R+L=J Alternatives that also Explain Tower of Joy Events

[purple-eyes]

Tell me again how Elia's son looks like Ned's younger clone.

 

Actually Elia had a secret affair with Ned and they had a son named Jon. 

Lyanna protected her nephew in TOJ. 

That is why Ned was so angry about the death of Elia. 

[Ser Pip]

The statues are unusual--for both Lyanna and Brandon.

 

And in novels where so much is a mystery, I agree--it looks like it could be a hint.

 

But I think this one goes back to the Faulkner quote Martin likes--the one about the drama of the human heart. Ned loved his father, brother, and sister. They all died in stupid, horrible ways far from home. Burying them all with statues--it's love. Love and respect and grief. 

I'd assume that the vast majority of Stark women would have been married off and consequently buried with their new families.  It would be essential then for Ned to bury Lyanna as a Stark, with no other family, in Winterfell if he wished to maintain the idea that no marriage or pregnancy occured. 

Having said that, I'd agree that Ned's love for Lyanna had a huge part to play in the decision.

[sagaz]

I'd assume that the vast majority of Stark women would have been married off and consequently buried with their new families.  It would be essential then for Ned to bury Lyanna as a Stark, with no other family, in Winterfell if he wished to maintain the idea that no marriage or pregnancy occured. 

Having said that, I'd agree that Ned's love for Lyanna had a huge part to play in the decision.

 

I agree.

Buried in Winterfell, yes; the crypts, no ...where are the mothers of the Starks? o even, why Ned mom isn't in the crypts if she is a Stark both by birth and by marriage? why only Lyanna there?

I don't have any theory about it, only the questions.

[purple-eyes]

 

I agree.

Buried in Winterfell, yes; the crypts, no ...where are the mothers of the Starks? o even, why Ned mom isn't in the crypts if she is a Stark both by birth and by marriage? why only Lyanna there?

I don't have any theory about it, only the questions.

 

I think this is due to the requirement of the plots. We should not think too much about it. 

GRRM needs her statue and tomb there to have those talks between Robb and Ned and introduce the story (for example, it is more interesting than talking in front of painting of hers, because Robb can have her painting somewhere else), and also something in the future for Jon (like he came to see his mom's statue after he figured out who is his mom, something like that).

[Sly Wren]

 

I agree.

Buried in Winterfell, yes; the crypts, no ...where are the mothers of the Starks? o even, why Ned mom isn't in the crypts if she is a Stark both by birth and by marriage? why only Lyanna there?

I don't have any theory about it, only the questions.

Arya remembers Robb's taking her and Sansa down to the crypts to show them all their waiting tombs. Including Arya's and Sansa's. Then Jon does the joke with the flour.

 

So, nothing in text says Stark women aren't buried in the crypts. Only that Lord and Kings alone are given statues. Ned's words to Robert give no indication that burying her in the crypts is odd--only oddness is the statue. Like Brandon's statue.

 

I'd assume that the vast majority of Stark women would have been married off and consequently buried with their new families.  It would be essential then for Ned to bury Lyanna as a Stark, with no other family, in Winterfell if he wished to maintain the idea that no marriage or pregnancy occured. 

Having said that, I'd agree that Ned's love for Lyanna had a huge part to play in the decision.

Yes, Ned kept secrets. But I don't think he needed to bury Lyanna in Winterfell to do so. Burying her in the South--can't see how that would be a marker of her having had a child or having been married. 

 

The text doesn't say whether Lyanna was married or not. Or whether or not it's known that Lyanna had a child. Robert's angry she was raped--so, assume someone could have thought she'd had a child. But the text leaves the marriage question completely open. Could she have been married? Sure. Not married? Sure. And no one suspects that Jon is Lya's child--far as I can see.

 

Just can't see how the burial in Winterfell with or without statue is proof of anything but love and grief.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Actually Elia had a secret affair with Ned and they had a son named Jon. 

Lyanna protected her nephew in TOJ. 

