadness in his thoughts for Lyanna (and Jon), I think the contrast itself makes for a compelling argument against the theory that Rhaegar is Jon's father.

But on that, we might disagree. :)

Ned does indeed try to avoid the past, but he doesn't try to avoid Rhaegar at all. Why is that?

Ned grows quiet with sadness when he speaks of Lyanna. Sad, quiet wolf mode. He does that for someone else too, but not for Rhaegar. The name Rhaegar Targaryen holds no ghosts for Ned.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I'd say Ned's forgettable, blasé regard for Aerys Targaryen is equally difficult to reconcile with the notion that the man killed his brother and father, and thus caused him to end up as Lord of Winterfell and husband to Catelyn. Just as much a constant reminder.

Ned regrets his OWN mistakes. He thinks again and again of the promises he's made, the lies he's had to tell to keep them, and of promises broken. The faces of the 3KG burn brightly in his memory. The mistakes and sins of others, he seems to leave rather easily in the past. 

If you are now making the argument that Aerys is Jon's father, I shall raise the same points. ;)

But as I think that unlikely, I will say that the fact that Ned views Aerys and Rhaegar in the same emotionless light says much and more. A man wonders if neither was Jon's father.

And yes, regarding Ned's own mistakes... we completely agree. One wonders why those 3KG haunt him so, when Rhaegar does not.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

It is canon that azor ahai is a warrior. It is canon that it is often understood that azor ahai and tptwp are the same thing. It is canon that tptwp is a hero that is supposed to arise to rescue the world during the "war for the dawn", and generally wars need warriors. It is canon that Rhaegar at one time believed himself to be tptwp. It is canon that Rhaegar read something in the scrolls that made him believe he must be a warrior.

It's not exactly huge leaps, is it? 

It is canon that Aegon was Rhaegar's prince that was promised at one time.

It is also canon that Rhaegar was Rhaegar's prince that was promised at one time.

It is canon that Rhaegar abandoned Aegon shortly after Aegon's birth to go and do other things. 

We must wonder why, if Rhaegar was convinced that the world would fall if Aegon fell, he thought there were other more important things to be doing than looking after Aegon.

We do not have a canon explanation for Rhaegar's actions, post the claim that Aegon was tptwp. In that there is no canon hat rack to deposit your cap on, so we have no choice but speculation. That Rhaegar appears to have been focused on the tptwp prophecies, and that he seems to behaved as if Aegon was not that important after all makes the speculation that he changed his mind a second time very reasonable speculation. If you're going to hang your cap somewhere, and have only speculation as to where the hat rack might stand, reasonable speculation is the best you can expect.

Gotta love that phrase, "the war for Dawn." I do, at least.

But no, not huge leaps at all. I never said they were.

And I never made the argument that Rhaegar was not looking after Aegon. That doesn't seem to be the case at all actually, considering Rhaegar went to battle to save Aegon and even died in the attempt.

And it also seems Rhaegar had a friend (Jaime) or two (Jon Con) guard him closely when he rode off to his doom. 

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Sure. And that could point to Lyanna not being enthusiastic about the idea. Which might lead us to believe the rape story. Could Rhaegar, who everyone believes to be the shining beacon of nobility, have been driven to tragic and horrible action by an obsession with prophecy? Might his death be mirrored by his birth in that very respect? I'd say that's a distinct possibility, though I'm unhappy with how that fits in with Rhaegar's "tower of joy".

I'm unhappy with it as well, but to be honest, it is a far more believable and GRRM-like version of RLJ than the idea that it was consensual.

But then, thankfully, it is made implausible by Ned's own lack of thought and emotion toward Rhaegar... Rhaegar's own dutiful approach to politics... as well as Lyanna's own intelligence, wolf blood, and her ability to defend herself.

So while we disagree on some substantive issues, we may both breathe a sigh of relief on this one I think. :cheers:

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Alternatively, maybe it points to Lyanna not seeing herself in the role of the "girl in the vale", but rather sees Elia being in that role. That only leaves us with having to believe that Lyanna did not think that Rheagar shared Robert's nature. As everything we have know about Rhaegar paints him as being a very different person to Robert, that's hardly a big ask.

LOL!

You do realize what you've just done, right?

If you remove Lyanna from the role of "girl in the Vale," and instead place Elia in that role from Lyanna's perspective, then you've just placed Lyanna into the role of herself when she states her convictions to her dearest Ned.

So we have Lyanna playing the part of "Lyanna," and Elia playing the part of "girl in the Vale"

Rhaegar would be in the role of "Robert," who has left a child in the bed of "Elia in the Vale."

And Lyanna as "Lyanna," would be protesting the idea of betrothing Rhaegar as "Robert," and simultaneously condemning him for wanting her after leaving a child with "Elia in the Vale."

So I can only agree. That sounds like the Lyanna GRRM wrote.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I tend to agree, though I certainly wouldn't exclude the possibility of either, or indeed both.

But not neither?

If neither, Rhaegar might have died a very misunderstood defender of his wife, kids, house, and realm.

A victim of rumor.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I would say that's a real possibility. However we do know that Rhaegar's martial interests were something he considered a necessity that he pursued reluctantly after finding something in the scrolls. That's canon. We have no such canon regarding his decision to learn the harp. On the contrary, we are given the impression that the harp was Rhaegar's passion, not something he took up reluctantly because he felt that he must.

Idk. I mean, Elia straight up asked him if he would make a song for Aegon. And we know Rhaegar would oft return from his walkabouts with a song. And rather than say he would be a warrior, Rhaegar said that he was tptwp and that his is the song of ice and fire. So it might be that Aegon was destined to become an accomplished harpist/singer like his father.

In any case, the argument was originally meant in jest, so I feel a bit silly going on with that part of the debate. :)

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I'd say that's quite likely. Aemon believed that they had been in error all these years, that the prince could be a princess. Thus he came to believe that for all his study, Rhaegar was wrong about the identity of tptwp.

