Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 4

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

    “You were not there,” Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night . “There was no honor in that conquest.”

   “The Others take your honor!” Robert swore. “What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!” 

    “You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

The passage above directly links three facts: the Lannister deception that led to the sack, Ned's lies that he's held for fourteen years, and Lyanna's promise. Ned knows something that he believes Robert does not.

That much I can agree with - Ned is withholding something from Robert here, something that Robert cannot be told.

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The official story is that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, but what if he didn't? Ned thought that Robert believed that the rebellion was honorable, because he was avenging Lyanna.  Notice how Lyanna's "promise me" memory comes immediately after Ned tells Robert he avenged Lyanna at the Trident. 

And it is a response to Robert's remark that Rhaegar had no honour. If Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna but they eloped, or he rescued her from Aerys etc., then it is something that Ned really cannot tell Robert.

12 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Unless, when Ned said "There was no honor in that conquest", he was referring narrowly to the sack of King's Landing. That act was not undertaken by the forces of the Rebellion, but by the Lannister soldiers alone.

Ned's words just prior to that comment were "Not our men ... Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery." That's the "no honor" he was referring to, not the entire rebellion.

This

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Unless, when Ned said "There was no honor in that conquest", he was referring narrowly to the sack of King's Landing. That act was not undertaken by the forces of the Rebellion, but by the Lannister soldiers alone.

Ned's words just prior to that comment were "Not our men ... Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery." That's the "no honor" he was referring to, not the entire rebellion.

No, it was more than the circumstances of the sack because Robert indicated he knew all about it and was like so what it was "well known", so this was not the secret, and Ned was still frustrated because he wasn't finished. The details of the sack were just his lead in to the truth bomb, but Robert rode away on his horse before Ned could get to the main point.

[kimim]

Quote

Great question Kingmonkey! Motivation! That is always the heart of an investigation. Everyone assumes Ned is keeping Jon's parents a secret to protect Jon, when in fact I believe Ned was protecting Robert.

Ned is not talking about the entirety of the Rebellion, but specifically about the sack of KL, because, per Ned, this is where the Lannisters get involved, not earlier. That disagrees with your use of this passage to prove that Ned believes Lannisters were involved from the beginning and is hiding it from Robert. Here, Ned's offering the reader exposition:

Quote

The war had raged for close to a year. Lords great and small had flocked to Robert’s banners; others had remained loyal to Targaryen. The mighty Lannisters of Casterly Rock, the Wardens of the West, had remained aloof from the struggle, ignoring calls to arms from both rebels and royalists.

The deaths of Rickard and Brandon are not involved, as there is no proof, not here, not anywhere, that the Lannisters were "responsible." Ned's talking about the moment the lions enter the Rebellion in the taking of KL, and that moment was at the very end, after the Trident.

To go back to Kingmonkey's question about motivation: Ned is disillusioned when he goes south to free Stannis and receive Mace's surrender, and he is equally disillusioned with Tywin and Robert:

Quote

He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar's wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn." Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south. It had taken another death to reconcile them; Lyanna's death, and the grief they had shared over her passing.

Ned does not kill inconvenient children. Robert does. Ned does not dehumanize children. Robert does, when he calls them "no babes. Only dragonspawn." Game creates a pattern where Robert is willing to kill inconvenient or politically inexpedient children, placing Ned in inconvenient and politically inexpedient positions where he must defend these children from Robert. Game also raises the possibility that there was no real "reconciliation" between the two friends, and that Ned never trusts Robert again.

This radical distrust is apparent when Ned and LF are trying to figure out who might have tried to assassinate Bran:

Quote

Ned rose and paced the length of the room. "If the queen had a role in this or, gods forbid, the king himself … no, I will not believe that." Yet even as he said the words, he remembered that chill morning on the barrowlands, and Robert's talk of sending hired knives after the Targaryen princess. He remembered Rhaegar's infant son, the red ruin of his skull, and the way the king had turned away, as he had turned away in Darry's audience hall not so long ago. He could still hear Sansa pleading, as Lyanna had pleaded once.

