Howland Reed = Knight of the Laughing Tree?

[Artanaro]

Can you give us a rundown for Ashara?

Thanks!

Gladly. Some of the evidence comes from disproving candidates, but I'll let you go through my other posts to find my problems with the other arguements. But here are the positive reasons I put forth.

1.) Ashara Dayne is Dornish. Because of Nymeria Dorne has a different societal perspective on women fighting (and therefore being allowed to train to fight and joust). Certain areas of the North share this perspective (Bear Island), but from our knowledge of Rickard, that's not the case at Winterfell. The Sandsnakes are examples of such female fighters.

2.) Meera describes the device on the KotLT shield as "a white weirwood with a laughing red face." Ashara Dayne is described in the story as "the maid with laughing purple eyes". (Technically we aren't told this is Ashara Dayne, but based on the knowledge people say they fell in love at Harrenhal, the quiet wolf has a crush on this girl, and both have purple eyes, it's a safe assumption). If this story is told verbatim from Howland Reed, than this shows a strong connection within the story between characters. (though this works for both Ned and Ashara. If it's Ashara she's revealing her identity. If it's Ned, it shows part of his motive for helping Howland aka win Ashara's heart).

3.) Circumstantial evidence suggests the possibility (but not definitively) that a woman is the KotLT. Mormont has a post that describes this quite well. So Ashara Dayne (and Lyanna) meets that criteria, but the disagreement I have is that their is circumstantial evidence that goes against Lyanna being the person in my opinion.

4.) Edric Dayne refers to the "honor of his house", showing that the Daynes valued honor and the KotLT uses the word in talking to the defeated champions.

These are the concrete facts that support Ashara Dayne as the KotLT. They are not definitive, but the arguement comes down to, if the choices are Ashara and Lyanna (ignoring the possibility it's Ned) who makes the better candidate. My other really longs posts just go to show that there are no good reasons for Lyanna being a better choice than Ashara, but there are reasons Ashara is a better choice than Lyanna(Rickard's refusal to let her train, Ned thinking she never picked up a sword).

Do you mean, "That relationship must begin somewhere," to stand as evidence in favor of the Knight of the Laughing Tree as Ashara, or simply as a fact which could fit with it if it were the case?

Actually, it's the latter. All my lengthy explanations just serve to explain what Ashara as KotLT means in terms of the story. Ashara being the mystery knight explains many things just as well as Lyanna being the person explains many events. I'm not using it as evidence per say. It was in response to Mormont's "story" evidence. His central arguement is that (paraphrased) Lyanna is the KotLT because it explains facts (Lyanna's coronation, Rhaegar's love, and it reiterrates Lyanna's defense of Howland Reed). Actually, this arguement works as evidence IF, but ONLY IF, there isn't an alternative theory that explains all the facts. That's the crux of my long rant.

We already know, in regard to the relationship, that Ned and Ashara expressed romantic interest in one another at Harrenhal, even before the Knight of the Laughing Tree's appearance, when they danced. That in itself should be as satisfying for the N+A relationship, if not more so (I would argue more so), than assuming the Knight of the Laughing Tree had no impact on the beginning of the R+L connection either.

Actually, this is something we don't know. We know Ned liked Ashara. We don't know why (or if) Ashara liked Ned. Is it the case of a mutual crush (explained by Ashara being KotLT)? Did Ned, doing the honorable thing, win Ashara's heart (Ned as KotLT)? That's why I think both candidates (Ned and Ashara) work quite well. However, based on the concrete evidence for Ashara, I think she works better than Lyanna as a candidate.

Artanaro

[Grant Dempsey]

Actually, this is something we don't know. We know Ned liked Ashara. We don't know why (or if) Ashara liked Ned. Is it the case of a mutual crush (explained by Ashara being KotLT)? Did Ned, doing the honorable thing, win Ashara's heart (Ned as KotLT)?

We don't know Lyanna came to Rhaegar's mind immediately after he realized a third child was needed either. Yes, Lyanna as the Knight of the Laughing Tree may not be necessary to explain their connection, but neither is Ashara as the Knight of the Laughing Tree necessary to explain how and when her relationship with Ned began (their dance the night before is enough if we just assume their first meeting and subsequent times together were what brought them to love each other). In both cases, it's not actually evidence. They're only conclusions on how either could fit into the circumstances of the story based on the facts we do know (no theory can go without such assumptions). That was my only point, but you seem to have basically agreed, in the previous paragraph of your post.

Back to Dorne society, though, I think it's rather arguable as to how much freedom women are (generally) given in training for battle. George R.R. Martin has stated that Sand Snakes are an exception, not the rule, even in Dorne, and specified that even Nymeria herself was a commander, not actually a warrior (http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/SSM02c.html -- Mail #150). Women of Dorne may have more opportunity to train for this sort of thing, but it doesn't seem accurate to say that this is definite or common.

