Jump to content

lalt

Members
  • Content count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lalt

  • Rank
    Freerider

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I call myself I fan of the books serie that enjoys the tv show. Beside that, in that discussion you've quoted I wasn't try to predict if Jon will be able or not to do some things, but if some characters in universe believe he can. That said, in both books and TV show, Stannis at least believed he is. And there are tons of very well thought "theories" - that may or may not turn outto be correct, but still well thought - of books (not of tv show) fans that point to the idea that Mance did it as well. Etc.... That said, you are entitled of your own opinion... whatever kind of fan you are and whoever you rooth for (if you do). I'll be pleased to read your arguments, books not bias based, next time I suppose.
  2. I think we really have to consider how much special/dangerous the context was at that time. And even tho Aerys surely didn't want to die, even tho he probably believed that he wouldn't died, he took some measures as he shoud have done. From this pov (I agree with @Lord Varys on that) choosing Viserys as his heir, was a right choice. He was the oldest (beside Rhaegar). And in those kind of circumstances, that matters. Still, the scenario of Viserys becoming king - form Aerys's pov, when he took that decision - was a scenario of caos. No matter who Viserys's regent may have been, if he had come to the throne, that would/could have occured after Aerys's death, most likely while Robert's rebellion was still going on. And Viseys was not only still a kid, but a kid with not heir. Therefore he would have been a particularly weak king in a particularly difficult situation. If so... protecting Lyanna's child, was very, very, important for the sake of house Targaryen. The new born - in fact - would have been another heir and like I said, bastard or not, made little difference by then: in that context (of an house that could be erased pretty soon), the priority is the surviving itself of that house. And a new born would have been another chance for house Targaryen to survive. Why to waste it? Why to renounce to that chance? So to me, it's not that the 3 KG had to proclaim King Jon in the middle of nowhere and with little support behind them. I believe they sworn to protect him. That they were given of this order for these reasons. In addition, we should keep in mind that when the order was given no one knew who would have - possibly - find Lyanna, the child and those 3. It could have been Robert. Or Ned could have been so outraged to kill his nephew. We - the readers - we know that Ned would have never done that. But characters in-universe at the time the order was given didn't know it and/or couldn't have been sure of Ned's reaction. That said, we still miss crucial information. Above all: how old was the baby and/or how much Lyanna's illness changed the plan, if it did. Because for instance, maybe the order was to protect Lyanna at the ToJ until the child's birth and then to move mother and babe elsewhere. To hand over them in a safe place and to people of trust. A plan that failed not just because Ned showed up, but because she delivered her son few hours (if not moments) before her brother arrived or a few days prior but then she was unable to move. Something like this - I guess - would also explain why at war over, the 3 KG chose to fight in the first place. Because in all honesty, that is another big issue. Ned wasn't sent into a mission to deal with every Tagaryen's loyalist left. He was looking for his sister. A new king seated the Iron Throne and the KG had the chance to bend the knee to Robert (like sir Barristan did) or not. I admit it's not out of the real of possibilities (and pretty consistent with what we know of those 3 men) that Hightower, Dayne and Whent weren't willing to bend the knee to someone that from their pov may have been an usurper. It's a personal choice in a dramatic moment. And if that was they case they could have chosen to fight for their own honor and surviving. However, if there wasn't something else pretty important, they had not reason to not hand over Lyanna. What I mean is that if the order to stay at the ToJ hadn't been given to them because she was pregnant of Rhaegar's child, if she was there as an hostage period - as some suggest - whatever political value of her as an hostage had died together with Aerys and Rhaegar. There was not deel to be made, at that point in history. And to obey to such an order was pointless. And dishonorable I would say. Fighting because you don't want to bend the knee is honorable, but different than fighting to keep faith to the pointless order of holding someone (a woman) as an hostage when there's not deal to be made and half of the parties that should make that deal are dead or in exile. Whereas if the order had to do with the protection of Rhaegar's child and the hand over of said child to someone of Targaryen's (not Stark's or rebels) trust, then that's another thing for the reasons stated above. And maybe, they had to fight just because Ned wasn't willingly to let his nephew go and being raised as a Targaryen. Legitimate or not, secret or not à la young Griff (fake or not), waiting for his turn/chance had it ever come and in danger meanwhile. That would have targeted Ned's nephew, not matter what. And I can see Ned choosing to not loose his nephew, after having loose his father, his brother and his sister. To not outrage Robert for the safety of the rest of family as well. To end the Rebellion there and then. "This is how it ends" - I believe - may hint exactly to this. Or that is the way that the story makes more sense to me. EDIT: And the dream itself, it that specific moment of Ned's life makes even more sense, to me. Because if the dream reflects Ned's state of mind when he had that dream, more than the exact things said and done long time ago, then that is the moment when Ned is questioning his choice as he probably never did before: was that choice the right one? or was it pointless to kill those brave/honorable men, to lie, to make her wife suffer, to not make Jon knowing the truth, etc... if years after the reality Ned is facing is not only so disgusting but so dangerous for all his family, regardless?