Ned's so distrustful of Robert that he is willing to consider the possibility that HE might have ordered Bran's death: "gods forbid, the king himself," could have sent that assassin. Then Ned changes his mind. Robert is his dear friend, after all: "...no, I will not believe that." Then he goes back. Yes, Robert might have ordered Bran's assassination. He remembers what Robert does to inconvenient children: Robert wants to assassinate Dany. Robert had turned away from "Rhaegar's infant son," the way he turned away from a pleading Sansa at Darry's audience hall.

And all that reminds him of Lyanna, pleading, as Sansa had, for Lady.

Ned's belief that Robert is lethal to children not his own drives him to warn Cersei. A man who goes this far to save some kids he does not even like from his best buddy's wrath, would be more than capable of lying for fourteen years to save his nephew from that same friend's wrath.

 

 

 

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

No, it was more than the circumstances of the sack because Robert indicated he knew all about it and was like so what it was "well known", so this was not the secret, and Ned was still frustrated because he wasn't finished. The details of the sack were just his lead in to the truth bomb, but Robert rode away on his horse before Ned could get to the main point.

Ned is frustrated because Robert doesn't see things the way he does, doesn't think that the Lannisters are vipers that cannot be trusted and closes his eyes to the atrocities they committed back then and which they commit now.

[LynnS]

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Great question Kingmonkey! Motivation! That is always the heart of an investigation. Everyone assumes Ned is keeping Jon's parents a secret to protect Jon, when in fact I believe Ned was protecting Robert.

Ned was concerned that the rebellion had no honor. He tried to tell Robert as much:

  “You took a wound from Rhaegar,” Ned reminded him. “So when the Targaryen host broke and ran, you gave the pursuit into my hands. The remnants of Rhaegar’s army fled back to King’s Landing. We followed. Aerys was in the Red Keep with several thousand loyalists. I expected to find the gates closed to us.” 

    Robert gave an impatient shake of his head. “Instead you found that our men had already taken the city. What of it?” 

    “Not our men,” Ned said patiently. “Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery.”

    The war had raged for close to a year. Lords great and small had flocked to Robert’s banners; others had remained loyal to Targaryen. The mighty Lannisters of Casterly Rock, the Wardens of the West, had remained aloof from the struggle, ignoring calls to arms from both rebels and royalists. Aerys Targaryen must have thought that his gods had answered his prayers when Lord Tywin Lannister appeared before the gates of King’s Landing with an army twelve thousand strong, professing loyalty. So the mad king had ordered his last mad act. He had opened his city to the lions at the gate. 

    “Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well,” Robert said. The anger was building in him again. “Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it.”

    “You were not there,” Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night . “There was no honor in that conquest.”

   “The Others take your honor!” Robert swore. “What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!” 

    “You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

The passage above directly links three facts: the Lannister deception that led to the sack, Ned's lies that he's held for fourteen years, and Lyanna's promise. Ned knows something that he believes Robert does not.

The official story is that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, but what if he didn't? Ned thought that Robert believed that the rebellion was honorable, because he was avenging Lyanna. Notice how Lyanna's "promise me" memory comes immediately after Ned tells Robert he avenged Lyanna at the Trident. Robert's Rebellion was honorable because they killed the people responsible for taking her and for the deaths of Rickard and Brandon, but what if Rhaegar nor his father were responsible? Then ousting the Targaryens from the throne would be without honor. It would be labeled a conquest and bring the legitimacy of Robert's rule into question. 

So how does this tie into who Jon's parents are? Ned cannot reveal who Jon's father is without also telling Robert that he was tricked, that Rhaegar never kidnapped her, that his father in law, Tywin Lannister played them all like puppets. Ned wanted to tell Robert as soon as he knew, but Lyanna made him promise not to tell. She was protecting Robert and Ned and her family's reputation, the honor of the rebellion, and the legitimacy of Robert's claim on the iron throne. 

This really appeals to me.  There is also this dream of Ned's that has always puzzled me.

Quote

He found himself thinking of Robert more and more. He saw the king as he had been in the flower of his youth, tall and handsome, his great antlered helm on his head, his warhammer in hand, sitting his horse like a horned god. He heard his laughter in the dark, saw his eyes, blue and clear as mountain lakes. "Look at us, Ned," Robert said. "Gods, how did we come to this? You here, and me killed by a pig. We won a throne together …"

I failed you, Robert, Ned thought. He could not say the words. I lied to you, hid the truth. I let them kill you.

