R+L=J v.163

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

We're told that he was the Stark in Winterfell at the end of the rebellion. We are told nothing at all about his movements before it started, or in the early stages.

The assumption people often make is that Benjen must have been the Stark in Winterfell at the start of things too, because there was a need of one while Rickard headed south for Brandon's wedding.  This confuses "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" with "there is always a Stark in Winterfell". Consider the following questions:

1. Could Lyarra Stark have been the Stark in Winterfell? We have no information on when she died.

2. Perhaps Benjen was supposed to be the Stark in Winterfell during Brandon's wedding, but for some reason hadn't showed up. Can we be sure that the "Stark in Winterfell" condition was taken so seriously by Rickard that he would have missed his son and heir's wedding, at risk of undoing the political alliance he'd worked so hard for? Would he have refused the King's demand he go to King's Landing?

3. Stark eyes were turning south, and it didn't go well for them. This seems to be a bit of a Stark theme. We know that Ned takes the "Stark in Winterfell" concept seriously, but how do we know that's a tradition that was taken so seriously immediately before that lesson Ned had in the dangers of looking south? We're told that Benjen was the "Stark in Winterfell" at the end of the Rebellion -- which means that it was Ned's orders keeping him there. There is a very clear contrast between Rickard's "southron ambitions" and Ned's reluctance to leave the North.

4. With just one other adult Stark and one newborn baby left in the family, why did Benjen go to the wall so quickly after the rebellion? Did he do something bad?

There's plenty there to give serious doubt to any suggestion that Benjen must have been the Stark in Winterfell at the start of the rebellion. 

I get the impression you don't find this a very satisfactory patch.  Arthur's child would not be dragonspawn. It's hard to reconcile Ned's view that his anti-Targ hatred is a particular "madness" in Robert with the notion that Ned would believe that Robert would go around killing non-Targ kids too. 

That "dishonour" should be remembered in the context of Ashara "looking to Stark". It doesn't seem like Ashara would have felt herself dishonoured. Which leaves Arthur kidnapping Ned's sister and starting a war for the sake of getting back at his own sister's boyfriend. That doesn't sit right with either the more relaxed Dornish attitudes to sex, nor to Ned's apparently positive opinion of Arthur. 

It also leaves the question of why Rhaegar wouldn't have slapped Arthur silly rather than conspiring with him to do something so damaging to the realm for the sake of his hurt feelings. 

I wouldn't put too much weight on that. Things get forged in the heart of other things all the time, it's too much of a cliche to assume that all incidents of it are linked. Just for reference, Google gives 2.65 million hits for the phrase "forged in the heart", mostly about things (frequently magical weapons) being forged in the hearts of stars. 

Let's not forget Jon's dream, discussed already in this thread. Jon is armoured in black ice and wielding a RED, not a white, sword. 

I personally do not think AD+L=J. but i would like to point out that Robert would very likely kill Lyanna's child no matter who is the father, Rhaegar, Arthur, Aerys, Holand Reed, or a random stable boy or hedge knight, no difference.

Robert hated Rhaegar mainly because Rhaegar stole and slept with his sweetheart Lyanna, not because he is Targ. He did not specifically hate Targ (his own grandma is a Targ by the way). he hated Aegon and Rhaenys mostly because they are children of Rhaegar (dragon-spawn stuff).

Briefly, he will hate Arthur or any other men as much as he hated Rhaegar if these men stole and slept with his lady-love Lyanna.

And any child of Lyanna with other men would be a living proof of his beloved woman being "raped and stained" by another man and Robert would likely kill this child just like he thought Aegon and Rhaenys should die.

So yes, even it is child of Arthur, Robert still would kill him and Ned still needs to hide this from Robert.

 

 

[The Twinslayer]

4 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Thanks.

While I think is a long shot, to put it mildly, I could see how it might be possible for AD to be Jon's father. But I just can't envision any scenario where Lyanna is not Jon's mother.

