The Tower of Joy Battle, not as we are led to believe?

[Sun]

I personally believe that Lyanna was kidnapped, but not necessarily raped, and most likely even married, eventually, to Rhaegar, but initially kidnapped nevertheless.

There is circumstantial, and hearsay evidence that can work either way, love/kidnap, and no way to know for sure until GRRM tells us.

As to the KG, I do believe they were there to guard the child, Rhaegar's heir. They wouldn't let Ned pass because they could not be sure he would not hurt the child, after all, 2 of Rhaegar's children have already been murdered. Lyanna as per Ned's dream was in apparently no fit state to intervene for her brother.

[Ygrain]

KGs were following crown prince's orders. It didn't matter if it was Ned or some other rebelious lord who showed up in front of them. They were given orders to protect Lyanna and most likely Rhaegar's son. That was all that mattered to them.

Crown Prince's orders cannot override their primary duty to protect the King. That duty is considered fulfilled as long as the King has at least one KG with him; as long as that condition is fulfilled, the remaining KG may attend other duties. If Jon was trueborn, then there was no dilemma for them, they were at the right place, doing their duty. If Jon was a bastard, at least one of them should have left and tried to get to Viserys ASAP.

You forgot the question of what were they doing there to begin with? Guy is a prince and that was the best he could do.

Why a fight? Well who knows, it does not make a lot of sense. How did Ned find them why did he only go with 6 men?

Who were they protecting Lyanna from?

Apparently, someone tipped him off and he knew that he would find Lyanna in a compromising situation. And excuse me, for the line of reasoning that has been outlined above, it makes a lot of sense.

Don't look for black and white answers or one answer. As we know from the books Whent and Dayne were with Rhaegar fro mthe begining. Hightower finds them in order to send Rhaegar back to his father to lead the army. Explain why Hightower could not lead the army? So he finds them and made a deal to go back as long as Hightower stayed there. Hightower agreed. Why? There was only one king at that point and Dayne, Whent and Hightower were not listening to him all that well were they?

That would depend on what Aerys' orders were. He might not have called Dayne and Whent back because of his paranoia as Rhaegar's men. He might have ordered Hightower to bring Rhaegar back at any cost, the cost then being the KG staying accepting Rhaegar's order to stay at ToJ.

Why take her to begin with? A love story? And this was the best plan they had? Why not go back as soon as Brandon is captured, or after he is killed and try and stop the war?

Addressed now multiple times, specifically to you, if I’m not mistaken: times, distances, communication.

Why fight? Maybe they just did not want to bend the knee. Their king was dead and they could care less about Ned and Robert. No matter what happened it's not like they did a great Job, Aerys is dead, Rheagar is dead, Elia is dead, Aegon and his sister are dead, Lyanna is dead and they are dead.

You cannot claim that they ignored Aerys if you don’t know what his orders were; they were not bound to be at his said as long as the other KG were doing the job. As for Elia, guarding her was not a primary duty of the KG, and as she was safely in an impenetrable fortress, with thousands of Goldcloaks around, I do not see what they should be particularly worried about her. On the other hand, Lyanna was with just a couple of servants in an old tower in the middle of nowhere; giving her the protection of the best fighters available doesn’t really seem unreasonable.

Protect Lyanna from Ned? Yeah right she had been with them for a year, what she never mentioned her family? Plus what if they had won. "It's okay Lyanna Ned is dead, we got him." "Lets just stay out here at this tower. Oh wiat your dying. And your dead. So ummmm do we just stay here? I mean we were told to stay here so like do we just stay here?"

Is it fun arguing your own arguments? No-one ever claimed it happened that way.

Other than Robert saying so? Brandons accusations? Hmm. But with the bolded in mind;

Literally nothing here has textual evidence; it's just opinion drawn from the text.

Refresh my memory, please: where does Robert say that he or Ned received threats about Lyanna if they don't surrender?

Not an opinion. A logical construction based on the given facts.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Refresh my memory, please: where does Robert say that he or Ned received threats about Lyanna if they don't surrender?

Not an opinion. A logical construction based on the given facts.

There is no evidence suggesting that Lyanna was ever considered, or used, as a hostage

Are you sure you even know what you're trying to argue? There is evidence that Lyanna was considered a hostage by the rebels; every single time someone says she was kidnapped is evidence of this. I didn't once suggest that Robert or Ned received threats, you have literally asked me to prove something I didn't say.

[alienarea]

Back to the OP. I always imagined the ToJ as western movie showdown like the opening scene from Once Upon A Time In The West or the closing scene of The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.

I assume GRRM had a strong visual sequence in mind and put it in Ned's dream and we are arguing details he never thought about in the first place.

