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

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

3 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

He turns 15 later that year.

My, but these kids grow fast. Like weeds... the little bastards!  

We don't get any mention of Ned's nameday, that I recall. So it's possible that he's closer to 36, at the beginning of AGOT, I suppose. And if he was only just barely 18 at the Harrenhal tourney, then there'd be something more like a 4 year gap between the tourney and Jon's birth. Seems a bit long, to me. But possible.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1 hour ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

My, but these kids grow fast. Like weeds... the little bastards!  

We don't get any mention of Ned's nameday, that I recall. So it's possible that he's closer to 36, at the beginning of AGOT, I suppose. And if he was only just barely 18 at the Harrenhal tourney, then there'd be something more like a 4 year gap between the tourney and Jon's birth. Seems a bit long, to me. But possible.

We know that Ned was born in 263 AC, so he would have turned 35 in 298 AC, meaning that when we first see Ned in Bran I in AGOT, his nameday had already been. So he was born in the first few months of the year.

[JNR]

8 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Depends in what order those statements were made. In case of conflict the more recent has to be taken as his current thinking on the matter.

The SSM is GRRM speaking as himself, at a time when he had finished three of the five published books.  

The World book, I fear, is another matter.

Quote

So, unless you want to be as oblivious as Cersei, it might be worth taking the very deep dive, so long as you keep in mind that The World shouldn’t necessarily be taken as gospel. The book is written from the viewpoint of a maester at the Citadel, one who hopes to pass its knowledge on to someone sitting on the Iron Throne. As such, the author may have ... rearranged events to suit the interests of a particular royal family. “So who knows if it’s really true or not!” Martin chuckled.

Rearranged.

Events.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

I don't see what advantage the author of the World Book would get in making Aegon almost 2 years old when he was really 1 year old at the time of his death. He obscured the truth of who perpetrated the event, for sure, in order to please the royal family. But it's unclear what major difference Aegon's age would make.

Plus, I would think that royal births, marriages and deaths would be well documented by Maesters.

[Voice]

From the last thread:

 

My reply to @J. Stargaryen:

 

No I agree, and that is an accurate summation.

It is entirely possible that Lyanna was a hypocrite. Why the author would feel the need to make Ned's dead sister into a hypocrite is another question. It is a stretch imo.

Rather than doubt the sincerity of Lyanna's convictions, I'd rather formulate a theory that accounts for them. But that's just me.

Lyanna did not approve of Robert getting a child on some girl in the Vale, even before he was married. She seems to have disapproved of not only that, but of his likely continuance of such behavior after they were to be wed.

In order to accept any non-rape version of Rhaegar+Lyanna, we must force Lyanna's disapproval from our minds. Now, I am but a humble voice, but in my opinion, that neglect does not a strong theory make.

Rather than pretend Lyanna would have been okay with polygamy, or men bound by vows to a woman keeping multiple beds, I prefer to take her at her word. I believe her. I think she was a young woman of strong character. Like Arya.

And I do not believe her words on the matter demonstrate that she would have been a willing broodmare for a married father of two. While not unheard of in certain trailer parks, Lyanna doesn't strike me as the sort of child-woman who aspired to be like "some girl in the Vale."

[wolfmaid7]

Ygrain,i promise to answer...Work.

Carry on as usual.

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Ygrain,i promise to answer...Work.

Carry on as usual.

Do as you will or need, you are under no obligation to me.

[wolfmaid7]

On 9/14/2016 at 10:09 AM, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Kicking it off:

Jon's birthday, whenever it was, has to fall within a maximum range of +/- 1-2 months of Robb's birthday. A difference larger than that is very obvious when it comes to babies, and Ned would not have been able to pass off Jon as his bastard if it was so.

 

We are going to get to the bolded assertion  in a sec.

On 9/14/2016 at 0:33 PM, Ygrain said:

Don't I? This particular BS has been used as an argument many times but I am most happy to hear that you are not going to use it in this thread. If you have something more sensible, go ahead.

Yeahhhhh,,nuh you don't....and contrary to your belief Ygrain it isn't BS.Its a hint that something along this line came up with regard to Jon.We only need to think of the question or statement that would have prompted this response and it its very clear what the topic was.

On 9/14/2016 at 10:25 AM, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Yep, that was my meaning.

Since wolfmaid said she wanted to discuss the timeline and when Jon could have been born, I thought this would be the best starting point -  as it is simple common sense and doesn't depend on any ambiguous readings of the text.

