R+L=J v.119

[BearQueen87]

In the words of our dear KingMonkey

GRRM + numbers = nope nope nope

[sj4iy]

In the words of our dear KingMonkey

GRRM + numbers = nope nope nope

Ding dong ding ;)

[PrettyPig]

Although I am totally on board with Kingmonkey's worldview of GRRM math, here's another tidbit for the timeline issue:

Barbrey Dustin tells Theon that her father was pursuing her betrothal to Brandon, but that ended with Brandon being betrothed to Cat. Her father then tried to broker a marriage for her to Ned, but that died in its tracks when Brandon did and Ned was betrothed to Cat. According to Barbrey, that left no one to marry but Lord Dustin.

She then says that she and Lord Dustin had been wed but half a year when Ned called his banners. So if this is accurate and she didn't marry Lord Dustin until after Ned was betrothed to Cat, and was married 6 months +/- when Ned calls his banners, we have around 6 months between the assumed start of the Rebellion (Jon Arryn calling his banners) and Ned marching from Winterfell. Ned goes off to fight BotB and returns to marry Cat and conceive Robb.

Following this timeline, if BotB was around halfway through the Rebellion that lasted about a year, then yes, there is a discrepancy with Jon's given age/conception date in relation to Robb, Dany, and ToJ events.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I don't think it's going to be a long time. And I don't think he's going to stray too far from the Wall (Look away Unmasked Lurker!)

Well, if you really want to drag me into this debate, I will oblige. I have three basic reasons for why I suspect that Jon/Ghost will travel North for a while.

First, Jon is pretty badly injured. I think his body needs to heal before he goes back into his body--and it will probably take some pretty serious magical event to both heal him and get him back into his body. And I think it will lead to quite a bit of drama with everyone assuming Jon is gone forever, just to be "resurrected" in some unique magical ceremony (analogous to Dany birthing the dragons).

Second, jumping into Ghost as an emergency move as he is passing out would be a waste if he just goes back into his body shortly thereafter. The vision was a man--then a wolf--then a man. This transformation has to have more of an impact of his story arc and character development than just a quick warging trip. He has warged before. This one needs to have more meaning and significance to warrant the vision and warrant the plot development of having to jump into Ghost.

Third, we were promised we would learn more about the Others. We need a POV that can get physically close to the Others. Jon stuck in Ghost would be a pretty convenient way to get a POV close to the Others. A direwolf would be able to go that far North and would be able to get close to the Others without them noticing.

So those are the "clues" I have sorted through that lead me to suspect that Jon will be in Ghost for a while. Why do others think he won't?

[UnmaskedLurker]

Tons of foreshadowing that Ghost & Val will be hanging-out in TWoW...

--

Plus a POV is headed to the Heart of Winter & Jon still has a promise to go find his lost uncle - I believe he said "Then Ghost & I will go find him"... Quite literally, Ghost & Jon will go find him...

A lot of posters here think that it's Bran who will show the reader the Heart of Winter, but I doubt that there are any weirwoods in the heart of winter. If they can't grow at the Eyrie from lack of topsoil, then they can't grow in the permafrost...

Damn, I am forced to agree with you. Does that mean I have to re-think my position? (just kidding). ;)

[corbon]

I may be missing something, but what is the basis for thinking that Ashford is before the Battle of the Bells?

According to the Wiki (because I don't have the book handy):

With the Stormlands united behind him (ie Summerhall), Lord Robert left his brother Stannis to hold Storm's End and advanced west to Ashford.[1]

Note that this is the first sentence of a section, with a reference attached (ASOS 36 Davos), so its clear that the reference covers this line and its likely to be a fairly accurate rendering. Maybe someone else can find the actual passage.

Uniting the Stormlands is Summerhall. Gulltown is on the way home first, as Robert starts the war with Jon Arryn (when Aerys sent for his head).

With the Stormlands united after Sumerhall, Robert moves fast to face the Tyrells at Ashford. The fact that he has not yet joined the Northerners or Valemen by then is further proof that this is well before BotB, where the three armies did join up.

Lord Merryweather's fate may help with this. He was replaced as Hand by Connington because he was not effective at managing the Rebellion. We know that Connington was Hand during the Battle of the Bells. So Merryweather was fired before the Battle of the Bells. If he was Hand when Ashford happened, then Ashford was before the Battle of the Bells. If he wasn't, then Ashford was after the Battle of the Bells.

Robert had victories at Gulltown and Summerhall. The Summerhall battles happened before Ashford because Lord Cafferan fought against Robert at Summerhall and for Robert at Ashford.

There was also some time between Summerhall and Ashford.

It doesn't seem likely that Gulltown, Summerhall, the feasting, hunting, ax-throwing, and Ashford all happened within the first month of the war.

We are clear about Gulltown (way back to the Stormlands), and Summerhall (internal fights in Stormlands) chronology. Davos says that he then moved west to fight the Tyrells, and there wasn't any doubt about that until you misread the WoIaF (I can see how you could misunderstand that passage, having read it through this evening, because it does flow that way in the narrative. But it is not required that the discussion be in chronological order even though it seems to flow that way..