The reason I think that R+L=J is that Lyanna had a child (that is obvious from the moment Robert claims that she was raped thousands of times by a man known to be fertile and reinforced by the reference to her bed of blood), because that child must be alive (at least at the beginning of AGOT) or else there is no point in including him or her in the story, and because there is only one plausible candidate to be that child other than Jon:  Young Griff.  I think Jon is the most likely candidate, but that Young Griff is a possibility.  This is for another thread, but I think that the Blackfyre hints around Young Griff may just be a way of setting up a possible struggle between a trueborn Targ (Dany) and a bastard Targ (Young Griff). 

Another way of looking at all of this is that there are three women giving birth during the rebellion whose children may be alive now and whose fathers or whose whereabouts are mysterious. 

Wylla -- she has at least one child who is older than Ned Dayne (otherwise, she could not be a wetnurse).  We don't know who the child is (although Ned Stark claims it is Jon) and we don't know who the father is (although Ned Stark claims to be the father).

Ashara -- Barristan believes that she was pregnant and that she gave birth "shortly before" she "died."  She died some time after Ned went to Starfall to return Dawn, so the timing works for Jon to be the child.  Barristan believes the baby (or one of the babies if there were multiples) was a stillborn girl.  Cat and Cersei think the child is, or may be, Jon.  We don't know who the father is, but Barristan seems to believe it was a Stark, and Ned Dayne, Catelyn, Harwin, and Cersei have all heard that there was a Ned/Ashara romance.

Lyanna -- we know she gave birth some time between the Sack of King's Landing and Ned's visit to Starfall.  I am convinced that the father of her baby was Rhaegar (I confess I have not read the heresy threads, but in my own reading I don't see any hints that she took a lover (or was raped by someone) other than Rhaegar).

So we have three mothers:  Wylla, Ashara and Lyanna.  The mystery is to match them up with three children.    

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

You make a very valid point that so much of the symbolism supporting AD+L works for N+A as well. However I have to disagree with the timeline issue being even close to the biggest objection. 

GRRM gave us a perfectly good out for any timeline objections with his comment about Ashara not being nailed down. There are months of the rebellion where we literally have no information on the movements of either Ned or Ashara, so timeline simply isn't a major objection.

I'd say the biggest single objection has to be that N+A is the very first explanation we're given - before the fact of the mystery has even been established. It's used as part of the set-up that tells us that there is a mystery about Jon's parentage. To believe N+A is true is to believe that GRRM told us who Jon's parents were, and then went on a big process of raising subtle questions about Jon's parentage, focusing strangely on Jon's appearance, and doing everything he could to indicate that there was a mystery here, for no apparent reason. What's the point of all that? How would it not end up being a massive literary let-down? The biggest necessity for making the N+A case is surely explaining how, if it's true, GRRM isn't just trolling the reader. 

If GRRM reveals that Ned & Ashara are indeed Jon's parents, I'll be hearing "Never gonna give you up" sung in Kit Harrington's voice in my head when I read it. 

This is a fair point, but to clarify:  the mystery of Jon's mother is set up first when Jon talks to Tyrion and says "I don't even know who my mother is."  After that, Catelyn introduces the idea that it could be Ashara and then Ned claims it is Wylla. 

I would also say that there is a big mystery about the nature of Ned's relationship with Ashara.  He shuts down all talk of her in Winterfell as soon as Cat mentions her name.  The nature of the relationship is a rumor.  Cersei and Cat both say she committed suicide shortly after getting a visit from Ned, but her body was never found.  Barristan hints that she had a relationship with a Stark, and that it resulted in a pregnancy.  If Ashara is not Jon's mother, then there is a completely separate mystery surrounding Ashara that will need to be revealed at some point. 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

We're told that he was the Stark in Winterfell at the end of the rebellion. We are told nothing at all about his movements before it started, or in the early stages.

The assumption people often make is that Benjen must have been the Stark in Winterfell at the start of things too, because there was a need of one while Rickard headed south for Brandon's wedding.  This confuses "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" with "there is always a Stark in Winterfell". Consider the following questions:

1. Could Lyarra Stark have been the Stark in Winterfell? We have no information on when she died.

2. Perhaps Benjen was supposed to be the Stark in Winterfell during Brandon's wedding, but for some reason hadn't showed up. Can we be sure that the "Stark in Winterfell" was taken so seriously by Rickard that he would have missed his son and heir's wedding, at risk of undoing the political alliance he'd worked so hard for? Would he have refused the King's demand he go to King's Landing?

