R+L = J v 86

[Ygrain]

The recurrent troll(s) of joy :rolleyes: #joy

They can bleed up to 4 weeks (personal experience).

:agree:

And the bleeding can easily renew any time during the puerperium, which lasts 4-6 weeks (actually, the Czech term for it is six-weeks, and the woman is referred to as a six-weeker).

[Natasi]

I hate to be gruesome, and I'm sure it's been proposed before, but I thought of the possibility that Lyanna could have experienced tearing from front to back while giving birth to Jon. It's not uncommon, and through modern medicine most mothers are stitched up and free to begin the healing process in a safe environment. Lyanna would not have had that chance. Bleeding and obviously infection leading to fever would be a certainty if this had been the case. It wouldn't have been noted specifically because I'm sure Ned wouldn't have inspected his sister's nether regions, nor would he or anyone be surprised at a woman dying after child birth in Westeros (we have many examples) especially without any mention of a maester on hand.

Just wanted to give another plausible explanation aside from puerperal fever which some people seem unconvinced of.

[JoeyBanana]

I've got a question and it's indirectly related to R+L=J.

Lady Dustin mentions that her husband's bones were not returned and we know that Ned only brought Dawn to Starfall. However, Lyanna's remains were taken. So whatever transpired at the ToJ, it must have made it impossible for Ned to return the bones of the fallen KGs and his men. Otherwise, he surely would have done it.

What do you think? Is it simply to cover up the conspiracy or were there some secret survivors? Were the bodies destroyed? (by something crazy that HR did to save Ned maybe)

It is very unlike Ned to leave behind the much respected friends and foes in favor of Lyanna if there were transport issues.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, it just seemed like another hint to the ToJ incident being about more than Lyanna.

[stateofdissipation]

OK now you've completely lost me with dirty linens and delivering baby meant Ned had to look at it. I'm not sure but I think women continue to bleed days after their pregnancy. You can stretch your imagination and associate Ned's thoughts with delivering babies but you can't possibly accept the theory that there were 3 KG (including Mr stickler for the rules, Hightower himself) at the tower because they were in their minds fulfilling their primary duty as a KG in protecting an already born Jon, their King.

"bed of blood" in the series is a eupheism for childbirth.

Some have speculated that this term can be used to describe childbirth and the time around childbirth when the bed becomes bloody.-- if this is the case it means dirty sheets because a baby was born I'm not sure but I think women continue to bleed days after their pregnancy. That is true and makes----dirty sheets

one can simply look away from bloody sheets.. look at the ceiling,, look at the walls. If things get to be too bad, closing of the eyes works

If one is delivering a baby, looking away becomes far more difficult..

Ned is cleaning Ice after beheading a man. He does not think of blood.

Ned recalls the swordfight at the ToJ that killed 8 men. He does not think of blood

Ned sees Jory die in his arms from spear wounds. He does not think about blood.

--- not a complete list of times when Ned was involved in bloody situation without thinking about blood---

Ned remembers Lyanna. Ned thinks about blood.

Ned sees a baby, thinks of Lyanna and blood

Ned dies thinking of "blood and broken promises"

---again not a complete list of Ned associating blood with Lyanna--

You can stretch your imagination and associate Ned's thoughts with delivering babies

If by "stretch my imagination to associate," you mean provide examples in the text that relate to the situation at hand or that I can make my point without altering the meanings, without inserting terms I invent, and without attempting to use faulty source material.... Yes I can stretch my Imagination to associate.....The term "read critically" would be more apt than the one you used.

but you can't possibly accept the theory that there were 3 KG

I can accept most theories. However what you posted and I am disecting is a series of formal logical fallicies. Calling it a "thoeory" is not the first incorrect assertion and itis not the last.

(including Mr stickler for the rules, Hightower himself)

This is your characterization of the LC. your conclusion. That is fine,

The logical oo is that without the case you are trying to make you can't make the assertion. You inserted your conclusion back in to the argument.

(including Mr stickler for the rules, Hightower himself) This conclusion is based on 2 incidents (Jamies memory of the LC. and Ned's memory of the ToJ)

Without the showdown you are left with Hightower told Jamie: "you swore a vow to protect him not to judge him"

at the tower because they were in their fulfilling their primary duty as a KG in protecting an already born Jon, their King.

