corbon

Pretty obviously not, since rather than ignoring what you said, I addressed each the of pieces of 'evidence' you offered already and just showed why I don't think your interpretation of what they 'show' is in any way reasonable - hence they don't to me, qualify as 'evidence' of any value. Hmm, posts used to be numbered within a thread which made referencing easy, From my pst on 26 Aug, previous page: - the first meeting place - your claim was that it showed Lemore was from Norvos, I refuted that - you claimed Mellario/Lemore's Norvosi shaved head would hide Blackfyre colouring, I refuted that - you claimed lip service faith would be adequate for Lemore's role, I refuted that - you claimed Mellario shouldn't be assumed to have Norvosi faith, I showed that that is the only reasonable assumption we can make based on what we've been given thus far - you argued that YG and Mellario/Lemore have similar geographic/religious parallels so that covers Mellario, and I showed why they are significantly different - I misread what you said about Mellario being planted in Norvos and so my counter argument is irrelevant - it countered something you didn't say, sorry, my error. @Alester Florent pointed out that Doran is 'all-in' on the Viserys/Dany side - he shows no indication of even knowing of Aegon's existence, let alone have plans involving him. You argued that the same could be said of Illyrio so thats not a argument. What I don't get is how you can say the same can be said of Illyrio since he clearly has plans involving both Dany/Viserys and fAegon. No, thats not the problem. Illyrio is smart enough to be working multiple plans at once and backing multiple horses in one race, so to speak. And GRRM shows us this explicitly. Its not impossible for Doran. Its just that GRRM hasn't given us even the slightest hint of any Doran plan involving fAegon. Theories are not based on what is n0t-impossble, they are based on what evidence GRRM has given us. Because GGRM has neglected to give us any hint of any Doran plot involving fAegon - or even any indication Doran is/was aware of fAegon's existence. The moment GRRM gives us anything along that line, then you have a viable theory, or at least teh start of one. Until then, its just a piece of fanfic, with emphasis on fic. Yes. Why not? Dorne is not nothing, but its not as important a player as most of the rest of Westeros, especially under the Baratheon/Lannister dynasty. But both Dany/Viserys and (especially) fAegon have Dornish blood, so they have reason to expect Dornish support for them once a reveal happens.. No, they imply the opposite. They show that Varys (accurately) believes Doran believes Aegon to have been murdered. That assumes three things - Varys is telling the whole truth and all of it to Kevan, rather than enough of the truth to give his message impact - Varys knows all the details of everything in the fAegon Conspiracy - Ashara, after her disgrace from court and unwed child, didn't actually take holy orders Personally I suspect he does know that detail - I think it was likely he that recruited Ashara to take away fAegon, not Illyrio. And I doubt Ashara took holy orders but also expect that similar to (more than, with no nothern Old Gods influence) Sansa as a young noblewoman she was deeply schooled in the Faith and perhaps even more so after her disgrace and pregnancy. I think Sansa's life growing up shows that Ashara would be thoroughly schooled, whether it was 'personal' to her or not. I don't think there is anything bad in this line of connections or reasoning (unlike the Mellario theory!), its just for me, nowhere near enough for such a significant plot. It also completely fails to answer a number of questions such as how come Lemore can argue back to JonCon with impunity, how baby fAegon was managed and connections (people who knew him being around) maintained between him being smuggled out of Westeros and JonCon being introduced a few years later. With a several year 'gap' there and no one reputable to vouch for the 'chain of custody', how could anyone trust that the child was who Illyrio claimed? What convinced JonCon that he child was Rhaegar's? What will convince the self-interested senior nobles of Westeros later? Why does Lemore need to keep disguise (like who cares about a Ashara anwers these question. An obscure outlaw from several decades back, or even Jeyne Swann? I don't see it? Yeah I understand. While I've answered this exact point, I recognise that everyone's personal expectation in this area will vary. We'll see, we all hope. Not to mention that the man is dying and time is limited. Long winded explanations are unnecessary. The point is made successfully, whether it is absolutely 100% accurate or an approximation. Agreed. Its not that she can;t have, its that there is no indication anywhere that she has, or was even even sympathetic t the Faith. In fact, the indications we are given, show the opposite. Because theories are constructed from what we are given, not from what we make as as 'not-impossible'.

I think its useful to understand that the apparent passivity and victim role attributed to the Dead Ladies club is due to the cultural bias of the characters who tell us of them. If you play close attention, they actually seem far from passive. Joanna I'll say least about because we just don't have enough information. Worth noting though that Tywin feel in love with her - and Aerys too, if you can call it love. So I think she was a 'character', a strong and interesting person in her own right as much as any of the women we see more of later. Its just we aren't being told her story. Lyanna too, seems far from a passive victim. Her conversation with Ned reveals an astute and wilful character, as do her actions as KotLT (or even just the preliminary of that story for those who refuse to admit that it was her). The Rhaegar stuff is rather unknown, so we can't tell how much agency she exercised through that situation - my expectation based on other things is rather more than most people think! Ashara Dayne... well. She is either a sad story (there will be some, inevitably) or perhaps, if she is Lemore, one of the most dramatic and active stories of all, just not yet revealed to us!