[bent branch]

I read a post that speculated that Ned was originally allowed into the tower to see Lyanna. The fight occurred when Ned tried to leave with Jon. This is the scenario that makes the most sense to me and I'll believe it until we find out otherwise.

[Ygrain]

Are you sure you even know what you're trying to argue? There is evidence that Lyanna was considered a hostage by the rebels; every single time someone says she was kidnapped is evidence of this. I didn't once suggest that Robert or Ned received threats, you have literally asked me to prove something I didn't say.

The argumentation went:

Once the war actually happened, Lyanna went from being Rhaegar's "toy" or love interest to being both that AND a hostage. (both the sister to Lord Eddard Stark AND Lord Robert Baratheon's "one true love", she held a shitload of value as a hostage)

Thankfully, due to her being R's love, they never carried out executing her despite the threat of Eddard/Robert. She was a hostage, but the threats were ultimately empty.

There is no textual evidence suggesting that Lyanna was ever considered, or used, as a hostage

. Her hiding at ToJ the whole Rebellion might well be so that she did NOT become a hostage, both against her brother and Robert as well as against Rhaegar.

Other than Robert saying so? Brandons accusations?

Refresh my memory, please: where does Robert say that he or Ned received threats about Lyanna if they don't surrender?

Someone being kidnapped (and we don't even know if that was really a kidnapping, as neither Robert nor Dany are first hand sources) for sex does not automatically equal for them being used as a political hostage. My original post was an answer to Mountain That Posts and you continued the argumentation, therefore I'm asking you, as well.

[Sun]

There was a KG with Elia and Viserys at Dragonstone, was there not? I can't remember exactly, but I always operated on the assumption that there was one KG with them.

[Dr. Pepper]

There was a KG with Elia and Viserys at Dragonstone, was there not? I can't remember exactly, but I always operated on the assumption that there was one KG with them.

Elia was in KL. She was used as a hostage. Rhaella and Viserys had no KG when they were sent to Dragonstone. They had Willem Darry, just a knight.

[Ygrain]

There was a KG with Elia and Viserys at Dragonstone, was there not? I can't remember exactly, but I always operated on the assumption that there was one KG with them.

No, there was Ser Willem Darry ("a good knight, and true, but not of Kingsguard"), the brother of Jonothor Darry, one of the three KG who accompanied Rhaegar to Trident and was killed there.

[DreamSongs]

I was doing an Ironborn reread this weekend and realized that Lyanna appeared in a dream that Theon had about the Winterfell feast for Robert which turned into a feast of the dead in ACOK:

'The slim, sad girl who wore a crown of pale blue roses and a white gown spattered with gore could only be Lyanna.'

Just thought that was an interesting note. I could interpret it a couple of different ways.

[Sun]

No, there was Ser Willem Darry ("a good knight, and true, but not of Kingsguard"), the brother of Jonothor Darry, one of the three KG who accompanied Rhaegar to Trident and was killed there.

Well then, that does pose a bit of a sticky wicket for the KG being with Jon - legitimate or not he was still at best a crown prince - instead of their besieged King Viserys at Dragonstone. Which is surely where their KG oath would have dictated they be, at the time of the battle of ToJ.

Now i'm puzzled.

[Dr. Pepper]

Well then, that does pose a bit of a sticky wicket for the KG being with Jon - legitimate or not he was still at best a crown prince - instead of their besieged King Viserys at Dragonstone. Which is surely where their KG oath would have dictated they be, at the time of the battle of ToJ.

Now i'm puzzled.

Any legitimate son of Rhaegar is ahead of Viserys.

[DreamSongs]

Because a legitimate son of Rhaegor's would have been king before Viserys.

[Ygrain]

Any legitimate son of Rhaegar is ahead of Viserys.

Because a legitimate son of Rhaegor's would have been king before Viserys.

Yeah. As you correctly say, unless there is Rhaegar's heir in the tower, the KG have no business being there.

[Sun]

Any legitimate son of Rhaegar is ahead of Viserys.

Because a legitimate son of Rhaegor's would have been king before Viserys.

No, actually. Rhaegar died before Aerys. As such the line of succession should have moved to Viserys, not Rhaegar's children. Viserys was Crown Prince at the time of Aerys' death, and thus rightful king.

[Ser Creighton]

I guess the notions of narrative consistency and deliberate, well-crafted storytelling mean more to some than others.