The KG were at the ToJ BEFORE, a baby, and BEFORE the deaths of 2 kings... I cannot accept that any effect comes before its own cause...

That because is nonsensical and offensive to reason,,,, it is a bad egg,,,

fulfilling their primary duty as a KG-- this is actually only an informal fallacy known as the No true Scotsman.... if you really would like to know you can look it up. Primary Duty--- is an unnecessary and it is fan fiction. It is added to conceal a gaping hole in the argument. We will get back to that

an already born Jon- without this element there is no theory based on the KG. It is both the basis and the conclusion of the argument. It also requires that we ignore that Jon was not born and Aerys and Ageon were not killed until after the KG arrived at the ToJ. It is not removed from the following because it is unprovable. It is removed simply to show how essential it is to the "theory"

We now remove the unnecessary to see the core of the argument primary duty as a KG in protecting an already born Jon, their King.

KG protect King....

But that is not true and pretty apparent. So we throw in the No true Scotsman,,,

The Primary Duty of the KG protect King

But that is not true and pretty apparent. So we throw in a baby and if we are clever anything else we can to hide the fact that the argument is fundamentally flawed

Primary Duty of KG to protect an already born Jon, King

That seems safe who would bother to check it out... too long and wordy...

..

[Ygritte]

And here's the part everyone forgets: it's an old dream. This is not the first time Ned has had THIS dream. This dream is repeating itself and has been since Lyanna died.

*nods* I just got to the Maggy the Frog scene in AFFC in my reread, and was struck by how similar some of the language around it was. It says Cersei's having an old dream. Her narration explains that some things are different from the way they happened in reality, but that most of it really did happen, and I don't see nearly as much energy expended on claiming none of that dream was true. :)

[BearQueen87]

I've got a question and it's indirectly related to R+L=J.

Lady Dustin mentions that her husband's bones were not returned and we know that Ned only brought Dawn to Starfall. However, Lyanna's remains were taken. So whatever transpired at the ToJ, it must have made it impossible for Ned to return the bones of the fallen KGs and his men. Otherwise, he surely would have done it.

What do you think? Is it simply to cover up the conspiracy or were there some secret survivors? Were the bodies destroyed? (by something crazy that HR did to save Ned maybe)

It is very unlike Ned to leave behind the much respected friends and foes in favor of Lyanna if there were transport issues.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, it just seemed like another hint to the ToJ incident being about more than Lyanna.

I think it comes down to time. He has a baby out in the middle of the mountains, some think with a wet nurse, but it's still the end of a war. He has to get somewhere safe. He just...doesn't have the time to arrange for travel for all his men. But he can bury them to prevent animals from eating them

[Ygritte]

I think it comes down to time. He has a baby out in the middle of the mountains, some think with a wet nurse, but it's still the end of a war. He has to get somewhere safe. He just...doesn't have the time to arrange for travel for all his men. But he can bury them to prevent animals from eating them

This. It says he pulls down the tower to build cairns for them (and I have trouble even envisioning the logistics of that!). There just isn't enough time and he doesn't have enough people to carry nine bodies, even assuming there were a handful of servants. He brings Lyanna's because it's part of what he promised her.

[BearQueen87]

*nods* I just got to the Maggy the Frog scene in AFFC in my reread, and was struck by how similar some of the language around it was. It says Cersei's having an old dream. Her narration explains that some things are different from the way they happened in reality, but that most of it really did happen, and I don't see nearly as much energy expended on claiming none of that dream was true. :)

Exactly. And the reason why we don't question whether or not the Maggy scene happened is because Cersei confirms it outside of her own dreams. Ned pretty much refuses to talk/think about ToJ except in his dreams where it comes back to haunt him.

[Ygrain]

*nods* I just got to the Maggy the Frog scene in AFFC in my reread, and was struck by how similar some of the language around it was. It says Cersei's having an old dream. Her narration explains that some things are different from the way they happened in reality, but that most of it really did happen, and I don't see nearly as much energy expended on claiming none of that dream was true. :)

Yes! The similarities are definitely there. IIRC, J.Stargaryen did an analysis of the two dreams but I don't recall if it was a separate thread.