This is a fantasy. There is zero evidence that Lemore is from Norvos. Meeting someone close to a road between A and B (but also on a river and she is first seen emerging from the cabin of the boat) does not make them 'from A' (or B). And that is the sum total of all data potentially suggesting she is from Norvos. Lemore is, if not a septa, well versed in the religion of the seven (a westerosi religion, not a Norvosi one). She not only passes successfully as a septa, she responds naturally as one, and is capable enough to teach the future King the religion of his subjects. She doesn't have a shaved head. She swims naked in the river. If she wore a wig it would be obvious to Tyrion. Lemore clearly does, and is required to do, more than pay lip service to the Faith. Her instinctive admonitions to Tyrion show that the Faith of the Seven is not a mere cloak she wears. Norvos is a theocracy, governed in effect by the bearded priests (they select the council). The religion of her guard is not just one of many religions in Norvos, its THE religion. It is not a lazy assumption that it would be the religion of Mellario, a young noblewoman of sufficient importance to have a personal guard. In the absence of other evidence it is the only reasonable assumption. YG is being deliberately raised in the Faith of the Seven as it will be an integral part of his future role as King of Westeros. Mellario is a born and bred Norvosi, with no connection to Westeros at all until her adult marriage. Plus, she left her marriage, her position and her children, in discontent at Westersoi ways to return to Norvos. It is far more reasonable to assume that she holds to typical Norvosi culture (including religion) than to assume she was a fish out of water in her homeland (but still had a guard of the ruling Faith), or adopted new faith and new ways when she married and held them when later abandoning that marriage. Your position here is not 'impossible', but it is unreasonable based on the evidence available. First, its an assumption that Doran planted Mellario anywhere. The story we are given does not suggest so, and is internally consistent, and also humanly consistent. Mellario was an exotic foreigner that caught Doran's eye and heart in his travels (and he hers, eye at least). His power and status was clearly enough to win her initially, but her dislike of the westerosi customs around raising noble children were enough for her to leave and return to Norvos. Its a fairly normal human story from start to end. There is no indication anywhere that Doran sent her away or remains in close contact (or control!) of her. We are in fact told the opposite, though whether that is trustworthy remains to be seen. I must be misunderstanding something in your point, because this appears to be utter nonsense. Illyrio clearly has multiple plans in play covering both Dany and Aegon. He is directly involved in both schemes, from years back, hosting Aegon in his own home, and also creating the Dothraki plot with Dany/Viserys. Doran, by contrast, in no way appears to have any plans or schemes connected to Aegon, until Aegon invades westeros and announces himself (or rather JonCon announces him in a letter). Until that late (future, until WoW is released!) event, all Doran's schemes are connected with Dany/Visery, both in the past (the Pact of Braavos) and the future (Quentyn's trip to Dany). In overall summary, Lemore-Mellario literally has nothing substantial behind it. Everything offered as 'evidence' is at best not-impossible, at worst invented out of nothing or even directly contrary to the evidence we have. Lemore is i) westerosi/follower of the seven with enough knowledge and understanding of westerosi culture, customs and court to tutor the future king of that land ii) golden skinned (or at least her skin glows gold in the sun), dark haired, has had a child who is not apparently in the picture, swims regularly, iii) must hide her identity and has enough authority within the Aegon conspiracy to argue with the arrogant noble commander, Jon Connington - without pushback by him. iv) about 40ish - Tyrion guesses 'past 40', but still handsome and attractive and a man's guess of a woman's age is not reliable, not least Tyrion who is already shown by GRRM guessing ages wrong twice (Jon and fAegon). Ashara was i) a westerois follower of the seven, and a young noblewoman from one of the most respected families, with a position at court ii) dornish (darker skinned on average than most westerosi) (though Ashara would be stoney Dornish, so this is an extremely minor point that could be fairly dismissed), had dark brown hair, is reputed to have lost a child, and was born on an island next to the sea and is supposedly to have literally thrown herself from a tower into the sea (ie there is a reasonable swimming connection there) iii) was a known person supposedly dead, and as Lemore would be an original conspirator from before Jon Connington was added to the conspiracy and with a Rank and connection to Aegon equal or greater than his own iv) would be in her late 30s Ashara as Lemore would cover multiple plot points - Varys' tale of the saving of Prince Aegon (or fAegon, only Varys would know for sure) needs the baby to somehow get to Essos and survive several years before JonCon is introduced to the conspiracy. Ashara could provide that continuity. Varys smuggles Aegon to a ship, the ship goes to Starfall where Ashara fakes her own death and swims out to the ship and takes her place as the babe's supposed mother/guardian for the next few years. As Ellia's former handmaid, and Arthur Dayne's sister, she is perfectly suited to the role and even has the purple eyes to pass as the babe's mother. - Aegon's future acceptance as himself, needs some sort of supporting evidence. JonCon could be dismissable as a self-interested party using a stool pigeon to seize power. Ashara Dayne revealing herself would be considerably more powerful and convincing, and she wouldn't be as likely perceived as doing it for power - she's a Dayne, and was also an intimate of Rhaegar's family through her own courtly position and her brother's close connection with Rhaegar himself. - Of Dany's three betrayals, one is said to be 'for love'. Ashara as Leore offers a possible betrayal 'for love' of Barristan Selmy. Ashara-Lemore has a ridiculously large amount of evidence, connections and plot points going for it - virtually every tiny data point we have about Lemore can be connected to Ashara as well as meta and plot points. Its one weakness is the lack of Tyrion telling us about Lemore's magnificent purple eyes. I have some counter points to this, though each reader will have their own acceptance levels, and none of us will know until GRRM reveals. - GRRM gives himself an out in that Tyrion never comments on Lemore's eyes at all (unusually) but instead GRRM has him distracted by her body - GRRM gives himself a second out in that while Tyrion quickly pegs Lemore as something other than she appears, he equally quickly explicitly decides that she's not interesting enough to think about compared to the other party members. This only changes right at the end before Tyrion leaves the party so other than his lechery, he never pays close attention to Lemore. - purple eyes are not actually very distinctive unless 'brought out' by makeup and accessories. We see this in the real world with the most famous purple eyed person Elizabeth Taylor often appearing grey or blue eyed when not using makeup or accessories that bring out the purple colour, and we see it in ASoIaF with Aegon himself using colour (hair in this case) to make his purple eyes less distinctively purple. So IMO, its not unreasonable for a young beauty making her mark at court to have distinctive purple eyes while the same woman, older and deliberately trying to keep her identity hidden, does not appear to have such distinctive eyes.

