Jump to content

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


wolfmaid7

Recommended Posts

On 9/23/2016 at 0:24 PM, JNR said:

But it takes real mental gymnastics to think she would have looked at married Rhaegar, with his responsibilities as father... Rhaegar, saying "Let's elope and get married, you can be my second wife, and I'll just abandon my wife and my children for months and months in a row, and we'll have lots of sex... and hey, if my wife objects, or my dad the king objects, or Dorne objects... well, fuck 'em."

...and she would have seen that guy as some sort of morally superior alternative to Robert.  Give me a break, folks.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, nanother said:

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

Unless his prime motivation is to get control by winning where Aerys failed. He needs to win the Battle of the Trident, prove he's the powerful, stable one. If he then shows up with Lyanna who says "he never harmed me!" then he wins.

Plus, there's the pregnancy issue. If Rhaegar held onto Lyanna for future leverage after he found her (which is what I think happened), I really doubt he wanted her to end up pregnant. Showing up with a pregnant Lyanna would make brokering peace very problematic. Especially if that child is Rhaegar's or his best friend's--less problematic if the baby is Robert's. 

But, it really seems like Lyanna got pregnant with a future bastard sired from lust. So, in this hypothetical, what's Rhaegar to do with that mess?

If Rhaegar wins the battle first, he's in a stronger position to negotiate peace. But if he shows up with a pregnant Lyanna before the battle, saying "wait! Wait! She's fine! Just a bit pregnant, is all"-- that battle's still happening and Rhaegar's lost a potential advantage in painting Aerys as the bad guy. 

Quote

Still, the lack of doubt about his 'guilt' seems significant.

I agree that the doubt of his guilt is significant--seems to point to his not being the raping sort (that's a terrible phrase--sorry). A character judgment from those who met him.

And Lyanna's statements to Ned point to her not being the "running off with men who sleep with more than one woman" sort.

Put those both together and one option on the table has to be: Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna or get her pregnant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

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?

Yes, because there are actual clues in the text to support a different narrative around the reasons behind the kidnapping. There are no clues to support the idea someone else other than Rhaegar was responsible for the kidnapping.

Let me make two points one short and one long to show this. I take as strong evidence when I read something in the books that has a character speaking against his own interests. So, for instance, I find it compelling when Tywin Lannister tells his son he ordered the murders of Rhaegar's children and why he did so. Tywin has no reason to lie in this context. If it were only the Targaryens, or the Martells who told the story this way, I would want to account for bias. Because it is Tywin himself speaking in a place he is not under duress to admit anything he did not do, I weigh this quite heavily towards believing his story. Not necessarily all of it, but the part about him giving the orders I do.

So, when the Targaryen side passes down the narrative that has Rhaegar taking Lyanna away, then I have to weigh that very heavily in favor of his having done so. What is the incentive to admit Rhaegar was responsible? They have every incentive to twist a tale of kidnapping and rape into one of love, but none to admit he actually was responsible for the "abduction" if he was not. Then I look to the story as told by the other side of the rebellion and I see they agree with this all important aspect of the story. They certainly disagree that love was the motive for a kidnap and rape, but they agree on the tale in which Rhaegar took Lyanna. Lastly I look for others, less biased in their view, and I see every story agrees on this one touchstone - Rhaegar took Lyanna. That weighs very, very heavily in favor of this part of the tale being true. 

But what about motive? I absolutely admit there are many, many political players in the pre-rebellion days who have reasons to do Rhaegar harm. But motive is not a clue Rhaegar did not commit this act.

Here is the long response. I have a favorite crackpot theory I call "The Two Princes in the Tower." I will try to summarize this quickly to show my points and to explain why, while I love this theory, I still call it crackpot.

We know there is an intense rivalry at Aerys's court between those who supported Rhaegar and those who wanted Rhaegar removed as the crown prince. There is also a growing tension between father and son as Rhaegar seemingly goes as far as to plan the tourney at Harrenhal to test out the feelings of Westerosi nobles in calling a council to replace the father with the son. This, among other things, has led to a growing rift between Rhaegar and Aerys.

Now, fast forward a bit to when, after the rebellion starts, Rhaegar returns to King's Landing to take up the command of a new army to fight the rebels. During this time Elia is held hostage against Dornish behavior, and Aerys explicitly does the same with Rhaegar's children after his death. I would argue that Rhaegar has every motivation, along with Elia, to get their children out of Aerys's control. If he can't convince his father to let them to return to Dragonstone, as they obviously don't do, then he has every reason to try to smuggle the children out some way.

Let's supposed that the "pisswater prince" story is true, and during the months he is in King's Landing, he or his agents instead of Varys, find a child they think will pass muster as a substitute for young Aegon and have a trusted friend (Lady Ashara?) take the child to the one place in the control of people the Prince trusts to follow his orders - the Tower of Joy. 

Now, fast forward again, to when Ned arrives at the Tower of Joy and he finds two children there. One the newborn child of his sister who she pleads for him to save from Robert's wrath, and the other the older, with shaved head, still nursing at his wet nurse "mother's" breast. Ned finds the Lady Ashara there as well and the three of them travel with the two children and Howland Reed to Starfall, with Lady Ashara clearing their way through any Dornish questions of the travelers. When Ned leaves with Jon, Ashara takes Aegon with her to the Free Cities and fakes her death to cover her trail. Ned is never the wiser of the identity of the wet nurse's child.

Much later Varys finds out about the smuggling of the child (the father comes to the Red Keep looking for an new bottle of Arbor Gold, perhaps?) and searches for Aegon and Lady Ashara throughout the Free Cities.

Now, I can show how all of this is possible. I can show how all of the characters have motive to do these things. What I can't show is a clue that points to any of it actually happening. That makes it crackpot. Give me a clue that says Rhaegar tried to do this, or that Lady Ashara left King's Landing during this period, or a host of other things we can look on as evidence, and I'd be very happy. 

This idea that Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna fails the same test. It has much less to support it in terms of the motive and ability of people to pull off the needed tasks than my crackpot tale, and it relies on Rhaegar never proclaiming his innocence for an act he did not do. Which makes it not only crackpot, but firmly into tin-foil conspiracy tales territory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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. 

We agree. It is common knowledge that Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna and hid away with her, whether she was willing or not. It is also common knowledge that Ned fathered Jon Snow.

I was pointing out that common knowledge can take on a life of its own. As the rumor of Patchface+Selyse=Shireen demonstrates, people are more likely to believe and repeat a rumor if it is salacious and takes advantage of public perspective. Everyone knew Stannis to be somewhat cold, everyone knew Patchface to spend a lot of time with Shireen. The rumor, while ludicrous, took advantage of known circumstances.

Similarly, it was known that Rhaegar had once given Lyanna a crown of blue flowers, and it was known that Ned had visited Starfall. The rumors of each having extramarital relations fit the Patchface-strategy. They were salacious, and took advantage of known circumstances.

 

2 hours 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? 

I apologize if I was too cryptic.

I was referring to Ned.