In the case of House Dayne specifically, I'd actually imagine that female heirs may have been especially discouraged from doing so, given that Dawn and the "Sword of the Morning" title could only be inherited by male heirs. If ladies of House Dayne were generally allowed to train and fight, I would think the title and the family sword would be made inheritable by them as well.

Another point in favor of Lyanna over Ashara, is, Rickard's interference aside, we know Lyanna had a personality that would drive her to take an interest in battle and jousting training, whereas we only know little about Ashara's personality. One tidbit we do know, however, is that she was one of Elia's lady companions at court. To me, that doesn't convey an impression that she was a wild or "tomboyish" woman (in the ways Lyanna was). It suggests that Ashara was not the type to take very much interest in combat, unlike Lyanna.

[Artanaro]

We don't know Lyanna came to Rhaegar's mind immediately after he realized a third child was needed either.

I agree with the conclusion of this paragraph, but I have to nitpick here. If you say what person resembles the sun, people will think Martells. If you say gold or lions, they'll think Lannisters. For someone who's been obsessed with prophecies since he was a kid, it shouldn't be hard to associate Starks with ice. The only way he doesn't make the association is if there's a better candidate than Lyanna, which there isn't.

Back to Dorne society, though, I think it's rather arguable as to how much freedom women are (generally) given in training for battle. George R.R. Martin has stated that Sand Snakes are an exception, not the rule, even in Dorne, and specified that even Nymeria herself was a commander, not actually a warrior (http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/SSM02c.html -- Mail #150). Women of Dorne may have more opportunity to train for this sort of thing, but it doesn't seem accurate to say that this is definite or common.

It's the same case for the North. The majority of women are not fighters, but there are exceptions (Mormonts). But we know Lyanna is not an exception, that's the big difference between Ashara and Lyanna. We know Eddard doesn't believe she had training. If Ashara was in any other kingdom, a good case could be made that she was deprived as well. Nevertheless, being Dornish gives her the possibility, while Lyanna doesn't have it. So the advantage goes to her in terms of defeating three skilled champions. The evidence is circumstantial for Ashara to be able to fight, while it's direct that Lyanna wouldn't have been able to train for a jousting tournament.

In the case of House Dayne specifically, I'd actually imagine that female heirs may have been especially discouraged from doing so, given that Dawn and the "Sword of the Morning" title could only be inherited by male heirs. If ladies of House Dayne were generally allowed to train and fight, I would think the title and the family sword would be made inheritable by them as well.

I disagree with this assumption. First let me correct a point I'm not sure you intended to make. First, no one inherits the title, Sword of the Morning or Dawn. Perhaps just a poor choice of words, but I'd use the word "bestowed" instead of "inherited". Martin says in SSM that the sword will lay dormant until a worthy successor emerges to earn the right to claim the title and the sword. (http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/SSM03m.html report #127) So technically a woman should be able to receive the title. These are two requirements (if my memory is working, correct me if I'm wrong) needed to be the Sword of the Morning. First, you must be an exceptionally skilled with a sword (I do not know if there's actually a knighthood requirement). The second appears that you must be highly honorable(maybe high moral standing is the more appropriate term) to be considered worthy to wield the sword. A woman should have no trouble meeting the second requirement, but no matter how much a woman trains, men have the advantage in combat (unless the female is given some exceptional genetics, as with the case of Brienne). So just because no woman to our knowledge has received the title can't be used as an arguement that women in the Dayne household don't train.

Another point in favor of Lyanna over Ashara, is, Rickard's interference aside, we know Lyanna had a personality that would drive her to take an interest in battle and jousting training, whereas we only know little about Ashara's personality. One tidbit we do know, however, is that she was one of Elia's lady companions at court. To me, that doesn't convey an impression that she was a wild or "tomboyish" woman (in the ways Lyanna was). It suggests that Ashara was not the type to take very much interest in combat, unlike Lyanna.

It doesn't matter what her interests are. Eddard seems pretty sure she never received formal training. There is a possibility that she hid the knowledge from Eddard (but there's no reason why, especially when he didn't seem to have much of a problem with Arya training), but I still can't see how she would be able to avoid Rickard hearing about it at Winterfell. If Lyanna was a ward somewhere else, she could possibly train there, but there's no evidence to suggest that was the case.

In response to Ashara's status as lady in waiting, I don't agree this rules her out from consideration. Really, having any female candidate for the KotLT is absurd, if you consider the average woman. However, the reader is considering characters who are exceptions to many rules (a willful Lyanna and a Dornish woman). Also, everything comes back to my initial point. There is direct evidence that goes against Lyanna receiving the training necessary to win a tournament. There is no evidence that goes against Ashara receiving the necessary training (mainly because we know so little about her). To make an assumption based on whether only "tomboyish" types pick up swords (and lances) comes down to an opinion.