The reason is not unfathomable. We are given quite clearly and explicitly, Rhaegar's character, from a source that is about as reliable as any source for any indirect data in the books - someone who knew him personally and spent time around him his whole life, but was not close enough to be an inner circle member (higher potential bias). By contrast, the 'acts' are entirely 'mysterious'. We don't know very much at all about what happened exactly, we don't know who was involved, who was informed, what anyone knew or did not know. Astute readers attempt to interpret the mysterious 'acts' in light in the known character of the actor. Other readers assume they understand the 'acts' (despite the almost complete lack of information) because they know some of the apparent consequences, and insist that therefore the character of the actor is in fact the exact opposite of what GRRM has given us. IMO that reveals more about those readers than anything in ASoIaF. I'm not sure we have any indication that Aerys declared was 'to clear the paths for whatever project Rhaegar had...'. It seems to me a much simpler case of paranoid and unstable Aerys simply brooked no defiance of any kind to House Targaryen and caused (as opposed to declared) war through his utterly reasonable conduct. Yes. Prior to the events at Harrenhal, it seems that there are the usual courtly drama and factions/blocs. House Targaryen is not disunited, but there are 'old guard' factions that are largely close to (the older) Aerys, and 'young buck' factions associated with (young gun) Rhaegar. I don't see this as anything more significant than the usual power jostling at any court. The real major players - the Great Houses, Lannister, Stark, Greyjoy, Tully, Tyrell, Baratheon, Arryn - don't seem to be significantly involved in this minor court intrigue stuff. OTOH, Aerys is clearly increasingly unstable after the Defiance of Duskendale. Clearly that is not good for House Targaryen, but Rhaegar appears to have been looking for a legal and stable way for the crown to pass on from Aerys without damaging House Targaryen (the supposed great council at Harrenhal, which was stalled by Aerys' un-typical decision to leave KL and attend. While this is a friction of a sort between Aerys and Rhaegar obviously, and needs to be done quietly and discreetly in order not to aggravate an unstable king, its not a disunity within House Targaryen. There may well have been deeper and more meaningful intrigues between the major houses against House Targaryen (IMO likely due to Aerys' increasing instability more than anything else) but these appear to be happening away from court and be a different thing entirely, unrelated directly to internal Targaryen politics. We have hints of such and some fairly credible theories around these intrigues. When the time comes, Aerys called for Rhaegar to command his armies. And when Rhaegar did return he had command, including the assignations of Aerys' personal guards (per Jaime's conversation about being allowed to join the army instead of staying to guard Aerys). Further, even at Harrenhal, when Aerys was upset by the KotLT's actions (which it seems he suspected to be Jaime operating in defiance of his orders), the man he put in charge of investigating was Rhaegar. When push comes to shove, Aerys goes to Rhaegar every time. Able and dutiful. Theories about internal antagonisms within House Targaryen seem to me to be flawed understandings of both smaller and larger pictures and based on a few relatively unimportant events.

Agreed, sort of. I think its generally a choice on the character's part (which is the Author's choice of course), to emphasize their status and to nail their colours to a particular mast, so to speak. I don't think its a random choice on GRRMs part. Targaryen>Velaryon Lannister>Baratheon (in Cersei's eyes).

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they did and got found out, recognised, whatever. Like Cat did when she ran into Tyrion at the Inn of the Crossroads. Myabe the didn't, and people knew, but the situation was misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented. I probably shouldn't throw this one in, but its cute and reasonable and fits with several other theories which I'm not convinced of but are plausible... Just for an example, among many other scenarios which are reasonably possible, is the possibility that the Grey Girl Mel saw in her flames was Lyanna, fleeing from Aerys' men - and Rhaegar rescued her from them and it was called kidnapping by them or others. The description of the scene Mel gives actually works much better for Lyanna near Harrenhal than it does for the obvious answer, Alys Karstark. People in this world (and social status) using clothing and symbols and colouring as identifiers. Never mind that Rhaegar Targaryen with his silver hair is readily identifiable even from a distance. Almost anyone who saw a silver haired man in black and red with dragon insignia with a young girl in grey with wolf insignia would know who they were, or know enough that others would identify them through the descriptions. plausible - I do not think it means what you think it means, at least by the way you use it. That too is one of the options I gave. Maybe, but also maybe not. Quite probably not, given he didn't do that. Its a bit pointless postulating some random possibility, that is possible, but not even likely let alone certain, that should lead to an action not taken. Multiple options here. I'll list just a few of them, there are plenty more for sure. Maybe he isn't worried by everything they could do. Just eliminating certain aggressive options. Maybe he wants Rickard and Aerys talking, and in agreement over something. Maybe that option wasn't available due to the circumstances surrounding their meeting? Maybe they tried that option and failed. Shit happens, happened to Catelyn for example. So? There is nothing in the text that indicates, let alone 'confirms', Aerys was in any place that Lyanna was ever at, even at disparate times, any time after Harrenhal. Yes, thats entirely possible for a long time, long after the relatively fast paced events that followed. No Twits in this world. No radio, no TV news, no internet, no Instagram etc etc. You go off the grid (not that there's even much of a grid!) for a month or two and anything at all can happen to anyone and you have no idea. And then even if/when you do find out, you may be weeks or months away from being able to intervene in any way, and the news you have itself may be months or more out of date making any attempt to intervene pointless. This is a pretty fundamental point. It astonishing that some people don't seem to be able to factor it in to their understanding of possibilities. Didn't he? He succeeded. We have no idea how long it took him and how difficult it was. Maybe months. And thats a determined effort by the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard on a mission from the King, not random people or news fnding its way to people trying to hide. Blah blah blah you have zero idea about what and why things happened. Guess what, Ned DOESN'T think they way you do. Which is a massive indication that your narrative is WRONG. Its that simple. Not according to your narrative, no. But you'll forgive me if, given all these characters not doing what they 'should' be, by your narrative, I'll not think very much of your narrative and work with a different narrative. Riiight. So its you who knows what happened exactly (and who knows what), and all the characters who aren't doing what they "should" (according to you) have it all completely wrong. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Only because the narrative is false. Aerys doesn't want to 'get rid of' Rhaegar. Rhaegar is his most ultimately dependable ally, He just doesn't get along with him all the time. Yes, sometimes he's suspicious and paranoid of Rhaegar. He's suspicious and paranoid of everyone. But he knows, underneath that, that ultimately Rhaegar is on his side compared to anyone else. As evidenced by him putting Rhaegar in charge of all his forces, even the KG deployments. The "doting" part is. You just made that up to misrepresent the rest. This was all out of fear and obsession, not extreme love. What battles or armies had anyone in Westeros led at the start of the Rebellion? Outside a few older men a long time ago, none. Certainly none by Robert, Ned, Jon Con or others. Neither a battle nor a great army, and no great "experience" for anyone. An entirely 'do nothing' event other than Barristan Selmy's one man action. You don't know that. You just assume that from a lack of direct information. Even if it were true, he has trained as a knight and a leader since he was a child, under the finest tutelage available. And excelled. He is born to this job, and has trained for it virtually all his life - much more so than Ned for example. JonCon was his squire, and that was qualification enough to command the royal army. Indeed. The point is, thats simply not the case. Your narrative fails the facts. So fix your narrative. Because the FACT s that Aerys DID give Rhaegar the army. Period. And yet that same default doesn't apply to Rhaegar who is older, more experienced, better trained, better qualified than both of them. Ah well.... I didn't see anyone else putting it forward here, just you. Did I miss something or was that a straw man? People are stupid, thats on them. You aren't discussing things with those people so their thoughts aren't relevant.. There are multiple options available. Do you actually want some of them explained again? Problem is, there doesn't seem to be any point. You just rant every time about how either the facts on the ground or other people's explanations of them don't fit with your failed narrative. Is explaining even one 'working' narrative worth my time, honestly? It feel like an enormous task, because I can needing to develop almost every side issue due to how interpretations are chosen, or not chosen by either of us. I can metaphorically see you in many places claiming "thats doesn't fit/make sense" purely because of how you have chosen various interpretations. Like the whole Rhaegar and Aerys being enemies thing, for example. They weren't, IMO, just allies, or brothers (or father and son!) occasionally at loggerheads. but definitely both on the same side vs anyone else! Nope. Its pretty straight forward. But it fits the facts and characterisations we have. It probably doesn't fit the assumptions you have, so you'll ignore it (or more likely shout it down) anyway. At least, thats my past experience. We agree there. Thats something at least! Sure it does. You just have to throw away preconceptions that don't fit. They almost always aren't facts, just interpretations of facts. Sure it does. There is no "fact" that says Aerys and Rhaegar were enemies. Only a few things that can be interpretated that way, but also can be interpreted as relatively minor differences. The image of two brothers fighting each other but instantly ready to defend each other against the whole world is a common one, just in this case its father and son. The whole 'distrust and paranoia' thing is vastly overblown IMO. Yes, there was some there at some times, because Aerys was mad and paranoiac and frequently listened to bad people, lickspittles and schemers etc. But only some times and never that deeply. Ultimately Rhaegar was always Aerys' greatest shield. His heir until he died, given command of all royal forces, including Aerys' KG. And would have been given command earlier too, if he cold be found. Agreed. Except there are no "facts" that fit that narrative. Only a tiny number of rather poor interpretations that don't fit with other facts. And plenty of things that contradict it. What does fit the facts are Aerys knowing nothing about ToJ or the KG (or Lyanna) there, but those KG still being loyal to him. And Rhaegar too. They were all on the same team. But Rhaegar was giving directions, not all of which Aerys knew the details of (not necessarily to harm Aerys, but to keep him from harming himself, or others). Remember how Jaime wanted to go to the Trident instead of Darry? It was Rhaegar he pleaded with, Rhaegar who made the decision. Not Aerys. Even in the Red Keep. Rhaegar had been put in charge,even over the KG and who guarded Aerys. And he made his decisions with Aerys in mind, not antagonistically toward his father. He left Jaime there as a crutch for his father that no other KG would have been.

