Bael's Bastard

20 hours ago, HugorHell said:

"Official" also has a fairly specific meaning to Martin that we can figure out.

The reader knows, and has known since AGOT, that Cersei's children are not Robert's.  It's a fact, not subject to debate, because Cersei openly admitted it when accused by Ned.

But that fact is only known to the reader and a select few characters in the books.  It is not known to Westeros at large.

So if four books later, the ADWD appendix still lists Joffrey and Myrcella and Tommen as Robert's children, what does that mean? 

It means that the appendices are not supposed to reflect either objective truth or the knowledge in the reader's mind.  They only reflect the knowledge in the minds of the general public of Westeros (which isn't privvy to what the reader has learned).

It seems very likely that that same rule also applies to the new information in the app.  And what the general public "knows" is not always going to be correct.  (Though it is an interesting area of investigation how the public came to "know" it in some cases.)

So for instance the app says Jon has five siblings: Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Rickon.  That is what is known to the public. 

But of course, all five of those statements are false if R+L=J.  The app and R+L=J thus contradict each other, and those among us who believe R+L=J are already dismissing what the app says, because there is no other logical choice if we are going to believe R+L=J. 

So we cannot then say that different information in the app is evidence in support of our fan theories.  We have already, in dismissing Jon's sibling info, admitted that app information is only evidence in support of what people in Westeros "know."  Which isn't the same thing as fan theories at all.

Of course.  And if the family tree had ever been meant solely for him, it would obviously have remained solely for him and would not have been shared with anyone at all. 

Does the family tree say that Jon is Ned's bastard? I bet it does.

The difference between stuff like Jon being listed as Ned's bastard/Cersei's kids being listed as Robert's children and Lyanna's place of death is that there is no hint Westeros knows or believes Lyanna died at the TOJ.

The only suggestion it might have occurred there is in the fevre dream of one of the few characters that witnessed Lyanna's death. Which is why we have good reason to think that is where it occurred.

Could the dream be conflating things that occurred at both the TOJ and Starfall? Sure. And the vague statements that Lyanna died in the Mountains of Dorne perhaps keep both possibilities alive.

But for now, we have no reason to think the realities the contents of Ned's dream are based on are common knowledge to Westeros like Jon being Ned's bastard is.

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

 I agree there are several ways to deal with a body or prepare it for transportation.  I think it's highly probable that Lyanna's body was turned over to the Silent Sisters and that she didn't die at the ToJ.  That explains to me who 'they' might be.  Frankly,  I don't even know why the ToJ narrative is necessary to the overall premise.  Removing it doesn't change anything except that she dies somewhere else.  I don't see why that can't be Starfall or that this would contradict Rhaegar's intentions at all.  It make more sense to me that he would keep her in a safe place with attendants at Starfall.  Especially since Arthur Dayne is his close confident and friend.  Otherwise, I have to think of him as a cruel and callous character.  And I don't think he was that at all.

Edit:  Here's what Lady Dustin says:

While I am completely open to the possibility that Starfall had major involvement, I don't think we can just extrapolate that from Rhaegar and Arthur being close friends, and Arthur's brother being Lord of Starfall.

We know the connections between families don't just magically sever when someone joins the KG, or NW, or whatever. Hence the rumors about Whent and his Lord brother re: the Harrenhal tourney, and Rhaegar's alleged informal great council.

But during a literal rebellion where the king and prince have at best an on and off strained relationship, but possibly a much more strained relationship especially once Rhaegar goes missing with Lyanna, helping Rhaegar could mean House Dayne and Starfall being wiped out.

Let's also remember that Rhaegar had a number of likely noble companions with him when he set out. Not only the younger brother [and perhaps sister?] of the Lord of Starfall, but very likely the Lord of Griffin's Roost as well until some time before the Battle of the Bells, which is also relatively close to Rhaegar's favorite place Summerhall. We also don't know where Lonmouth was located, or whether he was among Rhaegar's companions during the abduction. It's not as though all of this is happening in some part of Westeros that Rhaegar and his companions are completely oblivious to.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I read that as “she-moose”.

Same

Does anyone think it likely that the same person informed Ned both that Lyanna was at the TOJ and that Rhaegar had called it the Tower of Joy? 

Is the "Starfall" theory that Ned found both Lyanna and Jon at Starfall, or that Ned found Lyanna at the Tower of Joy and then recovered Jon at Starfall?

To those who believe Lyanna and Jon were at Starfall when Ned met them, why do you think the KG were at the TOJ? Did they merely intercept Ned there on his way to Starfall, or what?