This. It says he pulls down the tower to build cairns for them (and I have trouble even envisioning the logistics of that!). There just isn't enough time and he doesn't have enough people to carry nine bodies, even assuming there were a handful of servants. He brings Lyanna's because it's part of what he promised her.

Not to mention the logstics of transporting nine bodies in hot weather :ack:

Someone suggested that he might have put the tower to torch, that would make disassembling the structure way easier.

I hate to be gruesome, and I'm sure it's been proposed before, but I thought of the possibility that Lyanna could have experienced tearing from front to back while giving birth to Jon. It's not uncommon, and through modern medicine most mothers are stitched up and free to begin the healing process in a safe environment. Lyanna would not have had that chance. Bleeding and obviously infection leading to fever would be a certainty if this had been the case. It wouldn't have been noted specifically because I'm sure Ned wouldn't have inspected his sister's nether regions, nor would he or anyone be surprised at a woman dying after child birth in Westeros (we have many examples) especially without any mention of a maester on hand.

Just wanted to give another plausible explanation aside from puerperal fever which some people seem unconvinced of.

It is quite possible that Lyanna suffered extensive birthing injuries, but it still boils down to puerperal fever - infection contracted in childbirth as the killer. Of course, birthing complications lend credibility to "bed of blood" (though, as some of us can confirm from experience, one bleeds like a pig for days even if everything goes perfectly well)

[JoeyBanana]

I think it comes down to time. He has a baby out in the middle of the mountains, some think with a wet nurse, but it's still the end of a war. He has to get somewhere safe. He just...doesn't have the time to arrange for travel for all his men. But he can bury them to prevent animals from eating them

Then why does nobody go back and bring them home? He wouldn't even have needed to do it himself. Send some men or just tell Lady Dustin and the Daynes where the remains are, so they can retrieve his most trusted friends and the greatly respected Arthur. It seems kind of cold to leave those beloved men buried far away from their homes, especially with the Stark's tradition in the crypts. There's peace and all throughout the series we've been reminded of how important it is for high nobility to bury their own dead.

Unless Ned fears those families could possibly uncover a well-guarded secret. It increases his giult, too.

[Ygritte]

Then why does nobody go back and bring them home? He wouldn't even have needed to do it himself. Send some men or just tell Lady Dustin and the Daynes where the remains are, so they can retrieve his most trusted friends and the greatly respected Arthur. It seems kind of cold to leave those beloved men buried far away from their homes, especially with the Stark's tradition in the crypts. There's peace and all throughout the series we've been reminded of how important it is for high nobility to bury their own dead.

Unless Ned fears those families could possibly uncover a well-guarded secret. It increases his giult, too.

I actually think being buried in a cairn where one fell in battle is fairly common in the series. Jaime lies and tells (I think it was Genna?) that Cleos was buried that way; while he also lies that he's going to have him moved home later, there's a sense that the battlefield burial is respectable if not ideal. And it's in a rugged and remote location about as far from the north as you can get. The Daynes might well have gone and gotten Arthur's bones, as they're close; we don't know if they did.

[BearQueen87]

I actually think being buried in a cairn where one fell in battle is fairly common in the series. Jaime lies and tells (I think it was Genna?) that Cleos was buried that way; while he also lies that he's going to have him moved home later, there's a sense that the battlefield burial is respectable if not ideal. And it's in a rugged and remote location about as far from the north as you can get. The Daynes might well have gone and gotten Arthur's bones, as they're close; we don't know if they did.

Cat wants to do it on the Mountain Pass up to the Eyrie in aGoT; it shows respect for the dead and allows them the dignity to go unconsumed by animals. And I have no evidence to support this but it might be taboo to unbury the dead. At that point, they'd be rotting and unwashed, no silent sisters to attend them.

[UnmaskedLurker]

My theory is that Lyanna's death scene and the showdown at the ToJ are ambiguous.

If I start with a desire to see R married L, I will find it.

If I start to disprove it... I will disprove it.

If that is the case then all one can really prove is that he or she really wants to prove a point. The more levels you go down only shows how determined you are.

You called a spade a spade or a shovel as the case may be. You asserted you had good reason for thinking there was a wetnurse, while stating there is no explicit wetnurse.