Someone lied, someone saw something from afar without knowledge of what it was exactly, someone made wrong assumptions, someone (like Robert for example) just refused to believe any alternative. There are so many options that this isn't a reasonable question to ask at this stage. There is no necessity (or indication) that they did. So, again, this is not a reasonable question to be asking. There is no necessity or indication that they did. So, once again, not a reasonable question to ask. Because its isolated and they are unlikely to be found there - unlike Dragonstone. Because if their location is known then there is a predictable chance of a violent attempt to get her back or take revenge. A possibility that leads to major problems for everyone. Remaining hidden removes this option. Unfortunately, Brandon (whose place it was not) and Aerys acted with incredible and impossible to predict (at least on Brandon's part) stupidity and the situation turned into a disaster anyway. But, assuming the 'abduction' was necessary, what is the best way to keep things from getting worse? Remain hidden. Don't give the Starks a target. Force Rickard and Aerys to talk (action being unproductive given Lyanna and Rhaegar's whereabouts are unknown), with both in agreement (neither Aerys nor Rickard want Rhaegar and Lyanna together). And this is only one reason. There are other potential answers. The fact is, HE DID. Factor that in to whatever narrative you try to make work. Who says she is ok with the story - or even aware of it? No one. That situation happens when she is out of contact with events. She almost certainly doesn't know of it until after its all happened. So no, there is no indication she might be 'ok with it'. And it shouldn't have happened. There is no way Brandon should have ridden to the Red Keep, when Rhaegar (and Lyanna) weren't even there, and challenged Aerys in teh reckless manner he did. It wasn't his place, it was Rickards, and there was no positive potential outcome in the manner he acted. Because thats not what happened. Instead of assuming a stupid narrative, then complaining it doesn't fit, try working on a narrative that does fit. Thats not true, or at least a vastly overstated case. Aerys and Rhaegar have had issues. Off and on. Rhaegar is popular Aerys is increasingly paranoid. They sometimes clash. But they are not enemies. They are both Targaryens, committed to the Targaryen cause. Rhaegar is Aerys' heir. Because the accusation is an attack on the crown and House Targaryen. He's not a madman and not Aerys' enemy. He is in fact Aerys' most tightly bound ultimate ally. They just don't always get along. Except Viserys isn't his 'favourite'. Viserys isn't even in the realistic picture, being too young as yet to be involved politically. Rhaegar is still the ultimate hope and glory of House Targaryen, and Aerys, as evidenced by Aerys' actions. Aerys defends Rhaegar (by default) and ultimately puts him in charge of the Targaryen forces. The narrative that Aerys favoured Viserys over Rhaegar is bullshit. Viserys was only named heir after Rhaegar died At best Viserys was favoured over Rhaegar's kids (who had a 'dornish smell' or some such) and even that only happens after Rhaegar is dead adnd Rhaegar's kids are even less suitable age to be heir than Viserys. This is not known actually. Nor is it relevant. It is pure negative spite to support a narrative. Rhaegar has as much or more military and battle experience when he is given command as Ned or Robert did when they took command - almost certainly vastly more than Ned. At the beginning of a war, after a long period of peace, almost no one has experience. Thats the effect of peace. Once again, instead of creating stupid narratives that runs counter to the evidence, then complaining that the evidence doesn't make sense, try building a narrative that fits the evidence instead. Aerys gave command to Rhaegar. Thats what happened. Even the KG assignments were under his control, Thats what happened. Aerys even tried to give Rhaegar command earlier, but gave it to JonCon as 'Rhaegar-like' when Rhaegar couldn't be found. So given that these are facts, build a narrative that works with these facts rather than complaining about how these facts don't work with your narrative. Nope. Bullshit narrative again. Fix your narrative and these flase problems disappear. Or perhaps that act wasn't mad at all. Fix your narratve to fit the facts. And all that means, is that the story isn't right. FIx the story and all the actors act their part according to their viesws, actions and chracter and the whole thing is completely consistent. FTFY There is no evidence that disputes RL=J that stands up to any scrutiny. It is always, without exception, flawed and leads to clashes with the text. There is a lot we don't know. Its the assumptions made to fill in the gaps that screw up the narrative every time. Find the right narrative, it will fit all the known facts, and have all the characters acting with internal consistency. But if you are committed against some narrative or other, so refuse to fit to all the facts and characterisations, then you will fail. Every time.

