Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I don't know where you are getting the "we know" stuff. We do know that the Tourney at Harrenhal, in the Year of the False Spring, lasted ten days. It is in the books. IIRC, it was an SSM, not a book.. But 10 days indeed. As to the "We know you don't have to enter the lists every day".. Duncan knew he could enter the lists on three days.. He decided not to do so until the third. And the Knight of the Laughing Tree was allowed to participate while the jousting had already been occuring, IIRC.. I guess it might depend on the rules that the host decides on, but it seems logical, since the tourneys like Ashford and Harrenhal drew a lot of people, and thus a lot of participants. It might not even have been possible to let all participants ride once the first day, so I guess it's possible that there are a few days for "round one", whether you decide to ride once in it, or more times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Rhaegar tried to call a Great Council. He didn't go through with it. The fact that the king was neither invited (and neither was his Small Council), nor gave his consent to this council, would have made it illegal in the eyes of the Crown. And, in turn, this would have been enough to declare all the lords traitors who assembled there. Not to speak about the fact that many lords there would most likely have not taken the side of the son over the absent father. That would have been a very dangerous precedent. I'm very confused by your first two sentences. He tried but didn't go through with it...what? It would have made it illegal in the eyes of Aerys, but if they overthrow him, then who cares. Who is going ot declare the lords traitors? Rhaegar? He invited them. ETA: didn't the jousting last 5 days at Harrenhal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlan of Pennytree Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Accepting the word of Varys and the Mad King's delusional paranoia is a stretch. I think a more logical question is why would Varys manipulate Aerys into leaving the Red Keep? His agenda has never been so straightforward, why would it be here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Rhaegar himself told to Jaime 'that he wanted to do something long ago'. Either a Great Council, since Great Council's seem to happen at Harrenhal all the time, or even more open treason (trying to get some lords to support him an rebellion against his father).Things should make more sense eventually. More books are going to come out... On the unclear part: Rhaegar did not go through with his plans for a Great Council/a conspiracy/a rebellion. When Aerys decided to tag along to Harrenhal he did exactly nothing to try to convince the lords to back him over Aerys and/or to gather support to depose him. Instead, he fell in love and made a fool of himself, and eventually caused the downfall of his whole house. Not exactly a great plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandywinder Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well thought out as it is, this R=L=J theory does not convince me. If it were true, why in seven hells would Ned try to pass off the child as his own, thus humiliating Cat and giving her a huge grievance against him and Jon? Why not for instance say that the child was that of a friend who had died? Surely his sister would have accepted that? Jon would have been better treated had that been the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well thought out as it is, this R=L=J theory does not convince me. If it were true, why in seven hells would Ned try to pass off the child as his own, thus humiliating Cat and giving her a huge grievance against him and Jon? Why not for instance say that the child was that of a friend who had died? Surely his sister would have accepted that? Jon would have been better treated had that been the case. He would then have to explain why Jon looks like a Stark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Sandywinder, If Eddard would come home with a baby and tell Cat that it's the child of a friend who died, she'd just think it's Ed's bastard anyway and that he doesn't even have the decency to fess up, but is trying to tell some silly lie about it. Exactly, because it disgraces himself it becomes more believable. Who is going to doubt the veracity of the claim that he disgraced himself and strayed and ended up with a package because of it? Also, it would have been clear then, even with Jon no older than a baby, that he'd have the Stark look. So, how is he supposed to claim: "Well, he looks like a Stark, but he's my dead friend's child, I swear"? And then he'd have to sully the dead friend's name and family on top of that. Aside from that, the smarter ones around might do get the notion that if it isn't Ed's, then it might be Lyanna's, and Ed wouldn't want to risk anyone going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well thought out as it is, this R=L=J theory does not convince me. If it were true, why in seven hells would Ned try to pass off the child as his own, thus humiliating Cat and giving her a huge grievance against him and Jon? Why not for instance say that the child was that of a friend who had died? Surely his sister would have accepted that? Jon would have been better treated had that been the case. He had Benjen available... why not pass it off has his nephew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Ned wanted to raise Jon as a Stark of Winterfell, alongside his own children...something he couldn't have done had he claimed the baby wasn't his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 He had Benjen available... why not pass it off has his nephew... Because Benjen hadn't left Winterfell and everyone there (including the scullery maid) would have known his whereabouts, his goings, and who he was with. And he'd have to inform and include Benjen in the secret. It seems to me that trying to pass it off as Benjen's child would have been more of a disgrace to Eddard than as his own. He made the promise to his sister and had taken up the responsibility. IMO it would have been cowardly to then pass the blame and burden on Benjen instead. Remember the