  3. Thank you and sorry if I reply only now. Busy week, however... That was the starting point I was trying to make. The dream - from a narrative prospective - is not there to give us information about the state of minds of those knights, but about Ned's one, in that moment and thereafter. Let me clarify this: it's not that I take the legal aspect of the issue (or the so call chain of command) as something less "flexible" than you do. Quite the contrary. I am saying that special times and threats require special measures. And in a very special time as a rebellion not only against the actual king, but against his all family/dinasty, his kingship... these special measures cannot be to protect the actual king... only. The physical person of the man who sits on the throne in that specific moment. You have to protect the chance itself that he may have an heir to follow him on that throne, sooner or later. So, sure it helps our argument knowing that in ordinary times Kingsguard sometimes were assigned to protect royal mistresses and bastards. But in a time of a civil war like that - again: vs an entire dinasty, not only vs a specific king - even more so, I'd say. I say - contrary to many perhaps - that is not surprising just because of the civil war that all the 7 KG were not inside the Red Keep to protect Aerys. But divided and assigned to the protection of every piece of that chain. A potential rearguard included. A rearguard in a time like that is particularly important indeed. So, Rhaegar had an army and 3 KG knights with him. Among them an hero like sir Barristar and prince Martell... Aerys was in the safest places among them all, with Jamie serving as a KG but also as an hostage vs the Lannister's army. Elia and her children too: they serve as hostages vs Rhaegar and prince Martell. And we know how and why they died.... Viserys had not KG with him, but still he was sent into an insland, the seat of House Targaryen, sourronded by the see and far away from the front. The question is why in a time like that, 3 KG men - among whom there were the lord commander and the best knight of the time - were assigned to the ToJ. I believe that is because another Targaryen was about to be born. And bastard or not doesn't matter, because if there's a time when a bastard's claim may be particularly effective, that is when a dinisty is about to die and the contetex of Robert Rebellion is exactly one of that kind. Therefore, regardless the kind of relashionship between Rhaeger and his father, the king and the crown prince (both of them) should have ordered the KG to do exactly that and that is what the KG should have done, not matter who they loved/trusted/admired most. Because once that kind of Rebellion begins, the problem is not who's better between Rhaegar and Aerys anymore. I'll put a spoiler tag on the bottom - sorry but I am having problems with the formatting - to take a comparison with Theon chapter from TWT Before that and back to Ned's questions, the point - I believe - is not if he asked those questions for real, if those words were spoken or not. But that in those moments, meeting the lord commander of the KG and the sword of the morning there, he suddenly realized what was really going on. That Lyanna was giving birth to a Targaryen, bastard or not. And/or that - years later - he's thinking that he should have understood at least at that point. But one thing is for sure: no matter when he understood/learnt the truth, prior or after that meeting/fight, that truth had an impact on him, on his life. A huge one. Because he chose to hide not only Jon's identity, but someone with a more or less strong claim to the iron throne. And the dream reflects his reasoning, anxiety, his sense of guilt, doubts, etc...
  4. First: sure we have to take with a grain of salt Ned's memories/fever dream and those words. However, there must be a reason if that is the kind of conversation he remembers, more or less verbatim, I guess. And I cannot help but notice that Ned's questions are not... random. There's a logic. And that logic doesn't serve the purpose of showing - imo - those KG men inner conflict between duty or loyalty towards Aerys or Rhaegar. That is done elsewhere in the serie. My guess is that logic, serves the purpose of showing Ned's pov, his own reasoning. And it's based on the chain of events plus that line of succession the KG is supposed to protect. That is the point, I guess. As you said, the KG has to protect the King. But: "the King is dead, long live the King". An institution like that is supposed to take care of that, too. These men, they have to protect not only a king, but a kingship, a line of succession. The idea/institution itself. Even more so during a rebellion not just vs the actual king but vs a whole dynasty. And the Targaryens too - in a context like that - they cannot ignore the danger for all their lineage/kingship. They can't not to take appropriate measures. No matter how much they hate, distrusted, dislike (or not) one another. The context once Robert's rebellion begins, is not longer that of Duskendale or that behind the scene of the Harrenal tourney. It's far worst. Because like said, once Robert's rebellion begins, it's not only Aerys's rein that is in jeopardy, but an entire dinasty. The priority - for the actual King as well as the KG - is not just or cannot be only to