That is why Ned was so angry about the death of Elia. 

Much better explanation than the only one I ever got from a R+E=J believer. The only one I got is that Jon looks actually like a Martell but he lives in the North so he hasn't been exposed to sunlight. So he actually has the Martell mediterranean skin but because of the sun he looks almost nordic skinned.

[aquintus]

 

This is one of the reasons I think R+L=J is bogus.

 

Any theory involving Rhegar has a big motivation deficit and the only real way to close it that does not involve something completely new is the prophecy Rheagar was mad about and we haven't really heard yet.

 

If the prophecy says that the third child is in danger then it doesn't just explain the measures to protect Jon, it also explains why Rheagar and Elia might lie about their ability to have another child.

 

The evidence against R+E = J is very weak, much weaker than the major problems with R+J=L.

 

Jon has three guards in a largely indefensible tower in the middle of nowhere. 

 

Aegon has tens of thousands of guards in one of the best defended keeps in the entire continent. 

 

The idea that Jon is better protected than Aegon is just flat out wrong. 

[King of the Narrow Sea]

 

Jon has three guards in a largely indefensible tower in the middle of nowhere. 

 

Aegon has tens of thousands of guards in one of the best defended keeps in the entire continent. 

 

The idea that Jon is better protected than Aegon is just flat out wrong. 

 

I agree with your basic premise, but there's a lot of things wrong here.

 

- where did you get the idea that the TOJ was indefensible? It's a tower. Towers are by nature defensible. That's their whole point otherwise you would just build a hut if you just wanted a roof over your head. Towers are built because you have defence in mind.

- The city watch is 6,000 men, not tens of thousands. And Tyrion notes that only 1,500 of that 6,000 and actual soldiers who can fight.

- The Red Keep is not one of the best defended keeps in the entire continent. It was being defended by a 17 year old who had never been in command before. Who immediately decided he needed to surrender when only facing 2:1 odds as he decided that the Red Keep couldn't be defended against Tywin's army.

- Correct me if I'm wrong but we have yet to hear of a single guard in Maegor's Holdfast when the Sack was taking place. Doesn't mean that there weren't any, but we do know that at least the Baratheon regime leaves the defence of Maegor's Holdfast to KG by posting KG at the drawbridge. Likely the Targaryens practiced a similar idea. Jaime was the only KG in the city so he couldn't have been been standing guard in Maegor's Holdfast as we know he was racing back and forth between the defences and Aerys' throne room. Also Gregor and Lorch just scaled the walls by themselves to get to Elia and her children. How did no one stop them?

 

I do agree that in general Aegon was better defended than Jon though. Just clarifying some things as I feel your reasons weren't right.

[kimim]

I really don't get why this is causing such an uproar. I'm not disputing that it's not an indicator that she gave birth. The other phrases are about childbirth. But the assumption that she gave birth because you assume that the phrase can only mean what it means elsewhere here as it only means that elsewhere does become circular as then Lyanna's must mean the same thing to make it that the phrase only has one meaning. Lyanna's meaning the same thing supports the idea that the phrase only has one meaning. That's circular.

 

Instead what we actually have is 2 known uses of the phrase in one way, and an unknown use of the phrase in another. The unknown way does not have to mean what the other two mean. GRRM can make Lyanna's mean whatever he wants it to mean because he never explained it. It makes sense to apply the meaning from the two known phrases to figure out the unknown. But that doesn't mean it has to mean what the other two mean otherwise it's a circular argument as it then proves itself.

Not circular at all; people are simply reading the text, and responding to it. In the novels, "bloody bed" and "bed of blood" refer to the birthing bed. Admittedly, the term is used only thrice. However, there are plenty of characters who get wounded, and bleed all over their beds. Never once are we told that x is on his "bed of blood," or that the maester who's come to take care of him knows the "secrets of the bloody bed." It's like the term "flowering," when applied to a girl. It always means that the girl has gotten her first period. It's possible that in a future book GRRM will use it in a different way, but until he does, the correct assumption upon hearing that a girl has "flowered," is that she got her first period. Not circular; just reasonable.