My Puppets of Fire and Ice essay shows that the events of MMD's tent are echoed repeatedly throughout the books (and in the Dunc & Egg books). Some echoes are strong, some weak. The ToJ appears to have been one of the strongest of the echoes. There is a fundamental theme to this pattern, which is the hatching of dragons from an egg. This certainly reaches its magical ultimate in Dany's story, but is mirrored elsewhere. Given the strength of the associations between the ToJ and MMD's tent I think it's a quite reasonable theory that ToJ included one more attempt to hatch a dragon. 

Yup. I'm pretty sure I did read that one. I'll just repeat to your first point that while Aemon came to believe Rhaegar was wrong about Aegon, we have no evidence to suggest Rhaegar changed his mind about Aegon being tptwp.

And, I'll again state, that if Rhaegar did indeed change his mind about Aegon being tptwp, his indecision makes the alleged sequestering of Lyanna all the more questionable.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

That's not really what happened in the case of the Westerlings. They were fighting on the side of the Lannisters, as they had for years. Gawen Westerling was captured by the Starks at the Whispering Wood. Robb's men attacked and laid siege to the Crag, seat of house Westerling. After victory over the Westerlings, Robb was injured and Jayne Westerling tended to his wounds. At this time they fell in love. 

Jayne Westerling was sleeping with the very enemy that was at that very moment oppressing her house (by having conquered it). 

So those Verona moments can happen.

Isn't it "Jeyne" Westerling? Or am I misremembering that. In any case, I don't think we will be agreeing any time soon on this parallel.

Jeyne/Jayne Westerling was no Lyanna Stark, and a woman-grown, and of an age with Robb. And Robb was no Rhaegar, with no wife and no children.

If Ned had murdered Jeyne/Jayne's father and brother, and if Jeyne/Jayne were 13-14 years old and betrothed, and if Robb were 7-8 years her senior and married, then I would agree that they represent a fitting counter-parallel to that of Sansa+Joffrey/Tyrion. Otherwise, not so much.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

What slights on the honour of the North are you referring to? At this stage, the only theoretical slight is that Rhaegar wanted to run away with Lyanna. I don't think it makes much sense to propose that Lyanna would consider the fact that someone wanted to elope with her as an insult that would make it impossible for her to elope with him even if she wanted to. Would she only be prepared to elope with someone who didn't want to elope with her? That's very Grouch Marx. :D

The only theoretical slight?!

That's a pretty big slight my friend. If I stole your child, would that not be a slight upon your house?

I agree that Lyanna is it possible Lyanna would not be insulted by Rhaegar's desire, but given her statement to Ned, it is hard to fathom her approval for it. And, it is harder still to imagine how Rickard, Brandon, and Ned, would not view the desire to run away with Lyanna as anything but a slight upon the north. 

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

As I said before, if there's more concentration on what we know of Rhaegar (or other potential fathers) then it's largely because we have far more information about Rhaegar. However that doesn't mean that those precious few passages are neglected. If you read the RLJ essay I wrote for this series, you'll note that I approach the parenthood question by starting with Lyanna and then going on to see who best fits her story. If there is anything in there where you feel I have rationalised what she said rather than taking her at her word, then please point it out and I will be happy to try to explain it.

I have read it, as you should know. And I have pointed out the area in which you and others have rationalized Lyanna's convictions rather than taken her at her word. Again:

"Robert will never keep to one bed," Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm's End. "I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale." Ned had held the babe in his arms; he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only smiled. "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature."

 

Whether the "girl in the Vale" is being played by Lyanna or Elia, it is clear Lyanna would not have approved. And, as @Sly Wren has already demonstrated, it is clear that Lyanna generalized this statement to apply to all men, rather than Robert alone. Once a man stops keeping to one bed, he's likely to move on to another.

And, as I said the last time we had this debate, if Rhaegar left Elia's bed to spend time in Lyanna's bed, that means we can divine from the magic of mathematics, that Rhaegar never kept to one bed. He merely spent time in Elia's bed, then he spent time in Lyanna's.

Sure, he might have been fond and loyal and loving to each. And true to each when he was with them. But one cannot deny that if Rhaegar is Jon's father, then that means he didn't keep to one bed. By my count, that is two beds. Because maths.

Rhaegar's vows swore him to Elia's bed and hers alone. If he had become disenchanted with her, and craved another spouse, that's tough turkey. As you say, we can't apply our modern standards. I can't recall any divorce maesters in Westeros, but I could well be forgetting something.

Conversely, Lyanna was sworn to Robert's bed, and no rites of dissolution were undertaken to change that.

Each of them may have disliked their sworn beds, but to find and share a secondary bed with one another would not fit with the character of either, as written.

I feel several of these essays, including yours, neglect that truth. While there is at least precedent for Rhaegar (as a Targaryen) to be inclined towards polygamy, Lyanna quite clearly bears the opposite inclination. And she bears it quite strongly.

I say "strongly," because Lyanna seems to have valued bed-loyalty far more than your average Westerosi 13 year old. Catelyn was looking forward to marrying Brandon Stark, even though he was less than chaste and like Robert, was known as a man who knew how to take his pleasures.

Now, compare Catelyn's attitude towards the "some girl" archetype with Lyanna's:

Catelyn

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on SOME GIRL chance met on campaign. He had a man's needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father's castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs.

 

Lyanna

"Robert will never keep to one bed," Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm's End. "I hear he has gotten a child on SOME GIRL in the Vale." Ned had held the babe in his arms; he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only smiled. "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature."

 

This should effectively end the debate on the matter as far as I'm concerned. But I have a sneaking suspicion it won't.

 

It is quite normal in Westeros for men to sire bastards. And, it is quite normal for men in Westeros to visit brothels. I have a feeling Rhaegar did neither, but Catelyn accepted that men did both. And, she herself accepted the probability of the "Some Girl" archetype.