Whichever candidate someone thinks is the KotLT is an opinion. Just some candidates are better supported than others. The more I think about it though, the more it makes sense for Eddard to be the candidate, in terms of the story, plausibility, and the surrounding facts. But that's just my opinion.

Artanaro

[mormont]

Art: I find your distinction between 'exaggeration' and 'impossibility' to be largely arbitrary, expeically at the margins. Arrows flying to the top of the Wall is impossible, but it's also an exaggeration. It's exaggerated to the point of being impossible. Meanwhile, Lyanna beating three knights is not impossible, as you yourself have acknowledged, just highly improbable - if she is untrained. (Which you keep trying to treat as a fact, because there is no evidence to the contrary. This is bad debating technique, btw. )

Additionally, I think that the chances of a Dornish noblewoman being trained in lance are NOT significantly higher than a Northern noblewoman. Yes, arguably more Dornish women are under arms and arguably there are fewer social barriers: but against that is a factor you've neglected - the Dornish, even the men, do not typically fight as the rest of the Seven Kingdoms do. They use lighter horses and armour, for one thing.

We do have evidence of a few Dornishmen, including Arthur Dayne of course, fighting in full plate and participating in jousts, so this is not a huge barrier: just the same, worth throwing in there, because we see no Dornish women fighting in this way.

SPOILER: AFFC

The Sand Snakes, for example: none of them are 'traditional' knightly fighters like Brienne.

But the main reason why Ashara is not more likely than Lyanna is a 'story argument': GRRM elsewhere gives us several indications that Lyanna was spirited, a good rider and interested in fighting. You will argue, perhaps, that these are red herrings. But actually George surprisingly rarely resorts to that kind of false trail. He's a better writer than that.

Conversely, there is absolutely no indication that Ashara (specifically, as opposed to Dornishwomen generally) has any inclination to do wild things, any interest in fighting or any particular relevant skills to being the KotLT. For the KotLT to be Ashara would not so much be a surprise as totally out of left field. Again, springing something on us without laying the groundwork is not something that GRRM tends to do very often. Especially if the matter is crucial to the story. It's a cheap trick to twist the story just to have a yuk at the reader.

But my main argument remains: the purpose of including the story. I can't see how, assuming we someday find out the identity of the KotLT, discovering it was Ashara or Ned is going to have any impact or relevance to the story, compared to finding out it was Lyanna. I can't see people standing around and thinking 'that explains everything!' It doesn't explain anything in particular, certainly nothing that's all that important IMO. Bluntly, Ned and Ashara's relationship is not that vital to the story. Even if Ashara is Jon's mother... because if she is, that has zero importance to the story. The only answer to 'who is Jon's mother?' that amounts to anything other than an interesting detail is Lyanna.

[Ashara Stark]

But if the story is about Lyanna... then, it explains why Rhaegar gave her the crown of love and beauty, publicly humiliating his wife over a woman he barely knew. He did it because he knew she was the KotLT, and wanted to recognise her as the 'true' winner. It also explains what Rhaegar saw in Lyanna: something more than beauty, her spirit and bravery, and why therefore he might feel she was the one to give birth to the PwwP.

I like this argument but I don't think it descards Benjen as the KoLT.

I think that Lyanna pushed Benjen to enter the lists as a mistery knight when they knew Howland couldn't do it. Rhaegar rewarded her with the crown of love and beauty because if it weren't for her Howland's honour would have never been restored, she was the soul of the conspiracy ... and also because he couldn't gave the crown to a boy

[Rockroi]

You can say this also, wouldn't it be weird to tell about such a sad story (Lyanna running off with Rhaegar) if being the KotLT is what causes their lover's tryst?

At least then its still a story about their aunt and not “the other woman.â€

From our knowledge of Ned, there's no evidence he has ever discussed Lyanna and the events of the rebellion with his family. But then, why would he tell a story about her being the KotLT, if this is where Lyanna and Rhaegar's relationship began?

Couple of things. First and foremost, Ned DID talk about Lyanna- mostly to Arya, but he did talk about her. The events leading up to the war, Ned is “mum†about. Second, how are Howland’s CHILDREN supposed to know that Ned Start never talked about his sister and the events of Harrenhal to his own children? In your scenario, the Reed kids kina have to be clairvoyant- know that 1) Ned doesn’t talk about Lyanna much, 2) KNEW that R+L=J (which is bizarre) and 3) know that Lyanna was the cause of this problem WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE Ned NOT talking about it (confusing, I know).

In my scenario, the Reed kids would just have to know it uncouth for a married man to talk about a skirt he once chased.

if Ned would tell a story about a loved one, the same arguement applies to Ashara as it would with Lyanna.