What fan theories mean is that we don't write the books. As good as you or I might think our theories are the only ones that matter belong to Martin and he will do what he does and write what he writes. I am sure you enjoy his work you do read it. I would love to tell you I have it all figured out, but I pretty much always post it is nothing more than a theory when I write about them. Martin can be very consistant, he is consistantly surprising, he is very dark which some fans seem to not notice. He is very descriptive, he loves to play games, not only in the books but with fans. He likes to bait readers into looking one way and then hitting him another.

I do not pretend to know what martin is thinking when he writes, as some believe they know and have mistaken theory for fact. All I can do is look for patterns and follow the bread crumbs as I interpret them.

Basically there are a lot of us who are red priests, and green dreamers, and we are all trying to interpret the visions we see before us. I also would not start a thread like R+L=J number 42 or 43 by insulting people who don't see there way and insulting people who are newer to the books. That was just arrogant, and I said what I said for a reason.

Now I don't want to waste anymore space on this thread talking about something from another one.

[Dr. Pepper]

No, actually. Rhaegar died before Aerys. As such the line of succession would have moved to Viserys, not Rhaegar's children. Viserys was Crown Prince at the time of Aerys' death, and thus rightful king.

ETA:

That is ofcourse assuming laws of succession in Westeros follow those in the real world.

No. Rhaegar was Aerys' first son. Any legitimate sons of Rhaegar come before Aerys' second son. An example would be Baelor Breakspear and his two sons. When Baelor died, his next brother, Aerys I, did not automatically become crown prince. It wasn't until Baelor's two sons, Valarr and Matarys, died that the crown passed to Daeron II's next son.

[Ygrain]

No, actually. Rhaegar died before Aerys. As such the line of succession would have moved to Viserys, not Rhaegar's children. Viserys was Crown Prince at the time of Aerys' death, and thus rightful king.

ETA:

That is ofcourse assuming laws of succession in Westeros follow those in the real world.

The Westerosi laws of succession are established e.g. in the succession of the Freys - when Stevron is killed while Lord Walder still lives (hopefully, not for long any more), Stevron's children still inherit before his brothers.

[Sun]

No. Rhaegar was Aerys' first son. Any legitimate sons of Rhaegar come before Aerys' second son. An example would be Baelor Breakspear and his two sons. When Baelor died, his next brother, Aerys I, did not automatically become crown prince. It wasn't until Baelor's two sons, Valarr and Matarys, died that the crown passed to Daeron II's next son.

Alrighty then, I'll yield to your knowledge of Westerosi laws of succession. Thank you.

ETA:

The Westerosi laws of succession are established e.g. in the succession of the Freys - when Stevron is killed while Lord Walder still lives (hopefully, not for long any more), Stevron's children still inherit before his brothers.

Further proof. Thank you.

[Ser Creighton]

Addressed to me. Oh yeah times distance and communication. That's how it happened. Except the geniuses who keep saying that have no clue where they were when they new, or how they new, so the argument actually works both ways. Maybe they found out when they were getting married. Ha. Oh and they managed to fall of the face of the earth and never once sought information or supplies and managed to go from point a to b in the blink of an eye. You can make a theory work and yet it is still just a theory. And granted they were hidden so well that no less than 8 people found them rather easily it would seem.

So basically if they fall into a black hole for 9 months the theory works? Hey whatever you say, I don't see the point in arguing it and no matter what evidence and facts are shown you have a made up theory to counter them then it all works.

But in claiming I don't know what happened which I don't, I wish I but I don't. Then you actually need to except the fact that you don't know either and your'e just working with theory like the rest of us. Because nobody actually knows except for Martin. Which I am more than happy to except. The my theory is this so your theory is invalid argument never works because it's just theory. Counting assumption and theory for fact will never lead you to the truth, just more guessing. You claim R+L=J and I say sure there is a good chance but there could be other options. Your claim of no that's it and I am wrong makes little to no sense because all you have is theory and you keep expanding to include fan fiction.

It's in the books? Lyanna and Rhaegar got married in the books and I missed it? Could someone point me to that chapter. Or where there are even clues that say they got married. You want to say Jon is there kid fine, I give it a 50% chance at this point until I see more conclusive information. But until a love story is actually supported a little more than it has been. Like outside of Selmy who also claimed Rhaegar did not trust him enough. And someone at least drops a clue to a wedding, you are kidding yourself if you think I will by into that.

I am not sure why some people refuse to admit they don't actually know and it's all just fan theories at this point.

We don't know what happened at the tower, I think we all wish we did and I think we all wished book 6 was here but we don't and it isn't. And I love a good theory, but they all have holes in them that's why they are theories. I am lost as to why people do not except that, the one fact we have about all this is the fact that none of us really know.

Hey hold onto your theories, I like that, your sticking to your guns and it shows conviction, but allow me to have my own theories and ideas.