16 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

How much time passes in Dance?  Is it 301 yet?

(We know Joffrey died on New Years Day 300, so has a year passed yet?)

Not sure if this has changed, but based on @Ran's comment, we are presumably at least six or seven months into 300 by the end of ADWD?

It's really not logical, but assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions. No indication Rickard made it anywhere near Riverrun, on the contrary since Brandon was only on his way back to Riverrun when he heard about Lyanna.

A bunch of baseless speculation. We have no idea where Ned was when Lyanna was kidnapped, only where he was after his father was murdered quite a while later. For all we know Ned and the rest had joined Rickard's party on their way down from the North, and were only sent back to the Eyrie when Rickard, Jon, etc. were summoned by Aerys.

Yandel's primary source for the reign of Aerys II was clearly Pycelle, who was present through to the sack, so there's no need to wonder how Yandel learned of Viserys, whether or not it was widely known, or there was some major public ceremony. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. But Yandel knows what he knows, or thinks he knows, from Pycelle.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I have no doubt Rhaegar's death at the Trident goes far and wide across Westeros as fast as word can travel. Be that by raven or courier or word of mouth by people gossiping about the shocking news.

Nor do I think Aerys is likely to make his announcement of Viserys as his heir is some kind of closely guarded secret. Secret heirs are almost a contradiction in terms - Jon being a possible exception to this rule for obvious reasons discussed over and over again in these threads. Aerys also has the added motive of punishing the Dornish for his belief of their betrayal at the Trident. Aerys wants everyone to know he names the next king, not people disrespectful of his wishes or interests contrary to his. We have the example of both Robb's naming of Jon as his heir and asking his bannermen to witness his decree, and of Viserys I Targaryen calling his vassals to court to pledge their support of his daughter. Aerys has every reason to do the equivalent concerning his young son Viserys. Meaning to make it as widely known as he can under the circumstances.

The question is really, to me anyway, is the Tower of Joy so remote and without sources of information that the three Kingsguard don't know the news of the naming of Viserys. I find it hard to believe they are. Not only does Ned's dream seem to reflect his belief the Kingsguard knew of Aerys's death at the hands of Jaime, but they look to have known about Rhaegar's death, the surrender of the besiegers of Storm's End, and that Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem are at Dragonstone. If Ned's dream is by and large mostly true, as I think it is, it makes if likely the news of Viserys as the new heir is also known at the Tower of Joy.

On top of this is the skills of the Kingsguard at the Tower. Both Hightower and Dayne, at least, are skilled military commanders who are unlikely to have left themselves with no sources of information from the outside world. Nor does the nature of the partisan political battles between Aerys and Rhaegar likely mean that Rhaegar has no supporters in the area of the Tower.

It does raise questions about the motivations of the Kingsguard. I've laid out my arguments of what I think those motivations are likely to be in my signature, so I won't repeat them here.

I agree, I think we must accept a few likely facts:

1. The 3 KG likely remained at the TOJ at the command of Rhaegar (the LC had been commanded there by Aerys, but IMO, remained at the command or persuasion of Rhaegar).

2. The 3 KG had already learned the info Ned questioned them about.

3. The LC of the KG was completely loyal to Aerys's kingship until his death.

4. All 3 KG fought to the death at the TOJ anyways.

8 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

 

Those insinuations tend to be based on a sense of elitism ("I know better"), rather than on the actual reading of the text.

Yup, the "elitist" who started reading long after RLJ had been solved, who found out about RLJ on the internet, not on their own, so refuses to accept it, and is obsessed with figuring out the "real" truth, which amounts to a bunch of terrible, baseless theories

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Not if he specifically wanted to lead the reader to a wrong conclusion.  

Clearly he can smack some readers in the face with the right conclusion and they will still stretch for a wrong one

6 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

No I’m pretty clearly right on this one.  A repetition of a phrase in two different scenarios makes for a good theory.  It does not create a confirmation.  And you didn’t answer my question.

According to the quote beds of blood equates to short-lived children.  Did Lyanna give birth to a child who only lived a short time?

You're embarrassing yourself, stop while you're way way behind.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Perhaps I need to reread the definition of confirmation, but I don’t this this serves as a confirmation.  There are numerous ways that beds can become bloody.

Robert died in a bloody bed and even extracted a promise from Ned, just like Lyanna.  That isn’t evidence that Lyanna died of a wound from a boar.

I think the parallels make it a good theory, but it’s not a confirmation.  After all if the intent of the author is to lead us to the wrong conclusion, then this is one way he might accomplish it. 

ETA: And if we’re going to try to parallel the quote, does that mean that Lyanna’s child would have been “short-lived”?