 

I can't foresee the future, so I can't say with certainty that GRRM won't break his pattern. atm I'd say that it's highly unlikely that Lyanna's bloody bed is referring to anything other than the birthing bed.

[King of the Narrow Sea]

Not circular at all; people are simply reading the text, and responding to it. In the novels, "bloody bed" and "bed of blood" refer to the birthing bed. Admittedly, the term is used only thrice. However, there are plenty of characters who get wounded, and bleed all over their beds. Never once are we told that x is on his "bed of blood," or that the maester who's come to take care of him knows the "secrets of the bloody bed." It's like the term "flowering," when applied to a girl. It always means that the girl has gotten her first period. It's possible that in a future book GRRM will use it in a different way, but until he does, the correct assumption upon hearing that a girl has "flowered," is that she got her first period. Not circular; just reasonable.

 

I can't foresee the future, so I can't say with certainty that GRRM won't break his pattern. atm I'd say that it's highly unlikely that Lyanna's bloody bed is referring to anything other than the birthing bed.

 

We're going to simply have to agree to disagree. I've laid out my reasonings plenty of times in this thread as to why I think the argument is circular. Assigning the phrase only one possible meaning demands that Lyanna gave birth to ensure that that phrase only has one possible meaning, which was the assumption made in the first place to assign the meaning to Lyanna. It turns back on itself and supports itself through it's own conclusion.

 

That's circular reasoning to me. You may not think so but this is my feeling on the subject. I simply do not accept the bed of blood argument as evidence. Plenty of other good things in the books that point to Lyanna having had a child named Jon Snow. I just don't feel the bed of blood one is such a thing.

[hallam]

Tell me again how Elia's son looks like Ned's younger clone.

 

Its a type of glamor spell.

 

If Jon can rise from the dead, he can change looks.

[hallam]

Not circular at all; people are simply reading the text, and responding to it. In the novels, "bloody bed" and "bed of blood" refer to the birthing bed. Admittedly, the term is used only thrice. However, there are plenty of characters who get wounded, and bleed all over their beds. Never once are we told that x is on his "bed of blood," or that the maester who's come to take care of him knows the "secrets of the bloody bed." It's like the term "flowering," when applied to a girl. It always means that the girl has gotten her first period. It's possible that in a future book GRRM will use it in a different way, but until he does, the correct assumption upon hearing that a girl has "flowered," is that she got her first period. Not circular; just reasonable.

 

I can't foresee the future, so I can't say with certainty that GRRM won't break his pattern. atm I'd say that it's highly unlikely that Lyanna's bloody bed is referring to anything other than the birthing bed.

 

The phrase isn't being used euphemistically in Ned's fever dream. It is a literal bed of blood.

 

One of the features of the myth is a sword that has to be plunged into human flesh to do activate its magic. I suspect that what will be found in the Winterfell crypts is Lyanna's perfectly preserved body with Lightbringer plunged into her chest.

 

That would create a bloody mess, certainly.

[purple-eyes]

 
The phrase isn't being used euphemistically in Ned's fever dream. It is a literal bed of blood.
 
One of the features of the myth is a sword that has to be plunged into human flesh to do activate its magic. I suspect that what will be found in the Winterfell crypts is Lyanna's perfectly preserved body with Lightbringer plunged into her chest.
 
That would create a bloody mess, certainly.

Kind of hilarious here.
Remembered I saw domewhere that Ned did a c-section for her sister to get jon using a sword.
Then fulfil nisa nisa stuff.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Its a type of glamor spell.

 

If Jon can rise from the dead, he can change looks.

I had forgotten about this one. So obviously since BR needed a moonstone to change his face, Lyanna was a better illusionist than BloodRaven since she could had done it without something like that. Do you happen to have any text to support it?