You seem to be forgetting who the author is? Your opinion on what is an amiguous reading or common sense is just that though. Again this isn't right or wrong its interpretation/understanding of one party and another. It's going to comeback to timeline it has an it always does so we aren't going to pretend it isn't going to be an issue.But i have an alternative when it comes to that for mulling over .I

Little Scribe as we are on the topic,common sense tells anyone whose reading this that Dany's vision in THOTU puts Rhaegar with Aegon and Elia together at the time he was suppose to be out kidnapping or running off with Lyanna Stark.Or are we going to ignore the SSM about Aegon's age .Basically Yandel or whichever  Maester did a little fabrication on this in order to make Rhaegar the culprit.We don't even have to try and BS how long it takes a person from point A to B in a vicious winter.Rhaegar  per that vision was with Aegon and Elia at the time.

My take on the timeline has always been to lean toward GRRM's statement on te matter it is malleable because it sepends on the "beliefs and assumptions" of a lot of people not in the know or who have an invested reason for twisting things a bit.

So i'm going to leave all the Dany,Viserys,Jamie etc arguements out for now to discuss this for a moment.A couple of things to think about and it's not so much common sense but critical thinking and working within the framework of characters in the story especially how they behave.But also understanding that sometimes our perception and expectation color what we read.That being said,Ygrain ,Ned's little girl and Little Scribe it is my opinion that the basis of your assertions about Jon's age can be looked at in a different light.More social and qualitative.

Here me out.What i've seen expressed as indicated in the above red bolded of Ned's Little girl's statement is the idea that Ned needs or has been passing Jon off as anything more than just his bastard son.Or he has to be of a certanage in order to pass for Ned's son.

Which in my opnion is not  what Ned did.All he did was bring Jon home called him son and gave no more info than that. I think its an incorrect assumption  that Ned is or would need to pass Jon off as his son OF A CERTAIN AGE.He doesn't need to he just has to go along with what everyone and anyone thinks.Its easier that way.

 Some people in the story think  Ned fathered Jon before Cat.Infact we have such a story that provides the cover of Ned fathering Jon before he married Cat.How long before Cat really doesn't matter .Ned fathering a bastard before he married is out there.We have the Fisherman's daughter tale for that.Other's Ashara Dayne ,but we know that Ashara wasn't tied to Starfall and could have met Ned in theory at any point before of after the start of RR. Same thing applies to Wylla who Robert thinks is the mom because Ned had a "one time" affair .People are then left to wonder when these liasons took place as best suits them,but in reality Ned could have fathered Jon at anytime before he married Cat or after.But i agree that Robb and Jon are said to be of an age,they are that "of an age"

The standout ofcourse is Cat,teenager or not surely she would be able to tell that Jon is older than her baby.I  think under normal circumstances she would have.But these aren't normal circumstances .Many people wil argue as if Cat when she arrived at WF ran into Jon and his wetnurse sitting in the foyer awaiting her inspection.I think not.Cat arrives at WF post war,new lady of the castle with a new baby of her own,on top of that  having to deal with mourning for her husband's loss and hers as well(casulties for both houses during RR).She finds out that Ned brought his bastard home something that irked her.Considering all these factors ,I would be shocked if Cat  gave him the time of day.She has shown that when something is out of sight,it would be out of mine and Jon would be out of sigt for a while.As big as Winterfell was i doubt Robb and Jon were in the same wing.

Just to be clear, i'm not doubting that Robb and Jon grew up together i'm saying interaction wouldn't have happened until they were big enough to learn and play together.

"Every morning they had trained together, since they were big enough to walk; Snow and Stark, spinning and slashing about the wards of Winterfell, shouting and laughing, sometimes crying when there was no one else to see(asos,jon).

At this time Cat couldn't avoid Jon .Robb could have been around 6ish and Jon almost 8.

The difference wouldn't be alot but somethings suspect "enough" to make her wonder :

"She was looking at him the way she used to look at him at Winterfell, whenever he had bested Robb at swords or sums or most anything. Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here?"

Subtly, i think these were also  signs that Robb was younger.Jon was further along and there came a time that Cat for instance began to wonder.Prompting Maester Luuwin's

"Bastards grow up faster than other children" statement.