Not from the Reed Children POV. To them, Ashara is a tangential part of the story; Lyanna is a main part. I mean by your logic, the Reed children should be SHOCKED (and they both ask Bran twice each) that Ned Stark did not tell a story about Ashara Dayne, a woman he was a) betrothed to before the war or 2) that he slept with and had a bastard child (from the Reed children POV). I think it FAR more likely that they would be SHOCKED that Ned did not tell his child the story of his own sister.

And the Reed’s could ALSO have stumbled upon something, and THAT is why they are so surprised: WHY didn’t Ned tell Bran? They have to wonder why Ned would have kept Lyanna’s story untold. Even in a WORST case scenario, it’s a “sadder story still†but I think the Reed’s must now be asking themselves, “Why didn’t Ned share that aprt of Lyanna’s life with his children?†Maybe they now SENSE that there is a problem here and that is why they do not tell Bran who the KotLT was: becaue Ned OBVIOUSLY did not want them to know.

This is a far more plausible explanation for their shock than “Your father never told you the story of Ashara Dayne: the woman who you have absolutely no connection to and in no way impacted your lives?â€

Just as bizaar as he would talk about a sister who would go on to be "raped" by Rhaegar, who supposedly falls in love with her because she is the KotLT

I think this is EXACTLY why Ned never tells Bran: because it will start drawing attention to Lyanna as NOT a victim, but as a willing participant. And that MAY draw attention to OTHER things Ned found while down in Dorne…like Jon Snow. And Ned ABSOLUTELY cannot afford anyone to discover his true identity. Even his OWN children.

Yes, but it is beyond the realm of probability, if she is untrained.

You mean… like Tyrion on the Green Fork? How about Dany training Dragons? Was there a class she took? Not “probable†but CERTAINLY “possible.†And I think th FACT that Lyanna wanted to train should go a looooong way.

This is rationalizing a choice. The fact she's saved Howland Reed has already shown us much about her. The fact she spills wine on top of Brandon's head shows that she's impulsive. Because the facts are already present for showing Lyanna's character, they do nothing to support her as KotLT.

This is also evidence being used to prove a point. It’s a full picture of LYANNA in a story ABOUT LYANNA! I think you are “missing the forest through the trees†on this one.

My understanding is she would take the initiative to be the KotLT to win Ned over. There is good evidence they had a relationship. That relationship must begin somewhere.

But where would Ashara Dayne (personality unknown) get the idea that riding down three jousters would impress Ned Stark? I mean, talk about your absolute stretches. Where is she getting this info? How does she even GRASP such concepts. Lyanna, by contrast, is seeing a wrong and doing it NOT to impress Howland (or Rheagar) but to avenge the wrong. That is a real woman and I think it was THAT real woman that impressed Rhaegar.

Honestly, I do not know where Ashara Dayne would even GET the idea that Ned would think it cool if she entered the lists. I mean… that’s just not even in his character.

1.) Ashara Dayne is Dornish. Because of Nymeria Dorne has a different societal perspective on women fighting (and therefore being allowed to train to fight and joust). Certain areas of the North share this perspective (Bear Island), but from our knowledge of Rickard, that's not the case at Winterfell. The Sandsnakes are examples of such female fighters.

There is no evidence that Ashara Dayne ever picked up a sword. There is no evidence she ever rode a horse. No evidence she could joust. No evidence she she was ever trained or ever WANTED to be trained. No evidence of any of this.

There is no evidence of traditional training of women in Dorne for combat.

By contrast, Lyanna Stark used a tourney sword to scatter the squires. She also WANTED to be trained in combat (but Rickard apparently refused her).

2.) Meera describes the device on the KotLT shield as "a white weirwood with a laughing red face." Ashara Dayne is described in the story as "the maid with laughing purple eyes".

Laughing eyes do not equal laughing in real life. I think this is a stretch.

If this story is told verbatim from Howland Reed, than this shows a strong connection within the story between characters.

There is no indication that Howland and Ashara so much as passed each other on the dance floor. By contrast, Lyanna has in-depth full conversations with him INCLUDING a conversation about entering the lists. Again, this seems rather important.

3.) Circumstantial evidence suggests the possibility (but not definitively) that a woman is the KotLT.

So, even with Lyanna on this point.

4.) Edric Dayne refers to the "honor of his house", showing that the Daynes valued honor and the KotLT uses the word in talking to the defeated champions.

So, one character connected to House Dayne says the word “honor†and this is somehow commensurate with the Starks who have a tradition of being honorable “to a fault?†Again, this is a stretch.

… if the choices are Ashara and Lyanna (ignoring the possibility it's Ned) who makes the better candidate. My other really longs posts just go to show that there are no good reasons for Lyanna being a better choice than Ashara, but there are reasons Ashara is a better choice than Lyanna(Rickard's refusal to let her train, Ned thinking she never picked up a sword).