save/protect the phisical person of the actual king, but the Targaryen's kingship. The all line of succession, or as much of that line as they can. And if we look at the questions Ned asks, I think that is or may be the point. Ned first asks where they were when Rhaegar, the heir, died. Then when Aerys II, the King - and Aegon the new heir - died. Then, why they were not with Viserys: at that point as long as everybody in the same position of Ned should have guessed, the newest heir/king. The sequence of questions, follows not perfecty but quite perfectly the "supposed" line of succession. So to me, it may even implies that that conversation didn't take place at all. That those words were never spoken. I bet they were (more or less) but the reason as to why Ned remebers/dreams that kind of conversations, those kind of questions, in sequence, makes me think that that those were the questions he asked himself prior to that meeting and regardless that meeting. Questions that made him (Ned) gradually understanding what was really going on there. Pretty much as we do. The question in short is why the lord commander of the KG and sir Arthur Dayne, the sword of the morning, the best knight of the realm, when the war was basically over, after the death of the King and of his heirs, were not with prince Viserys... (as they weren't with Aerys, Aegon and Rhaegar) but at ToJ. Ned's questions are the same as ours. And logic points I guess, to an easy solution: the best knights were protecting the weakest ring of that chain of succession in the weakest position to hold. And - at that point in history - to try to put that newborn Targaryen - and Rhaegar's last son - on the iron throne. As agreed. As they were asked to do, if the worst scenario had occurred (as it did)
  5. Or it could be... because of Jon Stark-Targaryen. The son of ice and fire, the hero that brought back the Dawn into the real of men. Or because x thing. Brandon the Builder and the Last Hero, sure. But what about Azhor Ah Ahi? And the forging of Lightbriger? However, I am 100% sure that characters in universe are taking wrong magic and prophecies. That's part of the fun. But that is not equal to say that there's not magic in that world. That prophecies won't turn out to be correct, somehow. And that blood has not magical power in that world. Or that blood won't play a part in the endgame. Blood as a magical tool and blood in the sense of lineage too. The question is how. If Ned killed Jon's father, he should have felt remorse. More than that, perhaps. What we know, however, is that he respected and admired Arthur Dayne. But remorse? That kind of remorse one should feel knowing that he killed his nephiew's father? I haven't see a hint of that. Honestly. In addition, I don't sse why not sharing that feeling with Cat. I don't see why Ned should have prefered to make his wife believe that he had another woman, instead of telling her that he felt guilty because he killed the child's father. No matter how much Ned's pride and sense of honor was hurted, if so, still that was not something that may have hurted, offended.... her. That was not breaking their vows. And I bet Cat would have preferred that. That she would have offered comprehension and support to her husband, if the problem was that, if he felt responsible, guilty, because of that. I also bet she would have loved - not hated - Jon. The point I was trying to make was: Rhaegar as Jon's father is an info that Cat in a moment of desperation may sell. Fearing that, Ned kept the secret with his wife too. Arthur Deyne as Jon's father is an info that has 0 value. However - I agree - Robert would have been the only one in Westeros interested in that, to the point of wishing to kill Jon (even if he is Arthur's son). But why Ned should fear Cat selling Jon's life to Robert? Robert is a friend of Ned. Almost a brother. Whatever problem between them can be solved in a more or less satisfying way for both parties, but without any need of selling Jon's life. Only something particularly huge, important can break that relationship between Robert and the Starks - like I don't know... the North proclaming the indipendece. But if so, if the problem is of such a magnitude, between Robert and the Stark, so much so that suddenly, they're enemies, it can't be solved in any case. Not even by selling Jon's life. Why in a scenario like that King Robert should agree into not pursing, executing or sending to the Wall a rebel in exchange of Jon's life, when he may have the rebel pursed, executed or sent to the wall and then kill Jon regardless, if someone tells him that he's not Ned's son? Whereas if Jon is a Targaryen, bastard or not, he has a claim. And that changes it all, for everybody playing the game. From Robert, to Tywin, to Baelish, Stannis, the Tyrell that married into the Crown, Viserys until he was alive, his sister Daenerys if she's a mad woman ready to get rid of his nephew to take one day the throne, etc... The fact that he was trying to depose his father, and that she was set to marry one of the lords he needed the support of to do what he wanted to do, it's exactly why I always felt that something is wrong with the story. That it wasn't about love, lust of marriage, not even a political one, at that point. Wrong choice, regardless. That's "interpretation" from my part, sure, about facts we know very