This isn't so much about size,because really an trully that wouldn't tell age at a certain point.This time is superstitious enough where such things can be dismissed as being of a better stock. I believe the above speaks about maturity and Jon may have showed signs with regard to getting hair in places Robb wasn't getting yet,voice was change and just acting more mature on a whole.

But Cat as we can see with another quote below below seems to think Jon's hypothethical sons would contest with her grandkids.

"Catelyn said nothing. Let Ned work it out in his own mind; her voice would not be welcome now. Yet gladly would she have kissed the maester just then. His was the perfect solution. Benjen Stark was a Sworn Brother. Jon would be a son to him, the child he would never have. And in time the boy would take the oath as well. He would father no sons who might someday contest with Catelyn's own grandchildren for Winterfell."

What this will come back to ofcourse is Cat's belief about when Ned fathered Jon to which i will add where does she get this info? Ned never tells her anything other than "Jon is his blood" so anything else she told herself that's how it happened. Not for her sake but for Robb's as it would secure his social standing as firstborn.

This just to start.

 

[maudisdottir]

You're making all that up about Cat not seeing Jon until he was older.  And even if that were true, how could she think they were "of an age" if one of them were "big enough to walk" months or years before the other?  Cat says they were big enough to walk, not that one was already running around waiting for the other to crawl along behind.

That is not critical thinking.  That's an example of fabricating details to suit your argument.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

@wolfmaid7

On the subject of Aegon's birth:

There's simply no reason to take a statement GRRM made in 1999, off the top of his head, over what he gave us last year in the World Book. Maester Yandel is biased, but please explain to me what advantage he could have got from fudging Aegon's birth by an entire year. This was a royal birth, the birth of a boy who might eventually become the future King of Westeros. The idea that Aegon's birth could be kept secret for a whole year is ridiculous - you have the entire household, midwives,maesters and garrison of DS, for a start, who have to keep their mouth shut about it. Then we have to assume neither Rhaegar or Elia informed either of their families about the birth of their son  - why again, should that be the case? Not to mention that a child could not have been produced from nowhere - Elia would have to be pregnant for 9 months preceding that, for which we have to assume whoever saw her during that pregnancy would have to keep quiet as well (and neither R or E's family knew). Basically, the whole idea that Aegon's birth could be kept secret is very unlikely.

On Robb and Jon:

Wolfmaid,  Cat explicitly tells us in her POV that Ned had gone off for a war, and brought a child back home with him. Nowhere does she express any doubt that the child may have been fathered before the war - she thinks right up till her death that Jon was conceived after their marriage.

Ned keeps up this farce as well. He tells Robert (paraphrasing) - "I dishonoured myself and Catelyn in the sight of gods and men...I had taken her to wife, she was carrying my child." Clearly, he was never trying to pass off Jon as anything other than his own bastard conceived after the war, which can only be possible if his birthday was, at a maximum, 2-3 months before Robb.

The idea that Cat never saw Jon until they were older -  what? Jon was treated exactly on par with all the other kids of Winterfell - he used to even eat with the rest of the family at the same table (the only day this didn't happen was the day of King Robert's feast at Winterfell). Robb and Jon did everything together - "they" were old enough to walk, "they" learnt together under Maester Luwin and Ser Rodrik and Ned...he wasn't kept hidden away in some room. This is pure conjecture. Not only that, it ignores Cat's attitude towards Jon -  she would have been all the more watchful and suspicious of him because she feared he could become a threat to her other children. If there was a visible discrepancy in Jon's actual and assumed age, she would have been sharp enough to notice it.

17 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Bastards grow up faster than other children" statement.

This isn't so much about size,because really an trully that wouldn't tell age at a certain point.This time is superstitious enough where such things can be dismissed as being of a better stock. I believe the above speaks about maturity and Jon may have showed signs with regard to getting hair in places Robb wasn't getting yet,voice was change and just acting more mature on a whole.

I don't know what you mean here - if Jon had hit puberty significantly (a year or so) before Robb, that's really hard for Cat to miss. 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

@wolfmaid7

On the subject of Aegon's birth:

There's simply no reason to take a statement GRRM made in 1999, off the top of his head, over what he gave us last year in the World Book.

To the contrary - one might argue that there is every reason to believe GRRM's statement in 1999 is more reliable. 

The World book is fun - I particularly enjoy the artwork. But assuming, as we must, that certain powers in Westeros have for years worked to obscure the fate and/or whereabouts of Rhaegar's son Aegon - it's entirely reasonable to second-guess Maester Yandel's account of the timing of his birth. An account that, frankly, is remarkably vague to begin with - considering, as you say, that Aegon's was a royal birth.  