The king heard him. "You stiff-necked fool," he muttered, "too proud to listen. Can you eat pride, Stark? Will honor shield your children?" Cracks ran down his face, fissures opening in the flesh, and he reached up and ripped the mask away. It was not Robert at all; it was Littlefinger, grinning, mocking him. When he opened his mouth to speak, his lies turned to pale grey moths and took wing.

GoT - Eddard XV

What do you make of Robert transforming into Littlefinger?

[kimim]

33 minutes ago, LynnS said:

What do you make of Robert transforming into Littlefinger?

As I tried to show in the earlier post, Ned's feelings toward Robert are complicated. On the one hand, he considers Robert a friend, wants to spare him suffering on his deathbed, grieves when he dies. On the other hand, he half believes that Robert's the kind of man who would have Bran assassinated; see the conversation with LF I linked earlier. Ned does not trust Robert.

So Ned, I think, blames both Robert and LF for his plight: Going by what he knows of Robert, Ned has reason to believe that he'd kill the three incest kids. That forces him to warn Cersei. That forces Cersei speed up her plans to assassinate Robert. All of that works in LF's favor and culminates with his betrayal.

Had Robert been a more trustworthy person, a stronger king, a better man and a better friend, Ned could have confided in him, and the two of them could have stood against Cersei and LF together. It's understandable that he would hold Robert partly responsible for this mess.

[LynnS]

6 minutes ago, kimim said:

As I tried to show in the earlier post, Ned's feelings toward Robert are complicated. On the one hand, he considers Robert a friend, wants to spare him suffering on his deathbed, grieves when he dies. On the other hand, he half believes that Robert's the kind of man who would have Bran assassinated; see the conversation with LF I linked earlier. Ned does not trust Robert.

So Ned, I think, blames both Robert and LF for his plight: Going by what he knows of Robert, Ned has reason to believe that he'd kill the three incest kids. That forces him to warn Cersei. That forces Cersei speed up her plans to assassinate Robert. All of that works in LF's favor and culminates with his betrayal.

Had Robert been a more trustworthy person, a stronger king, a better man and a better friend, Ned could have confided in him, and the two of them could have stood against Cersei and LF together. It's understandable that he would hold Robert partly responsible for this mess.

[Melifeather]

7 hours ago, LynnS said:

This really appeals to me.  There is also this dream of Ned's that has always puzzled me.

What do you make of Robert transforming into Littlefinger?

I looked up moth symbolism and basically if you dream of moths it's a message to listen to your inner voice. Ned didn't listen to his inner voice because he was trying to hold onto a promise that he had made to his sister, and keeping a promise is honorable. Littlefinger told him how foolish and dangerous it could be to hold onto his honor at the expense of safety as it would not protect his children.

[Melifeather]

8 hours ago, kimim said:

Ned is not talking about the entirety of the Rebellion, but specifically about the sack of KL, because, per Ned, this is where the Lannisters get involved, not earlier. That disagrees with your use of this passage to prove that Ned believes Lannisters were involved from the beginning and is hiding it from Robert. Here, Ned's offering the reader exposition:

The deaths of Rickard and Brandon are not involved, as there is no proof, not here, not anywhere, that the Lannisters were "responsible." Ned's talking about the moment the lions enter the Rebellion in the taking of KL, and that moment was at the very end, after the Trident.

To go back to Kingmonkey's question about motivation: Ned is disillusioned when he goes south to free Stannis and receive Mace's surrender, and he is equally disillusioned with Tywin and Robert:

Ned does not kill inconvenient children. Robert does. Ned does not dehumanize children. Robert does, when he calls them "no babes. Only dragonspawn." Game creates a pattern where Robert is willing to kill inconvenient or politically inexpedient children, placing Ned in inconvenient and politically inexpedient positions where he must defend these children from Robert. Game also raises the possibility that there was no real "reconciliation" between the two friends, and that Ned never trusts Robert again.

