What has been told to Bran, and what he doesn't know

[sgtpimenta]

In aSoS, Bran listen, for the first time in his life, about the deeds of a certain Mystery Knight - the Knight of the Laughing Tree. The Reeds seem very surprised by the fact that Bran Stark has never listen the tale before - after all, its a tale featuring lots of Starks -  and I think this sentiment of surprise is registered on page to shows us that Eddard Stark has avoided any mention of the KotLT in his castle. The Tourney of Harrenhall was the greatest tourney of its time, and a social gathering like this is bound to have many tales, gossips and stories to tell. Maybe the absence of any mention of the KotLT in Winterfell is due Lord Stark censorship, similar to whatever Ned has done to silent any rumor about Ashara Dayne being Jon Snow's mother? 

And yet, while in the crypts in aGoT, Bran tells all about the alledged kidnapping and rape of his aunt Lyanna by the Prince of Dragonstone. 

Wait, what?!  Now, I am intrigued. Who the hell has told Bran that, and why? Sure, that's the "official" version of the history, retold to the reader by King Bob himself when he goes visit dead Lyanna's tomb. But the king wasn't around to tell the Stark kids about any of that, and I don't think Ned would repeat this tale himself. For Rhlor' sake, he never even thinks about anything remotely negative about Rhaegar, let alone tell to his children that the Prince was a rapist!

We know that Ned keep some kind of secret (ahem, R+L=J), and he tells Arya that some lies are "not without honor". He will lie, if needs be, but it's clear that he doesn't like it, and will avoid it while he can. He never tells his children whatever happened in the Tourney of Harrenhall - not even some alternative, false version of the tale of KotLT. He could have easily let the (false) rumors about Ashara continue - it would be a good cover story to R+L - but he does not. And yet the story about Lyanna being raped by Rhaegar is being told around Winterfell, and Ned has nothing to say about that?

What are your thoughts about that? Myself, I have always thought weird that the official version of Lyanna's kidnap includes rape. Raping is a terrible cover to the true parentage of Jon! Come on... Isn't expected that a girl, repeatedly raped for a year, would have a bastard kid? How the hell has no one even suspected that? How would anyone even know that Lyanna have been raped? Are there witness? Who told Westeros about that, and why?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Methinks that there is a difference between a very important historical incidents from something seemingly worthless to mention. What was the point to mention what happened to a Tourney when Ned needed for people to forget about Ashara? The mystery knight was a worthless thing to mention, while Lyanna’s abduction changed Westeros.

In any case Lyanna’s abduction lead to a huge war which ended with the Baratheons became the ruling family, I don’t think that anyone had the time to think of Lyanna since there was no reason for someone to hide Lyanna’s child.  

[sgtpimenta]

51 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Methinks that there is a difference between a very important historical incidents from something seemingly worthless to mention. What was the point to mention what happened to a Tourney when Ned needed for people to forget about Ashara? The mystery knight was a worthless thing to mention, while Lyanna’s abduction changed Westeros. 

Maybe the mistery knight is not a big event in history, but is important enough to Maester Yandel to mention in his long history book. And is a juicy knight tale, I'm sure that Bran and Sansa would love to hear about that.

Quote

In any case Lyanna’s abduction lead to a huge war which ended with the Baratheons became the ruling family, I don’t think that anyone had the time to think of Lyanna since there was no reason for someone to hide Lyanna’s child.

Robert had plenty of time to think about Lyanna. He would very much care to know about any living son of his dead fiancée - or any dragonspawn.

[Wrl6199]

5 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

Maybe the mistery knight is not a big event in history, but is important enough to Maester Yandel to mention in his long history book. And is a juicy knight tale, I'm sure that Bran and Samsa would love to hear about that.

Robert had plenty of time to think about Lyanna. He would very much care to know about any living son of his dead fiancée - or any dragonspawn.

It was an important event in history i suppose since as you said maester Yandel mentioned it.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

10 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

Maybe the mistery knight is not a big event in history, but is important enough to Maester Yandel to mention in his long history book. And is a juicy knight tale, I'm sure that Bran and Samsa would love to hear about that.