In contrast - back in 1999, Martin was in the midst of his most productive period, writing this series. He was immersed in the story, churning out a new book every two and a half years or so, right in the thick of his narratives - weaving storylines, laying groundwork, etc. He still claimed, at that time, that he'd be wrapping up the series in another 2 books. 

Assuming (again, as we must) that Aegon's fate and  storyline is an integral part of this series, it's difficult to believe Martin hadn't already considered the kid's age and timeline in some detail when he made those remarks in 1999. And indeed, those remarks are significantly more precise than Maester Yandel's account in the World book. 

[Sly Wren]

On September 15, 2016 at 0:45 PM, Voice said:

Rather than doubt the sincerity of Lyanna's convictions, I'd rather formulate a theory that accounts for them. But that's just me.

Lyanna did not approve of Robert getting a child on some girl in the Vale, even before he was married. She seems to have disapproved of not only that, but of his likely continuance of such behavior after they were to be wed.

In order to accept any non-rape version of Rhaegar+Lyanna, we must force Lyanna's disapproval from our minds. Now, I am but a humble voice, but in my opinion, that neglect does not a strong theory make.

Rather than pretend Lyanna would have been okay with polygamy, or men bound by vows to a woman keeping multiple beds, I prefer to take her at her word. I believe her. I think she was a young woman of strong character. Like Arya.

And I do not believe her words on the matter demonstrate that she would have been a willing broodmare for a married father of two. While not unheard of in certain trailer parks, Lyanna doesn't strike me as the sort of child-woman who aspired to be like "some girl in the Vale."

Lyanna doesn't just judge Robert in that speech. She generalizes to "men" in general. And her assessment? Past is prologue, regardless of how much he loves you.

So, the idea that we've been given that specific take and then are supposed to ignore it seems. . . odd.

Plus, Martin's given us the roses--equivocal in meaning in Game. Offensive in the Bael Tale. And reasserted as offensive in the Blue Bard stuff. 

Really seems like he's telling us the rose-giving was not romantic and Lyanna wouldn't willingly run off with unfaithful men.

[WSmith84]

On 9/15/2016 at 3:45 PM, Voice said:

From the last thread:

 

My reply to @J. Stargaryen:

 

No I agree, and that is an accurate summation.

It is entirely possible that Lyanna was a hypocrite. Why the author would feel the need to make Ned's dead sister into a hypocrite is another question. It is a stretch imo.

Rather than doubt the sincerity of Lyanna's convictions, I'd rather formulate a theory that accounts for them. But that's just me.

Lyanna did not approve of Robert getting a child on some girl in the Vale, even before he was married. She seems to have disapproved of not only that, but of his likely continuance of such behavior after they were to be wed.

In order to accept any non-rape version of Rhaegar+Lyanna, we must force Lyanna's disapproval from our minds. Now, I am but a humble voice, but in my opinion, that neglect does not a strong theory make.

Rather than pretend Lyanna would have been okay with polygamy, or men bound by vows to a woman keeping multiple beds, I prefer to take her at her word. I believe her. I think she was a young woman of strong character. Like Arya.

And I do not believe her words on the matter demonstrate that she would have been a willing broodmare for a married father of two. While not unheard of in certain trailer parks, Lyanna doesn't strike me as the sort of child-woman who aspired to be like "some girl in the Vale."

Lyanna's disapproval isn't about marriage though, but love. Her words are that love won't change a man's nature, not marriage.Frankly, we have no idea what Lyanna's opinion on marriage was. Perhaps she thought it was worth something, perhaps she thought it was nothing more than a way for families to make military alliances.

Rhaegar might have been married, but, from the only sources we have, wasn't in love. And maybe that's all that Lyanna cared about: having a man who loved her be loyal to her. If she and Rhaegar fell in love and she believed he would be loyal to her, perhaps that was enough. Maybe she didn't give a damn about his marriage, his wife, his children. That Rhaegar's infidelity to Elia meant nothing if he didn't love her in the first place. Doesn't paint her in the most pleasant light, but it does make her very human.

Of course, another explanation is that Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearance had nothing to do with love. But during their time together, love developed and both found themselves engaging in actions that they had condemned in others. That's incredibly common.