Lyanna did not. At all. Lyanna was far less open minded than Catelyn, and that's saying something.

Now, aside from the "never keep to one bed" debate we've been having, there is yet another negating factor that arises from Lyanna's statement:  Lyanna did not approve of men fathering bastards. She forced Ned to defend not only his promiscuity, but his siring of a bastard. And, Ned reluctantly admitted the child's existence.

In short, Lyanna forced Ned to declare a bastard's parentage... something that Catelyn was never able to do.

So yes. I am sorry, but I feel you have neglected Lyanna's "iron underneath" in this context. Rather than bend the rules of marriage and betrothal, she is offended at a perceived slight that likely occurred even before their betrothal. Even as a child-woman, Lyanna was offended at behavior that other Westerosi women grow up understanding and accepting.

Not for the first time, we must reflect on what a strange people these northerners are. You never knew Lyanna as Ned did. You see her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that Rhaegar had no business courting a betrothed child-woman.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

However this is a good angle for a bit of exploration. Here's something we know about Lyanna, which needs surely to be taken into consideration:

How did Lyanna's "wolf blood" bring her to an early grave? We've been told how Brandon's did, but for this to apply to Lyanna as well, there must have been some action of Lyanna's that helped lead to her death. 

To my mind, this is evidence against the rape hypothesis. Lyanna as victim could still work if there was something she'd done prior to her abduction that placed her in danger, but it seems to imply some agency in what took place. Perhaps it harks back to her becoming the Knight of the Laughing Tree, and attracting Targ attention in her direction. Perhaps it indicates that she went willingly with Rhaegar.

On the issue of wolf-blood agency, we agree:  Lyanna found her own way to an early grave. It has yet to be established, of course, that she was the KotLT. And there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the text that would ever indicate she went willingly with Rhaegar.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Afterwards, sure. During, not really. She's 15. That's young by our standards, but common practice in Westeros. 

As to the afterwards, that would suggest that Rhaegar had some good reason for picking Lyanna. If Rhaegar believed it was necessary, then he may have believed the risks worth taking.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Considering the mortality rate of Westerosi mothers, to suggest that Rhaegar did not put Lyanna in danger by impregnating her is simply an untenable position in my mind.

And if you agree to the "afterwards," that Rhaegar raised those risks for Lyanna after the pregnancy, you have proven my point:  Rhaegar willingly put Lyanna's life and station in jeopardy if he had sex with her.

And you didn't answer my question:

Imagine Lyanna goes home. There was no war. Everyone understood that she ran away with Rhaegar. What do you think the consequences would be?

 

Again, oathbreaking is taken very seriously in the north, and Ned himself feared that Robert would kill Cersei and her children if he learned she had been fucking Jaime. I do hope that Lyanna's life would not have been forfeit in the north following her abduction/seduction, but I wouldn't want to test the odds in Westerosi society.

That Rhaegar was willing to steal Lyanna from her family in order to test those odds is misogynistic, especially if the reason he was willing to endanger a child-woman was for the sake of a prophecy he had already gotten wrong, twice.

And you will have to forgive me, but I do not think a man who leaves the ailing mother of his children due to her medical condition, in order to have sex with another man's fiancee is even capable of love for women. We will have to agree to disagree on that too, I fear.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Well within the range of normal. That a 12 or 13 year old girl might have been considered a little young but acceptable makes it all the more likely that a 15 year old girl would not be considered untoward. 

I agree with you in that a pregnant 15 year old is within the range of normal, but to call a 12 or 13 year old "a little young" is a bit of an overstatement.

Sure, ambitious men who saw women as a commodity to be traded and exploited thought such matings acceptable. Tywin. Illyrio. Aerys. And I can even agree that in some cases, it makes for an understandable political maneuver. Tywin needed to quell the north. Magister Illyrio was a dealer in spices, gemstones, dragonbone, and other, less savory things. And Aerys was a full-blown misogynist. 

So it made sense for those men to decide it was okay to treat Sansa, Daenerys, and Rhaella that way. And, as detestable as those beddings might be in western society, at least the behavior was somewhat normalized by the act or pact of marriage. Even with that act (Sansa) and pact (Dany), both Tyrion and Viserys thought the child-women too young.

So while it might be normalized by those seeking to gain from it, I think to call it simply "normal" is an overstatement.

And notably, we've seen no married lords seek societal acceptance for their attempt to bed a betrothed, highborn, child-woman.

So I think it's safe to say that would be a tough sell. I think behavior that brazen would put Rhaegar in the same lecherous category as Robert. And really, would have been even more licentious than Robert's brand of promiscuity. Robert never hid betrothed 14 year olds away from their families so that he could seduce/rape them until the prophecy comes.

We may have to again agree to disagree, but in my book, that's misogynistic.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

...that he himself was tptpwp. Yes, mine too. 

Not exactly. Our books never say that Rhaegar was certain he himself was tptwp, only that he shared Aemon's view when he was a kid.

There's a difference between sharing someone's belief when you were young, and speaking with conviction as an adult.

The two assessments are far from equal.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Absolutely nothing, but let's consider the alternative. If he is convinced that the world can only be saved by him doing a particular thing, is he going to say to himself "Nah, I changed my mind before, I might change my mind again. Better not bother doing that thing that I think is the only way the world can be saved, just in case it turns out I was wrong" ?

No, I agree. In that portrait of Rhaegar, he would likely be falling upon another girl very soon.

Lyanna had a fever, and if your interpretations are correct, that alone would likely have sent him looking for another bed.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Until you notice the "never" that keeps being omitted from that statement, you'll go on having trouble understanding this. Lyanna did not object to someone who doesn't keep to one bed. She objected to someone who she believed would NEVER keep to one bed. 

No biased interpretation is necessary. Only one that includes all the words that Lyanna said, rather than omitting one very important one that fundamentally changes the meaning of what she said if you exclude it.