<snip>

There's plenty there to give serious doubt to any suggestion that Benjen must have been the Stark in Winterfell at the start of the rebellion. 

I get the impression you don't find this a very satisfactory patch.  Arthur's child would not be dragonspawn. It's hard to reconcile Ned's view that his anti-Targ hatred is a particular "madness" in Robert with the notion that Ned would believe that Robert would go around killing non-Targ kids too.  

I have never understood the assumption that Benjen was the Stark in Winterfell at any time.  (If there is some source for the idea that he was the Stark in Winterfell at the end of the rebellion, I have not seen it).  I have always thought that Rickard's wife was the Stark in Winterfell during the Rebellion, even before GRRM decided to make her a Stark cousin.  That is because, when Ned leaves Winterfell in AGOT, he tells Cat that she is the Stark in Winterfell until Robb comes of age.  I have always imagined that Rickard said the same thing to his wife when he left her behind -- that she would be the Stark in Winterfell until Rickard and Brandon returned or until Ned could get home.  I doubt Rickard would leave Benjen in charge if he had a choice. 

That said, I don't think Rickard went south for Brandon's wedding.  I think Rickard was in Winterfell when he got the news that Brandon was a captive in King's Landing because Ned says this:  "My father went south once, to answer the summons of a king.  He never came back."  If Rickard had gone south for Brandon's wedding, that statement would make no sense. 

On "dragonspawn," Arthur's child would not be one.  But Lyanna's child would.  And if Ned sent Lyanna's child to Essos under the care of Lady Ashara (Lemore) thinking that would make him safe, then Robert's moves to kill Dany in Essos would be particularly troubling to him.  Ned's concern about Robert's hatred of Targaryens may be about Jon, but it could also be about Young Griff. 

[The Hidden Dragon]

My apologies if this is not the right thread for this question, but looking at this SSM...

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

So, Brandon died before he had sons and Benjen joined the NW which means he doesn't have descendants either. Seems that rules out two of the brothers, leaving only Ned. The evidence for Starkcest is pretty thin already and this SSM makes it even more unlikely.

Did Brandon Stark have daughters?  The SSM specifically said he had no sons, but...

[Consigliere]

4 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

My apologies if this is not the right thread for this question, but looking at this SSM...

Did Brandon Stark have daughters?  The SSM specifically said he had no sons, but...

There is a theory that Brandon was the one who 'dishonoured' Ashara at Harrenhal and that child was either the stillborn daughter or, possibly, Allyria Dayne.

[The Hidden Dragon]

Thanks for the quick response!

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Jon is armoured in black ice and wielding a RED, not a white, sword. 

... and a white sword covered in blood would be...?

 

3 hours ago, Consigliere said:

So, Brandon died before he had sons and Benjen joined the NW which means he doesn't have descendants either. Seems that rules out two of the brothers, leaving only Ned. The evidence for Starkcest is pretty thin already and this SSM makes it even more unlikely.

While it rules out Benjen, that part about Brandon is ambiguous - first, it definitely leaves open an option of a daughter (who is apparently not Jon, though ), but I also wonder if it might include a posthumous son. Which wouldn't be Jon, for timeline reasons, plus I don't think that Brandon would get a statue in this case.

[velo-knight]

3 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

... and a white sword covered in blood would be...?

 

While it rules out Benjen, that part about Brandon is ambiguous - first, it definitely leaves open an option of a daughter (who is apparently not Jon, though ), but I also wonder if it might include a posthumous son. Which wouldn't be Jon, for timeline reasons, plus I don't think that Brandon would get a statue in this case.

Why wouldn't he get a statue? If the son was posthumous, it wouldn't change the fact that Rickard died, Brandon become lord, and then he died moments later. Come to think of it, unless there's a secret marriage, it wouldn't matter at all - Ned's still the rightful heir.

[The Twinslayer]

18 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

Why wouldn't he get a statue? If the son was posthumous, it wouldn't change the fact that Rickard died, Brandon become lord, and then he died moments later. Come to think of it, unless there's a secret marriage, it wouldn't matter at all - Ned's still the rightful heir.