 That was because he appeared in a Tourney that a part of Rhaegar’s conspiracy. Why however was important for Ned's children and the Northmen?

13 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

Robert had plenty of time to think about Lyanna. He would very much care to know about any living son of his dead fiancée - or any dragonspawn.

The point is that there was no reason for people to question if Lyanna had a child or not.

[sgtpimenta]

30 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 That was because he appeared in a Tourney that a part of Rhaegar’s conspiracy. Why however was important for Ned's children and the Northmen?

Sansa and Bran were crazy about tales about brave knights, and honor, and all that jazz. They would love to hear about that - in fact, that's why we know about the KotLT.

I'm not sure if I understand your point, thou. We all know that, until Meera tells Bran about the Small Cragnoman, Bran had never heard about the mystery knight in the Tourney of Harrenhall. But why? He heard lots of tales: fantastical, scary, even love stories (even if Hodor didn't like those so much). But he never heard about this one. The Reeds are surprise about that. Why aren't you?

Quote

 

The point is that there was no reason for people to question if Lyanna had a child or not.

There was at least one person who would question that, and he happens to be the king of the andals, the rhoynar and the first men, etc

[Jon's Queen Consort]

20 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

There was at least one person who would question that, and he happens to be the king of the andals, the rhoynar and the first men, etc

But that doesn't explain why someone should think twice if Lyanna had a child or not. There is no reason for someone to say "Even if no one said that Lyanna had a child we have to investigate!".

20 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Sansa and Bran were crazy about tales about brave knights, and honor, and all that jazz. They would love to hear about that - in fact, that's why we know about the KotLT.

Seeing how it ended up for his famly it's a good thing that Ned didn't told his children about it.

20 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

I'm not sure if I understand your point, thou. We all know that, until Meera tells Bran about the Small Cragnoman, Bran had never heard about the mystery knight in the Tourney of Harrenhall. But why? He heard lots of tales: fantastical, scary, even love stories (even if Hodor didn't like those so much). But he never heard about this one. The Reeds are surprise about that. Why aren't you?

Because I find it quite insignificant. There are way more interesting and important things that Ned needed to tell his children a story about an insignificant person had no special reason to be told. Howland may had told his children the truth but Ned on the other hand was known for keeping his secrets so what would be the point to remind  how peculiar the things were back then to the people? Why should he had started the rumors about Ashara again?

[sgtpimenta]

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

But that doesn't explain why someone should think twice if Lyanna had a child or not. There is no reason for someone to say "Even if no one said that Lyanna had a child we have to investigate!".

 

It's not that I think some one should investigate it. It's just common sense. Everybody knows that lots of sexual relation might result in pregnancy, and other characters, when presented with a similar situation, tend to get to that conclusion. Theon tells the captain's daughter that he bedded her so often that there's a chance she's pregnant. Sansa notes a lot of gossip about Lady Stokeworth's daughter being pregnant after the riots, when Lollys was gangraped. Jaime believes Pia is likely barren, as she has not become pregnant after being with numerous soldiers. Why there was no similar gossip/rumors about Lyanna, as well?

Quote

Seeing how it ended up for his famly it's a good thing that Ned didn't told his children about it.

 

So you are telling that he would not tell ANY story to his kids. But we know that he told other tales and stories to them.

Quote

Because I find it quite insignificant. There are way more interesting and important things that Ned needed to tell his children a story about an insignificant person had no special reason to be told. Howland may had told his children the truth but Ned on the other hand was known for keeping his secrets so what would be the point to remind  how peculiar the things were back then to the people? Why should he had started the rumors about Ashara again?

Ashara was barely important to that tale, he could easily omit her without any impact.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

18 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

It's not that I think some one should investigate it. It's just common sense. Everybody knows that lots of sexual relation might result in pregnancy, and other characters, when presented with a similar situation, tend to get to that conclusion. Theon tells the captain's daughter that he bedded her so often that there's a chance she's pregnant. Sansa notes a lot of gossip about Lady Stokeworth's daughter being pregnant after the riots, when Lollys was gangraped. Jaime believes Pia is likely barren, as she has not become pregnant after being with numerous soldiers. Why there was no similar gossip/rumors about Lyanna, as well?