[Sly Wren]

7 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Lyanna's disapproval isn't about marriage though, but love. Her words are that love won't change a man's nature, not marriage.Frankly, we have no idea what Lyanna's opinion on marriage was. Perhaps she thought it was worth something, perhaps she thought it was nothing more than a way for families to make military alliances.

Right--but the point is, no matter how much a man claims to love you, his nature won't change.

So, Robert won't change his bed hopping ways just because of love. That's the problem.

So, if Rhaegar is willing to leave his wife and kids or set them aside for love, he's thus a man who is willing to do that.

And would be willing to do again later if he loved another after Lyanna--love would not change his "wife-leaving" nature, either. At least according to Lyanna's reasoning.

9 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

If she and Rhaegar fell in love and she believed he would be loyal to her, perhaps that was enough. Maybe she didn't give a damn about his marriage, his wife, his children. That Rhaegar's infidelity to Elia meant nothing if he didn't love her in the first place. Doesn't paint her in the most pleasant light, but it does make her very human.

But this defies her reasoning--the whole point of her reasoning is "past is prologue, regardless of love."

If that's her reasoning, it doesn't matter what she thinks of Elia or her children. Just that "what a man has done before he'll do again. No matter how much he loves you."

11 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Of course, another explanation is that Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearance had nothing to do with love. But during their time together, love developed and both found themselves engaging in actions that they had condemned in others. That's incredibly common.

It would be common. But it would also fly in the face of Lyanna's reasoning as given to us.

We don't have Rhaegar's take on love, only others' ideas about his love.

But we DO have Lyanna's take on love and how to judge men who say they love her.

Seems like we should take her at her word.

[wolfmaid7]

18 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

You're making all that up about Cat not seeing Jon until he was older.  And even if that were true, how could she think they were "of an age" if one of them were "big enough to walk" months or years before the other?  Cat says they were big enough to walk, not that one was already running around waiting for the other to crawl along behind.

That is not critical thinking.  That's an example of fabricating details to suit your argument.

Making it up...No? Taking into consideration several factors when it comes to Cat's arrival and the conditions in which she arrived yes.That comes into play yes. The fact that she was pissed at Ned for bringing Jon there yes.Cat isn't going to give Jon a time of day and i'm confident that Jon wasn't kept near Robb or near Cat.

Also, Cat didn't make that statement Jon did and i mentioned it to indicate Jon's memory of them at their lessons which would have been the time interaction between them really started."The they were big enough to walk" is just an expression.

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

@wolfmaid7

On the subject of Aegon's birth:

There's simply no reason to take a statement GRRM made in 1999, off the top of his head, over what he gave us last year in the World Book. Maester Yandel is biased, but please explain to me what advantage he could have got from fudging Aegon's birth by an entire year. This was a royal birth, the birth of a boy who might eventually become the future King of Westeros. The idea that Aegon's birth could be kept secret for a whole year is ridiculous - you have the entire household, midwives,maesters and garrison of DS, for a start, who have to keep their mouth shut about it. Then we have to assume neither Rhaegar or Elia informed either of their families about the birth of their son  - why again, should that be the case? Not to mention that a child could not have been produced from nowhere - Elia would have to be pregnant for 9 months preceding that, for which we have to assume whoever saw her during that pregnancy would have to keep quiet as well (and neither R or E's family knew). Basically, the whole idea that Aegon's birth could be kept secret is very unlikely.

On Robb and Jon:

Wolfmaid,  Cat explicitly tells us in her POV that Ned had gone off for a war, and brought a child back home with him. Nowhere does she express any doubt that the child may have been fathered before the war - she thinks right up till her death that Jon was conceived after their marriage.

Ned keeps up this farce as well. He tells Robert (paraphrasing) - "I dishonoured myself and Catelyn in the sight of gods and men...I had taken her to wife, she was carrying my child." Clearly, he was never trying to pass off Jon as anything other than his own bastard conceived after the war, which can only be possible if his birthday was, at a maximum, 2-3 months before Robb.

The idea that Cat never saw Jon until they were older -  what? Jon was treated exactly on par with all the other kids of Winterfell - he used to even eat with the rest of the family at the same table (the only day this didn't happen was the day of King Robert's feast at Winterfell). Robb and Jon did everything together - "they" were old enough to walk, "they" learnt together under Maester Luwin and Ser Rodrik and Ned...he wasn't kept hidden away in some room. This is pure conjecture. Not only that, it ignores Cat's attitude towards Jon -  she would have been all the more watchful and suspicious of him because she feared he could become a threat to her other children. If there was a visible discrepancy in Jon's actual and assumed age, she would have been sharp enough to notice it.