Brandon was never Lord of Winterfell because he died before Rickard.  The quote from AGOT is:  "His father had been forced to watch him die."

Also, I think that SSM just rules out any legitimate children of Brandon, Lyanna or Benjen.  The question was about the lack of potential Stark heirs.  I don't think GRRM is ruling out any of them having bastards.  Especially because it is heavily implied that Benjen has a few bastards running around (he advises Jon to go father a few bastards before joining the Watch and says that is the only way Jon could understand what he would be giving up). 

 

[Lord Varys]

There is more to being a lord than just outliving your lordly father for a few minutes. Just as Jon was never a king because he was neither acknowledged nor proclaimed or crowned king a lord would have to be formally proclaimed and declared the lord of this or that castle.

Rickard and Brandon Stark most definitely were attainted by Aerys II before they were executed, meaning that they died as common men and traitors.

Ned gave his siblings statues as well, and that's it. There is no deeper meaning in any of that. Not to mention that Ned most certainly wouldn't have had any good information whether Rickard or Brandon died first.

[Kingmonkey]

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

This is a fair point, but to clarify:  the mystery of Jon's mother is set up first when Jon talks to Tyrion and says "I don't even know who my mother is."  After that, Catelyn introduces the idea that it could be Ashara and then Ned claims it is Wylla. 

Arguably even earlier -- the white pup is our first hint that something's up about Jon. However it's the repetition of the theme that is the real clue. Each time we hear something vague about Jon's parentage, we hear nothing much. However when we realise that we keep hearing vague things about Jon's parentage, we start wondering what the author is trying to tell us. So fair enough, the process had already started when we're given the Ashara story -- but it had barely started. When it comes to it, we got the Ashara in chapter 6, book 1. That's about 1% of the way into the story. 

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I would also say that there is a big mystery about the nature of Ned's relationship with Ashara.  He shuts down all talk of her in Winterfell as soon as Cat mentions her name.  The nature of the relationship is a rumor.  Cersei and Cat both say she committed suicide shortly after getting a visit from Ned, but her body was never found.  Barristan hints that she had a relationship with a Stark, and that it resulted in a pregnancy.  If Ashara is not Jon's mother, then there is a completely separate mystery surrounding Ashara that will need to be revealed at some point. 

I think these are all solved if you assume that it was Ned, not Brandon, who had been tasting the Dornishman's sister. 

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I have never understood the assumption that Benjen was the Stark in Winterfell at any time.  (If there is some source for the idea that he was the Stark in Winterfell at the end of the rebellion, I have not seen it).

 

 

Quote

 

6) When, specifically, did Benjen join the NW? Was it a couple of years after Ned returned, or immediately?

It was within a few months of Ned's returning. The reason being that there always was a Stark at Winterfell, so he had to stay there until Ned returned. GRRM refused to say the reason why Benjen had to join the NW.

Link to SSM. 

This indicates that Benjen was the Stark In Winterfell at the end of the war, as he had to wait for Ned's return before leaving for the wall. It clearly doesn't give us any information about when he became the Stark in Winterfell.

[Lord Varys]

All questions about the Stark in Winterfell during the Rebellion or the tourney at Harrenhal essentially became moot when we learned that Rickard Stark's wife was a Stark of Winterfell, too. Lyarra Stark might have still been alive during the tourney and the Rebellion, ruling the North in the absence of her husband and sons.

Not to mention that Artos' sons Brandon and Benjen could have still been around, too, or sons they might have had.

We know the branches of House Stark were cut down in the recent decades but some of Ned's male kin could actually have died during Robert's Rebellion or the Greyjoy Rebellion, and Lyarra could have survived her husband only to die a few years after the Rebellion.

As long as we don't know anything else about her than her name and the degree of kinship between her and Rickard we cannot rule out that possibility.

If Ned's mother isn't mentioned at all in the series we cannot really claim it would have been mentioned if she ever met Catelyn and stuff.

[Kingmonkey]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

... and a white sword covered in blood would be...?

White, with red on it. Until it got wiped clean at the end of the battle.