Well, for starters Rickard REFUSED to let her train… this shows that Lyanna has a willful streak in her that WANST to do this. By contrast- well we know NOTHING of Ashara Dayne. And Lyanna DID pick up a sword: Ned was wrong. Simple as that.

I think Lyanna is just the better choice- by way of (scant) evidence and on how the story is playing out. To say otherwise is, I feel, just doing so to be the contrarian.

[snake]

One thing that has always bothered me about Meera's story is the way in which she started. The way she talked about the possibiity of TKotLT being a crannogman seems to indicate, IMO, that she didn't know who it actually was. Plus, the fact that she and Jojen were in slight disagreement about the possibilty of Howland being the mystery knight.

Anyway, I always beleived that Ned was the mystery knight and there was no way that Rhaegar could have found that out. It was a full day after before he even went to investigate so all evidence was no doubt discarded. Personally, I am beginning to think that Rhaegar thought Lyanna was the mystery knight but he was mistaken. This led to his abducting her and the rest is, as they say, history.

[Artanaro]

Personally, I am beginning to think that Rhaegar thought Lyanna was the mystery knight but he was mistaken. This led to his abducting her and the rest is, as they say, history.

Many people keep coming back to this idea in their reasoning. Why isn't wanting a child of ice and fire a simple enough explanation for his actions at Harrenhal? We know the only reason Rhaegar started training was because of something he read in a book. It seems like people want to change his motives for falling in love with Lyanna to something more admirable than solely because he wanted to fullfill a prophecy. But that's the motive Martin has provided us with in the series. Barristan's comment about Elia being fragile and him wanting another child supports all this.

Artanaro

[snake]

And recall how Selmy described Rhaegar? I don't have the books and cannot recall offhand but it gave the impression of a man who would do anything to reach his goals, especially since he was convinced that it was up to him to save the world. Kind of like Stannis in that regard, IMHO.

[Rockroi]

Why isn't wanting a child of ice and fire a simple enough explanation for his actions at Harrenhal?

Because at a certain point, Rhaegar would start treating Lyanna as a "thing" instead of a person. He would start using her as ameans to an end. At that point the "kidnaped and raped" part of the story becomes far, far more likely.

This does NOT mean its wrong. Heck, that could have been Rheagar. Maybe his guards were at the ToJ to ensure she did not escape. Maybe Rhaegar is the monster Robert knew.

However, the most HONORABLE people in the books liked and loved Rhaegar. Selmy adores Rhaegar; Arthur Dayne was his best friend; even Ned refused to speak ill of him. Would the man they know (that Jaime all but adored; that Dorne still remembers) be the same capable of rape? The messanger, therefore, does not match the message. Rhaegar seemed to have loved Lyanna THE PERSON not Lyanna the Object. Could be wrong.

I think the outcome of the KotLT dictates this part of the story, if even ina roundabout sort of way. If Lyanna was the KotLT it is FAR more likely that Rheagar found Lyanna, lied to Aerys, and made a bond with her that is irrepressable and true. If, however, Lyanna is not the KotLT its more likely that yes, Rhaegar just found himself a nice peice of Stark, took her and had his way with her.

Again, could be wrong. But the evidence as dictated above, what we know about Rahegar, the story, the other options, etc makes one wonder WHY it would be anyone BESIDES Lyanna.

[Artanaro]

Because at a certain point, Rhaegar would start treating Lyanna as a "thing" instead of a person. He would start using her as ameans to an end. At that point the "kidnaped and raped" part of the story becomes far, far more likely.

It doesn't make her a thing, it makes her a "means to an end". It's the exact same situation where Eddard had to marry Catelyn in order to get Lord Tully's support. I'm not saying simply he want to have a child on a girl who signified ice. I'm saying, if he believed the only way to fullfill a prophecy was to have a child with Lyanna, it is totally in character. A similiar situation is what Stannis would do if it means he could save the world from the Great Other. He would sacrifice one innocent child so others might live. Rhaegar's line of thinking would be the same. Is it worth one girl breaking her betrothal for millions to live? Definitely

Artanaro

[Grant Dempsey]

We simply don't know Rhaegar's thought process here. Perhaps he did reach the "combining ice with fire" conclusion immediately after realizing he needed a third child and so began thinking about Lyanna before the tournament at Harrenhal. It could be enough (but so could the assumption that Ned and Ashara's relationship began without either of the two having to perform a stunt like this to impress the other). Still, an alternative logical idea is that Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree, Rhaegar discovering what she did had an impact on him, and then he thought, "Wait. I'm falling for a Stark? Stark? Winter is Coming? ...Ice? Of course!"