little about. Things that I find probable, given some meta-contenent. The same meta-content that makes you assume quite a lot about Lyanna. And... Rhaegar. He surely was interested in prophecy and singing. But willingly to let the country burning? We only know that he tried to organize a meeting - that was the purpose of the tourney - with the main lords of the country. Most likely to organize later on a council, to depose his father the Mad King and taking his place. Given the state of realm, the state of king Aerys, etc.. that was a peacefull try in the interest of the country as a whole. Then something happened. The question is what... for real and we're all making assumptions. About the other plot (regardless Rhaeger's attempt) of the Arryn-Stark-Tully-Baratheon alliace too. If there was. As for Jon, I was comparing two specific and "possible" situations. That of a woman escaping from a marriage she doesn't want and asking for "protection". The situations, not the personalaties. I guess he learned quite a lot from Jon Arryn too. A character I wish to know more about That said... I just find interesting that shortly after his brutal fight with Brandon Stark, LF was probably moving from Riverrun to the Vale. Not so much far away from Harrenal where Lyanna apparently disappeared and that, like I said, the first effect of the news "Rhaegar kidnapped her" was Brandon going to KL to die. But that's surely assuming too much
  6. I’d say they should protect Viserys and the child Rhaella is baring. But apparently the plan for them was to stay in Dragonstone and in the worst scenario, flee. Which is what they have done. But again the KG men don’t flee. In addition we don’t know - if I remember well, but correct me if I am wrong - where the 3 KGs were before the meeting with Ned. What if they, or one of them, were/was in Dragonstone as long as Rhaella and Viserys stayed there? I bet that’s not the case... but still.. who did need protection first and foremost? A woman and child in an island, that was the sit of house Targaryen or a mother and child in a shattered tower without any kind of other protection? I would have sent to Rhaella and Viserys my best captain and a strong ship, to flee away. Not my best swordmen. The master at arms of the Red Keep, just in case, was good enough given the circumstances. It’s a matter of priority. Of choosing how to use all your resources in the more effective way.
  7. "The KG men don't flee". Like I said, imo, the best fighters and the lord commander were sent to protect the weakest people and position. Rhaegar had an army with him, Barristan (an hero) and prince Martell whose best chance to save his sister and her children was to help Rhaegar winning that battle. Aerys was in the Red Keep, the safest place among the 3. In fact, he could have survived. The 3rd being, ToJ. A wrek in the middle of nowhere. And they were tasked to protect there a woman and a newborn, the weakest people you can possibly defende. If the point was only to take Lyanna as an hostage, everybody else was fit for the task. The point IMO was to protect them. Before and during the battle of the Trident and afterwards.
  8. Or maybe it's a misplaced question/issue. The kingsguard existe regardless who the actual king is. It existes as long as there is a king. When a king dies, the KG men don't change and/or they do not re-new their vows. They are loyal in fact, to the idea itself of a king, not to an ideal type of king. Or this is how it shoud be. That said... SCENARIO #1: Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, Jon is legitamate. Not only the presence of Dayne and Whent at the ToJ makes sense but that of Hightower too. Aerys may die, Rhaegar too, same for Aegon and Vyseris. There's a civil war going on. A rebellion vs not only Aerys II but vs the Targaryens as a whole. In fact, it's not that Viserys succeded his father... The KG 's men are separated and each group/man is protecting a piece of that bloodline. From Aerys II to possibly Jon. And you put the best ones near the weakest ones, holding the weakest position too (a shattared tower vs the Red Keep, or a battlefield, which is dangerous, sure: but Rhaegar had an army with him). You do exactly that, in a scenario were all the family is in jeopardy. Conflicted or not, they've done their duty. All but Jamie. SCENARIO #2: Rhaegar and Lyanna were not married. Still, and not by chance imo - the specific men (conflicted or not towards Aerys II, doesn't matter) at the ToJ were not only loyal to a "king" but to the Targaryen's kingship. To a blood line of Targaryen kings. Jamie and Barristan, maybe not so much. And if you are loyal to a specific bloodline, in absence of legimate heirs - as it may be if Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon and Viserys die - you put a bastard above an usurper. So you try to save the bastard too. You try to put the bastard on the throne. And you give that hard task, well actually the hardest one (to put a bastard on a the throne) to the best ones. Maybe that was what they were doing. "Now it begins". "No. Now it ends". Ned stopped that attempt. SCENARIO #3: Jon is not Rhaegar's son, there was not reason for them - as brothers of the KG - to be at ToJ. Confliceted or not, they were... cowards and traitors. They put whatever personal motive, interest, x thing above their vows and duties.