I have no trouble understanding your argument at all. And I have no issue with including the word "never." It's a fun word. But these posts grow long in the telling, and I felt I that in this company, I could reference the passage with fewer words. My mistake.

If Rhaegar shared Lyanna's bed, he never kept to but one.

No interpretation is necessary at all. Only math.

If Rhaegar left Elia's bed because she was too sick for his liking, or because he fell in love with a child, or because he his prophecy just couldn't get hard in Elia's bed... and then went to Lyanna's bed... that makes two beds.

The bed of his wife (that's 1) and the bed of Robert's betrothed (that's 2).

Unless Rhaegar had annulled his vows to Elia, and annulled Lyanna and Robert's marriage pact, Rhaegar was quite clearly in direct conflict with the Lyanna's position. The words matter, and it seems clear from her statement that Lyanna took vows as seriously as other Starks.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

You know for someone who's been complaining about a lack of regard for the female view and the necessity of canon reinforcement, you're basing an awful lot on a relationship that has literally zero canon reinforcement and is essentially "Ashara would be a more likely partner for Rhaegar 'cos she was hotter, and besides, all Dornish women are up for it." :P

LOL! Quite true! But I'm willing to double down yet again and say that Ashara's hotness is canon! And Dornish women sound like a lot more fun than northern women. :D

And, while canonical reinforcement for a relationship between Ashara Dayne and Rhaegar is thin, it isn't zero. Ashara's brother was Rhaegar's closest friend.

And, canonical support for the paramour tradition is quite abundant in Dorne, and literally zero in the north... unless we count Ned's Dornish wetnurse. B)

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

 

"leave one bed, and then keep to the next"? No. He never kept to one bed. He would swear undying love and then forget them by nightfall. He has 16 bastards by possibly as many as 15 different mothers, and no doubt many, many sexual encounters that did not produce offspring.

Yup. And if R+L=J is in fact true, then we know that Rhaegar was prone to leaving the beds of women once they grew ill.

Rhaegar  --  Loyal, Dutiful. Will keep to one bed forever...if the girl stays healthy enough for sex.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

No, she didn't outright specify that serial monogamy was fine, but then nor did she say anything to contradict it. Remember the word "never"? So that leaves us with no opinion from Lyanna on the subject of serial monogamy. However as it's pretty much standard in Westeros that noble men would sleep around a bit before marriage, it is the more reasonable assumption that Lyanna was not objecting to that. Without evidence to the contrary we should assume that Lyanna's opinions were not radically different to the norms of the society she lived in. 

What?!

Evidence to the contrary? I can't tell if you're joking or serious.

That is precisely the act that Lyanna cited and condemned:  noble men sleeping around a bit before marriage.

Clearly, Northerners (and Starks in particular) are far more reserved than other kingdoms. You would surely recall that Roose Bolton removed the tongue of a man so that he would not tell Lord Rickard Stark that he bedded a married peasant woman.

These are not people who take vows lightly.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Sure, but that still does not make it misogyny. Misogyny is about motivations driven by a hatred of women. It's not about an unkind or thoughtless act towards a woman motivated by a love for that woman. 

It is that, but not only that. I get the feeling you've never taken a women's studies class. LOL

From wikipedia

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, and male privilege ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women. Misogyny can be found occasionally within ancient texts relating to various mythologies. In addition, various influential Western philosophers and thinkers have been described as misogynistic.

 

Even giving Rhaegar the benefit of the doubt, RLJ includes five of the above examples:

  1. social exclusion - the sequestering of Lyanna for 2-3 years
  2. androcentrism - to rationalize the act on Rhaegar's terms (prophecy, love, lust)
  3. patriarchy - umm, yeah. This.
  4. male privilege ideas - what was the impregnation of Lyanna if not an act of male privilege
  5. sexual objectification of women - the argument that Lyanna was more beautiful/beddable than Elia

 

I don't think you realize it, but your Jon=ptwp arguments turn Lyanna into a very two-dimensional sex object. In that scenario, Lyanna was no more than a disposable uterus capable of giving Rhaegar his promised prince.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Yet 15 by the time she became pregnant. Maybe Rhaegar wasn't so irresponsible after all, then?

Keeping her hidden away, and allowing the realm to erupt into civil war because he wanted to leave his wife to secretly fuck a betrothed 15 year old is not responsible.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

On the contrary. The one single opinion of Lyanna's that we have is that she did not want to marry Robert. Perhaps the wolf-blooded young woman acted on her convictions?

We agree that she acted of her own convictions. We simply disagree that those acts likely involved her wanting a man who would leave his sick wife, and cause her to break her betrothal to Robert in a way that would dishonor the north.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

To clarify, I never attempted to justify Rhaegar's actions. I am only discussing how he may have justified them to himself. Nor have I used true love as anything other than a possibility that should not be excluded, as other people brought it up here. I studiously avoided the question of love in the actual essay.

Sure. And if you want me to commend your essay again, I am happy to do so.

But you have used true love here repeatedly, and not only as a possibility, but as an argument for rebuttal.

I personally would prefer we use canon-only for rebuttals, as it would raise the bar for debate. But I do understand if canon is inadequate for this argument. ;)

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Absolutely. The banter is half the fun, and I appreciate both the fascinating debates we have and the fact that you give as good as you get in the same good-humoured manner. :cheers:

:cheers: it's the only way to go. And on this topic in particular, it is easy for me to do. I really like the idea of RLJ. I mean, it's fantasy! There's always a hidden heir! Plus I'm a sucker for epics, and while I find the logistics implausible (not to mention, condemnable), I do find the notion of Jon being the son of ice and fire cool. Always have. I really do want to be convinced of it. I used to be, but the evidence against it outnumbers and outshines the evidence for it now.

To be honest, I am surprised that so many supporters of the theory have no doubt in it at all. Theories should never feel "proven." They should feel "tested." Doubt is what creates the tests. Based upon some of these points I have raised, I think it requires a certain amount of faith to not have doubts about RLJ. At times, it seems as though the pieces that don't fit are reshaped to fit.