Because there was no reason for someone not to question if there was a child. Why people should think that there was a baby when no one was mentioned?  It 

18 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

So you are telling that he would not tell ANY story to his kids. But we know that he told other tales and stories to them.

No I am telling that he didn't need to say more about knights and chivalric romance and things like that. 

18 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Ashara was barely important to that tale, he could easily omit her without any impact.

So he would start to say about the Tourney were it was known that Ashara was there, he wouldn't had mentioned her and for this reason no one would had mentioned her.

[Macgregor of the North]

I think that we're supposed to take hints from GRRM sometimes and this instance is one.

First the rape story though.

The story out there as basically decreed by Robert is that Rhaegar carried Lyanna off and raped her. Ned has let that story float for a long time to his own guilt at never telling Robert the truth, although of course he couldn't anyway.

We are led to assume, I believe, that because Bran has obviously been to the Crypts lots of times and saw Brandon and Lyannas statues he must have been curious at how they died. Bran is a curious boy so obviously he was going to ask what happened.

Whoever he asks will have told him the story the King of the realm believes, and the story least likely to raise suspicion, if indeed anybody has any suspicions. It need not even have been Ned and likely wasn't in my eyes. Bran may have asked anybody, even Old Nan and she may have told him but told Bran to never ask father about it as it's a sore point.

Now to the hint. GRRM (I believe) is telling us that there is a secretive vibe around the KOTLT story and that it's something Ned doesn't want to discuss, or have discussed at home. Possibly Ned knows Lyanna was the KOTLT and it lead to a scenario where her and Rhaegar met and talked (which I believe is true) and we know what all came afterwards.

These are sore points for Ned but also its information he would rather let die and not be out in the open as it can lead to more and more questions concerning Rhaegar and Lyanna, which leads to more.... you get the idea. Something Ned obviously would rather avoid. 

Basically, as hard as it is to believe that not one soul spoke about it at WF, not even Old Nan who loves a damn story, we should simply just take the hint that GRRM seems to want to attach a secretive vibe to that story in regards to Ned and that he never wanted to discuss it with his children.

If I'm honest, that in itself could even help as evidence that Lyanna is more involved with the KOTLT story than Meera explains.

And I hear what your saying in regards to people pondering whether or not Rhaegar got Lyanna with child. We know he can produce offspring. Maybe we're just not supposed to ponder that, like the people of Westeros weren't and apparently never did.

[Aedam Targaryen]

43 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Because there was no reason for someone not to question if there was a child. Why people should think that there was a baby when no one was mentioned? 

I think the reason the OP thinks there should have been a reason to think that there was a baby, was because of the rape accusation in the official story. If the official version of events didn't include the rape of a captured woman, of course there would be no reason to suspect there could be a child.

No one (except the limited TOJ survivors) really could have known if there was rape or even consensual sex, but rape was in the story all the same. 

But obviously none of this matters since there wasn't a baby brought back from the TOJ... oh, wait...

 

[sgtpimenta]

2 hours ago, Aedam Targaryen said:

I think the reason the OP thinks there should have been a reason to think that there was a baby, was because of the rape accusation in the official story. If the official version of events didn't include the rape of a captured woman, of course there would be no reason to suspect there could be a child.

No one (except the limited TOJ survivors) really could have known if there was rape or even consensual sex, but rape was in the story all the same. 

But obviously none of this matters since there wasn't a baby brought back from the TOJ... oh, wait...

 

Thank you, that's exactly my point. To me, there's a careful absence about any possible bastards born of that kidnapping/rape, and that seems almost deliberated. In a sense, it's a clue about RLJ - no one talks about because we, the readers, are not supposed to think about it until the the mystery is finally revealed. The real culprit is not one of the prime suspects, it's the one no one even thought about 

 

3 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

I think that we're supposed to take hints from GRRM sometimes and this instance is one.

First the rape story though.