  9. Sorry if i come back only now, but I was reading the long (and very interesting) @Lady Dyanna's thread linked in the OP. With that being said, where to begin? Let's try with this one First I tend to agree on the specific matter of R+L=J with many of things people have said here. But to stay on the topic of our exchanges... It's the song of ice and fire serie. And to me, that means it's the story of Starks and Targaryens. Targaryen's blood it's emphatizes. As it is "king's blood" not "knight's" blood. The prince that was promised/Arhor Ah Ahi has to come from the Targ lineage. Etc.. Of course one may believe that Dany covers the Targ's (and king's blood) part of the story. And we may have Dany as Azor Ah Ahi/Prince that was promised and Jon as Lightbringer. He (not one of her dragon) may be (symbolically speaking) the "weapon" she's destineted to wield... But that - imo - would downplay all the narrative about an actual magic sword, including Dawn wich is a pivotal meta-point to build up/substain A+L=J. And Jon as a Deyne - even tho a Stark from his mother side - to me would feel like a downplaying of the overall narrative. But these are all personal feelings. I see that. Same when it comes to something like this: Like I said, I can totally understand why Ned kept the secret about Lyanna as Jon's true mother for everybody in Westeros, regardless who Jon's real father is. Given the context, people would have guessed it was Raeghar (telling that the father was somebody else, even if true, would have been taken as a cover story). But I don't think there was not reason to not tell the truth to Cat.. "in any case". I think there was not reason to keep the secret with Cat too... "unless" Raeghar is Jon's father. If A+L=J (or everything else but R+L=J) is the right answer, Ned would have had zero reasons to feel guilty or ashamed towards Cat. Zero reasons to hurt her feelings and - as a consequence - to make her treating so bad Jon. Therefore to hurt Jon's feelings too. But if Jon's is Raeghar's son, then Ned was hiding the atomic bomb inside Winterfell. Not telling Cat the truth was a way to protect him, sure, but also... Cat. Like I said, from Ned's pov, not only Cat - knowing that R+L=J - could have been tented/forced one day or another to sell that info for a greater good (whereas she cound't sell A+L=J in exchange of something because that's not an info of value. And if so, if that is not something that may damage Jon's safety, why not to tell her?). But there's another aspect: from Ned's pove, shall the day come that the truth (R+L=J) will be known, Cat may still get the chance to prove she didn't know it. That she hid the athomic bomb inside Winterfell, only because she dind't know there it was. So to me, R+L=J is still the best explanation for Ned keeping the secret with Cat too. Whereas I don't find any convincing reason - but plot convenience - for Ned not telling the truth about Jon's real father if he's not Raeghar at least to his wife. To hurt her (and as a consequence Jon too) if that's not the case. I don't remember when Rhaegar is first mentioned in AGOT and more importantly I do not remember if the first story told about whaterver led to his death was that he fight for the woman he "loved". If you do it, please let me know it. But for the sake of the argument, let's say that's the case and let's keep comparing it with Jon's Arryn death. We first know that Jon Arryn is dead. And that's true. What is false is that it was a fever to kill him. Then we "learn" it was the Queen who killed him. And that's false too. In short, the circumstaces are false. Not the fact itself. So maybe Rhaegar died because of Lyanna. A woman he loved. But the circumstances are different than we believe they are. After the first read of AGOT and 'till now. Meaning that there was not kidnapping and rape - which is the thesis everybody in Westeros believe to be true - nor there was a plan between two lovers. The romantic escape many readers believe there was. I see why you are comparing the fake news about Jon Arryn's death - sent by Lyza - to the possible "fake" theory R+L=J. But beside the fact that one is a false information given in-universe by a character (Lyza: she specifically points to the Lannisters as the killers) while the other is a "theory" readers (but no one in-universe) came up to, I believe we should better compare the fake news "Jon Arryn was killed by Cersei" to the fake news "Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna because he has a crush on her". At that time, when Lyanna disappeared that was - probably - a false accusation. Someone spred it. I guess. Just like Lyza did in the case of J.A.'s death. Not to mention, that one false accusation led to Starks & comp. vs Targaryens, the other to Starks vs Lannisters. And maybe, it may be worth to compare the fake news about the adbuction of Lyanna, to the fake news (to some extent) that Melisandre told Jon about Arya escaping from her marriage. Not only it was someone else (Alys Karstark vs Lyanna Stark). In Lyanna's case (vs true, real Arya), maybe she was doing that for real. It may be a double parallel. And/or to the fake news contained into the Pink Letter, whoever wrote it (something is odd even if Ramsey actually wrote it). Speaking of which, there's another detail that adds water to your thesis that Lyanna/Arya/Sansa behave the same way. One of the first things that Jon thinks about when he receives the first letter that announces Arya's wedding is that she won't like at all the idea. Same does Robb when Cat tell him that she arranged Arya's wedding to a Frey. That to me points to... Lyanna didn't want to marry Robert at all. Because she was a womanizer. We know he was. We know she knew it. And if so, Lyanna was not a woman keen to do something she didn't want to do. So she escaped. She escaped from a marriage she didn't want. Most likely, on a horse. Someone else back then interpreted it or someone else (with a specific motiv to do so) spred the fake accusation that Rhaegar kidnapped her. False, no matter what. As it is wrong/false that they - Rhaegar and Lyanna - agreed previously on a plan: the romantic "escape", going into hiding together