Nope, try again, and do better.

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Well you are making an assumption that Lyanna was lying in a birthing bed.  And while I think that’s a pretty darn good theory based on what we’ve been presented it is still a theory.

After all we have Dany feverish and bleeding at the end of ADWD and it had been quite a while since she had been pregnant.

No, she isn't making an assumption. The only other references in ASOIAF to "bed of blood" and "bloody bed" are exclusive to the birthing bed. This is clearly the implication of GRRM's use of "bed of blood."

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

You will have to explain how AFFC “confirmed” that Lyanna was lying a birthing bed.

AGOT and AFFC confirmed that "bed of blood," "bloody bed," etc. refer to childbirth in ASOIAF. Thus, references to Lyanna's "bed of blood" clearly refer to her giving birth.

59 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Well to be fair, then we "think this" as opposed to "know this".  First we have to assume that Lyanna died as a result of childbirth.  And even with that assumption we can't assume that she died immediately can we?  After all Elia was bedridden for about six months after one of her pregnancies.  Lyanna's health could have been shattered from her pregnancy but perhaps she didn't succumb until months later.  And I suppose depending on the timing, Lyanna's death bed could have occurred after a second pregnancy.

Lyanna died in a "bed of blood," or birthing bed, as confirmed by AFFC: The Prophet and AGOT: Daenerys VII.

Not sure how long you're proposing Lyanna survived after giving birth, but I doubt it was more than a few weeks.

I don't get the impression Jon knows much of anything about his birth

3 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

How do we know this?

Whether Lyanna died of excessive bleeding or fever as a result of the pregnancy, there is only so long after Jon's birth she's likely to have lived.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Humor me for an instant, and for the sake of argument, let’s assume that for whatever reason Viserys is full of crap or just very wrong about Dany being born the 9 moons after they fled Dragonstone.  

Or to make it even easier, forget Dany’s conception or birth for the moment.

Do we have any information from whatever sources to indicate how long before the Battle of the Trident that Aerys burned Chelsted?

Not exactly. It was before Rhaegar left. It took Ned two weeks to get from Trident to KL at a fast pace, so presumably took Rhaegar that or more depending on his pace. Then we don't know how long he was by the Trident before the battle. Hours, days, more?

But we know Jon was recently born when Ned "found" him, probably a month or more after the Sack of KL, depending on whether it was at the TOJ or Starfall. And GRRM tells us Dany was born closer to 8-9 months after Jon than a year.

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Not sure why this is.  The Fisherman's daughter story would have Jon's conception occurring after the start of the war.  The war had waged close to a year when the Sack of King's Landing occurred.  

The Battle of the Trident occurred before the Sack of King's Landing.

Dany's conception occurred before the Battle of the Trident.

It all kind of depends on what Ned means when he says close to a year doesn't it?

And if you are going to rely so heavily on GRRM's quote about Jon's age, you have to agree to live by it when it disproves other parts of your theory as well.

After all, doesn't that quote pretty much ensure that Jon has to be older than Robb?

If Jon was born at the time of Dany's conception, then he was born prior to the Battle of the Trident.

Robb was conceived after the Battle of the Bells.  

Are you saying that more than 9 months elapsed between Ned and Cat's wedding and the Battle of the Trident?

The Fisherman's daughter story would place Jon's conception within the first two or so weeks of the war, which would presumably place Jon's birth well before Dany's conception.

GRRM's statement indicates that Jon's birth could have occurred as much as a month if not more after Dany's conception, which seems to have occurred just before Rhaegar took Jonothor and Barristan and left for the Trident, two or more weeks before the battle.

The time between the BotB and BotT appears to have been considerable. Not sure anything rules out the possibility that it could have been as much as nine months between the BotB and BotT. 

I highly doubt it took Ned 2-3 months to get from the Vale to Winterfell to Stoney Sept. The war had already started, Robert was on his own, and I doubt Ned waited at Winterfell very long for all his bannermen to join him before heading south.

Whatever the case, Ned and Cat clearly know how much time passed after their wedding, and the idea that Jon was conceived after obviously isn't implausible, whether or not it's actually the truth.

Though I acknowledge that Cat actually says Ned called him "son," and I could totally see Ned calling Jon son, avoiding phrases like "my son," and in his mind walking a tight line.

@Frey family reunion

Cat's POV tells us Ned called Jon his son for the whole North to see. So even though he used "my blood" in that particular, and IMO telling, conversation with her, I don't think it's safe to assume he never called or referred to Jon as his son, and just depended on everyone to assume it and craft a story for him.