Like I said, its been refuted so many times its ridiculous. But people ignore the refutation in favour of their own narrative.

By people pointing out the difference between apples and oranges. Changing from one bed (woman) to another bed (woman) once (potentially, not even yet), after relevant circumstances changes, is not the same thing as an inability to stop bed-hopping. She isn't talking just about sex. Robert's not even married yet, she has no claim over his bed, nor does any other woman. She's talking about character. Robert is faithless by character, and that won't ever (and didn't ever) change. Rhaegar is, from every source except Robert's blind hatred (and heck, not even Robert claims Rhaegar was sleeping around behind her back), faithful by character. Moving on, once, when an arranged marriage can no longer include (believed to be necessary - there must be a third head) procreation doesn't change the basic character. If she expects Rhaegar to stay in her bed, then she is consistent and not hypocritical. Whether she is right, is another thing entirely. People will disagree on that. A lot of people have already formed their own opinions on very limited information and without close reference to the text. As to the original question, we don't know for sure. But Ned thinks that Lyanna's wild nature led her to an early grave. In other words, in Ned's eyes, she was not purely a helpless victim of Rhaegar, but somehow her own choices and/or actions contributed to her fate. To what extent, we don't know. And he's not 'blaming' her, just noting that it was a contributing factor. Further, we have dying Lyanna, finally 'safe' in Ned's arms, clutching dead roses. And we know the crown Rhaegar gave her at Harrenhal was made of roses. And after more than a year, they would be dead. She died, clutching something significant, old, dead roses, by her own choice (clutching the dead roses, not dying). Not conclusive, but it seems rather coincidental to her crown. Hardly likely she'd have the crown as a close and valued thing on her deathbed if her relationship with its giver was as his victim. I think the evidence points rather strongly towards an elopement of sorts, though the details are utterly unknown. And the whole thing could be reversed by new, stronger evidence.

This has been refuted so many times its ridiculous.

This is simply incorrect. We don't know exactly when Jon was born. There is no 'latest date' timeline. The 'best' understanding we have places his birth some time p to a month after the Sack of KL but that can be extended out further by uncertain variables. Jon was born closer to 8 or 9 months or so (than a year or more) before Dany, per GRRM. Dany's birth was 9 moons after her mother's flight from Dragonstone, which was precipitated by the news of the Battle of the Trident. So Dany is born 9 months or more after the Trident, and Jon born approximately 8 or 9 months before her - in short, up to a month or slightly more after the Battle of the Trident. Thats not the 'latest date', Its the best approximation, which can be moved in either direction from various factors - for example, GRRM's response to the statement that Jon was born 'more than a year before Dany' was to say that it was probably closer to 8 or 9 months. Which might mean it was 8 or 9 months, or 7.5 say, or 9.5. Plus, as others have noted, we can't be sure exactly how long after the birth Ned arrived at ToJ. Lyanna had a fever, according to Ned and puerperal fever was historically a major cause of death in childbirth, before bacterial theory was understood. Death could occur days, weeks or months after the birth event. My understanding is that up to 10 days or so was most common, though longer happened too. Not that much. He went in haste to Storms End to relieve the siege there and accepted the surrender of the Reach forces there. There is no indication that he took a major force there ready to battle, so it could have been a smaller all-mounted force taking only a couple of weeks to get there and a day or two to conduct the business. Then we know nothing until he appears at ToJ with a tiny select band of personal retainers. That could be a week or two after relieving the siege, so possibly less than 1 month of the Sack. Well, since our best timeline, with a bit of room either way, puts Jon's birth at up to a month after the Sack, and Ned could have arrived within a month of the Sack, its even possible Ned could have arrived before/during the birth. More likely though, Lyanna suffered for a week or two and died shortly after Ned arrived. Note that thats all within fairly standard timeframes. There is room in either direction. Perhaps just as importantly, this all ignores GRRMS notoriously lax logistical efforts. Throw those in the mix and you've got even more space. ETA: Note @Megarova's calculations allow time for Ned to go to Starfall (I don't believe the evidence supports Starfall vs ToJ, but she disagrees) which is even further away from Storms End than ToJ is (travel time might be similar due to sea vs overland). GRRM specifically warns against calculating such logistics finely (because he doesn't, so can get things a bit wrong sometimes!), but they do give us a reasonable guide.

Umm, do you know of any singers who are not wandering philanderers? I mean, I know there are some, but thats the generic stereotype, frankly, and while stereotypes shouldn't be applied to any individual without specific evidence, they are formed for a reason... Its also not true. Dareon and Bael spring to mind immediately. Not as Pod's father obviously, but as wandering philandering singers, supporting the generic stereotype.

If its not a mistake, its because when Ser Allister used it he used it as a (mocking) formal title. Pyp used it for himself shortly after, echoing Ser Allister, and it was back to lower case, even with 'the' in front. I'd guess Pyp wasn't using it as a 'title' for himself, even mockingly, but mocking Ser Alister's use of it in effect. Hence the lower case. Lancel was 'a', not 'the', so always lower case. Formal (even mocking) titles get upper case, descriptions and less 'formal' uses of titles get lower case.