because they loved each other. What is interesting if so, is that what we have to re-think is not R+L=J, but the comparison between whatever happened between them and Bael the Bard's story. There was not stolen woman here. There wasn't a seduced and abandoned woman seeking revenge. That amazing comparison between the woman emerging from the pool (who I agree may be Bael's she-wolf) and Lyanna, works as a mirror. As a "reversed/flipped" tale/trope. Lyanna wasn't hiding in Winterfell. She wasn't abandoned by the man who seduced her. In fact, contrary to Bael's lover, she was far from home. And she ended up in Crypts, aftewards and dead. Not alive and meanwhile. Lyanna didn't ask for a son to avenge her. She made Ned promising what? To protect her child, I bet. And from whom, if not from the man that killed the child's father? Here we may have a surrogate father that promises to protect the child. Not a son killing the father. And the kinslayer, to some degree... it's her. Brandon died because of her choices and/or because of the consequences of her choices. Even tho she didn't know/think/wish that to happen. But kinslayers - even if they didn't know what they were actually doing/causing - are cursed. And Rhaegar is not Bael, in this story. Not literally. He didn't pretend to be someone else. He didn't use a false identity. Lyanna did that. At Harrenal, as the KotLT. She was the one fooling people: the king included. She - as the KotLT - was the one that later on people looked for and didn't find. The winter roses Rhaegar gave her, may signify that: "you played everybody but me. I know what you did" But that was not a "screw you" gesture, because Rhaegar kept the secret. And he did that, not because he had a crush on her, but becasue he understood why she did that, the point the KotLT/Lyanna was trying to make. And what was that point? It wasn't to avenge Howland Reed. The point the KotLT was trying to make, was about the honor a knight should have. How a knight is supposed to behave. Rhaegar - keeping the secret - proved her, he understood that. Therefore... that he knew - and agree with her on - how a true knight is supposed to behave. And that is why, she came into trusting him. Why monthes after, she asked his help, when she decided to escape from her family (again opposite to some degree to Arya and Sansa, similar to others) and a marriage she didn't want. Just like Alys Karstark went to Jon, because he's the only one - in her eyes - she may trust. Rhaegar... is Jon. Like Jon he didn't know that someone else would guess he "had stolen" Lyanna aka Ygritte - or Val (and fArya) - only because he helped/saved her. That people would have guess he did that out of lust. Only to find himself later on falling for that woman. Or he may be. I went too far from what I originally ment. And I still have many things to say. But I think I'll do that later on. These are basically the things we probably won't agree on. But I am sure we may go on further with all the parallels and the (amazing, imo) meta-points your OP is full of. Especially, with all the Lyza-LF / Ashara, Brandon or Ned etc... details. And especially if the point is/may be fake story vs fake story, told by someome who had an interest in doing so. Add Tywin to the list too. Or Bael-ish himself, that in days of Lyanna's disappearance was probably leaving Riverrun (after his fight with Brandon) to go back in the Vale... Let me add one thing: many compared Arya and Jaqen chapters at Harrenal to those of Theon in Winterfell in ADWD. The northernmen rescue, to the fArya's rescue etc... But maybe we should try to go deeper and compare these ones to Bael's story too.
  10. First let me admit I don't have a precise idea/theory. But I find this discussion interesting just because I don't really know where it could lead us. However, these are my two cents/random thoughts. First: I beleive - regardless this discussion - that Lyanna escaped. That she did that herself and without anyone knowing it, not because she was in love with someone, but because she didn't want to marry Robert. She was a girl, a Stark girl and an Arya type too, most likely "on a horse" escaping from a marriage she didn't want. Also worth to notice: Lyanna->Alys / Stark->Karstark. And just like Alys Karstark asked for Jon's help, Lyanna seeked help, refuge, from Raeghar. He wasn't her lover. Sure not by then, at last. Only someone she trusted. In short: she wasn't kidnapped and raped, nor there was a plan between two lovers. If so the false dilemma "abdution and rape vs romantic escape (a ruse made by two lovers)" will be resolved in a 3rd way. In addition if that's the case, Raeghar chose not only to help her but he never betrayed her trust. The only way to avoid the rebellion, in fact, would have been to return Lyanna to her family and to her betrothed. Something he had promised her not to do. Of course, a question remains. What did happen next? Maybe she ended up seducing Raeghar (but if so, he's not a Bael's type, quite the contrary) or she married someone out of realism, not love, just like Alys married the Magnar of Thenn. And just like them to merge two peoples/lines of blood. Or maybe, she ended up falling for Arthur Dayne. In all truth the problem I have with A L=J is that even tho it seems that the Daynes have Valyrian blood and Jon's father would be the last Sword of the Morning, all the emphasis about the Targaryen's blood in my eyes would get somehow downplayed. Not to mention my read of the house of undying prophecies (but that would require another thread). In addition, if so, why Ned never told the truth about Jon to at least Kat? I could understand why he never admitted publicy that Lyanna had a child even if he was Arthur's child. Given the "official" version of the story and the precedent everyone was aware about (the fact itself that at Harrenal, Raeghar crowened her) people would have assumed that A+L=J was a cover story(ironically) and that Jon was in fact Raeghar's child. Meaning that Jon's life would have been in jeopardy. But why not to tell Kat the true story? There was not reason to not do it and make her promising to keep the secret, if that was the case. Whereas if the truth is that