On its own, I wouldn't find it necessarily convincing, but the sequence of events at that tournament lead me to believe it more. Meera's story specifically mentioned Rhaegar being sent to find the face behind the mystery knight's helmet. Why not someone else? From a storytelling perspective, it need not have been mentioned that he was sent to that task if it was only to lead in to the discovery of the shield (especially since it was also already mentioned that others at Harrenhal were intent on finding the Knight of the Laughing Tree themselves to win Aerys' favor). It's a dramatic point favoring the conclusion that he did actually end up discovering the mystery knight's identity (which itself would fit best if it had ended up being Lyanna), in my opinion.

[Rockroi]

It doesn't make her a thing, it makes her a "means to an end".

IMHO, a "thing" is a "means to an end." People should not be used as a means to an end. I think that Rhaegar was a man who saw people as people, not as peices on a chess board. Stealing a woman away to have yoru way with her so you can have a child is reather immoral. I would be GLAD that Robert caved his chest in. However, the truth seems more complicated than that. Otherwise... how come Ned doesn't seem to hate Rhaegar?

It's the exact same situation where Eddard had to marry Catelyn in order to get Lord Tully's support.

Again, oversimplification. Winterfell was already connected to Riverrun PRIOR to that. Brandon was betrothed to Cat. Ned was simnply carrying out his family's duty (probably Arryn's idea). I also think that Hoster Tuly was going for the power grab here as well. So, I do not think Ned was using Cat here. Also, even if he WAS (and no evidence to suggest that) I thinkw e can all agree that "marrying" someone in this situation is 180 degrees different that kidnapping and rapping them.

A similiar situation is what Stannis would do if it means he could save the world from the Great Other. He would sacrifice one innocent child so others might live.

Yeah, and that's immoral and Stannis would be WRONG to do this. And Stannis knows this. You are USING a rational creature (the child) as a means to an end (destroying the "Great Other"). And what happens if you're wrong? What if it doesn't work? The fact is, an act cannot be moral if you attempt to justify its actions on what MIGHT happen in the future. Human beings cannot see into the future so they should not base their actions on such.

Rhaegar's line of thinking would be the same. Is it worth one girl breaking her betrothal for millions to live? Definitely.

But would he think this? Hell, he knew his father was bat-shit crazy, but never removed him from power under the "Would killing my dad save the realm from years of war and thousands dead?" (he probably should have but that would necessitate killing a person for a precieved and IMAGINED future).

I think that if Rhaegar thinks to himself, "I need to father a child with this daughter of the North" than he gets closer and closer to just doing it REGARDLESS of her feelings. This means treating her as an OBJECT (ie- using her as he would a tool). Once he starts down that road, he is CAPIBLE of anything. Raping and kidnapping included. I just do not see THAT Rhaegar.

[mormont]

Art: one problem your theory hs is yet another missing link.

We know that when Aegon was born Rhaegar thought he was the PwwP. We do not know why he changed his mind. Sure, we can assume it was because he realised that he needed a Stark mother: but why did he suddenly realise this after assuming Elia would fulfil the role?

Your version provides no clues. He just does. 'Our' version suggests that it could have been due to the events of the tourney: Lyanna's performance as the KotLT could have made him see that she fulfils some part of the prophecy.

No, I know, it's not conclusive, only if you assume Lyanna, yada yada yada. But the amount of stuff Lyanna as KotLT explains, however circumstantially, does begin to mount up...

[Artanaro]

IMHO, a "thing" is a "means to an end."

No, a thing can be a "means to an end", but not all things fit that criteria. The "means to an end" approach is only wrong if either a)the end result is not justified or serve a noble purpose or the "means" is inherently evil.

People should not be used as a means to an end. I think that Rhaegar was a man who saw people as people, not as peices on a chess board. Stealing a woman away to have yoru way with her so you can have a child is reather immoral. I would be GLAD that Robert caved his chest in. However, the truth seems more complicated than that. Otherwise... how come Ned doesn't seem to hate Rhaegar?

Why do people insist on keep using straw man arguements? And just in case people don't know what I'm referring to, let me give a definition I ripped off a website. Straw Man Fallacy

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Now let me address your issue. Everyone agrees Rhaegar most likely did not steal Lyanna off, but she went willingly. Just because he chose to pursue Lyanna, because of the prophecy, doesn't mean that action is wrong (ignoring the adultery part which can be applied to any interpretation of the events). Guys meet girls all the time simply because they're "cute", "hot", or they seem "nice." It's what you do afterwards that determines the nature of the person's actions. There is evidence Lyanna had doubts about Robert's character ("he'll never keep to one bed"). She is also arranged in a marriage for political reasons. Rhaegar offers her "love" and the chance to do something exciting, which is very appropriate to her personality.