Why not? While Aerys was Mad, there was a basic rationality to his madness. Disrespecting the dead is a long, long way further than Aerys went and has deep implications that even he might be fearful of.

Yes, its in a dream, but in the dream Ned remembers the moment... Then we have Theon independently dreaming of a Lyanna whom he never met in what is clearly something of a 'sending' from the Stark spirits after he has taken Winterfell. Finally the worldbook - while not everything in it should be taken as 'fact' most readers are smart enough to understand that that doesn't mean nothing can be taken as fact. The act described here is a simple statement of acts with plentiful witnesses. This is exactly the sort of thing we should take as fact. What we should not take as fact from the world book is speculative information about ancient civilisations, legends, and myths, and opinions of the meanings of things, or the motivations of people. Such as this: Symond Staunton probably did suggest this to the king. But just because its reported in the World Book doesn't make it fact. Its still just the insinuations of one biased lickspittle. Perhaps. So we have a reported factual event with many witnesses. Supported by an eyewitness' memory, even though that memory is recalled within a dream. Further supported by a supernatural sending to someone who wasn't present. There's a reason its not 'questioned'.

Your disagreement with the reasons offered has nothing to do with their clarity or ease of understanding. They were offere, they are not complicated or difficult to understand. Get over it. I'm done with this little side conversation. Better things to do for both of us. Given Ned explicitly tells us that he kept his promises to Lyanna, its your position thats not exactly defensible here. If he kept the promises to Lyanna, then its clearly other promises, whether by him or by others, that are the broken ones that trouble him. His dream is about Lyanna. Its her crown. He thinks of the promises he =made her when he wakes, not the 'bloody promises'. In this case the two ideas, blood and promises, are separate things. While it might feel nice to link them, its implicitly counter-indicated when Ned tells us he kept his promises to Lyanna. But there are no broken promises mentioned in this passage. Ned can have other dreams of blood that are linked to broken promises. He doesn't link this one to broken promises and he tells us that he kept his promises to Lyanna. So we shouldn't link this dream to broken promises. I think there are fairly obvious connections there - to the promises he kept to Lyanna, and to at least one promise the current situation means he will obviously break, to Jon (who is likely the subject of one of his promises to Lyanna).

Thats a lie. Multiple explanations have been given multiple times. By me and others.

You directly lied about what has been said. The bullshit was earned. There is no necessity for that. More importantly, it never got that far in the dream. Agreed. Or its a responsibility he has and/or its more or less on the way anyway. But I think it likely he didn't know at that stage. Seems likely, but not certain. After he left KL at least, IMO. Agreed. That doesn't really fit with the dialogue. Ned speaks as though he's still not clear why they are here and weren't in all those other places. There is an unspoken question running through his dialogue in the dream. If he has Jon and has already found Lyanna and knows what they did and why, then his dialogue is nonsense. Thats also nonsense. Viserys being alive can't stop Robert being King, so neither could Jon being Rhaegar's son. No, No adding or inventing things. Its a dream about "Lyanna in her bed of blood", not "the promises he'd made to Lyanna in her bed of blood". As @SFDanny points out, Ned disagrees with you.

Just responding to what others have posited. If Ned already has found Lyanna, what is he doing with his friends in Dorne. There is nothing there for him any more. He should have returned to Winterfell already. Why is he bothering to fight the KG? Your scenario makes no sense either. Nope. This is not the dream about "the thing he retrieved from the tower and the sacrifices made to get it". This is the dream about Lyanna in her bed of blood. I've heard this 'argument' before. Its doesn't even have enough substance to be called hollow. I've explained why that utterly fails for me. There is a massive emotional 'event' right there and then - his friends dying. There is no way that 'event' gets 'overshadowed' by another event widely separated in time and space. For this dream to be about something bigger than 'my five friends dying' then the thing needs to be directly and immediately connected to the 3KiWC and aTLF. Otherwise this is the dream about his friends dying (with the 3KiWC and aTLF) and that other dream is about Lyanna in her bed of blood. Rude how? And by me. Actually, you do. You haven't, but you need to. One at least. "They' found Ned holding Lyanna. I'm not 'inventing', I'm fulfilling exactly the requirements of the text. Servants are speculatve. A wetnurse in particular is speculative but almost certain. And certain by the next known point. But someone, is not speculative, its certain. Wherever Lyanna died, someone other than Ned and Howland Reed was present. Other things place that death at the ToJ. And nothing, absolutely no thing (except bad reading comprehension), precludes the presence of someone else at the ToJ than Ned and Howland.