Ned was accused of an extramarital (premarital, but not legitimized by wedlock) affair with a woman he was never seen with...

Ned also faced incredible scrutiny for it (from Catelyn and others), and yet, never confessed otherwise even though many of us suspect he was actually innocent of the transgression.

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

Ned's years of quiet have only lent the rumors more credence.

Many of us suspect Ned 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.

 

2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

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.

While I agree the rebels (particularly Jon Arryn) used the rumor to their advantage, and I do agree that Ned later justifies the rebellion on his own terms (to stop the murder of children), I think we know Lyanna was missing and that rumors had already spread that Rhaegar had something to do with it.

I believe we know that Lyanna was believed to be missing, and that it was believed Rhaegar had something to do with it, even before the rebellion began. Here's why:

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VII

"Brandon was different from his brother, wasn't he? He had blood in his veins instead of cold water. More like me."

"Brandon was nothing like you."

"If you say so. You and he were to wed."

"He was on his way to Riverrun when . . ." Strange, how telling it still made her throat grow tight, after all these years. ". . . when he heard about Lyanna, and went to King's Landing instead. It was a rash thing to do." She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

Jaime poured the last half cup of wine. "He rode into the Red Keep with a few companions, shouting for Prince Rhaegar to come out and die. But Rhaegar wasn't there. Aerys sent his guards to arrest them all for plotting his son's murder. The others were lords' sons too, it seems to me."

"Ethan Glover was Brandon's squire," Catelyn said. "He was the only one to survive. The others were Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn, Jon Arryn's nephew and heir." It was queer how she still remembered the names, after so many years. "Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."

 

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

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.

Part of me agrees. Allowing the war to rage between his royal sire's royalists and Robert's rebels, would have allowed him to be Martin's cliche third party entering from stage right to save the day.

I think Aerys forced Rhaegar to move prematurely once he took Elia and his children as hostages. Had that not occurred, Rhaegar might have returned after the two sides were at a standstill and cleared his name.

 

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

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.

I actually meant Ned, as the victim of rumor. :)

But as far as the man Rhaegar might have been protecting, yes. Arthur. :)

 

1 hour ago, nanother said:

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.

They are boring chapters, so I totally understand. LOL

But yes, that's the short of it. Jaime and Brienne lasted Jaime I ASOS and Jaime II ASOS without being caught. In Jaime I, Cleos Frey shaved his head to make him less recognizable. They are captured in Jaime III.

People only fail to recognize Jaime after he is emaciated and one-handed.

 

1 hour ago, nanother said:

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.

You might recognize Rhaegar easier in his armor, but I have a feeling smallfolk and nobles alike could easily recognize the Targaryen prince without it, wearing a hood.

You will recall that Catelyn Stark was recognized attempting to do just that. And in spite of being far less iconic, she too was recognized rather quickly. Tyrion's recognition of Aegon also comes to mind. Targaryen features are far more conspicuous than those of other men.

 

1 hour ago, nanother said:

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").

We agree. :cheers:

When it comes to proposing possibility, the realm of speculation is bound only by our imagination.

 

1 hour ago, nanother said:

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.

Ill fitting how?

Both Ned and Rhaegar were rumored to have kept more than one bed.

I said nothing of kidnapping. I only mentioned the rumors of extramarital sexual relations.

Both Rhaegar and Ned suffered some slights upon their honor due to rumors of such relations. Neither denied them. It is out of the question to think their motivations might have been similar?

Take this quote from ADWD, The Lost Lord, for instance:

"Not every man is what he seems, and a prince especially has good cause to be wary … but go too far down that road, and the mistrust can poison you, make you sour and fearful." King Aerys was one such. By the end, even Rhaegar saw that plain enough. "You would do best to walk a middle course. Let men earn your trust with leal service … but when they do, be generous and openhearted."

 

That doesn't sound like a man who would to run away with his cousin's betrothed. I am no GRRM either, which is why I think it is important that we remember the version of Rhaegar GRRM has imagined. He seems to be far different than the possible Rhaegars imagined by many in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Yes, because there are actual clues in the text to support a different narrative around the reasons behind the kidnapping. There are no clues to support the idea someone else other than Rhaegar was responsible for the kidnapping.

But there are a LOT of clues that Rhaegar was plotting dethroning his father. And that Tywin used rebellions to take out Aerys. Thus, lots of clues that something else entirely was going on with the war.

Not to mention that Martin makes it clear both Sansa and Arya echo Lyanna--and shows us that they end up with people no one intended them to. And that the Lannisters pretend they have Arya when they don't--wolfmaids aren't always where the entire realm thinks they are.

Quote

Let me make two points one short and one long to show this. I take as strong evidence when I read something in the books that has a character speaking against his own interests. So, for instance, I find it compelling when Tywin Lannister tells his son he ordered the murders of Rhaegar's children and why he did so. Tywin has no reason to lie in this context. If it were only the Targaryens, or the Martells who told the story this way, I would want to account for bias. Because it is Tywin himself speaking in a place he is not under duress to admit anything he did not do, I weigh this quite heavily towards believing his story. Not necessarily all of it, but the part about him giving the orders I do.

Agreed.

20 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

So, when the Targaryen side passes down the narrative that has Rhaegar taking Lyanna away, then I have to weigh that very heavily in favor of his having done so. What is the incentive to admit Rhaegar was responsible? They have every incentive to twist a tale of kidnapping and rape into one of love, but none to admit he actually was responsible for the "abduction" if he was not.

Unless they don't know the truth. Viserys and the rest of people not in Rhaegar's inner circle--let alone the ones who were with him--none of them were there. And Rhaegar never set the record straight about any angle on Lyanna. We don't even have him mention Lyanna to Jaime. Nothing--Rhaegar kept mum as far as the books have shown us.

If he was planning on bringing out the truth after the Trident, the family and supporters would just have the wrong story. Rather like Ned: he just wants to talk to Jon (when in the black cells). Seems like there's a chance he would tell Jon the truth. Like he's been waiting for the right time. But, since that "right time" never came, no one, not even Ned's family, knows the truth--that he didn't cheat on Cat.

Point is: they may believe Rhaegar took her because they never learned the truth. Rather like no one but Sansa and Baelish is aware that Arryn's death was something VERY different than perceived. Because the others who knew are very dead.

Quote

 I see every story agrees on this one touchstone - Rhaegar took Lyanna. That weighs very, very heavily in favor of this part of the tale being true. 

Every story of Jon's origin in Westeros relies on "one touchstone:" Ned cheating on Cat--but he very, very likely didn't. The "touchstone" is wrong.

And Rhaegar had plenty of reason to go along with the Rebellion once it started if it could help him get Devil Daddy off of the throne--a goal we know he had. Plenty of reason to leave the lie about Lyanna in place until the opportune moment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nanother said:

From what little we know, yes, both kidnapping and running off seem odd choices from them.

Both are inconsistent with Rhaegar's character, but how exactly is running off inconsistent with Lyanna's wolf blood leading her to an early grave?