I don't know what you mean here - if Jon had hit puberty significantly (a year or so) before Robb, that's really hard for Cat to miss. 

To our first point ...I guess we should throw out the ssm about Jon being 8-9 months older than Dany because that's at the top of his head to huh? Is it possible that the WB on this matter is just wrong or seeing as no one mentions a heavily pregnant Elia at the tourney.Or Rhaegar dissing his pregnant wife which would make that scandal even more,that something is wrong.

Yandel would lie because his lie puts Rhaegar in a place that he wasn't. If GRRM's statement about Aegon's age is true and we take into consideration Dany's vision then Rhaegar was with Elia and Aegon wherever they were at around the time he's suppose to be on the road kidnapping Lyanna Stark.

Aegon's birth wouldn't be kept a secret there would only be the discrepency of when he was actually born.It was a royal birth on DS most likely there isn't going to be an announcement in Westerosi news that Prince Rhaegar and Elia had a son on sush an such day..

Little Scribe Cat's belief is the problem what is it based on? That's what i'm trying to get across.Why does she believe the way she does. Ned didn't tell her Jon was born such and such a time to some girl. He hasn't told Cat anything except Jon is his blood. 

She decides when that was as best suits her purpose.

Ned re: Robert conversation,Robert said Ned had a "one time" he says to Ned " you know the one i'm talking about. Your Bastard's mother." That's it there. He thinks the girl who Ned has the moment with was Jon's mother. Ned never tells him that,Ned goes on to state that he disonored Cat she was carrying his child." All true,true that he had some affair after,not true that "he" named her Jon's mother.

 

1 hour ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

To the contrary - one might argue that there is every reason to believe GRRM's statement in 1999 is more reliable. 

The World book is fun - I particularly enjoy the artwork. But assuming, as we must, that certain powers in Westeros have for years worked to obscure the fate and/or whereabouts of Rhaegar's son Aegon - it's entirely reasonable to second-guess Maester Yandel's account of the timing of his birth. An account that, frankly, is remarkably vague to begin with - considering, as you say, that Aegon's was a royal birth.  

In contrast - back in 1999, Martin was in the midst of his most productive period, writing this series. He was immersed in the story, churning out a new book every two and a half years or so, right in the thick of his narratives - weaving storylines, laying groundwork, etc. He still claimed, at that time, that he'd be wrapping up the series in another 2 books. 

Assuming (again, as we must) that Aegon's fate and  storyline is an integral part of this series, it's difficult to believe Martin hadn't already considered the kid's age and timeline in some detail when he made those remarks in 1999. And indeed, those remarks are significantly more precise that Maester Yandel's account in the World book. 

44 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Lyanna doesn't just judge Robert in that speech. She generalizes to "men" in general. And her assessment? Past is prologue, regardless of how much he loves you.

So, the idea that we've been given that specific take and then are supposed to ignore it seems. . . odd.

Plus, Martin's given us the roses--equivocal in meaning in Game. Offensive in the Bael Tale. And reasserted as offensive in the Blue Bard stuff. 

Really seems like he's telling us the rose-giving was not romantic and Lyanna wouldn't willingly run off with unfaithful men.

Bingo

[wolfmaid7]

21 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Lyanna's disapproval isn't about marriage though, but love. Her words are that love won't change a man's nature, not marriage.Frankly, we have no idea what Lyanna's opinion on marriage was. Perhaps she thought it was worth something, perhaps she thought it was nothing more than a way for families to make military alliances.

Rhaegar might have been married, but, from the only sources we have, wasn't in love. And maybe that's all that Lyanna cared about: having a man who loved her be loyal to her. If she and Rhaegar fell in love and she believed he would be loyal to her, perhaps that was enough. Maybe she didn't give a damn about his marriage, his wife, his children. That Rhaegar's infidelity to Elia meant nothing if he didn't love her in the first place. Doesn't paint her in the most pleasant light, but it does make her very human.

Of course, another explanation is that Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearance had nothing to do with love. But during their time together, love developed and both found themselves engaging in actions that they had condemned in others. That's incredibly common.