 

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I better start stocking up on bridges... :D

Probably more appropriate to christen a bridge with champagne, but I'll be stocking up on beer.  :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nanother said:

Yeah, he was abducted from a busy inn. But note that as soon as Cat strayed from their predicted route (to Winterfell), no-one had the slightes idea where Tyrion might be. As for Jaime/Brienne, much of the attention came from Edmure actively trying to re-capture them. OTOH, Cat and Ser Rodrick managed to avoid detection all the way between KL and the inn - and even then it was an unfortunate coincidence that Tyrion showed up and identified her.

I'm not saying it's not suspicious that this kidnapping business is kept so vague. It's more than enough to cast doubt on it. But more because of the obviousness of the effort to keep it vague than because it's hard to believe that there were few witnesses and even fewer who can still tell us about it.

I agree, but...

Cat and Ser Rodrick would have been recognizable to few people south of the Neck. They had not been seen in years.

Rhaegar was a celebrity, known to all, and rather than shrink away from the public eye, he had just won a tourney, and allegedly fell upon Lyanna near the location of that very tourney. 

The lack of eyewitness accounts makes no sense.

Jaime and Brienne are a perfect parallel. Celebrity male, conspicuously out of place warrior-female. And they were recognized nearly immediately.

Rhaegar didn't need a search party to warrant attention.

 

6 hours ago, nanother said:

I agree it's somewhat odd that JC doesn't mention Lyanna (for the rest, not so much - I imagine if Rhaegar did kidnap Lyanna, very few people would be in the position to witness it), but you know what's much odder? That no-one ever voices the slightest doubt about the abduction. Not the surviving Kingsguard, not Jon Connington, not the remaining Targaryens. I'm rather fond of the 'Rhaegar was framed' theories, but if Rhaegar was indeed framed, don't you think he'd protest his innocence? Don't you think that while he was dealing with the situation after his return to KL, he would have mentioned to someone that he had nothing to do with the Lyanna business? So yeah, it's very odd that Jaime or Barristan never heard anything like a denial from him. That he never told Rhaella he didn't do it, or that Rhaella didn't pass that info on to her children (well, Viserys at least). JC might have a good excuse in already being in exile by the time Rhaegar showed up, but even then, he'd be just as likely to see Rhaegar without Lyanna after the abduction (thus know he was framed) as to see them together. That he doesn't mention either shows us that ... well, both possibilities are still about as likely as they were before. lol.

We have a tale of another man who was accused of an extramarital affair with a woman he was never seen with...

He also faced incredible scrutiny for it, and yet, never confessed otherwise even though many of us suspect he was actually innocent of the transgression.

Rather than clear his name, he seems to have kept a secret.

His years of quiet have only lent the rumors more credence.

Many of us suspect he did it to protect his sister, and Rhaegar's lack of explanation/denial makes a lot more sense if he was also protecting someone close to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Voice said:

The lack of eyewitness accounts makes no sense.

That depends on what you mean. It makes very little sense for the daughter of a High Lord to be traveling by herself, unless she ran away from her escort, she should have a group of Winterfell guardsmen with her. Along with a septa or a older woman like Old Nan to attend her. That is what we should expect. 

Except the author has gone to great lengths to present one side of the story of the "kidnapping" and to carefully lay clues that that view of the event may not be true. So, from the standpoint of the author it would make no sense to reveal the mystery too early by forcing a witness to come on page and give their account. When he wants us to know what happened when Rhaegar "fell upon" Lyanna we will get the account, and no sooner. It's no accident this account is treated in Martin's histories as common knowledge. It's just common knowledge unknown to the reader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

To save people reading back,

1. Robert's nature is to never keep to one bed.

 When Lyanna says that love will not change a man's nature, she is saying that his nature is not contingent upon love. Now anyone can disagree with Lyanna, but that's what she said, and that's her opinion on the matter. Ned introduced the variable, and Lyanna responded by dismissing the idea that it can have an impact on a man's nature.

Yes, Lyanna's opinion was that Robert's nature would not change, even for love. Ned however didn't reminisce about this conversation due to the love factor, but the Robert's nature factor. There was nothing about the scene that is concerned with love, and everything about the scene that was concerned with Robert's bed-hopping nature. 

Yes, that's MY point. You do remember that this entire debate was a response to you applying Lyanna's opinions of Robert to Rhaegar's situation?

That's rather speculative. Especially as she appears to have spent many months with Rhaegar before becoming pregnant.

Whatever the judgement you have of the stupidity of such a thought, it's a thought that people have all the time. It's hardly unrealistic that a 14-15 year-old girl might think that. About 98% of the decisions anyone ever makes in the books are short-sighted and have tragic consequences, why on earth should Lyanna be immune?

Alternatively, maybe she knew something about Rhaegar that we do not. We, after all, never met him. We have a few fragments of second-hand information to go on. She presumably spent several months getting to know him and discover his motivations. 

 

Kingmonkey i disagree with your statement here.First i will say,i'm not arguing what Lyanna said.I'm arguing why she said it and i think @JNR has the right of this. Robert having a bastard on some girl was a red flag in her mind as to his nature.That's cool she does have the right to think so.

She thought this on the night of the bethrothal and i'm saying that how she felt that night was how she felt "that night" and that Robert and Ned's behavior,conversation in the future indicates that Lyanna's mind was changed.That's my arguement of which you don't accept or have to. I'm saying that there are signs that show that belief was no longer held and that they developed a relationship.

To your point about there was nothing in that scene that had anything to do with love. Disagree,as i said Ned's recollection could have ended with Lyanna just saying "Robert would never keep to one bed"

The situation as it is,is Robert isn't keeping to Cersie's...Why? Because there is no love there.Ned knows that,he has several points of reference (What Robert has told him) to call that into mind.