In terms of Rhaegar's description, he is portrayed as honorable and a moral person. So does Lyanna being the KotLT doesn't provide a better reason for this break from character? No, it just puts another spin on how they come into contact. It by no means is a justification for their adultery. The theory only serves to give Rhaegar a reason to admire Lyanna, which in my opinion makes his actions worse if that's the basis for their relationship. The L=KotLT, when based on the assumption it's the reason for their tryst, is saying Rhaegar considered a relationship to Lyanna as superior to one with Elia. Now this definitely isn't morally justified. With the prophecy angle at least, Rhaegar is choosing his actions for the benefit of those beyond himself.

Again, oversimplification. Winterfell was already connected to Riverrun PRIOR to that. Brandon was betrothed to Cat. Ned was simnply carrying out his family's duty (probably Arryn's idea). I also think that Hoster Tuly was going for the power grab here as well. So, I do not think Ned was using Cat here.

They were not connected by any means. The betrothal was for Brandon and Catelyn and made by Rickard. The two people connected to the agreement from the Stark side are dead. Eddard isn't using Catelyn, he's treating her like a "means to an end" in order to revenge his family (and save the lives of the remainder). If he doesn't marry her, Lord Tully won't support Robert's rebellion and more people he loves will die. If he loved Ashara, and there was no rebellion, then it makes sense he would have chosen to marry her, but he doesn't. He chooses Catelyn. If you want to debate this point though, there are other threads on the issue.

Also, even if he WAS (and no evidence to suggest that) I thinkw e can all agree that "marrying" someone in this situation is 180 degrees different that kidnapping and rapping them.

See my quote above referencing the straw man arguement. I think you might learn something.

Yeah, and that's immoral and Stannis would be WRONG to do this. And Stannis knows this. You are USING a rational creature (the child) as a means to an end (destroying the "Great Other"). And what happens if you're wrong? What if it doesn't work? The fact is, an act cannot be moral if you attempt to justify its actions on what MIGHT happen in the future. Human beings cannot see into the future so they should not base their actions on such.

I don't want to threadjack, so I'm sticking to comments referencing Rhaegar, but I do want to say this. The arguement is not sacrificing Edric Dayne so that "The Great Other" might be destroyed. Stannis knows if Edric's life is the cost for millions of innocents, then the sacrifice is justified. And for you last comment in the quote. This is a fantasy series. You're judging characters based on the reality of our world. In Westeros, prophecy is a very real thing(at least in some people's minds like Rhaegar) with real world consequences. Also, Rhaegar isn't choosing to rape Lyanna. He probably knows, if the prophecy is meant to happen, they will fall in love. So all the prophecy made him do was interact with her at Harrenhal (sing a song, etc) and put himself in a situation they might develop a relationship.

I think one problem with Meera's story is that it's from the perspective of Howland Reed. Since Lyanna and Rhaegar would meet in private or it's likely Howland wouldn't be around when they were getting to know each other, we don't know everything that happens at Harrenhal between the two. I'm really starting to think Ned is the KotLT, because if it's anyone else, Howland would most likely not find out unless Ned told him.

But would he think this? Hell, he knew his father was bat-shit crazy, but never removed him from power under the "Would killing my dad save the realm from years of war and thousands dead?" (he probably should have but that would necessitate killing a person for a precieved and IMAGINED future).

This statement deserves it's own thread. I think I'll make one later to discuss my opinion .

I think that if Rhaegar thinks to himself, "I need to father a child with this daughter of the North" than he gets closer and closer to just doing it REGARDLESS of her feelings. This means treating her as an OBJECT (ie- using her as he would a tool). Once he starts down that road, he is CAPIBLE of anything. Raping and kidnapping included. I just do not see THAT Rhaegar.

You're still focused on the assumption that R and L can't fall in love unless Lyanna is the KotLT. It can still happen (and we even have reasons why, such as Rhaegar's sad song).

Artanaro

[Sun Tzu]

The KoTL was probably Martin Cassel...

[Maia]

Art: one problem your theory hs is yet another missing link.

We know that when Aegon was born Rhaegar thought he was the PwwP. We do not know why he changed his mind. Sure, we can assume it was because he realised that he needed a Stark mother: but why did he suddenly realise this after assuming Elia would fulfil the role?

And in fact there is no evidence that Rheagar _did_ change his mind. He could very well have been expecting Lyanna to bear him a Visenya to complete the triad. IMHO, there is a lot of conjecture and wish-fulfillment focussed on Jon. We weren't told about any prophecy stating that PWWP has to _be_ of ice and fire, nor could fiery Lyanna be readily associated with Ice IMHO... in fact the only Stark sibling whom it would fit was Ned. Etc.

Re: Lyanna and weapons training. Once and for all - according to the text Lord Rickard wouldn't allow her to CARRY A SWORD. Not wield, not train - _carry_. Well, Robb wasn't allowed to do so either until Ned went to KL, and Robb was trained and a rather decent lance according to Jon. Now, it doesn't seem likely that Lord Rickard would have encouraged Lyanna training at arms. But if Brandon and/or Benjen were sympathetic and there was no strong female presence of sufficient rank at WF to restrain her, she could have done so anyway. Ned doesn't count - he was away more than at home.