No, I don't think you understand it correctly. It being an old dream is important in that it goes a long way towards 'nullifying' the 'he's in a fever' effect that people (including a mischievous GRRM dodging an overly revealing question ) use to casts doubts on the dream. Its not just a 'fever dream', its a non-fever dream thats being repeated during a fever. But thats not the evidence that makes it a dream about Lyanna in her bed of blood, tying her death to the Tower. This old dream is one Ned knows well. I understand where you argue with @Ygrain that we don't know how many times the dream has been repeated in the past, or how recently it was repeated last, and thats technically true. But the relevant point is that before he even begins to describe the first scene, he knows this dream. He knows whats coming. He knows whats in it. He knows what its about. He tells us about it. This is 'that' dream, the one with X, Y and Z. He's recognised it immediately, before the elements of X, Y or Z have yet appeared in it. That tells us an enormous amount about the relevance, repeatability, and continuity of the dream even before we know a single thing of its contents. But the important thing tying Lyanna's death to the tower scene comes next, when he gives us his categorisation of the dream. His X, Y and Z. Its that dream, the old one with X (3 knights in white cloaks), Y (a tower long fallen) and Z (Lyanna in her bed of blood). This is like me saying to my kids, I'm going to tell you a story of Goldilocks and the three bears.. Goldilocks is the X and the three bears the Y (no z, 3rd element in this example). The kids know the story already, instantly, even before I start telling it, from the elemental categorisation, because its a familiar one. So with Ned, he knows this dream already, he has an elemental categorisation that uniquely (in his mind at least) matches it. So then, we know this is the dream of 3KiWC, aTLF and LihBoB. Lets then examine the elements Ned gives. 2 of them are rather generic and emotionless. A bit like 'the three bears'. They help, but they are not the key identifying elements, They don't have uniqueness and they don't have emotional resonance in themselves for Ned. Goldilocks is the real clue, the 3 bears is just there to help the identifying, in case there is more than one 'Goldilocks' tale. So with Ned. Lyanna in her bed of blood is the real clue. The 3KiWC and the TLF are just additional elements to help identify this particular dream about Lyanna in her Bed of Blood. Its actually interesting if you think about it. The dream parts we do see (its cut short remember, by Vayon Poole's interruption), are clearly directly leading to a different event of hugely emotional significance - the death of 5 of Ned's closest friends and companions. Yet this is not the dream about his friends dying. Why is that? I think the answer is very obvious. The death of Lyanna is hugely more impactful for Ned, it it greatly overshadows the deaths of his friends. And his finding her dying clearly happens very soon after the death of his friends to overshadow their deaths in a single event, even if it takes a day or two (possibly) for her to die after he finds her there. (I tend to think she likely died fairly soon, within hours at most, but its not really required by anything. More of a displacement effect thing than anything else - she's hanging on, then when Ned finds her and promises to care for her child, she can release her fight. Probably, IMO. But only GRRM knows for sure.) If the death of Lyanna was at another location (Starfall for example), there would be a lot of time and events and things happening between the ToJ scene and the imminent deaths of Ned's friends, and the deathbed scene of Lyanna in her bed of blood. He's torn down the tower. He's built the cairns. He's buried and mourned his friends. He's ridden off with HR. He's arrived somewhere else probably several days or weeks travel away. He's met other people there. Then, and only then, has he found Lyanna in her bed of blood. If thats the case, then the ToJ scene is about his friends dying, not Lyanna. Even if he found a necessary clue or piece of information that led him to her. 'Clues' in a trail don't create emotional traumatic ties the ways Ned does here. I don't see how any remotely reasonable person can tie Lyanna's death to the Tower of Joy scene as 'a thing' if so many other things have happened in between. There simply isn't the emotional tie-together that Ned clearly makes in that case. I do accept that people can have not thought this through in the same way (our brains don't all make the same connections and draw the same relationships) and so not make the connections to understand the relevance of what Ned says is a single sentence. But I simply can't unsee this. Its definitive. Probably, but not definitively. He's told us the key identifying elements, but the order of them appearing in his identifier is not necessarily time-lineal. they are just the things that signify 'that dream'. The prime reason we place Lyanna's death after the fight is that this is the dream about her death, based on memories, yet she hasn't appeared yet before the dream is interrupted. Plainly her death happens after the elements of the dream we do see. It is completely unreasonable for any significant amount of time (days or weeks to do the stuff Ned does and then travel to another location and interact with other people) to have elapsed between the fight and Ned finding Lyanna in her bed of blood. There are too many other events and happenings in between, including major emotional triggers to have such separate and unrelated elements tied together as 'a thing' the way Ned does. His dream then is not about 3KiWC, aTLF and LiHBoB. Its about a whole massive bunch of things too, or just 3KiWC, aTLF and "5 dead friends" Yes, There is nothing to not make sense of. He has a wetnurse - Lyanna would have needed one anyway so the KG almost certainly had arrangements of their own already (which incidentally fits perfectly both into 'they' finding him with HR and also the Starfall belief that Wylla-the-wetnurse is Jon's mother. She clearly was already nursing Jon when Ned arrived at Starfall, to give them that impression). He needs to deal with the bodies of his friends at least - and 8 is not much harder than 5. He probably needs to deal with Lyanna's corpse as well - he can't exactly carry that around long-term, rotting in the warm Dornish climate. He has HR and probably the wetnurse, maybe even another civilian or two (I prefer not, but don't know, some prefer a Maester like Marwyn). There is no immediate drive to leave, to rush to the next thing. A day or two to process, grieve, bury his friends and honoured enemies, is entirely suitable. It doesn't even do that. Its a dream about one thing, and one thing only. Lyanna in her bed of blood. Its not a chronicle, its a single significant event (only one emotional signifier in the classification) that starts outside the tower and is interrupted before making it inside the tower. Ned's classification of the dream absolutely contradicts your interpretation. So does everyone else. Its not hard. It wasn't fallen then. The KG waited before the 'round' tower, not the fallen tower or the crumbled tower. Ned pulled it down after the fight - he told us so. Its long fallen now, 15 years later. Bullshit. Multiple explanations have been provided. Well, if one sides lawyer tries his worst to state the other side's case, utterly botching the details along the way...

No, there doesn't. That has been explained ad nausem. (I had answers to more of your post above, but accidentally deleted them, so sorry this seems like a little piece of irrelevance on its own!) We can all imagine lots of things. What I note is that Ned never, ever thinks of Ashara Dayne. Not to protect. Not to forget. Not to remember, not to feel sad, not to feel happy, not in response to stimulus. Period. Even with direct stimulus, his emphasis is elsewhere - on Jon. the primary evidence is that Ned starts an old dream, one he's had before, not one just coming out of his fever, and before the first scene he recognises it and names its key elements. That dream is the dream signified by; the knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood. This evidence is not the content of the dream, it is Ned's instant categorisation of it. You may argue its not proof, but it is definitely evidence, very strong evidence. Further evidence, is Lyanna's scream within the dream. Although we don;t see Lyanna in the dream, Ned's mind placing Lyanna there as Vayon Poole's voice bleeds into his unconsciousness is evidence that Ned's mind places her there. I think this is quite strong evidence, but not as strong as the categorisation of the dream - the categorisation is 'old' and not fever-affected, the contents could be fever-affected. Supporting evidence includes Ned's recall of being found by HR with Lyanna, matching the 'only two rode away' being Ned and HR. HR is not placed in any other location. This would be uselessly weak on its own, but provides backup for the other evidence. Agreed This is false. The app includes things that there does not appear to be evidence of being 'widely known to the general public of westeros. Whereas the appendices only contain knowledge that is 'public' in Westeros. The app is based on the content of the 5 books, plus the D&E books. It is supposed to be a synthesis of our accumulated knowledge from those books, not the 'publicly available' knowledge in westeros. through its creation a small amount of new information was added, with GRRM's direct approval (one example being Hightower's mission to recall Rhagear, which was otherwise unknown, though vaguely implied through Hightower's absence in KL toward the end and presence with Rhaegar's 'crew' at ToJ For example, the app has a page for Aggo. Westerosi, don't know anything about Aggo. Or, try Anya Waynwood's page. The app tells us she is one of the Lords Declarent. That might be publicly known. But it also tells us that the Waynwoods are not as wealthy as might seem, and Baelish has been buying up their debts. Thats implicitly information not publicly known (or it wouldn't 'seem' that they wee wealthier than they are). Take Tommen Baratheon's page. He has three parents listed, Cersei Jaime and Robert. His page includes information hath his mother tried to frame Maegery for treason. We know that, but its not exactly public knowledge. Now, because not everything that we are told is always true, there will be some things in the app that are false - its nothing more than the synthesis of what we know from the books. That does not mean we invalidate information from the app, it means we treat it with the same caution we treat the canon information from the main books. If it is new information it mostly (there may be a few rare exceptions) could be synthesised from old information and has been approved by GRRM. It should be treated by the same standard as we treat the main series at least. IMO. 'new' information from the app is in one way more likely to be truth - its very being there is an indication that the synthesis of old information that it comes from is supported by GRRM. This is simply wrong.