10 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I'm stating, and I think I'm doing so very clearly, that it is canon that Rhaegar and Lyanna go off together, whether one believes that it is from him kidnapping her, or because they loved each other and decide to runoff and live as a loving couple someplace out of everyone else's reach, or some other motivation. There are reasons to believe all of those motivations within the canon. There is nothing within the canon that points to Rhaegar not being the one who runs off with Lyanna.

Let me again be clear as I can here. There are many, many players who could wish to do Rhaegar harm. That does not mean there are clues that anyone of them did so by blaming Rhaegar for a "kidnapping" he did not do. To assert they did is only your assertion without anything in the canon to support it, and everything, from every point of view within the canon supporting the view Rhaegar, for whatever reason, did take Lyanna away.

SFDanny...No it isn't .Did we see it and did we have an eye witness account to that happening? No we don't  and we don't really have anything to say that other than people believe that.

1. Robert said Rhaegar raped Lyanna.

2.Bran said Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna

3.Barristan,Kevan,Cersie,Dany think that Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna Stark.

All of this is based on him crowning her QOLAB and the idea that she went missing and he couldn't be found.

When you peel back what characters think they know,it is highly doubtful Rhaegar took Lyanna or they ran off together.

I cite the following in the broad.

1.Rhaegar and Lyanna's character goes against them running off with each other.

2. The fact that we have Brandon not asking about the welfare of his sister when he entered the Keep to demand Rhaegar come out and die goes against this.

3.Robert killing Rhaegar and not asking where's my woman...Goes against this

4.Ned on leaving the Keep heading off with the intent to fight the rest of the war goes against this.

5.Rhaegar's behavior goes against this

6.Everybody involved in this rebellion goes against this.Everyone thought this was open rebellion no one knew anything about Rhaegar kidnapping Robert's woman. That was constructed after to give the reason for the rebellion that romantic tweak. Its way better and more palatable than what really happened.

7. There is noway,noway they would have traveled across Westeros and not one person recognizes the most popular man in the kingdom.That no Targ loyalists said Rhaegar came here during this time to spend the night,rest the horses,get food.That's impossible.

 

When you look in places where R should be,at times R should be and there is no R...Tell yourself exactly that,there is no R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SFDanny said:

There is something else going on here as well. Ned is trying to convince his sister that Robert's love for her is what matters, not what he did before. And her response is that love won't change his nature. Not that her love for Robert is incapable of changing his nature. Because she doesn't even consider that possibility. Why? Because she exhibits no love for Robert. There is no sadness for her love not being able to change the man, only about Robert's love for her not being able to change himself. He will continue to sleep with others, no matter how much he professes love for her. Bella and Gendry prove her right.

No,SFDanny, your reasoning is a bit off here....Ofcourse she has no love for Robert.Its an arranged marriage.Robert was just her brother's friend at that point.Its no more or less the situation with Dant marrying Khal Dogo and i will add when she put his finger in her it wasn't because she loved him.It was because he touched her in a way that made her body feel pleasure.

She grew to love him yes.Just as Cat grew to love Ned.Come on this is a poor arguement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Voice said:

We have a tale of another man who was accused of an extramarital affair with a woman he was never seen with...

He also faced incredible scrutiny for it, and yet, never confessed otherwise even though many of us suspect he was actually innocent of the transgression.

Rather than clear his name, he seems to have kept a secret.

His years of quiet have only lent the rumors more credence.

Many of us suspect he did it to protect his sister, and Rhaegar's lack of explanation/denial makes a lot more sense if he was also protecting someone close to him.

And who would that be, pray?

To the extent that he'd allow a war to break out and yet never try clear his name? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, I think you miss my point. The quote is,

The point is the love that she is talking about which "cannot change a man's nature" is Robert's supposed love for Lyanna. Not Lyanna's love for Robert. She may feel that no love from any woman would change Robert's nature, but that is not what she is talking about. She is saying no matter what love Robert claims for her, it won't change what he will do. She never expresses any love for Robert herself.

Agreed: she's decided that no matter how much a man loves a woman, what he does before he makes vows to her will be what he does after.

But she's also responding to Ned's specific defense of Robert. Neds defense is "this was before he made a vow (betrothal) to you. He'll be different now. He loves you." Lyanna's decided that's not what men are like at all.

Ned's defense is Robert based. Lyanna's response is also Robert based. So, perhaps she loves Robert. Perhaps she doesn't. But we may not be able to tell since she seems to be responding to the specifics of Ned's defense of Robert.

12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I don't think this is a universal condemnation of men by any means.

Agreed--not condemnation. Just assessment: in her book, if you want to know a man's nature, past is prologue. Regardless of his vows and his love.

12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, this is not a universal statement on "men's nature;" her words are in the singular form "a man's nature." If she was talking about the human species it would be "Man's nature" would it not? And then it would include women as well. No, it's a statement on Robert's nature, and she's right.

This is a statement on "man's" nature. It's very common English parlance:

"When a man loves a woman, can't keep his mind on nothin' else."

"How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?"

Is Percy Sledge talking about whatever woman he might want to impress in the moment? Sure. But he's also talking about any given man in love with any given woman.

That's what "a man" means in such a context as Lyanna's: take any given man, love won't change his nature. What he did before he made vows to you is what he'll do after.

But I agree: she's talking about the man's love not changing his history, not on what a woman's love could do to change a man's nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Voice said:

We have a tale of another man who was accused of an extramarital affair with a woman he was never seen with...

He also faced incredible scrutiny for it, and yet, never confessed otherwise even though many of us suspect he was actually innocent of the transgression.

Rather than clear his name, he seems to have kept a secret.

His years of quiet have only lent the rumors more credence.

Many of us suspect he did it to protect his sister, and Rhaegar's lack of explanation/denial makes a lot more sense if he was also protecting someone close to him

With respect to why Rhaegar wouldn't clear his name.Sure we have seen some incidences i.e. Mariilion who knew he was innocent and didn't defend himself;this case is a bit different. These people don't have cellphones.Information here isn't at the speed of light,but based on the behavior of certain characters in this story i think its a point to be raised that.