[Artanaro]

And in fact there is no evidence that Rheagar _did_ change his mind. He could very well have been expecting Lyanna to bear him a Visenya to complete the triad. IMHO, there is a lot of conjecture and wish-fulfillment focussed on Jon. We weren't told about any prophecy stating that PWWP has to _be_ of ice and fire, nor could fiery Lyanna be readily associated with Ice IMHO... in fact the only Stark sibling whom it would fit was Ned. Etc.

I agree Maia. Rhaegar wants Lyanna so there will be three heads to the dragon, not because he's seeking for the PwwP. He believes Aegon is that person.

Re: Lyanna and weapons training. Once and for all - according to the text Lord Rickard wouldn't allow her to CARRY A SWORD. Not wield, not train - _carry_. Well, Robb wasn't allowed to do so either until Ned went to KL, and Robb was trained and a rather decent lance according to Jon.

I'm wondering where it's implied that Robb only picked up a sword after he left. A wooden sword or a blunted sword are still swords. I think it's a good assumption Rickard didn't want Lyanna to train, because she was a girl, not because she wasn't ready to handle a weapon. And if Rickard's logic is, his daughter shouldn't be training with a sword, that's the same logic which would be used against practicing jousting.

Now, it doesn't seem likely that Lord Rickard would have encouraged Lyanna training at arms. But if Brandon and/or Benjen were sympathetic and there was no strong female presence of sufficient rank at WF to restrain her, she could have done so anyway. Ned doesn't count - he was away more than at home.

Here's the problem though. If Lyanna is training with Benjen or Brandon with a lance, it would have to be under Rickard's nose. It's hard to avoid word getting back to Rickard, from household servants, stable boys, etc. You have to prepare horses, set up the practice course, get lances (since tourneys aren't common in the north, tourney lances are harder to get than many would think). Now, if she's doing it against Rickard's wishes, everything must also be kept secret. This is quite an effort. This is just one strike against it though.

The other point is, Ned discusses Lyanna as if she was never allowed to train. There's the possibility Lyanna didn't tell Ned, but if Brandon or Benjen were helping her, why not? From Ned's treatment of Arya, it doesn't seem as if he had a problem with a girl training with weapons, so then why keep it a secret from him? This is a second strike against Lyanna training.

Nevertheless, you need three strikes to be out, so it's still possible she trained. Just very unlikely. And the possibility she trained enough to beat three champions approachs nil.

Artanaro

[Lance_Work]

I'm wondering where it's implied that Robb only picked up a sword after he left. A wooden sword or a blunted sword are still swords. I think it's a good assumption Rickard didn't want Lyanna to train, because she was a girl, not because she wasn't ready to handle a weapon. And if Rickard's logic is, his daughter shouldn't be training with a sword, that's the same logic which would be used against practicing jousting.

Artanaro,

When you brought up the 'Straw Man' earlier, I had to laugh. 'Guilty dog barks first' is what I was thinking as I read that. Now, you've done yourself one better. Maia is quoting direct text showing there is no relationship between Lyanna not being allowed to carry a sword, and whether or not she was trained in using one. Despite the direct text quote, you brush it off with an assumption followed up by another assumption.

However, where doing so would benefit your Ashara theory, you make assumptions without any textual evidence whatsoever (Nymeria=Sand Sankes=Ashara)!

If you are going to continue to champion Ashara as the KotLT, you need to come up with better arguments.

[Artanaro]

When you brought up the 'Straw Man' earlier, I had to laugh. 'Guilty dog barks first' is what I was thinking as I read that. Now, you've done yourself one better. Maia is quoting direct text showing there is no relationship between Lyanna not being allowed to carry a sword, and whether or not she was trained in using one.

Straw man fallacy occurs when the refution an arguement is based on substituting a false arguement in place of one someone is trying to make. Rockroi was arguing against the fact that Rhaegar raping Lyanna was wrong even if it was to support a prophecy. The fact no one believes Rhaegar raped Lyanna is the example of a fault in his logic.

My arguement with Maia is different. Maia argues since their is no direct wording in the text that Lyanna couldn't train, therefore she could. But part of Maia's arguement is that Ned's reference to her training is based on her age (an assumption by itself), not the fact she was a girl (I've read the particular post a few times and this seems an accurate interpretation). This is an assumption I disagree with. That's not a case of a straw man arguement.

Technically, I do choose assumptions that support my theories, just as people who disagree with me choose assumption that support their cases. Whether an assumption is valid or not comes down to whether their is evidence to make it probable (not just possible).

Despite the direct text quote, you brush it off with an assumption followed up by another assumption.

I think you need to read my post on the Straw Man fallacy also. If I did do what you say I did, I still didn't make one.

Artanaro