Jon's dream sword "...burned red in his fist", so I think we can exclude blood as a source of the redness. Unless it's dragon's blood, perhaps.

...which is not to say that blood doesn't have something to do with it. The red comet is also known as the red sword, and while Gendry the smith thinks of a red sword in terms of heat, Arya's experiences make her think of a bloody sword, instead. Specifically Ice, made red with Ned's blood. 

Of course Ice was then reforged, interestingly into two swords that have an obstinate dark red inclusion that defied the Smith's intentions. Widow's Wail and Oathkeeper actually ARE red swords, forged in Ned's blood. 

Given the importance of oath-keeping to Jon's arc, I'd say the sword he's most likely to end up with is Oathkeeper. Ice is the Stark ancestral sword, which is now two swords, one man-sized and one much smaller. There are two Starks left (excluding perhaps Benjen, who can't inherit) who wield swords. One is Jon, the other is Arya, who wields a much smaller sword. I'd say that makes Oathkeeper Jon's sword even if he doesn't ever lay hands on it -- though I suspect he will.

[Kingmonkey]

2 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Brandon was never Lord of Winterfell because he died before Rickard.  The quote from AGOT is:  "His father had been forced to watch him die."

The sequence of events here is something we get contradictory information on, for some reason. Ned believes that Rickard was forced to watch while Brandon was strangled, while Jaime thinks that Brandon was forced to watch Rickard burned alive, and strangled himself on his bonds while trying to rescue his father from the flames.

As Jaime was the eyewitness, his account is probably more reliable. In which case the two died within moments of each other, and it's unlikely anyone could be sure which one died first.

[Sly Wren]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Well, yes, but the Targs came from somewhere before they became a thing. Who's to know what bloodline they had been carrying along, they and all those Valyrian sorcerers?

Very true--still, it means that for now, all the prophecies are--until further info--not known to be specific to Targs. And the Targs' role in the Long Night and all that is completely unknown.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

This is not one thing but two - I do believe that prophecies in GRRMth are the real deal because we see a whole lot of them come true, but we are also shown that people constantly keep misinterpreting them and that chasing prophecies usually leads to major fuckups. I also tend to think that prophecies come true on their own and not through people acting on them, and if someone's going to become AA, it will be through circumstances that push him into it because he will be at the right place and time.

Fair enough--I'm more skeptical on prophecy vs. fortune-telling: so far, the prophecies don't seem all that helpful. But yes--I could see this.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I definitely wouldn't assume a connection between the Targs and the Wall, but the Long Night? Who knows? If Asshai chronicles speak about the Long Night, then it must have been a world-wide phenomenon, like nuclear or post-cataclysmic event winter, and who knows what some ancient proto-Targs might have had with that?

Very true--still, that means their role and thus potential ties to Jon are completely unknown.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I'd be very careful about bysing my thoughts on an occurence within a single book when the planned number of books was three and ADWD itself is basically one with AFFC.

Fair enough--but the black ice is pretty specific to Jon seeing it on the Wall.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

As far as we know, Rhaegar indeed had no connection to the Wall except corresponding with Maester Aemon, but since we don't know what the PTWP prophecy that he read was about, we can't rule this out, either.

True. And we do know the Targs--at least Alysanne--was willing to mess with the Wall. And draw inspiration from (reason to be determined) for the Kingsguard. Still, that's interlopers interfering.. . . 

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Besides, as I have said multiple times, the elements of the dream needn't be interconnected in the way you would have them. For example, what if, in order to defend the realm, Jon must embrace his identity as a Targ (black armour) and AA (red sword)? Not to mention that, surprise, surprise, black and red are actually Targ colours.

Possible--but the fact that it's black ice that armors him, not that he's wearing black armor seems at least possibly significant. And though they are Targ colors--has anyone ever tried to see if colors in the novels always directly relate to the house they are from? I'm assuming not, because that sounds kinda insane, now I say it. But I can't think there's always a perfect correlation. But the ice of the Wall is specific. And the red sword stories are long before the Targs' declaring themselves as a family.

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Well, yes, but if AA is not a saviour, then your argument that this person should be a Westerosi oldie falls.