This radical distrust is apparent when Ned and LF are trying to figure out who might have tried to assassinate Bran:

Ned's so distrustful of Robert that he is willing to consider the possibility that HE might have ordered Bran's death: "gods forbid, the king himself," could have sent that assassin. Then Ned changes his mind. Robert is his dear friend, after all: "...no, I will not believe that." Then he goes back. Yes, Robert might have ordered Bran's assassination. He remembers what Robert does to inconvenient children: Robert wants to assassinate Dany. Robert had turned away from "Rhaegar's infant son," the way he turned away from a pleading Sansa at Darry's audience hall.

And all that reminds him of Lyanna, pleading, as Sansa had, for Lady.

Ned's belief that Robert is lethal to children not his own drives him to warn Cersei. A man who goes this far to save some kids he does not even like from his best buddy's wrath, would be more than capable of lying for fourteen years to save his nephew from that same friend's wrath.

 

 

 

Ned was not talking specifically about the sack, because as Robert pointed out it was well known. It was well known that Tywin deceived his way through the gates, so that is not one of the "lies" Ned has been keeping secret for 14 years.

The passage about Tywin ignoring pleas from either side is just a description of appearances...it was what people thought. Ned wasn't stating it as fact. He's telling the story about what people believed.

If Tywin was behind Lyanna's abduction, then it is his fault that Brandon and Rickard died. They were tricked into believing Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna. Brandon reacted rashly and foolishly accused the crown prince. And if Brandon had not done so, King Aerys would not have had a reason to execute them.

 

[SFDanny]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:25 PM, Kingmonkey said:

To take a bit of pressure of poor Wolfmaid who's been bombarded with questions, I propose a challenge.

For some reason, Ned kept secret the truth about Jon's parentage for 14 years, at significant personal cost to himself and his wife. Why? Any solution to X+Y=J must surely give some solid reason for Ned not simply telling Jon -- and indeed the world -- who his parents are. What's the big secret?

I'll put forwards explanations that cover the two essays I did. Anyone is free to chip in with comments/addenda/criticisms on these, or come up with similar justifications for any of the other parenthood solutions. Have at it!

 

R+L=J: The murder of Rhaegar's other children. We don't need to be sure that Robert would actually kill Lyanna's son. We don't need to think that Robert would go so far as to challenge Ned and risk the loyalty of the North on this matter. We don't even need to involve the Lannisters in this. All we need is for Lyanna to have been fearful for her new half-Targ son by a man who's other children have just been brutally murdered -- as far as she knows perhaps, on the orders of that man's killer. "Promise me, Ned."

 

S+L=J: Because duh. Ned's going to keep this one secret, otherwise he might as well just tattoo "ABOMINATION" on baby Jon's head. To do anything other than keep this secret would bring shame on Jon and shame on House Stark. 

I love how you put out your challenge and then answer the easy ones!  Let me also state your question is one that has been debated for years in these threads, but nonetheless is still very relevant to any discussion of why Ned keeps his secrets.

Let me contribute to your challenge with a set of candidates that seems to get totally overlooked, or almost, in these threads - Ned Stark and the Lady Ashara Dayne. Most readers know this is not my chosen favorite, but that doesn't mean it has nothing going for it. First, it has the fortune, or misfortune, depending on how one looks at it of being actually rumored as a possible solution to the mystery of who is Jon's mother. There are indications there may have been a romance, begun at Harrenhal, between Ned and Ashara. This is told to Catelyn by unnamed Winterfell servants, by Harwin to Arya, Cersei to Ned himself in the King's Landing godswood, and by Lord Ned Dayne to Arya. Textual support if there ever was one.

Let me run it through the timeline test. We know Jon is conceived somewhere around the third or fourth month of the rebellion. Sorry, for everyone who wants to doubts this, but our author establishes the timeline and there is nothing to make one doubt it but rank speculation. So how does a Lady of Dorne, in close association with Rhaegar meet with Ned during this timeframe while the rebellion rages? Well, first we have to take note of Martin's advisory that Lady Ashara is not "nailed to the floor in Dorne." Meaning the woman could have travelled, even into rebel held territory.