Its about infidelity!!!! Not love. Her whole point to Ned was that she believed Robert regardless of love would cheat.This is her belief though subject to change pending them spending time with each other.

If Rhaegar made a play for her romantically......She absoluetly knows he's a cheater.She absolutely knows he didn't keep to one bed.

[WSmith84]

Just now, Sly Wren said:

Right--but the point is, no matter how much a man claims to love you, his nature won't change.

So, Robert won't change his bed hopping ways just because of love. That's the problem.

So, if Rhaegar is willing to leave his wife and kids or set them aside for love, he's thus a man who is willing to do that.

Yes, he is. And Lyanna might have been OK with that i.e. not caring about Elia and the children. Her only objection is that love wouldn't make Robert loyal.

2 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

And would be willing to do again later if he loved another after Lyanna--love would not change his "wife-leaving" nature, either. At least according to Lyanna's reasoning.

Very possible. But people in love rarely think that the person they are in love with will one day feel differently. Let's face it; love is irrational, and makes the most intelligent, selfless people behave stupidly and selfishly.

Jon, after all, made a vow to the Night's Watch that he fully intended to keep. I bet if someone had asked Jon on his opinion on oathbreakers, he'd have condemned them. And yet love made him flee the NW to help Robb avenge their father, sleep with Ygritte multiple times and send Mance to rescue 'Arya.' A person's actions are often in conflict with their personal opinions and views.

[WSmith84]

5 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Its about infidelity!!!! Not love. Her whole point to Ned was that she believed Robert regardless of love would cheat.This is her belief though subject to change pending them spending time with each other.

If Rhaegar made a play for her romantically......She absoluetly knows he's a cheater.She absolutely knows he didn't keep to one bed.

It's about infidelity despite love. That nothing would make Robert loyal, not even love. Perhaps Lyanna believed Rhaegar to be of a different nature; a man who would be loyal if in love. And if Rhaegar didn't love Elia, then his infideltiy meant nothing.

[Sly Wren]

24 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Bingo

14 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Yes, he is. And Lyanna might have been OK with that i.e. not caring about Elia and the children. Her only objection is that love wouldn't make Robert loyal.

But if love won't keep Robert loyal, it won't keep Rhaegar loyal, either. "Love cannot change a man's nature"--Lyanna's extrapolating that idea to all men.

Quote

Very possible. But people in love rarely think that the person they are in love with will one day feel differently. Let's face it; love is irrational, and makes the most intelligent, selfless people behave stupidly and selfishly.

Right--and Lyanna's take on that is "men don't change, even those who love you."

We've no evidence that she ever changed her mind on this.

Quote

Jon, after all, made a vow to the Night's Watch that he fully intended to keep. I bet if someone had asked Jon on his opinion on oathbreakers, he'd have condemned them. And yet love made him flee the NW to help Robb avenge their father, sleep with Ygritte multiple times and send Mance to rescue 'Arya.' A person's actions are often in conflict with their personal opinions and views.

Agreed. But Jon saw himself as better than others--more faithful. And he also (to some extent) justifies his actions by saying he's following orders. Which he rather is. And Jon didn't run off with Ygritte for love. 

But Lyanna isn't idealizing herself. Or assessing her own faithfulness. She's assessing men. Men in general. And what to trust and not to trust. And she's certain, no matter how much Ned and Robert are close as brothers and Roberts'a a good guy and all of that and no matter how much he loves her--Lyanna's certain "love won't change a man's nature." A certainty she applies to all men.

Add in the roses which Martin has repeatedly, symbolically told us were an insult from the start, the idea that Lyanna ran off for love, or that she would have forgotten the assessment she gave Ned when caught up with the son of the king who killed her father and brother is. . . very hard to fathom.

If she took repeated massive blows to the head? Maybe.

But Martin gave us Lyanna's assessment on men and their love for a reason. Seems like we should pay attention.

[wolfmaid7]

4 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

It's about infidelity despite love. That nothing would make Robert loyal, not even love. Perhaps Lyanna believed Rhaegar to be of a different nature; a man who would be loyal if in love. And if Rhaegar didn't love Elia, then his infideltiy meant nothing.

She didn't know him though.....Plus she has no knowledge about what state his marriage may or may not be in to make that call that he'd be faithful if he met the right woman to love.

That cast Lyanna as some starry eyed waif who like Cersie when hearing him play a song thinks to herself that she could make his pain go away.

That doesn't come off like Lyanna at all.