Ah! Sorry--I must have gotten my argument all muddled: I doubt that the AA story is the story of a hero--seems more like someone piggybacked the story of a monster (Davos really seems right on this) onto the story of a hero.

But the Last Hero type figure--that one seems like it's old and Westerosi, vs. parvenue Targ.

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Well, and are you sure that Dawn had always been a good sword? There was this sword which killed Nissa Nissa which is unaccounted for, or that original Stark Ice which is also unaccounted for and whose name is not exactly friendly...

A very good point--the Others' swords seem to look a lot like Dawn. And I've been wondering lately if that's one reason why the Daynes are so careful who they give that sword to--can it be "turned?" And of course @Voice's theory re: Ice becoming Dawn. 

As for the Nissa Nissa sword--my personal pet theory (subject to change at any moment) is that this is the story of how Valyrian steel may have been started--requiring spells and blood sacrifice. Trying to make it sound like a "good" thing. But no way on earth do I have enough data to back that up yet.

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Perhaps not with the Targs as such but with the original prophecy - now, if AA is not that goody-two-shoe saviour figure but an instrument of the Red God to some vile ends, perhaps some other player(s) in the godly game of thrones thought it a good idea to adjust the said instrument to some better role by manipulating the prophecy.

I like it a lot! Huh--I'm wondering if that's in any way tied to why she now drinks herself into oblivion--not only does she see things she doesn't want to, but maybe any attempts to make things better haven't worked in her view. No idea how'd check this--but a Ghost of High Heart POV would be very interesting.

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Well, but unless the hypothetical Dayne father married the hero(ine)'s mother, they are not House Dayne, either.

Depends--we know the Starks seem to have been willing to have the heir be a bastard son. No idea how picky the Daynes are re: marriage. They pass Dawn by worthiness--might be they are less picky on the marriage front--but that's entirely hypothetical (obviously) until we get more info.

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Weeeell... the Stark symbol is grey, not white, and his symbol was located separately from the others, not quite belonging, which is exactly what the old kings of winter tell him in his dream.

Very true--the albino. The one set apart. With eyes open. Jon can say "black is his color" all he likes, but his is the white wolf--not Shaggydog the black. A black cloak of the Watch, yes. But his other self is the white cloak/coat of his weirwood colored wolf. A wolf for the Starks. A weirwood for the old gods. A white coat/ cloak for his father????

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

But as Arya says: "Woman is important, too!", which brings us to Jon Stargaryen :-)

Amen--or to Jon Stayne. . . okay. . . that would be terrible.  Jon Dark? 

[IceFire125]

1 minute ago, Sly Wren said:

Amen--or to Jon Stayne. . . okay. . . that would be terrible.  Jon Dark? 

Or IceFire  

you know, like the theme of his existence, to be that balance...

“Fire is a cruel way to die. Dalla died to give this child life, but you have nourished him, cherished him. You saved your own boy from the ice. Now save hers from the fire.”

[Sly Wren]

6 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

So yes, even it is child of Arthur, Robert still would kill him and Ned still needs to hide this from Robert.

Yup! Or at least Ned would have reason to worry about Robert--and thus hide the kid.

41 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

White, with red on it. Until it got wiped clean at the end of the battle.

Jon's dream sword "...burned red in his fist", so I think we can exclude blood as a source of the redness. Unless it's dragon's blood, perhaps.

...which is not to say that blood doesn't have something to do with it. The red comet is also known as the red sword, and while Gendry the smith thinks of a red sword in terms of heat, Arya's experiences make her think of a bloody sword, instead. Specifically Ice, made red with Ned's blood. 

True--but we also have the Others' sword with glow with a blue sheen in the Game Prologue. Like the coldness of their eyes. And those swords bear a fairly strong resemblance to Dawn.

Plus, Jon sees the Sword of the Morning over the Wall as the dawn transforms the dark world into color and life. Dawn as transformative and bringing color and life back into the world. And with Jon seeing the Sword over the Wall, and with Dawn looking like the Wall, and with the Wall's ability to change color depending on what's around it--the idea that Dawn could burn red (as actual dawn does)--that seems completely within the realm of possibility.