 

3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

She grew to love him yes. 

Yet, for some reason, GRRM has failed to deliver all those tiny bits about Lyanna being around Robert, and instead gives us "Robert fucked the whole brothel" while his beloved betrothed was supposedl being raped by teh eeeevil Rhaegar. 

What a convincing approach to depict a relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Every story of Jon's origin in Westeros relies on "one touchstone:" Ned cheating on Cat--but he very, very likely didn't. The "touchstone" is wrong.

And Rhaegar had plenty of reason to go along with the Rebellion once it started if it could help him get Devil Daddy off of the throne--a goal we know he had. Plenty of reason to leave the lie about Lyanna in place until the opportune moment.

 

I see you and @Voice did not read my response to the end. We have lots of clues showing Jon might not be Ned's son. Do I have to list them here? Those many clues casts the common knowledge of Jon being Ned's son in doubt. Here we even have Rhaegar with the opportunity to come forth and declare his innocence of the act when he goes to King's Landing. Yet that's not what Ser Barristan believes. Again, there are no similar clues casting in doubt the story or Rhaegar taking Lyanna. None, nada, zip. There are motives, just as I use in my own crackpot tale, but there are no clues that actually point to something else happening than Rhaegar taking Lyanna. That makes this theory much, much less believable than the tale we are given. It puts it into a territory that should make a reader very, very cautious to take seriously.  It puts it into territory of fan's making this stuff out of their own heads, instead of based on the texts.

I have to say, to this last point, I find it highly ironic that two such knowledgeable posters as yourselves, don't see the difference between this theory and a text based one. After all the lectures about "canon" vs. "non-canon" we see it doesn't matter if the source is thin air, if it casts a doubt on R+L=J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

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.

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.

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.

This is almost completely speculation, and has hardly any basis in the text. 

Which is fine - I have my own speculative theories as well. But I would assume that what we have as canon in the books >  unsupported speculation on our parts.

Yes, there are hints that Tywin hated Aerys. Yes there are hints that Rhaegar wanted to depose his father. That's all we have. There's nothing on the relationship between Tywin and Rhaegar, for a start.

If you think about it, wouldn't the much simpler way to kill his father be to slip some poison in his food? Was war the inevitable and only way?

It is quite funny that R + L = J seems like such a massive leap from canon to many of you here, but these theories are not. This is not to say that the RLJ narrative does not have some mysteries in it, it's just that the alternatives offered require us to suspend disbelief even more - which I'm not comfortable with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I see you and @Voice did not read my response to the end. We have lots of clues showing Jon might not be Ned's son. Do I have to list them here? Those many clues casts the common knowledge of Jon being Ned's son in doubt. Here we even have Rhaegar with the opportunity to come forth and declare his innocence of the act when he goes to King's Landing. Yet that's not what Ser Barristan believes. Again, there are no similar clues casting in doubt the story or Rhaegar taking Lyanna. None, nada, zip. There are motives, just as I use in my own crackpot tale, but there are no clues that actually point to something else happening than Rhaegar taking Lyanna. That makes this theory much, much less believable than the tale we are given.

My apologies for making it seem that I did not read your full response--I did. I should have made it clearer what I think are the clues that Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna.

We agree that others have motive. I'd also assert that others have modus operandi--which is a big clue that an instigating event for the Rebellion (namely Rhaegar's taking Lyanna) was NOT done by Rhaegar by was orchestrated to start a war to take out a king--like Tywin's plotting with the Westerlings. Or the Red Wedding. Or Duskendale. Or Baelish and Lysa--the list of "you think you know what happened, but the people you think are doing things aren't really doing what you think"--that's part of the potential evidence that Rhaegar isn't the instigator here--any more than Cersei or Jaime were the instigators. 

As for other evidence: Martin gives us Lyanna's take on men. A general statement. If he wanted it to only apply to Robert, she could have said, "Robert's not a man to change." Instead, Martin had her use a phrasing that's common English parlance of "all men." That makes it very unlikely she'd run off with a man being unfaithful to his wife. 

And then Martin gives us Rhaegar's character--which makes it unlikely that he'd rape someone (I think). Or that he'd be too stupid to know a war would break out.

Put those two facts together, and one very likely conclusion is this: If it wasn't runaway love and it wasn't rape, then it wasn't Rhaegar that took Lyanna."

That is a very likely reading of the facts. And it would keep the characters of Rhaegar and Lyanna consistent with what we've already been told. Like the reveal of Baelish and Lysa as plotters kept everyone's character consistent. 

But if Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped, Lyanna's statement to Ned has to be invalid, or hypocritical, or she changed in some way.

And if Rhaegar is a rapist, he changed in some way.

Both options are possible, but seems like "Rhaegar didn't take her" means the clues of their characters stay consistent. All 

Quote

t puts it into a territory that should make a reader very, very cautious to take seriously.  It puts it into territory of fan's making this stuff out of their own heads, instead of based on the texts.

But the evidence of the past rebellions and Tywin and Rhaegar (and Baelish and Lysa) are in the texts.

And the evidence of Rhaegar and Lyanna's characters are in the texts.

Quote

I have to say, to this last point, I find it highly ironic that two such knowledgeable posters as yourselves, don't see the difference between this theory and a text based one. After all the lectures about "canon" vs. "non-canon" we see it doesn't matter if the source is thin air, if it casts a doubt on R+L=J.

We're all theorizing until we get the rest of the novels (grumble). And we all see the texts somewhat differently. My apologies if I've been too strident and made it seem like I'm positive that my theory is right--I change my mind all the time about things and am only positive that my theory is possible. 

But I can't see how what I've said above is "out of thin air"--if anything, it would keep Rhaegar and Lyanna's character consistent with what the texts have told us so far. Let alone fitting precedent and making sense of things like the inclusion of the Defiance of Duskendale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nanother said:

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

??? 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.

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.

 

 

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.

 

First, nothing is conclusive we all have different theories because we are all seeing different things as important or not.Brandon's reaction isn't important.What's important is that we don't know what Brandon heard.We only heard that according to Cat it had something to do with Lyanna and Brandon went to KL.

1.Did Brandon jump the gun thinking that whatever it was that involved his sister Rhaegar had something to do with it? Its a strong possibility yes.

Yes, Robert's reaction taken with everyone else's who should have demanded her whereabout or mentioned her does indicate she wasn't kidnapped and that was added on the shoulders of a dead man who could tell no tale.Or,a lot of people at a particular time didn't know she was missing and thus we are back to square one.

Yes it is,and Ned going off to look for Lyanna isn't my point (He already knew where she was imo) Ned having no thought of a sister missing at that time is the anomally.They basically,won KL had fallen.His actions after he left KL was to go and finish fighting the last battles of the war.None of his sister who was suppossedly kidnapped.

Not a speculation just simply looking at peoples action,thoughts during a specific time. And Nanother everything can't be explained with human stupidity.You know how many times that has been used since this project began? Alot.Rhaegar was stupid,Lyanna was stupid,Ned was stupid.That's not the answer to everything.