Jon's father is Raeghar, then Ned didn't tell it to Kat because that is an info that in a desperate moment Kat could have use in exchange of somethig really important. Of course these are not evidences. I just find more convincing the latter case. Second thought/idea. About Ashara, I was thinking about somethig else. Maybe Ned "liked her". But I believe that Ned didn't "dishonor" her. I believe it was Brandon. And that Ashara was pregnant with Brandon's child. If so, the point is that once the news "Lyanna was kidnapped by Raeghar Targaryen" first spread (so not just that she escaped/disappeared, but that she was kidnapped by Raeghar) the immediate consequece, the first thing that happened next, was that... Bradon who was heading thoward Riverrun to wed Kat, changed plan and went to K.L. instead. So, I am thinking that maybe, Ashara spread that false information/accusation because she wanted to stop the wedding between Brandon and Kat. That she was confident that Brandon would have done what he did. But of course she didn't realize that Brandon would have died. About her fate and that of the child, yes: maybe she is Allyria or... I like the idea that fAegon is Brandon's son. I would love if: Aegon = the true Stark bastard Jon = the true Targaryen heir
  11. Yes great post @Sly Wren. And... yes. I have the same question about Arthur and Lyanna. And that comes from someone like me who always believed in R+L=J. That said, I have another question. Or to say it better, I cannot help but think (now) that maybe... Ashara parallels Lysa. Could it be that whatever happened between her and Ned at Starfall (after the ToJ, not at Harrenal) that led to her suicide, once revealed it’s going to serve the same narrative purpose of the “confession” made by Lysa before her death? I must confess I always had the feeling that real reason as to why Ned didn’t like to speak/hear about Ashara is not “love”, but resentment towards her. Or at least that this is a chance we should contemplate.
  12. Already explained why that's not the case. And why according to my view omitting the information is pointless if not self-defeating. I guess it is. Absolutelly.
  13. Beside I did. And about your other question, I did reply to that too, I guess, but maybe not that specifically. I'll do it now: If Ramsey wrote the PL, then I don't see why he should not tell she's lost. At all. Especially if he needs a casus belli and especially if Jon leaves before she arrives as I believe is Ramsey's true goal. That is how she may be eventually turned back to him, after the Boltons will kill Jon (again: in a battlefield or as a traitor at that point, given that at that point - and at that point only - they can prove with 0 doubt he is a traitor without relaing on a man words, a man that says to be Mance and that says that he went to WF not because he chose so, but because Jon asked him to do so, a man they may beleive in but others - and especially the men at CB that saw Mance burning - may not belive in. Surely not to the point to arrest their Lord Commander without any further investigation, without anything but some words).
  14. Hum... not. Roose Bolton is the Lord of the Dreadfort. Additionally he is the Warden of the North because the Crown made him so. He doens't need to be lord of WF to be that, he only needs - from a legal stand point - to be named WotN by the Crown, he is but that doesn't give him any right on WF. Like I said, it's Jamie himself back in ACOK and all ADwD that proves that Ramsey and fArya wedding is the tool supposed to give them that legal claim on WF. Which, I agree with that of course, it's important not only legally, but for political/symbolic reasons. Just because WF has always been the seat of the Kings in North first and then the seat of the Wardens of the North. That's tradition and tradition has a value. However those political/symbolic assets may fall apart if the ruse is exposed. Not to mention that if the ruse is exposed, that is yet another strike to their credibility thus authority. Not legally of course. Roose will still be the WotN (as long as the Crown wants him to be), but he'll be exposed as a liar and we know that is not that the North trust him that much even now. That people like Manderly are questioning his real role in the RW etc... In addition if the PL hs to be trusted, then Theon is not anymore in their hands. And then again, Theon confessing the truth about Bran and Rickon may not be a legal problem about his role as WotN, but there could be 2 male heirs of Eddard alive. And they - just like Sansa or Arya according to line of succession - are the heirs of WF. Because again, that has nothing to do with the role of WotN from a legal stand point. And of course the chance only that the true about the sack of WF can be exposed, may be yet another strike to their credibility, thus to Roose's authority, to his capability of keeping the North under his control which is why the Crown has choses him for the job in the first place That said, we agree about other things too. Like this one "Ramsay Bolton has a temper but he is not going to draw the wildlings out into battle right after he had just fought Stannis for a week. That would be stupid. He wants to rest his troops." But this is where "interpretations" starts to play a part. My take is that just because of this he should not write "I have the king beyond the wall in a cage... come and get him". It's stupid, just because it's an invitation to the wildlings to do so (and the wildlings are known as people that may handle better than anyone else in the north the bad weather). Or he's doing that - like I believe he is - not because he's stupid, but because that is what he wants, because his main problem - given the circumstances - is another one. But sure, about that, we can agree to disagree. Like I said, personal takes are all legit untill TWoW. Edit: to make a comparison, after Robert’s rebellion Dragonstone is not longer the seat of the heir apparent of the iron throne as it used to be in the Targaryen era. It’s given to Stannis, by Robert, but after the birth of Joffrey is not given to him as King Robert’s apparent heir. Meaning that this kind of things may change.