After all, Dawn is "alive with light" the first time we see it. And dawn (the time) transforms the world and ice at least two times in Jon's POV's (once outside Craster's and once when he comes out of the cave). So, the idea that the sword could be alive with other colors. . . . seems at very least possible.

[Ygrain]

18 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Why wouldn't he get a statue? If the son was posthumous, it wouldn't change the fact that Rickard died, Brandon become lord, and then he died moments later. Come to think of it, unless there's a secret marriage, it wouldn't matter at all - Ned's still the rightful heir.

I meant with Lyanna as the mother :-)

14 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

White, with red on it. Until it got wiped clean at the end of the battle.

Jon's dream sword "...burned red in his fist", so I think we can exclude blood as a source of the redness. Unless it's dragon's blood, perhaps.

...which is not to say that blood doesn't have something to do with it. The red comet is also known as the red sword, and while Gendry the smith thinks of a red sword in terms of heat, Arya's experiences make her think of a bloody sword, instead. Specifically Ice, made red with Ned's blood. 

Speaking about blood and burning swords... remember what Beric's sword did, right? :-)

 

14 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Of course Ice was then reforged, interestingly into two swords that have an obstinate dark red inclusion that defied the Smith's intentions. Widow's Wail and Oathkeeper actually ARE red swords, forged in Ned's blood. 

Given the importance of oath-keeping to Jon's arc, I'd say the sword he's most likely to end up with is Oathkeeper. Ice is the Stark ancestral sword, which is now two swords, one man-sized and one much smaller. There are two Starks left (excluding perhaps Benjen, who can't inherit) who wield swords. One is Jon, the other is Arya, who wields a much smaller sword. I'd say that makes Oathkeeper Jon's sword even if he doesn't ever lay hands on it -- though I suspect he will.

I agree that this sword redistribution is quite likely, but personally, I would much like the small sword end in Sansa's hands, to perform Stark justice on LF, as Radio Westeros proposed. I love this scenario.

14 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Possible--but the fact that it's black ice that armors him, not that he's wearing black armor seems at least possibly significant. And though they are Targ colors--has anyone ever tried to see if colors in the novels always directly relate to the house they are from? I'm assuming not, because that sounds kinda insane, now I say it. But I can't think there's always a perfect correlation. But the ice of the Wall is specific. And the red sword stories are long before the Targs' declaring themselves as a family.

The colours don't always correspond, e.g. we have Jaime wearing black and red at the feast at Winterfell, or Renly's green armour. However, we are talking a dream here, which means potential symbolism, allusions and what not. AA's red sword and black armour, regardless of material, instantly reminds of another guy wearing black armour who thought himseld PTWP/AA. - Not saying that this must be a connection, but it's like a puzzle piece which constantly changes shape - you don't know if it will eventually fit or not, but cannot discard it just yet.

14 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

But the Last Hero type figure--that one seems like it's old and Westerosi, vs. parvenue Targ.

I think you are considerably limiting your perspective with this noob-and-therefore-unimportant assumption. If a Westerosi house showed such prophetic abilities, you would think they are greendreamers and related to the First Men, and most likely imbued with some magical heritage. The Daynes, IIRC, are also related to the First Men, but look like Targs. Coincidence?

14 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

A very good point--the Others' swords seem to look a lot like Dawn. And I've been wondering lately if that's one reason why the Daynes are so careful who they give that sword to--can it be "turned?" And of course @Voice's theory re: Ice becoming Dawn. 

Voice is hardly the only one taking this line of thought. Dawn is such a unique weapon that we are definitely going to learn its backstory, and where there is backstory, there is relevance.

 

 

[Ygrain]

14 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Very true--the albino. The one set apart. With eyes open. Jon can say "black is his color" all he likes, but his is the white wolf--not Shaggydog the black. A black cloak of the Watch, yes. But his other self is the white cloak/coat of his weirwood colored wolf. A wolf for the Starks. A weirwood for the old gods. A white coat/ cloak for his father????

To me, it is like suggesting that Jon may not be only AA's champion but of the old gods, as well, hence the white and red. And since this is old gods' doing, I don't think they would feel the need to sugegst anything about Rhaegar. I do wonder why Shaggy is black, though, as it sets Rickon apart from his siblings, and it is probably not a good thing. We can already see that he, being so young, has little sense of Stark identity, and gods know what is going on in Skagos.