None of the players and intimates of the players mention Lyanna and Rhaegar.Even the Mad King was "Let Robert be King of ashes" he didn't even mention anything having to do with Lyanna.He knew what it was about,it was about getting them out.

At the time the rebellion was taking place no one knew anything other than to quote Elder Brother...My Lord said jump and i jumped.No one knew a kidnapping had taken place,no one knew that Rhaegar supposedly kidnapped Stark's daugther because that didn't happen."Robert starting a rebellion to get back the woman he loved" makes a better more romantic story.

Why would Rhaegar clear his name about kidnapping Lyanna when no one said anything about her being missing.....That is the point.

 

40 minutes ago, Voice said:

 

While I agree the rebels (particularly Jon Arryn) used the rumor to their advantage, and I do agree that Ned 

I believe we know that Lyanna was believed to be missing, and that it was believed Rhaegar had something to do with it, even before the rebellion began. Here's why:

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VII

"Brandon was different from his brother, wasn't he? He had blood in his veins instead of cold water. More like me."

"Brandon was nothing like you."

"If you say so. You and he were to wed."

"He was on his way to Riverrun when . . ." Strange, how telling it still made her throat grow tight, after all these years. ". . . when he heard about Lyanna, and went to King's Landing instead. It was a rash thing to do." She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

Jaime poured the last half cup of wine. "He rode into the Red Keep with a few companions, shouting for Prince Rhaegar to come out and die. But Rhaegar wasn't there. Aerys sent his guards to arrest them all for plotting his son's murder. The others were lords' sons too, it seems to me."

"Ethan Glover was Brandon's squire," Catelyn said. "He was the only one to survive. The others were Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn, Jon Arryn's nephew and heir." It was queer how she still remembered the names, after so many years. "Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."

 

Part of me agrees. Allowing the war to rage between his royal sire's royalists and Robert's rebels, would have allowed him to be Martin's cliche third party entering from stage right to save the day.

I think Aerys forced Rhaegar to move prematurely once he took Elia and his children as hostages. Had that not occurred, Rhaegar might have returned after the two sides were at a standstill and cleared his name.

 

I actually meant Ned, as the victim of rumor. :)

But as far as the man Rhaegar might have been protecting, yes. Arthur. :)

 

They are boring chapters, so I totally understand. LOL

But yes, that's the short of it. Jaime and Brienne lasted Jaime I ASOS and Jaime II ASOS without being caught. In Jaime I, Cleos Frey shaved his head to make him less recognizable. They are captured in Jaime III.

People only fail to recognize Jaime after he is emaciated and one-handed.

 

You might recognize Rhaegar easier in his armor, but I have a feeling smallfolk and nobles alike could easily recognize the Targaryen prince without it, wearing a hood.

You will recall that Catelyn Stark was recognized attempting to do just that. And in spite of being far less iconic, she too was recognized rather quickly. Tyrion's recognition of Aegon also comes to mind. Targaryen features are far more conspicuous than those of other men.

 

We agree. :cheers:

When it comes to proposing possibility, the realm of speculation is bound only by our imagination.

 

Ill fitting how?

Both Ned and Rhaegar were rumored to have kept more than one bed.

I said nothing of kidnapping. I only mentioned the rumors of extramarital sexual relations.

Both Rhaegar and Ned suffered some slights upon their honor due to rumors of such relations. Neither denied them. It is out of the question to think their motivations might have been similar?

Take this quote from ADWD, The Lost Lord, for instance:

"Not every man is what he seems, and a prince especially has good cause to be wary … but go too far down that road, and the mistrust can poison you, make you sour and fearful." King Aerys was one such. By the end, even Rhaegar saw that plain enough. "You would do best to walk a middle course. Let men earn your trust with leal service … but when they do, be generous and openhearted."

 

That doesn't sound like a man who would to run away with his cousin's betrothed. I am no GRRM either, which is why I think it is important that we remember the version of Rhaegar GRRM has imagined. He seems to be far different than the possible Rhaegars imagined by many in this thread.

One of the greatest things about this series is how people can look at the same things and see something completely different.I looked at the same quote and the same conversation between Jamie and Cat and what jumps out to me is the classic GRRM ambiguity.He uses this all the time.I'll repost part the quote again with a different angle.

"He was on his way to Riverrun when . . ." Strange, how telling it still made her throat grow tight, after all these years. ". . . when he heard about Lyanna, and went to King's Landing instead. It was a rash thing to do." She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

"Jaime poured the last half cup of wine. "He rode into the Red Keep with a few companions, shouting for Prince Rhaegar to come out and die. But Rhaegar wasn't there. Aerys sent his guards to arrest them all for plotting his son's murder. The others were lords' sons too, it seems to me."

 

Brandon was on his way to RR,didn't make it to RR instead he went to KL when he heard about Lyanna....

Q1.What did Brandon hear? Its easy for characters to link things in the after when a conclusion is drawn.But we don't know what Brandon heard or if it was about Lyanna being kidnapped.The natural language would have been "When he heard Lyanna was taken or that Lyanna ran off" We already knew the believed story already so why the ambiguity?And it wouldn't be ambiguity if it was so much for the below.

What we know is whatever he did hear caused him to go and demand Rhaegar come out and die.It did not cause him to demand his sister in any way.

So conventional thinking is that Brandon heard that Lyanna was abducted or even if he heard by some slim chance that they ran off together(not happening) he didn't query about her.That doesn't flow 

 

24 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

 

Yet, for some reason, GRRM has failed to deliver all those tiny bits about Lyanna being around Robert, and instead gives us "Robert fucked the whole brothel" while his beloved betrothed was supposedl being raped by teh eeeevil Rhaegar. 

What a convincing approach to depict a relationship.

Ygrain,it is YOUR opinion that GRRM hasn't given any tidbits.This entire excercise when finally over will reveal who was able to suss out the subtle hints.That's cool you don't see it,can't see it.It's not my job to convince you.I'm simply saying that eventhough Lyanna is dead and has been dead for a while now there are hints via those left behind that indicate that she eventually did have a relationship with Robert. It all comes down to whose right or wrong when GRRM sings his song come WOW.

By someone's behavior and by the behavior of others of an inner circle you can tell exactly who that person lost and what their relationship was.You can tell if it was,a sibling,friend,lover or if that person was just a figment of the other's imagination.

The subtle clues say Robert didn't just lose someone he loved from afar,wanted and never got to have. His actions and Ned's actions says they were initimates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I see you and @Voice did not read my response to the end. We have lots of clues showing Jon might not be Ned's son. Do I have to list them here? Those many clues casts the common knowledge of Jon being Ned's son in doubt. Here we even have Rhaegar with the opportunity to come forth and declare his innocence of the act when he goes to King's Landing. Yet that's not what Ser Barristan believes. 

I read your comment through to the end.

On the point above, I agree. I am only pointing out that like Ned, Rhaegar never denied the rumors. Like Ned, he might have even affirmed them for the sake of protecting another.