  15. Except, that was your theory/question. Not mine. I never theorized that the Boltons may ask for Jon to be arrested.... you did. And I've explained why I believe that won't be a good move just because of what I think about their true problem/goal. Since this reply and those that came next. So you may go back and check yourself. Of course you can disagree. It's fine. What I find boring is to keep going in circles, ignoring entire conversations and picking up a little quote out of context just to start all over again. Maybe you do so, because you think you need to dismiss every argument vs every possible author that is not Stannis to make your theory compelling. I don't feel that need. And more imporantly I really believe the PL is so interesting just because GRRM has left many chances open. As you probably know by now, I believe the author - whoever he is - doesn't ask those people expecting that Jon will hand them. This however "if Stannis is believed dead people at the Wall will want to get in good with the Boltons by giving up Selyse and Shireen" deserves some attention. A counterargument may be that the "you may hear that I am dead. It may even be true" line from Theon sample chapter, tells us that Stannis may be ready to fake his death. But yeah, I still see your point. Faking his death (per se) is still different that putting an harm directly - or by chance only - to his daughter and wife writing the PL the way it is. About what you say about Jon... the only counterargument is that first Stannis needs to win. Maybe it's a worth risk. But that's the problem with Stannis (or someone else that is not a Bolton) writing the PL nevertheless: if the risk is worth, whatever plan he may have. Agree with everything. In addition, these are the first 3 things - in sequence- that Mance disguised as Rattleshirt says to Jon the first time they meet [JOHN IV]: 1- "Here he comes, " he said when he saw Jon, " the brave boy who slew Mance Rayder when he was caged and bound. " the big square-cut gem that adorned his iron cuff glimmered redly. " Do you like my ruby , snow ? A token o' love from Lady Red. " 2- “Not me. I’m done with those bloody fools.” Rattleshirt tapped the ruby on his wrist. “Ask your red witch, bastard.” 3-"I'll range for you bastard,' Rattleshirt declared. " I'll give you sage counsel or sing you pretty songs , as you prefer. I'll even fight for you. Just don't ask me to wear your cloak." (Next time they meet, in JON VI there is the line “He burned the man he had to burn, for all the world to see. We all do what we have to do, Snow. Even kings.” ) What I think is interesting in not only the callbacks to the PL, but that - imo - Mance is trying since their first meeting to give Jon clues of what's really going on. Think about it, why Rattleshirt should say "I'll range for you bastard [...]or sing you pretty songs , [...] Just don't ask me to wear your cloak." We know that Rattleshirt is Mance, after so many re-read. Jon doesn't at that point. Still, Rattleshirt has never sang and Jon should know that. That's the point. Jon should remember that Mance was a ranger of the NW, that he likes to sing and that he broke his vow, for a cloak. Those words are a short version of their first meeting, as if Mance/Rattleshirt is speaking in a code only he and Jon can get, to let Jon understand, but Jon fails to do so. Let's go back to their first meeting: not only Mance was singing when Jon entered the tend, later on when he tells the sotry of how and why he left the NW, that's how the story begins: “One day on a ranging we brought down a fine big elk [....]" And then of course: I left the next morning... for a place where a kiss was not a crime, and a man could wear any cloak he chose.” He closed the clasp and sat back down again. “And you, Jon Snow?” Jon took another swallow of mead. There is only one tale that he might believe. “You say you were at Winterfell, the night my father feasted King Robert.” “I did say it, for I was.” “Then you saw us all. Prince Joffrey and Prince Tommen, Princess Myrcella, my brothers Robb and Bran and Rickon, my sisters Arya and Sansa. You saw them walk the center aisle with every eye upon them and take their seats at the table just below the dais where the king and queen were seated.” “I remember.” “And did you see where I was seated, Mance?” He leaned forward. “Did you see where they put the bastard?” Mance Rayder looked at Jon’s face for a long moment. “I think we had best find you a new cloak,” the king said, holding out his hand. And then in PL again: Mance is wearing a clok some one else gave him and Jon is repetedly called bastard and all the other callbacks from above.
×