It does seem reasonable that all that was in the first month or so of the war. Robert is famous for fast movement, The Stormlands is much more densely populated (so banners can call much faster) and its all within a relatively small area. Ned probably still hadn't gotten back to Winterfell by the time of the battle of Ashford!

As for Merryweather, we don;t have any indication of the timing of his dismissal except it was after Summerhall and before BotBs.

Also, Ashford was a big victory for the Targaryens. It opened the path for Mace Tyrell to lay siege to Storm's End. Does it seem likely that Aerys fired Merryweather for incompetence right after the loyalists won this big victory? Or is it more likely that the loyalists lost Gulltown and Summerhall, then Merryweather was fired for incompetence, then Connington fought the Battle of the Bells, then Mace Tyrell marched to Ashford and defeated Robert.

Actualy, there's no indication of the size of the Battle of Ashford and given Tarly routed Robert with only the Tyrell van, but the battle was indecisive, it actually seems like more of an over-rated skirmish than a major battle. Robert force-marches ahead to face the Tyrells, runs into Tarly, recklessly tries to fight anyway and gets beaten, then retreats north to join his allies - the Reach overmatches him so there is no point bottling himself up back in Storms End.

Saying it was a 'big victory' for the Targs is somewhat overdoing it. It was indecisive and left Robert with an army still in the field. Sure, it opened up the Stormlands, but Stannis had already been trusted to hold Storms End and actually the Tyrells fell into the 'trap' there and were effectively taken out of the war. If their army had join the crowns armies under either Connington or Rhaegar, they probably would have smashed the rebellion quite easily.

...and what happened to the argument that the war lasted closer to two years?

What?

It was clearly and undisputably 'about a year' in duration.

Occasionally some noob gets confused thinking the war started straight after Harrenhal, that could be the source of the 2 year time frame?

[UnmaskedLurker]

Except it doesn't fit. If Jon is 9 months older than Dany, he is born sometime in the month before the Sack. If he's 8 month's he born during the Sack to a month afterwards, He'd be a couple of weeks to a couple of months old by the time Ned could arrive at the TOJ

Which then begs the question, why would the place still be bloody, if she'd given birth weeks or months before?

Puerperal fever, which is what many people (myself included) believe Lyanna died from, can be accompanied by bleeding. So Jon could be about 10 days old at the time of the battle at ToJ, and Lyanna could still be bleeding.

[sj4iy]

Fun fact:

When you have a child, you bleed for weeks to months afterwards, whether you are sick or not. The placenta leaves an open wound in the uterus, and the uterus is also shedding its lining as well as contracting back to normal size...on top of any trauma caused by the birth. It is perfectly normal to still be bleeding 6 weeks after birth or longer. During pregnancy, your blood supply increases about 50%, so it is prepared for this type of blood loss.

Source:

Personal experience and medical information.

[BearQueen87]

Well, if you really want to drag me into this debate, I will oblige. I have three basic reasons for why I suspect that Jon/Ghost will travel North for a while.

First, Jon is pretty badly injured. I think his body needs to heal before he goes back into his body--and it will probably take some pretty serious magical event to both heal him and get him back into his body. And I think it will lead to quite a bit of drama with everyone assuming Jon is gone forever, just to be "resurrected" in some unique magical ceremony (analogous to Dany birthing the dragons).

Second, jumping into Ghost as an emergency move as he is passing out would be a waste if he just goes back into his body shortly thereafter. The vision was a man--then a wolf--then a man. This transformation has to have more of an impact of his story arc and character development than just a quick warging trip. He has warged before. This one needs to have more meaning and significance to warrant the vision and warrant the plot development of having to jump into Ghost.

Third, we were promised we would learn more about the Others. We need a POV that can get physically close to the Others. Jon stuck in Ghost would be a pretty convenient way to get a POV close to the Others. A direwolf would be able to go that far North and would be able to get close to the Others without them noticing.

So those are the "clues" I have sorted through that lead me to suspect that Jon will be in Ghost for a while. Why do others think he won't?

Okay you make excellent points. I think for me it's two issues, one practical and one narrative.

1) Practical: GhostPuppyJon traveling as far North as he needs to see Other-ville, gather Intel, and then come back to the Wall--in the middle of actual winter--takes up a lot of time.

2) Narrative: Bran. Bran is going to be, IMO, the go-to guy for learning about Other and Other culture. Whether he does this by weirnet or by warging into a bird, I'm open. But I think Bran is our "ice" and winter and he's already where the readers need to be, whereas Jon might become direwolf-travelogue.

Fun fact:

When you have a child, you bleed for weeks to months afterwards, whether you are sick or not. The placenta leaves an open wound in the uterus, and the uterus is also shedding its lining as well as contracting back to normal size...on top of any trauma caused by the birth. It is perfectly normal to still be bleeding 6 weeks after birth or longer. During pregnancy, your blood supply increases about 50%, so it is prepared for this type of blood loss.

Source:

Personal experience and medical information.