I agree we do not know the truth. All we have are fragments upon which we might base an understanding of the characters.

 

Quote

Again, there are no similar clues casting in doubt the story or Rhaegar taking Lyanna. None, nada, zip. There are motives, just as I use in my own crackpot tale, but there are no clues that actually point to something else happening than Rhaegar taking Lyanna. That makes this theory much, much less believable than the tale we are given. It puts it into a territory that should make a reader very, very cautious to take seriously.  It puts it into territory of fan's making this stuff out of their own heads, instead of based on the texts.

Yes. And in the text, we know that only two people believe Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. And, we know that the man who knew her the most, attributes her death to wolf-blood instead of Rhaegar.

We know the man raising Jon Snow finds Rhaegar to be a man that is easy to dismiss and forget about.

Those things do not fit well with the notion that Rhaegar took Lyanna and was responsible for her bed of blood. It takes two to make a baby, and Lyanna was a betrothed child-woman while Rhaegar was a married man-grown.

So Ned's placement of blame is something which I weigh very heavily. Almost as heavily as I weight Lyanna's own words regarding infidelity.

 

Quote

I have to say, to this last point, I find it highly ironic that two such knowledgeable posters as yourselves, don't see the difference between this theory and a text based one. After all the lectures about "canon" vs. "non-canon" we see it doesn't matter if the source is thin air, if it casts a doubt on R+L=J.

LOL! I can understand why you would feel that way from your point of view. I did not mean to offer an alternative so much as I meant to point out areas in which R+L=J has caused doubts.

No thin air required. If we go by canon, we know that Ned is Jon's father, and Wylla is Jon's mother.

If we doubt that, we can glean from canon that Lyanna would not have approved of aiding Rhaegar in his attempt to leave Elia's bed for the purpose of siring a bastard. We can also glean from canon that Ned attributes Jon's siring to Lust (Eddard IX), rather than duty/prophecy, and then goes on to disassociate Rhaegar from the the lustful act of frequenting brothels.

No alternative is needed to cast doubt, canon accomplishes that on its own quite easily.

And again, it should trouble a studious researcher if a theory feels "proven." Doubt is good for theory. Doubt leads to tests, which can only strengthen a theory if it is good. Doubt is the hammer that strengthens the blade.

Religions fear doubt. Academic inquiry encourages it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

It is quite funny that R + L = J seems like such a massive leap from canon to many of you here, but these theories are not. This is not to say that the RLJ narrative does not have some mysteries in it, it's just that the alternatives offered require us to suspend disbelief even more - which I'm not comfortable with.

:rolleyes:.It has no mystery to it.Not one mystery.And again no one is asking you to do anything.Some of us are saying we see the answer to Jon's parentage differently.Some people never believed RLJ at all and some changed their minds,some did not.Same way somethings seem far fetch to you,some of us feel the very same way about RLJ.What are clues to you,may not be clues to others.

Its simple as which clues discerned by which group are clues vs red herrings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

This is almost completely speculation, and has hardly any basis in the text. 

Which is fine - I have my own speculative theories as well. But I would assume that what we have as canon in the books >  unsupported speculation on our parts.

But with no eyewitness accounts at all, many of the details of the theories for Rhaegar's fathering Lyanna's child are based on speculation, too. Be it love, rape, or even child sacrifice. 

Quote

Yes, there are hints that Tywin hated Aerys

A lot more than hints--the World Book makes their mutual loathing very clear. Aerys' rejection of Cersei as Rhaegar's wife was all about insults. ETA: Plus his refusal to appoint Jaime as Rhaegar's squire, but instead appointing Tywin's enemies as the squires.

The Defiance of Duskendale makes the hatred even clearer. And Jaime's investiture to the Kingsguard puts that hatred in Neon Lights. The books are not subtle about Tywin's wanting Aerys very, very dead and gone.

Quote

Yes there are hints that Rhaegar wanted to depose his father. That's all we have. There's nothing on the relationship between Tywin and Rhaegar, for a start.

Again--more than hints. Tywin makes it clear at Duskendale that he's willing to let Aerys die to put Rhaegar on the throne. And Rhaegar does literally nothing to oppose the idea--seems very likely he was down with it. He was right there in the small council room when Tywin made the proposal and pointed at him. The World Book gives no indication that Rhaegar opposed letting Daddy die and taking the throne himself. 

Plus Tywin seems absolutely certain that Cersei can marry Rhaegar, even knowing of Aerys' suspicions. Twin's no fool--why would he be sure this would work? One very likely way: Rhaegar was down with it and intended to support it.

And Rhaegar clearly wanted something at Harrenhal--the books' hints make that clear.

And Rhaegar and Tywin--two men who so very much wanted Aerys off of the throne--both sit out the war. If they hated Aerys so much, why not join the rebels? Tywin's forces and gold would have been very helpful. And Rhaegar doesn't come to help to maintain the Targ reign.

No--two men the books have shown us were working to get Aerys off of the throne and Rhaegar onto it, two men who have shown they both agree on this point, both sit out the war--seems like this was a plan. 

Is it proof? Of course not. But it's established in the text. And thus very possible that that's what was actually behind the Rebellion. 

Quote

If you think about it, wouldn't the much simpler way to kill his father be to slip some poison in his food? Was war the inevitable and only way?

Tywin and Rhaegar want to rule. The court is split between Rhaegar and Aerys. Tywin and Aerys' mutual hatred is very well known. If Aerys drops dead, both of them would be suspected.

Plus, Duskendale and the Red Wedding make it clear that Tywin likes to keep his hands clean when taking out enemy kings. ETA: And not only keep his hands clean, but also have someone else to clearly blame.

That way, Tywin's still in a position to rule as Hand. And Rhaegar's not splitting the Targ loyalists. A problem the texts show a lot of in the Dance of the Dragons. Both men need plausible deniability, at least a veneer of "not my fault." 

Quote

It is quite funny that R + L = J seems like such a massive leap from canon to many of you here, but these theories are not.

Not a massive leap of canon. But somewhat inconsistent with the texts. 

Quote

This is not to say that the RLJ narrative does not have some mysteries in it, it's just that the alternatives offered require us to suspend disbelief even more - which I'm not comfortable with.

All fair. But "even more" is a relative term. IE: We've got Lyanna's statement to Ned. An actual statement from a key player.

If she ran off for love of a married man who is thus cheating on his wife, we have to believe that Martin only put that direct statement from a key figure in the novels for the express purpose of having Lyanna go back on her convictions.

That's hard to buy--at least for me. ETA: Martin could just as easily have left that out. Or made it indirect. But he has Lyanna say it flat out.

But until we get the books, all of out theories have speculation in them. So, who knows? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I almost forgot, @SFDanny, but if @wolfmaid7 posts my X+Y=J contribution (which I now hope she doesn't LOL) then there is another canonical scenario to argue. Ned danced with Ashara at Harrenhal. Ned returned Dawn to Starfall, and returned with a bastard. And, Ashara committed suicide.