[Voice]

18 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

A very good point--the Others' swords seem to look a lot like Dawn. And I've been wondering lately if that's one reason why the Daynes are so careful who they give that sword to--can it be "turned?" And of course @Voice's theory re: Ice becoming Dawn. 

 

 

Star fall... Stark fall... 

 

One Stark in particular...

 

"Some say he was a Bolton," Old Nan would always end. "Some say a Magnar out of Skagos, some say Umber, Flint, or Norrey. Some would have you think he was a Woodfoot, from them who ruled Bear Island before the ironmen came. He never was. He was a Stark, the brother of the man who brought him down." She always pinched Bran on the nose then, he would never forget it. "He was a Stark of Winterfell, and who can say? Mayhaps his name was Brandon. Mayhaps he slept in this very bed in this very room."  

 

The "Stark" fell when Winter-fell. When the SotM claimed Ice, Dawn brought end to the Long Night. 

 

Only Jon Snow, being a son of both Starfall and Winterfell, a scion of Dayne+Stark, can provide the katharmos for the miasma... a Heart(tree) in conflict with itself... shaped like a weirwood Ghost. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Voice is hardly the only one taking this line of thought. Dawn is such a unique weapon that we are definitely going to learn its backstory, and where there is backstory, there is relevance.

 

Feel free to dilute my small voice, but like the Lorax, I speak for the trees. And their miasma contaminated the air long, long ago.  

[velo-knight]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is more to being a lord than just outliving your lordly father for a few minutes.

"The father first, then the son, so both die kings" - Jon I ADWD. Obviously, in this scenario, Brandon was never Lord of Winterfell in any significant way, but that doesn't mean he couldn't get a statue. Doesn't it seem odd that Lyarra is left without a statue?

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just as Jon was never a king because he was neither acknowledged nor proclaimed or crowned king a lord would have to be formally proclaimed and declared the lord of this or that castle.

And if this is Ned's way of doing that?

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rickard and Brandon Stark most definitely were attainted by Aerys II before they were executed, meaning that they died as common men and traitors.

And post-rebellion Ned Stark cares about that, why, exactly?

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned gave his siblings statues as well, and that's it. There is no deeper meaning in any of that. Not to mention that Ned most certainly wouldn't have had any good information whether Rickard or Brandon died first.

Maybe, and I'm prepared to accept that. The ambiguity over Brandon vs. Rickard is a better argument in my mind.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I meant with Lyanna as the mother :-)

Aaah, I understand now. Yeah, I doubt Brandon gets a statue in that case.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The colours don't always correspond, e.g. we have Jaime wearing black and red at the feast at Winterfell, or Renly's green armour. However, we are talking a dream here, which means potential symbolism, allusions and what not. AA's red sword and black armour, regardless of material, instantly reminds of another guy wearing black armour who thought himseld PTWP/AA. - Not saying that this must be a connection, but it's like a puzzle piece which constantly changes shape - you don't know if it will eventually fit or not, but cannot discard it just yet.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to mention Mance's black-and-red as a great example, before I remembered that people have earnestly argued that Mance is Rhaegar, with that symbolism likely being a key component.

Isn't the armor that the Night's Watch uses black as well?

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I think you are considerably limiting your perspective with this noob-and-therefore-unimportant assumption. If a Westerosi house showed such prophetic abilities, you would think they are greendreamers and related to the First Men, and most likely imbued with some magical heritage. The Daynes, IIRC, are also related to the First Men, but look like Targs. Coincidence?

Bloodlines are important and have in-world power in ASoIaF, but I'd hate to think only a patrilineal descendant of the Daynes could be the new savior. That's just very uninspiring to me.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Voice is hardly the only one taking this line of thought. Dawn is such a unique weapon that we are definitely going to learn its backstory, and where there is backstory, there is relevance.

I'd be delighted if Dawn turned out to be relatively unimportant - the original Lightbringer, perhaps, but not significant to this story. I feel that's unlikely, however.