I think R and L were in love I think J is their child

I think the KG at the ToJ prove something very important to R was there

I think the vow that LC explained was a vow to R to defend the tower

I think Ned was present for Jon's birth

I think Ned promised to raise Jon as his son

I think J is the prince that was promised

If I understand you correctly--and I am not sure I do because you spend more time sniping at other people's theories than making your theories clear--you agree with most of my conclusions (and the conclusions of the majority who have been addressing you on this issue). Specifically, it appears that you agree with us on the following:

1) R&L considered themselves to be married.

2) L gave birth to J in ToJ.

3) N promised L something in terms of keeping J safe (you say raise as N's son, although I am not sure the promise was that specific, but the exact wording of the promise is not that critical--what is critical is that N promised L something about J that has led N to let the world believe J is N's son even though J is L's son).

4) J is TPTWP.

Here is what I think we disagree about:

1) You believe--3 KG stayed at ToJ due to orders from R or to protect L (a "royal" princess) and had no care for J's well being. We believe--3 KG stayed at ToJ (after learning of death of Aerys and Viserys having gone to Dragonstone) only because they were fulfilling their duty to guard the king--Jon.

2) You believe--L was still pregnant during the showdown, and only after the showdown does L give birth in the presence of N and then dies shortly (or maybe immediately) after giving birth. We believe--L gave birth prior to the showdown (probably 3-10 days if the puerperal fever theory is correct) and was slowly dying and finally died shortly after the showdown in N's presence.

3) You believe--there is no evidence of a wetnurse or other servants at ToJ. We believe--a wetnurse (probably Wylla) and likely other servants from Starfall (or other friendly supporting location) were at ToJ giving assistance.

If I have misinterpreted your position, please clarify. I think I have distilled the basics of our agreements and disagreement. If my interpretation of your position is correct, then I am not sure our differences are as meaningful as I had thought. From the point of view of the significance for the rest of the series, I am not sure it matters whether J was born before or after the showdown or exactly why the 3 KG stayed at ToJ through the showdown or whether a wetnurse or other servants were at ToJ. None of these differences really would have any impact on the unfolding of the story. J would still be the rightful heir to the Targaryen dynasty. J could still be one of the heads of the dragon and TPTWP. So I am not sure why we are quibbling over details that really don't affect how the series unfolds.

But because almost no issue is too small for me to try to parse, I will give it a shot at explaining why I still disagree with you on the issues of disagreement outlined above (assuming, again, that I have correctly interpreted where we agree and where we disagree).

1) Why were the KG still at ToJ at the time of the showdown? While it is true that guarding other members of the royal family is consistent with their vows, royal family members other than the king can be guarded by non-KG only. The king, on the other hand, generally must have at least 1 KG assigned to him. Do you disagree with this proposition? The KG are required to obey the king's orders--not necessarily other members of the royal family. Not to say that if assigned to a member of the royal family, the KG don't follow that person's orders, the king's orders must prevail. I form my basic conclusion regarding why the KG were at ToJ based on the exchange between Ned and the KG. While the exchange is just a dream, and I agree that it is not necessarily a word-for-word recreation of the scene, it is in some respects even better. This is an old dream--one N has had many times before. It is the distillation of his understanding of what happened, and must be consistent with his understanding of the facts as he understands them now. So some detail may have been altered in his mind based on facts he learned later. My suspicion is that at the time he did not think "now it ends" but filled that in the dream based on his knowledge now that the KG all die. Similarly, I don't think that a sick L was yelling "Eddard" from the window, I think his dream being interrupted by someone calling him "Lord Eddard" got filled into the dream. But the exchange between N and KG must be consistent with N's understanding of the facts even if not a word-for-word recreation. In that sense, the dream is even better than a recreation--it is a summary of what N views is important from that day.