And, every single mention of Ashara Dayne in canon connects her to Eddard/Stark, and at times to Jon Snow as well.

So I'm not opposed at all to playing the part of a canon-thumper if that is your preferred modus operandi. You respond as if room for doubt might only be contrived from thin air, and that is obviously not the case. The books themselves provide many contradictions that should create doubt if the inquiry is genuinely objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Voice said:

You might recognize Rhaegar easier in his armor, but I have a feeling smallfolk and nobles alike could easily recognize the Targaryen prince without it, wearing a hood.

You will recall that Catelyn Stark was recognized attempting to do just that. And in spite of being far less iconic, she too was recognized rather quickly. Tyrion's recognition of Aegon also comes to mind. Targaryen features are far more conspicuous than those of other men.

You mean when Tyrion, yes, the same Tyrion who also recognised Aegon, entered the inn and saw her. You might remember that Tyrion is repeatedly demonstrated to be outstandingly shrewd and perceptive.

Quote

Ill fitting how?

Both Ned and Rhaegar were rumored to have kept more than one bed.

I said nothing of kidnapping. I only mentioned the rumors of extramarital sexual relations.

Both Rhaegar and Ned suffered some slights upon their honor due to rumors of such relations. Neither denied them. It is out of the question to think their motivations might have been similar?

Huh? IIRC the issue being debated is whether the kidnapping took place and whether Rhaegar did it. That said, I highly doubt it'd work even just for the pregnancy, though that is possible. But I doubt Ned would think very highly of Arthur if he let Rhaegar take the blame :dunno:

And the reason it's ill-fitting is the sheer weight of Rhaegar's purported actions compared to Ned's, and the scope of the deception.

 

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Unless his prime motivation is to get control by winning where Aerys failed. He needs to win the Battle of the Trident, prove he's the powerful, stable one. If he then shows up with Lyanna who says "he never harmed me!" then he wins.

Plus, there's the pregnancy issue. If Rhaegar held onto Lyanna for future leverage after he found her (which is what I think happened), I really doubt he wanted her to end up pregnant. Showing up with a pregnant Lyanna would make brokering peace very problematic. Especially if that child is Rhaegar's or his best friend's--less problematic if the baby is Robert's. 

But, it really seems like Lyanna got pregnant with a future bastard sired from lust. So, in this hypothetical, what's Rhaegar to do with that mess?

If Rhaegar wins the battle first, he's in a stronger position to negotiate peace. But if he shows up with a pregnant Lyanna before the battle, saying "wait! Wait! She's fine! Just a bit pregnant, is all"-- that battle's still happening and Rhaegar's lost a potential advantage in painting Aerys as the bad guy. 

Good point about the pregnany complicating things. I can see Rhaegar holding off for that reason.

 

Quote

I agree that the doubt of his guilt is significant--seems to point to his not being the raping sort (that's a terrible phrase--sorry). A character judgment from those who met him.

And Lyanna's statements to Ned point to her not being the "running off with men who sleep with more than one woman" sort.

Put those both together and one option on the table has to be: Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna or get her pregnant. 

Agreed on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

47 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yes, Robert's reaction taken with everyone else's who should have demanded her whereabout or mentioned her does indicate she wasn't kidnapped and that was added on the shoulders of a dead man who could tell no tale.Or,a lot of people at a particular time didn't know she was missing and thus we are back to square one.

It seems to me that everyone else=Brandon (which I agree is odd, by far the most suspicious of the lot). And just because Lyanna's location is possibly known, she might still have been kidnapped or taken hostage, so I don't really see your point.

47 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yes it is,and Ned going off to look for Lyanna isn't my point (He already knew where she was imo) Ned having no thought of a sister missing at that time is the anomally.They basically,won KL had fallen.His actions after he left KL was to go and finish fighting the last battles of the war.None of his sister who was suppossedly kidnapped.

FFS, just because he only mentioned his immediate destination in that sentence, it doesn't mean Lyanna wasn't on his mind at the time. You'll notice that he mentions Lyanna's death in the next sentence or so - do you think he just stumbled upon her while fighting his battles? Or was she with him all along, or where the heck are you proposing she was? Methinks, first he wrapped up the rebellion (which was kinda important, and might have been just the thing that cleared the way to Lyanna), then he went to find his sister. I really don't see what's so problematic about this, especially so early in the books.

47 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Not a speculation just simply looking at peoples action,thoughts during a specific time. And Nanother everything can't be explained with human stupidity.You know how many times that has been used since this project began? Alot.Rhaegar was stupid,Lyanna was stupid,Ned was stupid.That's not the answer to everything.

I'm not the one explaining things with human stupidity, though. You're the one suggesting that whole effin' Westeros was stupid enough to just lap up the kidnapping story without a second thought. Including people who have no particular reason to, or should know better. Don't tell me Kevan Lannister doesn't know full well that the rebellion was NOT about R&R fighting over Lyanna. Or Barristan. Or any of the lords who paid any attention.

47 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

None of the players and intimates of the players mention Lyanna and Rhaegar.Even the Mad King was "Let Robert be King of ashes" he didn't even mention anything having to do with Lyanna.He knew what it was about,it was about getting them out.

LOL why would Aerys mention anything about Lyanna? You're quite right, the rebellion as a whole was about getting Aerys's ass off the throne, and that's all he needed to know. Why would he give a damn for Robert's personal motivations?

The only one I can think of as relevant is Jon Connington - he was close enough to Rhaegar that he might know if he was up to something WRT Lyanna (althogh not certain to) and that train of thought about Elia being unworthy would have been a good time to recall it if he did know. OTOH he also doesn't seem to doubt the story - so I guess he was not close enough to Rhaegar, or didn't know enough about his movements at that time, to know that he didn't do it. So that kinda works both ways.

47 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

At the time the rebellion was taking place no one knew anything other than to quote Elder Brother...My Lord said jump and i jumped.No one knew a kidnapping had taken place,no one knew that Rhaegar supposedly kidnapped Stark's daugther because that didn't happen."Robert starting a rebellion to get back the woman he loved" makes a better more romantic story.

Why would Rhaegar clear his name about kidnapping Lyanna when no one said anything about her being missing.....That is the point.

So, the individual soldiers didn't know or care what they were fighting for - that doesn't mean their Lords didn't know either. Of course, they weren't fighting for Lyanna, but even so, I'd expect that the supposed disappearance of their leader's betrothed is the kind of thing they'd pay attention to. So the story is embellished the love aspect exaggerated - that doesn't mean it's one big pile of BS.