1.Lyanna wasn't "missing" 

2.No one knew there was a kidnapping until this story was created after.

Rhaegar didn't come out to answer that charge because he didn't know there was a charge except for this being open rebellion.No one did.Everyone is speaking with respect to the event 15yrs prior in hearsay terms of what it was about. At the point in time 15yrs ago.No one knew what it was about except Lords called banners because we have a rebellion on our hands.

Frack,even Ned when talking to Robert said they rose against the Targs for killing babies. Not only was the wool pulled over the realm's eyes.Robert to because i have no dubt when this was all said and done Robert got a story and he went with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Voice said:

We have a tale of another man who was accused of an extramarital affair with a woman he was never seen with...

He also faced incredible scrutiny for it, and yet, never confessed otherwise even though many of us suspect he was actually innocent of the transgression.

Rather than clear his name, he seems to have kept a secret.

His years of quiet have only lent the rumors more credence.

Many of us suspect he did it to protect his sister, and Rhaegar's lack of explanation/denial makes a lot more sense if he was also protecting someone close to him.

Preach.

I'd also add that Rhaegar had strong reasons to want that war to continue and thus reason to wait before coming forward and clear his name.

15 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

And who would that be, pray?

To the extent that he'd allow a war to break out and yet never try clear his name? 

At the risk of angering @Voice for stepping on his toes, I'm pretty sure he means Arthur.

As for letting the war break out, that war was potentially VERY advantageous to Rhaegar. And he sat it out--as did Tywin. The other powerful man who also used rebellion to take out enemies/kings. Rhaegar only entered at the opportune moment: when his father had failed to win on his own and Rhaegar could come out the hero, put an end to the Rebellion, and broker peace.

Rhaegar had very, very good reason to not get in Aerys' way as he blew the country up into rebellion. Reasons that had nothing to do with stealing his cousin's betrothed.

57 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

That depends on what you mean. It makes very little sense for the daughter of a High Lord to be traveling by herself, unless she ran away from her escort, she should have a group of Winterfell guardsmen with her. Along with a septa or a older woman like Old Nan to attend her. That is what we should expect. 

Except the author has gone to great lengths to present one side of the story of the "kidnapping" and to carefully lay clues that that view of the event may not be true. So, from the standpoint of the author it would make no sense to reveal the mystery too early by forcing a witness to come on page and give their account. When he wants us to know what happened when Rhaegar "fell upon" Lyanna we will get the account, and no sooner. It's no accident this account is treated in Martin's histories as common knowledge. It's just common knowledge unknown to the reader. 

I agree--these details make us question the "accounts" or at least assumptions we get on both sides.

But is there a reason that you see the above (and the rest of the novels) as reason to question the "Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna" narrative, but not as reason to question whether or not Rhaegar was even involved her initial disappearance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

t the risk of angering @Voice for stepping on his toes, I'm pretty sure he means Arthur.

As for letting the war break out, that war was potentially VERY advantageous to Rhaegar. And he sat it out--as did Tywin. The other powerful man who also used rebellion to take out enemies/kings. Rhaegar only entered at the opportune moment: when his father had failed to win on his own and Rhaegar could come out the hero, put an end to the Rebellion, and broker peace.

Rhaegar had very, very good reason to not get in Aerys' way as he blew the country up into rebellion. Reasons that had nothing to do with stealing his cousin's betrothed.

His best friend's romance is more important than the lives of millions of people, his father going on a rampage and burning all diplomatic ties, and his own family being held hostage?

What were Rhaegar's very good reasons, and how can we be certain of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

His best friend's romance is more important

For my part, I think a hypothetical relationship between Arthur and Lyanna would have been a mistake. Born of lust. Something that happened after Lyanna ran into them (as Arya runs into the Brotherhood or Jon ends up with Mance). And now it's a mess they all have to deal with. Not the initial goal in any way, shape, or form.

Quote

than the lives of millions of people, his father going on a rampage and burning all diplomatic ties, and his own family being held hostage?

Right--look at all the damage Aerys did to his reign. Full blown rebellion could have been appeased if he'd just had the sense not to burn Rickard and Brandon. Aerys ticked EVERYONE off. If everyone wasn't aware that Aerys was a terrible king before this and that Rhaegar was preferable, they sure should be now.

Rhaegar needed and wanted his father off the throne. He seems to have been plotting with Tywin for a while. And the Harrenhal tourney was supposed to be an underhanded way of getting a coup going.

But it all went kaput. Just like the Defiance of Duskendale didn't work out for Tywin (and possibly Rhaegar) due to Barristan's staggering luck.

Aerys is more wary that ever. More suspicious than ever. More fire-happy than ever. Realm is more tense than ever. 

So, Rhaegar can try another coup and risk splitting the Targ loyalties and another Targ civil war--Dance of the Dragons part deux.

Or, he can have Aerys blow it up, let it grow, then come it at the right moment, win the battle, broker peace, clear his name of the nasty kidnapping rumors, and bye-bye Aerys.

A HUGE risk, yes. But Harrenhal is a risk, too. As was Duskendale. And Rhaegar believes he has a calling via prophecy for his Promised Prince son--a belief he might think is worth the risk.

Especially since we've seen him try to depose daddy before the Rebellion.

Quote

What were Rhaegar's very good reasons, and how can we be certain of this?

His very good reasons? Take over the kingdoms without splitting the Targ forces, make himself out as the hero, and usher in his prophecy Aegon-boy.

Certain? Not until the books are done. But we know about the multiple attempts to get rid of Aerys--and Rhaegar's in the thick of those attempts.

One way or another, that Rebellion was a potential way to finally rid himself of Devil Daddy. While getting others to do some of the work for him. And he could potentially come out the relative hero at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Voice said:

I agree, but...

Cat and Ser Rodrick would have been recognizable to few people south of the Neck. They had not been seen in years.