opening scene where Eddard explains to Bran why it had been Eddard doing to execution. It simply seems out of character for Eddard to scapegoat somebody else but himself for Jon. If somebody had to be scapegoated, then Eddard would make himself out to be the one to blame, not someone else. And while Eddard would have expected Cat to dislike him for his errors, how could he have suspected she would harbor such long term resentment against the only true innocent person in all of this - Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well thought out as it is, this R=L=J theory does not convince me. If it were true, why in seven hells would Ned try to pass off the child as his own, thus humiliating Cat and giving her a huge grievance against him and Jon? Why not for instance say that the child was that of a friend who had died? Surely his sister would have accepted that? Jon would have been better treated had that been the case. Also, Jon wasn't mistreated at all. He was, in fact, treated better than most bastards ever were, and was even raised alongside the heir to Winterfell as his brother and best friend. Ned loved Jon, and Jon was given everything his brothers and sisters were given. It was very, very strange for any bastard to be given such station within a family alongside trueborn children, but people believed it because Ned claimed to be his father, and it was believable that Ned was so honorable that would go so far to care for a bastard child. Catelyn ignored him for the most part and only ever said one bad thing to him in all of his years of living there...and it was due to the fact that her son was near death, so it's understandable. We learn from her POV that Ned's wrath is only ever invoked when it comes to Jon, so she knew very quickly not to press the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlan of Pennytree Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 He had Benjen available... why not pass it off has his nephew... I don't think he would dishonor his brother by lying about a lie. "Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses" Chekhov's gun? "Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust" Chekhov's gun? "He had lived his LIES for fourteen years, yet they still haunt him at night." Chekhov's gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well thought out as it is, this R=L=J theory does not convince me. If it were true, why in seven hells would Ned try to pass off the child as his own, thus humiliating Cat and giving her a huge grievance against him and Jon? Why not for instance say that the child was that of a friend who had died? Surely his sister would have accepted that? Jon would have been better treated had that been the case. No Lyanna would not have accepted that. Jon isn't just her son but very probably Rhaegar's heir since L and R were most likely married. He has to be kept utterly safe from Robert. Also are you basing your disbelief on just Cat's reaction? Something Ned couldn't predict or at least had hoped to avoid? What else leads you to believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna aren't Jon's parents? He had Benjen available... why not pass it off has his nephew... Because Ben is much younger and was at Winterfell for the entire RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Rhaegar himself told to Jaime 'that he wanted to do something long ago'. Either a Great Council, since Great Council's seem to happen at Harrenhal all the time, or even more open treason (trying to get some lords to support him an rebellion against his father). Things should make more sense eventually. More books are going to come out... On the unclear part: Rhaegar did not go through with his plans for a Great Council/a conspiracy/a rebellion. When Aerys decided to tag along to Harrenhal he did exactly nothing to try to convince the lords to back him over Aerys and/or to gather support to depose him. Instead, he fell in love and made a fool of himself, and eventually caused the downfall of his whole house. Not exactly a great plan... I agree that there are a lot of unclear parts but how do you know that he wasn't meeting with lords in their tent in private? Maybe he met with Oberyn first and talked out some of his plans. And how do you know he wasn't plotting in those months in between Harrenhal and running off with Lyanna? And you just placed all the blame of Rhaegar....what about Aerys? What about Brandon's rash actions? And how do you know that Rhaegar didn't have some sort of plan in place that got messed up because of other events? Like you said...we have more books coming and I'm 100% sure that Harrenhal and the events 1 year later are going to resurface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I don't think he would dishonor his brother by lying about a lie. "Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses" Chekhov's gun? "Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust" Chekhov's gun? "He had lived his LIES for fourteen years, yet they still haunt him at night." Chekhov's gun? good thing we know about chekhov's gun.. nice to see the quotes too.. Ned's lies were related to his promise to Lyanna. chek. That must be essential to the story. chek. Sadly Chekhov's gun is not required to shoot the character you dislike most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 A very ironic quote from Tyrion's pov about Jon when they are on their way to the Wall, when Jon asks Tyrion why he's reading so much: He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeyed chicken Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I wouldn't say it's hubris...but I think it's better to say that the theories behind R+L≠J are pretty weak in comparison. The evidence behind those theories mainly rests upon gossip or what Ned told someone else. But if you try to go further with them, as in actually find facts, they tend to fall apart. Most of them fall apart just by simply asking "Why didn't Ned tell Jon?" Ned didn't tell Jon because he is Jon's father as Jon already knows. And Lyanna is his mother, which he can't tell him. Corbon ((I should have multi-posted, but I'm editing this in instead)): No it is not. The question was asked, "what are the counter-theories?" and the answer really is that there are none. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be any, or that everything might not change entirely with new data in the next book, just that there are no theories yet espoused that have the solidity to be called an alternative. They all, so far, have enormous and fatal flaws. My reply: I look at it differently. R+L=J is too obvious. A good writer (which GRRM is) doesn't give away the central mystery that soon (what was it, p.450 out of 4,500 when we learned of the toj?). Any writer worth his salt makes the false lead (which is what I suspect R+L is) more convincing than the real one. My only question at this point is how far into ADOS will I have to read to finally know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 My reply: I look at it differently. R+L=J is too obvious. A good writer (which GRRM is) doesn't give away the central mystery that soon (what was it, p.450 out of 4,500 when we learned of the toj?). Any writer worth his salt makes the false lead (which is what I suspect R+L is) more convincing than the real one. My only question at this point is how far into ADOS will I have to read to finally know the truth. We've talked about this, but it's not. I've seen so many people say that it took them 2 or 3 reads. It took me 3 reads to get it. It's "obvious" because people figured it out and spread the clues and hints. Then it took off and now it's pretty much accepted, even if not everyone likes it. He never gave it away. He built it, slowly, book by book. He gave information in piecemeal. If it was totally obvious it would be actually canon by now and we wouldn't have people making arguments about Ben and Brandon and Ashara. If it wasn't a big part of the story and mystery we would know by now; as in someone in the story told us. He does not believe in false leads. If the clues say it was the butler, then it was butler. This does not make GRRM a bad writer or a cliche writer. It makes him clever. It makes him a writer with integrity because he won't change his mind based on a fandom with a voracious appetite for figuring out his mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeyed chicken Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I didn't get it till I read it here, but I never see those things. Many people saw it the first time and once you've had it pointed it out to you, it's straight forward. Well let me ask you.Let's say we have a pov character tell us he saw the butler put a knife in his pocket. Later that same knife is found in the murdered man's back with the butler's finger prints on it. Did the butler murder the dead man? Sure looks like it. All the clues you have point to the butler. Is the writer dishonest because he held back clues that point to the brother in law (or who ever)? Is that not how mysteries and whodunnits have always been written? And what is ASOIAF if not a bunch of mysteries tied up in a bundle with some swords and some dragons? People are not asking enough questions about the things we don't know yet.Here's an alternative version.Where is Ned Stark's mother?Maybe she freaked out and went back to her Flynt relatives because one of her own sons fathered a son on her daughter.If Lyanna & Rhaegar were so in love at Harrenhal, why not elope right away? Maybe something happened.When Lyanna is telling Ned that Robert will never be true to one woman, maybe she does it to persuade her own brother to make love to her. Having been persuaded, he feels awful and pushes Lyanna away. She feels rejected and rides away, seeking out Rhaegar who can't have her at the capital, so he hides her far away from the Starks. Lyanna only tells R she loves him, but not about Ned, so R marries her and thinks the child is his . . .Ned lets the story of Lyanna's abduction go unchallenged because he feels guilty. His brother runs off and gets himself and his father killed and the war starts.In the end, all this is on Ned's head.No wonder he's tormented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I didn't get it till I read it here, but I never see those things. Many people saw it the first time and once you've had it pointed it out to you, it's straight forward. Well let me ask you. Let's say we have a pov character tell us he saw the butler put a knife in his pocket. Later that same knife is found in the murdered man's back with the butler's finger prints on it. Did the butler murder the dead man? Sure looks like it. All the clues you have point to the butler. Is the writer dishonest because he held back clues that point to the brother in law (or who ever)? Is that not how mysteries and whodunnits have always been written? And what is ASOIAF if not a bunch of mysteries tied up in a bundle with some swords and some dragons? People are not asking enough questions about the things we don't know yet. Here's an alternative version. Where is Ned Stark's mother? Maybe she freaked out and went back to her Flynt relatives because one of her own sons fathered a son on her daughter. If Lyanna & Rhaegar were so in love at Harrenhal, why not elope right away? Maybe something happened. When Lyanna is telling Ned that Robert will never be true to one woman, maybe she does it to persuade her own brother to make love to her. Having been persuaded, he feels awful and pushes Lyanna away. She feels rejected and rides away, seeking out Rhaegar who can't have her at the capital, so he hides her far away from the Starks. Lyanna only tells R she loves him, but not about Ned, so R marries her and thinks the child is his . . . Ned lets the story of Lyanna's abduction go unchallenged because he feels guilty. His brother runs off and gets himself and his father killed and the war starts. In the end, all this is on Ned's head. No wonder he's tormented. it is pretty obvious... and the hidden prince trope was not new when Moses was a kid. you do not need an alternate version... Lyanna and Rhaegar had a baby... something happened Ned promised Lyanna something... it required him to keep a secret for years... Jon's mother is a mystery... too many ways to fill in the "..." The easiest is to connect the dots... but if you do you are leaving something out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.