Here is the key part of the exchange:

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Based on this exchange, I just don't see how the KG could be doing anything other than guarding the king--Jon. If there was any doubt of what the KG knew before N arrived at ToJ, N is telling the KG that Viserys is on Dragonstone. He has already clarified that R, Aerys and Aegon are dead (I can re-print that part of the conversation if you need me to). So N is giving them an out--they can go to their king, Viserys, and N will let them pass (that is how I interpret N's statement). But the KG do not take N up on his offer. They say that KG do not flee then or NOW and that they swore a VOW. If J is not yet born, there is a 50/50 chance that J will be a girl--right? So at that point in time, if J is not yet born, at least one of the KG would have had to try to leave and get to V, who has a 50% chance of being king. If V is potentially king, then going to him is not fleeing. The words then or now are critical because they are saying that when V first left, Aerys was still king, so they could not flee to Dragonstone because the king was still on Westeros and these KG had other duties on Westeros (at ToJ). But they add the words NOW. That is very important (IMHO). They are saying that even after the death of Aerys, it would still be fleeing to go to V. It would not be fleeing if V is king or a 50% chance to be king. That statement--to me--only makes sense if they already know that J is king. Hightower then follows up with "We swore a VOW." If you look at what happened when Robert died, the KG believe that their duty is to go to the new king--Joffrey (they have no knowledge that Joffrey might not be the true heir). Following the old command of the dead crown prince (not even of the dead king) should not supersede the need to send at least one KG to guard V if V might be king. But following orders of the crown prince is not even one of the stated duties of the KG (guard perhaps, but obey, not listed)--although obviously in general they will follow them. It makes no sense that they would make such a big deal about not fleeing and following a vow if V has a 50% chance to be king, the only vow they would be following is an old order from a dead prince (guarding the princess L is only a duty if assigned by the king to do so, the KG cannot pick and choose when to guard someone else of the royal family other than the king).

You seem to believe that they are not fleeing and are keeping a vow because they swore to R to stay at ToJ and protect Princess L. You may find that plausible given the other facts I have outlined above, but I do not. I am not back-filling the evidence to fit a preferred theory (I really have no preferred theory). I simply am following the clues we have been given and making the most logical conclusions that make the most sense to me. I might be wrong--GRRM certainly has created enough ambiguity to go in your direction or a dozen other directions. But the clues he left lead me to believe the KG were guarding the king.

2) Was J born before the showdown? I really don't think I need any additional analysis. Everything that I put forth for point 1) is essentially the same evidence for my belief in point 2). J had to have been born prior to the showdown in order that the vow to protect the king was clearly a duty that the KG had to J and not V. Based on the puerperal fever theory, my best guess is J was born 3-10 days prior, but maybe longer under other theories (precise date of birth not really critical to my theory).

3) Was a wetnurse or other servants at ToJ? This issue is kind of pointless. As I noted above, the text clearly states that others were there, "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body, silent with grief." Who is the "they"? Someone other than Howland was there. At a minimum, some servants were there. Once you conclude that J was born prior to the showdown (as I have shown in 1) and 2) above), and once you think through the stories about Wylla being J's mother or wetnurse, the existence of a wetnurse at ToJ seems likely. J did survive while his mother was dying (assuming my conclusion about the birth prior to showdown is correct), so logic suggests a wetnurse was present. It is a logical deduction based on clues and other conclusion (not merely "made up out of thin air" as you suggest).

I don't expect to convince you, but hopefully this post clarifies our areas of disagreement and demonstrates the evidence (or at least the main evidence--there likely is more if I searched more) to support my conclusions. I admit that just because the majority on the board seems to agree with me does not make me right--you might be the small minority that read GRRM's clues correctly. But look at the clues again and consider the possibility that we are correct.

[The other prince]

*nods* I just got to the Maggy the Frog scene in AFFC in my reread, and was struck by how similar some of the language around it was. It says Cersei's having an old dream. Her narration explains that some things are different from the way they happened in reality, but that most of it really did happen, and I don't see nearly as much energy expended on claiming none of that dream was true. :)

It really comes down to individuals who did not catch the R+L=J in their reading having sour grapes. They don't want to admit (even to themselves) that they missed this. So they spend a lot of time trying to debunk it. Most people get fixated on one element of the theory thinking if they can just disprove this they have in some way disproved the entire theory. As an example the earlier poster who was trying so hard to argue that the KG would only have been at the TOJ because they were commanded to be, and not to guard the heir to the throne. What they miss is even if they could prove that the KG were there on orders and not to guard the heir, it still does nothing to disprove R+L=J. The fact that they have to try so hard to disprove only one portion of the evidence (leaving many, many others) should tell them something.