Rhaegar was a celebrity, known to all, and rather than shrink away from the public eye, he had just won a tourney, and allegedly fell upon Lyanna near the location of that very tourney. 

The lack of eyewitness accounts makes no sense.

Jaime and Brienne are a perfect parallel. Celebrity male, conspicuously out of place warrior-female. And they were recognized nearly immediately.

Rhaegar didn't need a search party to warrant attention.

Admittedly, details of Jaime& Brienne's escape are a little dim in my head. I do recall the Bloody Mummers recognising them (but then they might have known about the escape? the used to be in Lannister service, in any case), but I also recall people not recognising Jaime later on, in KL or on the way to KL, except for people who knew him well.

As for his celebrity status, all Rhaegar needs to do is take his distinctive armour off and put his hood up in order not to be recognised by most save the select few who know him closely.

As I said, I agree that Martin's refusal to give us details about this 'abduction' is suspicious. But there's a wide range of possibilities between "Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna and rode with her straight to the ToJ where he spent about a year repeatedly raping her" and "Rhaegar never went anywhere near Lyanna" (or "Lyanna was never kidnapped in the first place").

3 hours ago, Voice said:

 

We have a tale of another man who was accused of an extramarital affair with a woman he was never seen with...

He also faced incredible scrutiny for it, and yet, never confessed otherwise even though many of us suspect he was actually innocent of the transgression.

Rather than clear his name, he seems to have kept a secret.

His years of quiet have only lent the rumors more credence.

Many of us suspect he did it to protect his sister, and Rhaegar's lack of explanation/denial makes a lot more sense if he was also protecting someone close to him.

I'm sure you're aware how ill-fitting that analogy is, but yes, it's possible that he's protecting someone. I believe Ned taking the responsibility for Cat kidnapping Tyrion might be a better parallel. Even so, there are very few people I can believe Rhaegar doing this for (and Arthur Dayne is not one of them). For example, if he believed Aerys to be behind the kidnapping, it might do more harm than good to say so. Another possibility is that whatever he really did was even worse that kidnapping his cousin's betrothed (not sure what that would be, but I'm no GRRM). So yes, there are possible reasons why no-one would express doubt about this story. Just as there are possible reasons why no-one would mention seeing them together with Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

When you peel back what characters think they know,it is highly doubtful Rhaegar took Lyanna or they ran off together.

I cite the following in the broad.

1.Rhaegar and Lyanna's character goes against them running off with each other.

From what little we know, yes, both kidnapping and running off seem odd choices from them. Nothing conclusive, but definitely a signal that something is off with the story we're told in the beginning.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

2. The fact that we have Brandon not asking about the welfare of his sister when he entered the Keep to demand Rhaegar come out and die goes against this.

It does. Far from conclusive, though. Whatever happened, and whatever he believed, it seems very stupid of Brandon to demand Rhaegar come out and die - it's just a great deal more stupid if he thought his sister was there with Rhaegar. But we can't even be sure Jaime recounted every detail of what went down - maybe there was more to it than that. It does point towards some event supposedly invloving both Rhaegar and Lyanna, in any case.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

3.Robert killing Rhaegar and not asking where's my woman...Goes against this

Goes against Lyanna's location being unknown at the time, although it could also be just Robert being stupid (or he could have demanded info previously and saw that he wasn't going to get any). Doesn't go against her being kidnapped or captive.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

4.Ned on leaving the Keep heading off with the intent to fight the rest of the war goes against this.

No, it doesn't. It's kinda risky to go looking for your sister while there's still a war going on.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

5.Rhaegar's behavior goes against this

Elaborate please? I guess the Aegon thing is part of it, but anything else?

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

6.Everybody involved in this rebellion goes against this.Everyone thought this was open rebellion no one knew anything about Rhaegar kidnapping Robert's woman. That was constructed after to give the reason for the rebellion that romantic tweak. Its way better and more palatable than what really happened.

??? This is entirely your speculation. What we know is, that for some reason no doubt ever crosses anyone's mind. While human stupidity is infinite, I daresay that literally everyone believing it, regardless of which side of the rebellion they were on, how invested they were into the rebel cause, and how well they can stomach an ugly truth, points to a more solid reason to believe it than just someone coming up with it after the fact and everyone going along with it.

And we do know there was some news about Lyanna that made Brandon angry at Rhaegar, and we do know that Robert wanted Lyanna back, and thet he swore to kill Rhaegar for whatever he thought he did to Lyanna, so no, the whole thing wasn't just made up afterwards. It's entirely reasonable to doubt the kidnapping story as we're told, but to jump straight to the conclusion that Rhaegar had nothing to do with Lyanna, or she never was missing in the first place, that's NOT reasonable at all.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

7. There is noway,noway they would have traveled across Westeros and not one person recognizes the most popular man in the kingdom.That no Targ loyalists said Rhaegar came here during this time to spend the night,rest the horses,get food.That's impossible.

And yet, there was a period when 'Rhaegar could not be found'. Most likely, as you point out, he could be traced to some extent, just as Lyanna's trail must have been possible to follow to some extent, otherwise Ned wouldn't have found her.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

As for letting the war break out, that war was potentially VERY advantageous to Rhaegar. And he sat it out--as did Tywin. The other powerful man who also used rebellion to take out enemies/kings. Rhaegar only entered at the opportune moment: when his father had failed to win on his own and Rhaegar could come out the hero, put an end to the Rebellion, and broker peace.

Rhaegar had very, very good reason to not get in Aerys' way as he blew the country up into rebellion. Reasons that had nothing to do with stealing his cousin's betrothed.

Once he showed up to join the war, though, I should think his best interest would have been to clear his name ASAP.

Of course, it could be problematic if he believed Aerys to be the one behind it, and it could be difficult to maneuver around Aerys and Varys in general. So yeah, it's possible that he was framed in a way that he couldn't easily clear his name. Still, the lack of doubt about his 'guilt' seems significant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...