The story out there as basically decreed by Robert is that Rhaegar carried Lyanna off and raped her. Ned has let that story float for a long time to his own guilt at never telling Robert the truth, although of course he couldn't anyway.

We are led to assume, I believe, that because Bran has obviously been to the Crypts lots of times and saw Brandon and Lyannas statues he must have been curious at how they died. Bran is a curious boy so obviously he was going to ask what happened.

Whoever he asks will have told him the story the King of the realm believes, and the story least likely to raise suspicion, if indeed anybody has any suspicions. It need not even have been Ned and likely wasn't in my eyes. Bran may have asked anybody, even Old Nan and she may have told him but told Bran to never ask father about it as it's a sore point.

Now to the hint. GRRM (I believe) is telling us that there is a secretive vibe around the KOTLT story and that it's something Ned doesn't want to discuss, or have discussed at home. Possibly Ned knows Lyanna was the KOTLT and it lead to a scenario where her and Rhaegar met and talked (which I believe is true) and we know what all came afterwards.

These are sore points for Ned but also its information he would rather let die and not be out in the open as it can lead to more and more questions concerning Rhaegar and Lyanna, which leads to more.... you get the idea. Something Ned obviously would rather avoid. 

Basically, as hard as it is to believe that not one soul spoke about it at WF, not even Old Nan who loves a damn story, we should simply just take the hint that GRRM seems to want to attach a secretive vibe to that story in regards to Ned and that he never wanted to discuss it with his children.

If I'm honest, that in itself could even help as evidence that Lyanna is more involved with the KOTLT story than Meera explains.

And I hear what your saying in regards to people pondering whether or not Rhaegar got Lyanna with child. We know he can produce offspring. Maybe we're just not supposed to ponder that, like the people of Westeros weren't and apparently never did.

It's just... Sure, Ned is know for keeping his secrets; but it's not like he does not tell anything to his kids. well, I mean, he go so far as to tell Bran about that one time that Arthur Dayne, The Finest Knight he ever saw, who would have killed him (at the ToJ, no less!!). And it's not as if he was actively discouraging his kids of pursuing romantic, adventurous or chivalrous interests. Quite on the contrary, he allows Arya to keep her Neddle and arranges for her to have some kind of formal training. 

But, yeah, I guess you are right. It's just something we have to believe.

[Clegane'sPup]

I looked at the full quote. I put it in the reveal tab.

Spoiler

"Do you recall your history, Bran?" the maester said as they walked. "Tell Osha who they were and what they did, if you can."

He looked at the passing faces and the tales came back to him. The maester had told him the stories, and Old Nan had made them come alive. "That one is Jon Stark. When the sea raiders landed in the east, he drove them out and built the castle at White Harbor. His son was Rickard Stark, not my father's father but another Rickard, he took the Neck away from the Marsh King and married his daughter. Theon Stark's the real thin one with the long hair and the skinny beard. They called him the 'Hungry Wolf,' because he was always at war. That's a Brandon, the tall one with the dreamy face, he was Brandon the Shipwright, because he loved the sea. His tomb is empty. He tried to sail west across the Sunset Sea and was never seen again. His son was Brandon the Burner, because he put the torch to all his father's ships in grief. There's Rodrik Stark, who won Bear Island in a wrestling match and gave it to the Mormonts. And that's Torrhen Stark, the King Who Knelt. He was the last King in the North and the first Lord of Winterfell, after he yielded to Aegon the Conqueror. Oh, there, he's Cregan Stark. He fought with Prince Aemon once, and the Dragonknight said he'd never faced a finer swordsman." They were almost at the end now, and Bran felt a sadness creeping over him. "And there's my grandfather, Lord Rickard, who was beheaded by Mad King Aerys. His daughter Lyanna and his son Brandon are in the tombs beside him. Not me, another Brandon, my father's brother. They're not supposed to have statues, that's only for the lords and the kings, but my father loved them so much he had them done."

"The maid's a fair one," Osha said.

"Robert was betrothed to marry her, but Prince Rhaegar carried her off and raped her," Bran explained. "Robert fought a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar on the Trident with his hammer, but Lyanna died and he never got her back at all."