[The other prince]

Then why does nobody go back and bring them home? He wouldn't even have needed to do it himself. Send some men or just tell Lady Dustin and the Daynes where the remains are, so they can retrieve his most trusted friends and the greatly respected Arthur. It seems kind of cold to leave those beloved men buried far away from their homes, especially with the Stark's tradition in the crypts. There's peace and all throughout the series we've been reminded of how important it is for high nobility to bury their own dead.

Unless Ned fears those families could possibly uncover a well-guarded secret. It increases his giult, too.

I'm sorry, but what exactly does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Did Lady Dustin ever ask where they were buried? Could she not have had men ask around Dorne concerning a tower like this one? Sure she could but she didn't. What point are you making or trying to make with this?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Then why does nobody go back and bring them home? He wouldn't even have needed to do it himself. Send some men or just tell Lady Dustin and the Daynes where the remains are, so they can retrieve his most trusted friends and the greatly respected Arthur. It seems kind of cold to leave those beloved men buried far away from their homes, especially with the Stark's tradition in the crypts. There's peace and all throughout the series we've been reminded of how important it is for high nobility to bury their own dead.

Unless Ned fears those families could possibly uncover a well-guarded secret. It increases his giult, too.

Perhaps it's because they consider it disrespectful to dig up the dead?

[BearQueen87]

Perhaps it's because they consider it disrespectful to dig up the dead?

I think that's a big part of it. You don't disturb the dead; part of why what Lady Dustin wants to do to Ned's bones is so vile. It's revenge, but it's also really disrespectful.

[JoeyBanana]

I'm sorry, but what exactly does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Did Lady Dustin ever ask where they were buried? Could she not have had men ask around Dorne concerning a tower like this one? Sure she could but she didn't. What point are you making or trying to make with this?

Returning bodies and burying your death is a big deal for Westerosi nobility. Ned, who is all about honor and duty, just biulds some cairns and tells nobody how they died. His five most trusted and loyal friends, and the KGs, of whom we know he respected greatly. We don't even know if he told anybody about Whent or Hightower, much less if anybody knows where all of these men are buried. Now, why would Ned do that? It's because the location/dead could make some quite powerful and influental lords suspicious about Jon (or potentially other theories like Dayne being alive).

I admit, it's more likely that digging up the dead is a huge no-no in Westeros and the location is widely known amongst aforementioned lords.

[Alia of the knife]

I agree that Ned may have burned the Tower down to better dismantle the structure, but do we know for sure that Lyannas bones are in the crypt?

While there were no forensic scientists then, maybe he was more concerned with destroying any evidence, especially if Robert had insisted on seeing Lyannas body, and just transported back the evidence of Jons parentage, hiding them under the guise of her tomb.

After all, just how long would it take to prepare her body as the Silent Sisters would do for transportation back to WF?

Ned burning her body within the confines of the TOJ may have been in line with Targaryen tradition. A woman may remain who she is, but she is seldom sent back to her home at death as many of the ladies of House Stark would not all have been Starks before marriage.

[BearQueen87]

Returning bodies and burying your death is a big deal for Westerosi nobility. Ned, who is all about honor and duty, just biulds some cairns and tells nobody how they died. His five most trusted and loyal friends, and the KGs, of whom we know he respected greatly. We don't even know if he told anybody about Whent or Hightower, much less if anybody knows where all of these men are buried. Now, why would Ned do that? It's because the location/dead could make some quite powerful and influental lords suspicious about Jon (or potentially other theories like Dayne being alive).

I admit, it's more likely that digging up the dead is a huge no-no in Westeros and the location is widely known amongst aforementioned lords.

But he can't really tell anyone about that battle because it raises a lot of questions. For example:

(to the families of the knights who died with Ned at the ToJ)

"Your families died fighting the KG"

"why were the KG there?"

"They were guarding my sister, Lyanna"

"But why didn't they go with Rhaegar"

*crickets*

"Or why didnt' they flee to Dragonstone with Viserys?"

*crickets*

"For that matter, why weren't they with the king? We know Rhaegar left your sister in the tower"

*crickets*

"Why did you go to Starfall afterwards?"

"To return Dayne's sword"

"Why? He was keeping your sister in a tower so she could be raped."

*crickets*

"You can't possibly consider him a good knight after that."

*crickets*

See what I'm getting at?

Lots of questions, lots of secrets, plus taboo of messing with dead bodies (if there is such a taboo in Westeros, I assume there is).