Let me purpose a scenario in which we can solve Martin's timeline problem and answer Kingmonkey's challenge at the same time. Let us suppose Lady Ashara arrives with few escorts into Ned's camp to deliver a message. A message of peace from either Aerys or Rhaegar to Ned under the assumption he would listen to terms coming from the woman he fell in love with at Harrenhal. Ned cannot accept the terms, nor is he able to, by his duty, let a hostage of this high rank walk free. Ned tells no one who she is, and after a night of passion, he sends her home with the message the rebellion will be fought to the deaths of Aerys and Rhaegar or to those of Robert and himself.

Now, how does Ned explain how he conceived a son with Ashara during the height of the rebellion and did not tell Robert, Jon, or Hoster, she even came into camp? To admit he loved her and did so, means he committed treason to the rebel cause. Or so he sees it. And I'd bet the Lannisters would see it that way as well. Nor is he willing to drag Ashara's name through the mud of her carrying his bastard child through the rebellion.

Are there holes in the idea? You bet! But it's a start for a reason why Ned might lie and continue to lie to Robert.

[Kingmonkey]

50 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I love how you put out your challenge and then answer the easy ones!  

That they are the easy ones may indicate something of how likely those options are.  Of course the real reason is that I wrote those two essays, and didn't want to speak before anyone else more closely involved in those alternatives has a chance.

50 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Let me also state your question is one that has been debated for years in these threads, but nonetheless is still very relevant to any discussion of why Ned keeps his secrets.

Absolutely. I stand by my contention that any X+Y=J theory that can't give a good answer to this question is fundamentally flawed.

50 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Now, how does Ned explain how he conceived a son with Ashara during the height of the rebellion and did not tell Robert, Jon, or Hoster, she even came into camp? To admit he loved her and did so, means he committed treason to the rebel cause. Or so he sees it. And I'd bet the Lannisters would see it that way as well. Nor is he willing to drag Ashara's name through the mud of her carrying his bastard child through the rebellion.

Are there holes in the idea? You bet! But it's a start for a reason why Ned might lie and continue to lie to Robert.

Great to see you having a go at this one and coming up with an actual reason! Just what I proposed this particular challenge for. As you say though, holes. The biggest one being "nor is he able to, by his duty, let a hostage of this high rank walk free." She's not a hostage, she's a negotiator. It would be dishonourable NOT to let her go.

However, I think we can get around that by changing the scenario a little, and at the same time explain away a couple of other puzzle. We have no evidence of Lyanna communicating with her family post-abduction, yet many of us think she was at least eventually quite willing to have been "abducted", and became sympathetic to Rhaegar's cause. Well, maybe there WAS a communication with the Starks. We've wondered how Ned found out about the ToJ, and maybe the answer to that is that Ashara told him.

So, small modification to your scenario, Ashara is not offering terms to the rebels, but asking Ned to join his sister in supporting Rhaegar. This could even have been the plan all along, and the reason for the abduction. However the rash actions of Brandon, and even more so of Aerys, put paid to this possibility -- Ned had to get revenge. And that meant not just refusing Ashara's proposal, but keeping the very fact of that proposal -- and Lyanna's willing part in Rhaegar's schemes -- secret from Robert.

That would be quite a tasty twist! 

While I'm posting -- nothing to add to it, but I wanted to give a  to @kimim for some excellent posting on Ned distrusting Robert.

 

[J. Stargaryen]

@Sly Wren,

There's no good excuse for such a late reply, but here it is. Also, Happy Thanksgiving (to everyone).

Quote

But it wouldn't be odd for a big fight to happen in the Prince's Pass. The World Book gives multiple examples of just that happening over the centuries--that the Stony Dornish defend the Pass. Fight in the Pass. Defending their homes/castles not in the castles but in the Pass. 

I meant that the fight was very important to the story re: "big." It was a rather small skirmish numbers wise.

Quote

And they could be defending what's in the tower. But given that Ned and Howland were able to pull the thing down, it can't have been that great of a tower. And it may just have been where they met (by accident or plan) to fight. If it's a watchtower, it could be a good vantage point for the 3 KG to see Ned coming and wait for him.

But then why did Rhaegar name that tower the ToJ? Not only is this theory lacking any solid evidence, or evidence of any kind imo, but it also requires a new explanation in a place where a really good one already exists. That looks like a red flag to me.