But fine, let's say no-one said anything about Lyanna missing in particular. Still, Robert wanted Lyanna back, and swore to kill Rhaegar for what he did to Lyanna, and his hatred for Rhaegar was well known according to Tywin. But even if Rhaegar didn't know any of this, before that Brandon and Rickard got themselves and a few companions executed for 'plotting against Rhaegar' for some reason to do with Lyanna. I'd be really surprised if Rhaegar wouldn't have been aware of that much at least, and, if he had half a brain, he would have tried to make sense of it. Or are you suggesting he was going up against the rebellion without having the slightest clue about how it all started? Possible, but that would make him somewhat ... stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Ygrain,it is YOUR opinion that GRRM hasn't given any tidbits.This entire excercise when finally over will reveal who was able to suss out the subtle hints.That's cool you don't see it,can't see it.It's not my job to convince you.I'm simply saying that eventhough Lyanna is dead and has been dead for a while now there are hints via those left behind that indicate that she eventually did have a relationship with Robert. It all comes down to whose right or wrong when GRRM sings his song come WOW.

By someone's behavior and by the behavior of others of an inner circle you can tell exactly who that person lost and what their relationship was.You can tell if it was,a sibling,friend,lover or if that person was just a figment of the other's imagination.

The subtle clues say Robert didn't just lose someone he loved from afar,wanted and never got to have. His actions and Ned's actions says they were initimates.

Still hashing and rehashing what you think you have mined from AGOT, while completely failing to understand what it means that further books provide zero material for your theory - in fact, that they provide quite the contrary. The only mention of Robert and Lyanna at the same time and place?  He's ignoring her and she is sniffing over another man's song. His behaviour while she is missing? Whoring his usual way. Mentions of them together? Nada. Not even any bits of info that would place Lyanna in the Vale, even though we have had a Vale PoV for a while. 

Damn, there's not even much about Robert, who has been dead for much shorter time than Rhaegar. 

Do you really believe that GRRM planted all those hints you think you have found in the first book, only to never elaborate and develop on them in the next four books? Come on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

My apologies for making it seem that I did not read your full response--I did. I should have made it clearer what I think are the clues that Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna.

No, no apology needed. I take it that both you and @Voice just chose to ignore the argument that motive is not evidence. That we need a actual clue that something is wrong with the universally held view that it was Rhaegar who ran off with Lyanna, for whatever reasons he did so. We can come up with all kinds of schemes in our heads about Tywin did this, or Tywin did that, but we need a clue that he actual may have done anything of the sort, don't you think? So far, I don't see evidence of even a twinkle in his eye towards actually doing this. And I see enormous plot holes if we accept the idea he did.

So, let's follow this unsupported idea to logical conclusion. I have to ask, just to make sure here, is Rhaegar involved in the conspiracy to take Lyanna, or not? Is he, for some unknown reasons having someone else do the deed, but he knows of it and approves of his old pal Tywin's plot to pin the act on him? Because if he is a silent partner, and then gets all of the blame for the act, but doesn't get hold of the girl, then how does that make any sense? It doesn't.

If that doesn't work, let's go with the idea that Tywin had the act done without Rhaegar's knowledge and Rhaegar for some mysterious reason says nothing and takes the blame. By taking the blame he has placed the target for all the anti-Targaryen alliance squarely on his back. There is no question of getting support to replace his father with himself. He has ended whatever small chance existed after Harrenhal of that taking place. Why then doesn't he come forward and stop the executions of Brandon and Rickard and all the others, by saying he did not do this act; it is someone else who has done the crime? With a not so subtle pointing of a finger at Tywin? If he ever wants to win the fealty of the Starks, the Tullys, the Arryns, or the Baratheons, he needs to do so, but he does not.

What we are left with is the dubious idea that what Rhaegar wants is for his father to kill all of the rebel lords, or they kill him, or both, and he will somehow pick up the pieces with no army of his own, and walk through the carnage to sit on the Iron Throne. Perhaps Rhaegar is really smarter than everyone, because he has to be smarter than the reader to come up with this idea and have a real plan to make it work. Otherwise, we are back to the idea he is just taking the blame for an act he didn't do for no reason at all.

Your idea also asks the reader to believe Rhaegar starts out with this plan, but then decides "oops, that didn't work" and comes back to save his father and Targaryen rule, but still doesn't deny he took Lyanna. We are then expected to believe that somehow Lyanna's death is held secret until Ned returns from the Tower of Joy (a place, by a strange coincidence, we are told Rhaegar was when Ser Gerold found him to come back and take up the command of the new loyalist army) and on to Starfall. Not only does Ned bring back the news of Lyanna's death, but he also brings back her body. Wait, a minute, Isn't that what we would expect if Rhaegar had left her at the tower? My god, Ned must be part of the conspiracy as well as Rhaegar. I'm guessing they both did it to save Tywin any embarrassment, right? 

Again, all of this based on no actual clue anyone other than Rhaegar took Lyanna. Pardon me, but you two are too smart to fall down this rabbit hole and think you found the secret of secrets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

But with no eyewitness accounts at all, many of the details of the theories for Rhaegar's fathering Lyanna's child are based on speculation, too. Be it love, rape, or even child sacrifice. 

A lot more than hints--the World Book makes their mutual loathing very clear. Aerys' rejection of Cersei as Rhaegar's wife was all about insults. ETA: Plus his refusal to appoint Jaime as Rhaegar's squire, but instead appointing Tywin's enemies as the squires.

The Defiance of Duskendale makes the hatred even clearer. And Jaime's investiture to the Kingsguard puts that hatred in Neon Lights. The books are not subtle about Tywin's wanting Aerys very, very dead and gone.

Again--more than hints. Tywin makes it clear at Duskendale that he's willing to let Aerys die to put Rhaegar on the throne. And Rhaegar does literally nothing to oppose the idea--seems very likely he was down with it. He was right there in the small council room when Tywin made the proposal and pointed at him. The World Book gives no indication that Rhaegar opposed letting Daddy die and taking the throne himself. 

Plus Tywin seems absolutely certain that Cersei can marry Rhaegar, even knowing of Aerys' suspicions. Twin's no fool--why would he be sure this would work? One very likely way: Rhaegar was down with it and intended to support it.

And Rhaegar clearly wanted something at Harrenhal--the books' hints make that clear.

And Rhaegar and Tywin--two men who so very much wanted Aerys off of the throne--both sit out the war. If they hated Aerys so much, why not join the rebels? Tywin's forces and gold would have been very helpful. And Rhaegar doesn't come to help to maintain the Targ reign.

No--two men the books have shown us were working to get Aerys off of the throne and Rhaegar onto it, two men who have shown they both agree on this point, both sit out the war--seems like this was a plan. 

Is it proof? Of course not. But it's established in the text. And thus very possible that that's what was actually behind the Rebellion. 

Tywin and Rhaegar want to rule. The court is split between Rhaegar and Aerys. Tywin and Aerys' mutual hatred is very well known. If Aerys drops dead, both of them would be suspected.

Plus, Duskendale and the Red Wedding make it clear that Tywin likes to keep his hands clean when taking out enemy kings. ETA: And not only keep his hands clean, but also have someone else to clearly blame.

That way, Tywin's still in a position to rule as Hand. And Rhaegar's not splitting the Targ loyalists. A problem the texts show a lot of in the Dance of the Dragons. Both men need plausible deniability, at least a veneer of "not my fault." 