What you have argued does not consist of evidence. You have not shown the necessity of the Silent Sisters being present at her death. In fact the un-necessary-ness of it has been shown by others. Therefore the idea that the lack of Silent Sisters at (or in the vicinity of) the ToJ constitutes 'evidence' that Lyanna did not die at the ToJ is false. Griffin's Roost passed to Ser Ronald Connington, Jon's cousin-Castellan when Aerys exiled Jon. Why would Ronald, who was not a courtier (being Jon's Castellan showed he stayed at home rather than spent time at court), support Lyanna hiding there when he owed his land and title directly to Aerys? Aside from the fact that Lady Barbra can't actually know that, just assume it, ashes can include bones. And flesh can be stripped by non-Silent Sisters. It is a coincidence, I wonder, that Jon dreams of Ygritte's bones being de-fleshed in hot water? (Barristan's thoughts tell us that the Silent Sisters use beetles). It is simply not a fact that the Silent Sisters must have been involved at ToJ. Ned could, for example, have taken Lyanna's body to Kingsgrave or Nightsong and had the Silent Sisters there do their work and send her bones north. That would offer one explanation of why the same was not done for all his companions - not that I think any explanation is necessary - see below. There are other answers. It is, but its also not that big a deal. Not with fire, rope, close to a dozen horses, vs a smallish watchtower. We know that he did not take an army to Dorne. We don't actually see it for men who died in honorable battle in any isolated area. We only see it done where its easy. Ned didn't think it a problem, or he wouldn't have 'assured' Lady Barbra that he husband died honourably and was laid to rest in Dorne. Jaime made polite mouthings to Lady Genna, but basically dismissed it in his head, thinking he'd find any old bones to send just to keep her happy. Thats an opinion. I don't think its well-founded in the text. If it was easy, he might have, sure, But the fact that he 'assured' Lady Dustin about her husband being laid to rest shows quite clearly that he didn't think he hadn't done right by his friends. Once we removed teh double negative, that means he thinks he did do right by his friends. I think thats the best reasoning for the name I've heard. Do not paraphrase falsely. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; GRRM's sentence structure (specifically the 'yet' tying the second clause directly to the first) explicitly matches the two to the seven-against-three. Any noncombatants are not included in the two. You are certainly too literarily competent to not understand this fact, so why omit this from the paraphrase? He did write that Ned's dream about the ToJ was explicitly the dream about Lyanna in her bed of blood.

No indication Oswell knew anything, just boasting that if they had been there, they would have killed or hurt Robert and/or crushed the rebel army singlehandedly. They understood the Trident reference. Their presence there would have caused Robert problems. Note its woe to Robert, not woe to Ned. Ned didn't say what happened there or whether Robert was there. They already knew though. More importantly, GRRM capitalised the word Usurper. That means its a title. Before Robert becomes King, hes a usurper (description), not the Usurper (given title). GRRM's choice of writing this shows us things in their mind that aren't purely indicated by the words they say alone. They know Robert is King now, even f they dispute his legitimacy, which means they know Aerys is dead, Rhaegar is almost certainly therefore dead, and the Rebels have won. The rest I agree, tells us nothing about what they already knew or not. If they know even that much, then they've had outside news relatively recently. And therefore they will know a bunch of stuff directly connected to that from the news source.

Nope. Ned provided that info complete. Nothing they said in response required pre-knowledge of it, unlike their earlier responses to more limited statements by Ned.

Agreed. Agreed. I wasn't intending to insinuate Aerys wanted to keep it entirely secret. And I am aware that the way I worded it made it look that way, sorry. I think when Aerys spreads the word, he's just gonna say Viserys is the new heir, not much more. I just don't think anyone else cares to 'spread the word' with anywhere like the same efficiency as the news of the Trident, the Sack and the deaths of the Targaryens would spread. I disagree. I think its clear that they really are quite isolated there, relatively speaking. I think its likely that news comes to them, not they go to news. Which means that they get news that their secret unknown outside support who knows where they are deems important enough to get to them in a no doubt difficult method (they are isolated and off the raven-grid - they could have ravens to fly out, but no one has ravens to fly in to them, so messages must be carried to them by hand. I am certain that the news of the Trident, the Sack, and stuff associated with that, like Jaime's betrayal, Aegon's murder, etc, came to them. Ned's conversation proves that and all of that is likely to be one 'packet' of information. I am substantially less certain that the news of Aerys naming Visery over Aegon came through to them. Thats a separate packet of information. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. That really depends on their outside source and what that source deems critical for them to know. Consequently, I can easily see how they know about the Sack, the Trident the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, but not know about the naming of Viserys as heir. Their conversation with Ned does not show that they are aware of Visery's status change the way it shows their awareness of the other things. Again, maybe they do, maybe they don't. But its not logical or even reasonable to me to insist that if they know one they must know the other.