Pregnant Lyanna being there is a good explanation. It can even work if AD is the father. Once it becomes clear that Lyanna will have the baby there, Rhaegar names it the ToJ in honor of his BFF's impending fatherhood. Same idea for RLJ, of course.

Quote

Or, they could be defending the tower, as you say. Though they make no mention of guarding the tower. They say they have been "far away." Not "here." Leaves plenty of room for them to have been doing their "duty" elsewhere.

They don't say what they've been doing. They say they were "far away" from KL, which has been discussed at some length since you posted this. Including the explanation for why "here" would not have made sense.

Quote

HA! Well, the legs are the fact it's a dream and Martin's statement on dreams.

Dreams not being literal ≠ the specific interpretation you guys have willed into existence, though. I'd be a lot more open to it if you guys had found anything solid to support this position. Many months. Still waiting.

Btw, did it ever occur to you that GRRM was simply trying to cast doubt on upon the prevailing interpretation for selfish reasons? There was a time when he was quite distraught at the realization that people had figured out the central mystery to his story.

Quote

Because we know Ned conflates things in the dream. He tells us so himself--his friends aren't wraiths at the time of the fight. But he dreams them that way--conflating the living and the dead.

Sure, but that's different from conflating locations. Respectfully, I'm going to keep saying that you guys have been at this for a while and have nothing to show for it, evidence wise.

Quote

And Martin's statement--what in the dream are we likely to take literally that we shouldn't? That the fighters are wraiths? No--Ned tells us that in text. The storm of rose petals? Again, that seems unlikely, unless readers conflate Martin with Disney. The convo between Ned and the KG is ritualized, but not surreal.

I have my doubts about the dialogue, for starters.

Quote

But the scream--Ned could be dreaming of the moment he literally heard Lyanna scream because she was in the tower. But since the scream comes at the same moment as the rose-petal storm, a blood-streaked sky, and a "rush of steel and shadow"--all of those things are figurative. Not literal. Conflations. Seems like the scream being the same would really, really fit as something we shouldn't take literally.

I follow what you're saying, but I don't see it the same. The "rush of steel and shadow" is the beginning of the fight, which we know happened. So that's something real that is shown symbolically. Which would then parallel the scream + blue rose petal storm + blood-streaked sky representing Jon's birth, another real event. The blood-streaked sky = bed of blood, storm of blue rose petals = the winter rose crown Rhaegar gave to Lyanna. Coinciding with a scream would make sense since... well, childbirth.

Quote

Especially since Martin then brings in the Daynes and their "memory" or "tradition" of Jon Snow's origins being tied to Starfall. And has that info given to Lyanna's niece who is so very like her.

But it's pretty likely that Jon spent some time there as a newborn. They're clearly in on the cover story. I just don't see how that takes Lyanna away from the ToJ. I mean, I get where you're going, but absent other evidence, I don't rate it as a theory yet.

Quote

We're all speculating until we get the new book (humph). But Martin flat out warned that questioner years ago about literality and the dream. In a question where the questioner stated he thought Ned went into the tower and found Lyanna. But the books have not said this. At all. Seems like that's a gap worth respecting.

The questioner stated a couple of things, though. In fact, one of the things he was questioning was why there was a fight in the first place.

Quote

Ah--no. Sorry, I should have been clearer. The text leaves open the possibility that she is there.

It's a bit more than that. The text puts her at a specific place, at a specific time. Which means the audience is meant to think that's where she was. However, because we learn this through a dream, there is a possibility that we are being mislead.

Quote

But it doesn't place her there andy more than . . . symbolically. Like the rose petal storm.

I think that's a bit misleading and/or inaccurate. We can be sure that the rose petal storm is symbolic, whereas Lyanna may well have been there. Just because we only have this information from the dream, does not mean it is strictly symbolic.

Quote

And in that same book where Jon keeps hearing Mance sing "Dornishman's Wife," Arya hears from Edric Dayne (who is only ever called Ned--a fact Martin draws a big red circle around not only with Arya but also since Edric Storm, son of Ned's best friend, is never called Ned) about Jon's connection to Starfall.

Ned brought Dawn back to Starfall after the ToJ. So there's a pretty good chance Jon was there as a newborn.