Not a massive leap of canon. But somewhat inconsistent with the texts. 

All fair. But "even more" is a relative term. IE: We've got Lyanna's statement to Ned. An actual statement from a key player.

If she ran off for love of a married man who is thus cheating on his wife, we have to believe that Martin only put that direct statement from a key figure in the novels for the express purpose of having Lyanna go back on her convictions.

That's hard to buy--at least for me. ETA: Martin could just as easily have left that out. Or made it indirect. But he has Lyanna say it flat out.

But until we get the books, all of out theories have speculation in them. So, who knows? 

You know who else sits out the war? Late Lord Frey.

This scenario you are suggesting - where Rhaegar coldly calculates that millions of lives can be thrown away so that we he can get his father off the throne - makes him no better than LittleFinger, morally. I see no indication of that in the text, currently. 

Getting his father off the throne can be accomplished in much less messy, dangerous and bloodthirsty ways (like I suggested, putting poison in his food.). There's hardly any reason to go to such lengths to get his father off the throne and simultaneously piss off half the kingdom you apparently want to rule. 

Well, and if this theory assumes that Rhaegar was indeed like LF, there's really no reason why he should give a fig about his best friend Arthur and his romance either. When the man doesn't care about his father, his wife and kids, hundreds of other lives, et al and is willing to go to such lengths for a throne, the idea that he cares about "protecting" his best friend makes no sense at all.

These are some of the biggest inconsistencies I see with this theory, among many others which @SFDanny has outlined above.  The number of assumptions and speculations we have to make with barely any textual evidence to support it is far, far more than the assumptions we have to make with the R + L  theory - or at the very least, it is equal, but R + L is supported much better by what the canon has given us currently. 

There is some inconsistency in the fact that you say one one hand, you need hard textual evidence for the fact that R + L  actually ran away together, but on the other hand make a number of assumptions based off info for which we have no textual evidence of at all, starting with the relationship between Rhaegar and Tywin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, no apology needed. I take it that both you and @Voice just chose to ignore the argument that motive is not evidence. That we need a actual clue that something is wrong with the universally held view that it was Rhaegar who ran off with Lyanna, for whatever reasons he did so. We can come up with all kinds of schemes in our heads about Tywin did this, or Tywin did that, but we need a clue that he actual may have done anything of the sort, don't you think? So far, I don't see evidence of even a twinkle in his eye towards actually doing this. And I see enormous plot holes if we accept the idea he did.

So, let's follow this unsupported idea to logical conclusion. I have to ask, just to make sure here, is Rhaegar involved in the conspiracy to take Lyanna, or not? Is he, for some unknown reasons having someone else do the deed, but he knows of it and approves of his old pal Tywin's plot to pin the act on him? Because if he is a silent partner, and then gets all of the blame for the act, but doesn't get hold of the girl, then how does that make any sense? It doesn't.

If that doesn't work, let's go with the idea that Tywin had the act done without Rhaegar's knowledge and Rhaegar for some mysterious reason says nothing and takes the blame. By taking the blame he has placed the target for all the anti-Targaryen alliance squarely on his back. There is no question of getting support to replace his father with himself. He has ended whatever small chance existed after Harrenhal of that taking place. Why then doesn't he come forward and stop the executions of Brandon and Rickard and all the others, by saying he did not do this act; it is someone else who has done the crime? With a not so subtle pointing of a finger at Tywin? If he ever wants to win the fealty of the Starks, the Tullys, the Arryns, or the Baratheons, he needs to do so, but he does not.

What we are left with is the dubious idea that what Rhaegar wants is for his father to kill all of the rebel lords, or they kill him, or both, and he will somehow pick up the pieces with no army of his own, and walk through the carnage to sit on the Iron Throne. Perhaps Rhaegar is really smarter than everyone, because he has to be smarter than the reader to come up with this idea and have a real plan to make it work. Otherwise, we are back to the idea he is just taking the blame for an act he didn't do for no reason at all.

Your idea also asks the reader to believe Rhaegar starts out with this plan, but then decides "oops, that didn't work" and comes back to save his father and Targaryen rule, but still doesn't deny he took Lyanna. We are then expected to believe that somehow Lyanna's death is held secret until Ned returns from the Tower of Joy (a place, by a strange coincidence, we are told Rhaegar was when Ser Gerold found him to come back and take up the command of the new loyalist army) and on to Starfall. Not only does Ned bring back the news of Lyanna's death, but he also brings back her body. Wait, a minute, Isn't that what we would expect if Rhaegar had left her at the tower? My god, Ned must be part of the conspiracy as well as Rhaegar. I'm guessing they both did it to save Tywin any embarrassment, right? 

Again, all of this based on no actual clue anyone other than Rhaegar took Lyanna. Pardon me, but you two are too smart to fall down this rabbit hole and think you found the secret of secrets.

 

 

Perhaps you are just responding to SW's arguments and tagging me for some reason. Tywin's not my thing. If you want to debate Tywin's role, Voice isn't the guy to tag. Tag him to derail the conversation into a treatise on ice spiders.

I've seen you make many great arguments before @SFDanny. With all due respect I'm disappointed in this one. You seem to be mocking doubt itself.

Religions fear doubt. Academic inquiry encourages it.

No alternative scenario is needed to cast doubt, canon accomplishes that on its own quite easily. We are told, quite directly, that Ned is Jon's father, by his own admission, and that Wylla is Jon's mother by Ned's own admission. If we then doubt that, and speculate that Lyanna might be Jon's mother instead of aunt, fine. But at that point we must accept we are drawing inferences from canon rather than merely citing it. In my opinion, it requires far less inference to see that Lyanna would not have approved of aiding a man in his attempt to leave his wife's bed for the purpose of siring a bastard, and it requires far more inference to speculate that she would.

If Rhaegar took Lyanna, as reported, I have a hard time seeing Lyanna as a willing participant in that excursion and a far harder time seeing her developing desire for a married man, or his bastard.

Lyanna's own character and convictions should matter to us, and her thoughts on such matters are pretty clear.

 

And unless you are now enforcing a double standard, the inequality of motive and evidence should negate any future argument that the qolab crown and tptwp prophecy are evidence for Rhaegar's taking/impregnating of Lyanna. I quite agree with that distinction, as it happens.

 

Now, all of that being said, I have no issue at all with the idea that Rhaegar did take Lyanna. I mean, it's just a damn book. LOL But if we accept a "universally held view" as evidence, simply because it is "universally held," then neither should that be applied as a double standard. We cannot pick and choose universally held views.

So if Rhaegar's taking of Lyanna is thus proven, because it is a universally held view, it is also proven that Ned is Jon's father. Right?

Do you see how discourteous, narrow-minded, and hypocritical it sounds when you mock @Sly Wren's views because they are not "universally held" in a fictional universe, while at the same time picking and choosing which universally held views from that fictional universe merit consideration and discussion?

 

Hopefully, you've read this post through to the end.

Spoiler

because ice spiders

 

 

 

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...