Maester Lywin told Bran to tell Osha the history of the Starks as they walk past the statues. Appears to me Bran is parroting what he has been taught.

Yes, I do think that that the Stark history Bran learned is a bit distorted.

Howland on the other hand would have a great tale of adventure to tell his children concerning his travels. Jez, the little crannog man even traveled to the Isle of Faces in the God’s Eye.

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

23 hours ago, Aedam Targaryen said:

I think the reason the OP thinks there should have been a reason to think that there was a baby, was because of the rape accusation in the official story. If the official version of events didn't include the rape of a captured woman, of course there would be no reason to suspect there could be a child.

No one (except the limited TOJ survivors) really could have known if there was rape or even consensual sex, but rape was in the story all the same. 

But obviously none of this matters since there wasn't a baby brought back from the TOJ... oh, wait...

There was no reason for someone to question if there a child or not because from what the rest of Westeros knew there was no reason to hide a child. Having sex doesn’t mean that someone must to have a child.

[Aedam Targaryen]

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

There was no reason for someone to question if there a child or not because from what the rest of Westeros knew there was no reason to hide a child. Having sex doesn’t mean that someone must to have a child.

 

Just having sex doesn't mean you must have a child, but she was missing for a very long time, and the official story is that Rhaegar raped her. I don't know about you, but if I knew that someone was kidnapped, raped, and missing for a long period of time, I certainly don't think they just had been raped just once. 

So yes, having sex does not mean that someone must have a child, but having a bunch of sex over a long period of time does mean that people will usually question if there's a child. 

It is a weird hiccup in the story, though. It seems maybe no one looked for a child because the ultra honorable Ned Stark never mentioned a child/Lyanna's pregnancy, and that would normally be enough to convince me why no one looked for a child. Except for the fact he had a new baby in his arms. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Aedam Targaryen said:

Just having sex doesn't mean you must have a child, but she was missing for a very long time, and the official story is that Rhaegar raped her. I don't know about you, but if I knew that someone was kidnapped, raped, and missing for a long period of time, I certainly don't think they just had been raped just once. 

So yes, having sex does not mean that someone must have a child, but having a bunch of sex over a long period of time does mean that people will usually question if there's a child. 

It is a weird hiccup in the story, though. It seems maybe no one looked for a child because the ultra honorable Ned Stark never mentioned a child/Lyanna's pregnancy, and that would normally be enough to convince me why no one looked for a child. Except for the fact he had a new baby in his arms. 

Because having sex for a long time means that someone has to have a child? Some people can be infertile you know, even in GRRTH. 

[Aedam Targaryen]

7 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Because having sex for a long time means that someone has to have a child? Some people can be infertile you know, even in GRRTH. 

I'm not saying there must be a child, I'm just saying it's likely, just like it's likely to be considered by anyone who knows the story. 

If you refuse to see that a story in Westeros (where lineage is very important) where two nobles from hugely powerful houses were having a bunch of secret sex could lead to people questioning if she was pregnant, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, Aedam Targaryen said:

I'm not saying there must be a child, I'm just saying it's likely, just like it's likely to be considered by anyone who knows the story. 

If you refuse to see that a story in Westeros (where lineage is very important) where two nobles from hugely powerful houses were having a bunch of secret sex could lead to people questioning if she was pregnant, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

My point is that since no one have ever mentioned of a child and women in Westeros can be infertile there is no reason for the others to suspect that there might had been a child. 

[Aedam Targaryen]

7 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

My point is that since no one have ever mentioned of a child and women in Westeros can be infertile there is no reason for the others to suspect that there might had been a child. 

Right, I understand your point. My point is that there is a reason.

That no child was mentioned, and women can be infertile are reasons to not suspect that there was a child. Two people having sex multiple times over a long period of time is a pretty good reason to suspect that there was. Maybe you don't like my reason, and that's fine, but it's still a reason. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 minutes ago, Aedam Targaryen said:

Maybe you don't like my reason, and that's fine, but it's still a reason. 

Maybe you don't like it and that's fine, but it is still nothing there. It works both ways.