Quote

But as for the text, we have Jon connecting the Red Mountains of Dorne with the North in his head when listening to Mance. That could be the tower--but could also be Starfall.

Jon was born in the Red Mountains of Dorne, though. How does that work in your favor anymore than mine?

Quote

Like the tower "evidence," it's also largely symbolic. And suggestive. But it's there. And it's tied to Jon himself, if not Lyanna. Connects Jon to Starfall and the Daynes.

In other words, the evidence is a handful of interpretations of symbolism, and extrapolating from parallels. Things like that. That's fine in and of itself. But the double standards really stick out to me. You want to argue that Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ because it only says she was in a dream, and not in anyone's waking POV. But where is the waking POV placing Jon's birth at Starfall? Hell, I'd even take a dreaming POV.

Quote

Yes. But he only hears her scream as he starts to fight. And fight the only KG for whom he shows emotion, or to whom he assigns emotion: Arthur.

<snip>

You said the text leaves a gap, but I disagree with that wording. If anything, it's an intentional a red herring, because she's in the dream.

Quote

Well, he does provide evidence that Lyanna could be elsewhere: Starfall. He's been bringing in Starfall as tied to Jon since the beginning of the books. And Ned's emotional tie to Arthur. And Ned Dayne's nickname and story. And Jon's tie to Dawn. Martin's tied Jon to Starfall. Tied his "mother" to Starfall. If Lyanna is Jon's mother (which I really think she is), his being tied to Starfall ties her there, too. And Martin's been laying the groundwork for that since Cat's first POV.

None of that really seems on par with, for example, Lysa putting Tyrion on trial after accusing Cersei in her coded letter to Cat. That's a big contradiction, right out in the open, plain as day. Not some murky symbolic interpretations.

Quote

No--the one data point we have is that Ned's dream about Lyanna associates the tower, the men, and Lyanna together. But whether or not they are all in the same place has yet to be determined.

You're welcome to split hairs all you want. But she's in the dream, which takes place at the ToJ. Even if it's a conflation, she's in the dream.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

That they are the easy ones may indicate something of how likely those options are.  Of course the real reason is that I wrote those two essays, and didn't want to speak before anyone else more closely involved in those alternatives has a chance.

Only problem is that none of these are anyone's property, and as to how closely involved people are to an alternative largely depends on the audience one is speaking to, doesn't it?

 

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Absolutely. I stand by my contention that any X+Y=J theory that can't give a good answer to this question is fundamentally flawed.

We agree, and it would be quite hypocritical of me not to because I've argued the point for many years.

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Great to see you having a go at this one and coming up with an actual reason! Just what I proposed this particular challenge for. As you say though, holes. The biggest one being "nor is he able to, by his duty, let a hostage of this high rank walk free." She's not a hostage, she's a negotiator. It would be dishonourable NOT to let her go.

However, I think we can get around that by changing the scenario a little, and at the same time explain away a couple of other puzzle. We have no evidence of Lyanna communicating with her family post-abduction, yet many of us think she was at least eventually quite willing to have been "abducted", and became sympathetic to Rhaegar's cause. Well, maybe there WAS a communication with the Starks. We've wondered how Ned found out about the ToJ, and maybe the answer to that is that Ashara told him.

So, small modification to your scenario, Ashara is not offering terms to the rebels, but asking Ned to join his sister in supporting Rhaegar. This could even have been the plan all along, and the reason for the abduction. However the rash actions of Brandon, and even more so of Aerys, put paid to this possibility -- Ned had to get revenge. And that meant not just refusing Ashara's proposal, but keeping the very fact of that proposal -- and Lyanna's willing part in Rhaegar's schemes -- secret from Robert.

That would be quite a tasty twist! 

The problem we always get to with any Ned and Ashara scenario is the complete lack of any hints that some meeting takes place. We have to make up out of whole cloth things like a peace mission, or a recruitment mission to Ned, or, and I like this one even better, a Ashara as a spy. Sneaking behind enemy lines to bribe river lords into fighting against the Tullys. Caught by Ned and released after they renewed their romance. Not sure how to work Ashara's stillborn child into this, but for a crackpot tale it has possibilities. I'm counting on Martin to not completely abandon the Ned and Ashara red herring and give us some more to bolster the story before he cuts our legs from out under us.

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The problem we always get to with any Ned and Ashara scenario is the complete lack of any hints that some meeting takes place.

This. If Ashara and Ned met during RR at some point that would allow for Jon's conception, there should have been a hint at it. There ain't. All we have is that Ashara may not have been at Starfall throughout the whole Rebellion.

[Melifeather]

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Only problem is that none of these are anyone's property, and as to how closely involved people are to an alternative largely depends on the audience one is speaking to, doesn't it?

 

We agree, and it would be quite hypocritical of me not to because I've argued the point for many years.

The problem we always get to with any Ned and Ashara scenario is the complete lack of any hints that some meeting takes place. We have to make up out of whole cloth things like a peace mission, or a recruitment mission to Ned, or, and I like this one even better, a Ashara as a spy. Sneaking behind enemy lines to bribe river lords into fighting against the Tullys. Caught by Ned and released after they renewed their romance. Not sure how to work Ashara's stillborn child into this, but for a crackpot tale it has possibilities. I'm counting on Martin to not completely abandon the Ned and Ashara red herring and give us some more to bolster the story before he cuts our legs from out under us.

The Fisherman's Daughter story very well may be about Ashara.

[Ygrain]

36 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

The Fisherman's Daughter story very well may be about Ashara.

Based on what, both of them being female and pregnant at some point?

[Melifeather]

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

Unless, when Ned said "There was no honor in that conquest", he was referring narrowly to the sack of King's Landing. That act was not undertaken by the forces of the Rebellion, but by the Lannister soldiers alone.

Ned's words just prior to that comment were "Not our men ... Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery." That's the "no honor" he was referring to, not the entire rebellion.

Sorry, I feel like a broken record, but even Robert said the Lannister treachery was "well known", so this is not one of the "lies" that Ned has been keeping secret for fourteen years.

It is clear that Ned is trying to tell Robert something, and going over the sack and Tywin's treachery has something to do with what he's been keeping secret from Robert. It cannot be about Jon being Rhaegar's son, because the focus is on the treachery and I believe Ned was about to expand on how treacherous Tywin was. He's worse than a pit viper. If he feared Robert would kill Jon, he wouldn't be frustrated that he was unable to make Robert see something, he'd be fearful, but Ned wasn't afraid. He was about to break his promise to Lyanna, because he was afraid for his friend.

[Melifeather]

1 minute ago, Ygrain said:

Based on what, both of them being female and pregnant at some point?

SF Danny's theory about Ashara was based on her finding her way to Ned sometime during the Rebellion, and there was a familiarity between Ned and this "fisherman's daughter", enough that observers thought them to be intimate. 

Ashara was dishonored, but we do not know when it happened. It's mentioned in conjunction with Harrenhal, but it doesn't have to be the place where it occurred. Some readers suspect the rape of Rhaella by Aerys was actually of Ashara. She left Kings Landing hooded. Jaime thought it was Rhaella, but maybe it was Ashara? She could have escaped and ran to Ned for help. Barristan Selmy mentions Ashara turning to Ned for help, and I think it's quite plausible that this is how she was dishonored.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

29 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Barristan Selmy mentions Ashara turning to Ned for help, and I think it's quite plausible that this is how she was dishonored.

That's not correct, strictly speaking. Selmy recalled Ashara turning to "Stark". Not Ned specifically.

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

SF Danny's theory about Ashara was based on her finding her way to Ned sometime during the Rebellion, and there was a familiarity between Ned and this "fisherman's daughter", enough that observers thought them to be intimate. 

Ashara was dishonored, but we do not know when it happened. It's mentioned in conjunction with Harrenhal, but it doesn't have to be the place where it occurred. Some readers suspect the rape of Rhaella by Aerys was actually of Ashara. She left Kings Landing hooded. Jaime thought it was Rhaella, but maybe it was Ashara? She could have escaped and ran to Ned for help. Barristan Selmy mentions Ashara turning to Ned for help, and I think it's quite plausible that this is how she was dishonored.

That would still have been at the end of the rebellion, though, not around the time of the fisherman's daughter.