#TrustTheMothersOnThisOne

[sj4iy]

#TrustTheMothersOnThisOne

Essentially, if you told me that Jon had been born a month beforehand and she died in a bed of blood, I would not bat an eye.

[Ser Leftwich]

Although I am totally on board with Kingmonkey's worldview of GRRM math, here's another tidbit for the timeline issue:

Barbrey Dustin tells Theon that her father was pursuing her betrothal to Brandon, but that ended with Brandon being betrothed to Cat. Her father then tried to broker a marriage for her to Ned, but that died in its tracks when Brandon did and Ned was betrothed to Cat. According to Barbrey, that left no one to marry but Lord Dustin.

She then says that she and Lord Dustin had been wed but half a year when Ned called his banners. So if this is accurate and she didn't marry Lord Dustin until after Ned was betrothed to Cat, and was married 6 months +/- when Ned calls his banners, we have around 6 months between the assumed start of the Rebellion (Jon Arryn calling his banners) and Ned marching from Winterfell. Ned goes off to fight BotB and returns to marry Cat and conceive Robb.

Following this timeline, if BotB was around halfway through the Rebellion that lasted about a year, then yes, there is a discrepancy with Jon's given age/conception date in relation to Robb, Dany, and ToJ events.

This read as 'sour grapes' from Barbrey Dustin. The key word is "Afterward," afterward is after Brandon and Barbrey's last night together, which has to be well before (months) Brandon dies.

"He (Lord Ryswell)would have served up my maidenhead to any Stark who happened by, but there was no need." - ADwD p. 547

Brandon likely told her and/or Lord Ryswell off that last night, 'Sorry, but my father arranged the marriage with Tully and, even if Barbrey gets pregnant, that is not my problem. I need to do as my father says.'

Barbrey is talking about all the time between her last night with Brandon, after which her father was trying to marry her to Ned, or rather convince Rickard of the match. It does not have to be after Catelyn and Ned wed. This could be another instance of Ned's attitude of "it was was all for Brandon." Are there any cases of younger brothers being forced to get married to cover for older brothers?

“The day I learned that Brandon was to marry Catelyn Tully, though … there was nothing sweet about that pain. He never wanted her, I promise you that. He told me so, on our last night together … but Rickard Stark had great ambitions too. Southron ambitions that would not be served by having his heir marry the daughter of one of his own vassals. Afterward my father nursed some hope of wedding me to Brandon’s brother Eddard, but Catelyn Tully got that one as well. I was left with young Lord Dustin, until Ned Stark took him from me.”

“Robert’s Rebellion …”

“Lord Dustin and I had not been married half a year when Robert rose and Ned Stark called his banners. - ADwD p. 546

[UVA]

Essentially, if you told me that Jon had been born a month beforehand and she died in a bed of blood, I would not bat an eye.

What's so strong about the "bed of blood" phrase used in-universe is that it works in a literal sense (afterbirth) and as a euphemism. I don't understand why some people have such an issue with this.

[Ser Leftwich]

What's so strong about the "bed of blood" phrase used in-universe is that it works in a literal sense (afterbirth) and as a euphemism. I don't understand why some people have such an issue with this.

The one side's rationale is because anyone can both bleed and be in a bed, it could in a complete abstract sense, apply to anyone. It is a difference between analysis by pure logic (not taking into account context and/or in-universe thinking or usage) or literary patterns (which does take into account context and/or in-universe thinking or usage).

[UnmaskedLurker]

Essentially, if you told me that Jon had been born a month beforehand and she died in a bed of blood, I would not bat an eye.

If she died of puerperal fever (as is strongly suspected), I don't think she would last a month after birth.

[PrettyPig]

“The day I learned that Brandon was to marry Catelyn Tully, though … there was nothing sweet about that pain. He never wanted her, I promise you that. He told me so, on our last night together … but Rickard Stark had great ambitions too. Southron ambitions that would not be served by having his heir marry the daughter of one of his own vassals. Afterward my father nursed some hope of wedding me to Brandon’s brother Eddard, but Catelyn Tully got that one as well. I was left with young Lord Dustin, until Ned Stark took him from me.”

“Robert’s Rebellion …”

“Lord Dustin and I had not been married half a year when Robert rose and Ned Stark called his banners. - ADwD p. 546

Oh, sour grapes for sure...not contesting that at all. It's the one sentence that stood out for me - I read that as the Lord Dustin option not actually being an option until the Ned option was officially off the table via his stand-in marriage to Cat. If that is the case, then Barbrey's marriage to Dustin took place sometime after Jon Arryn foisted Ned onto Cat/called his own banners, but before Ned called his banners.....which per her account was about a 6 month span give or take.

[UVA]

The one side's rationale is because anyone can both bleed and be in a bed, it could in a complete abstract sense, apply to anyone. It is a difference between analysis by pure logic (not taking into account context and/or in universe thinking or usage) or literary patterns.

oh yea, I meant that rhetorically. It's a weak rebuttal to the claim that Lyanna had a baby. I'm just dumbfounded by how often it is used as a counterpoint.

[Ser Leftwich]

Oh, sour grapes for sure...not contesting that at all. It's the one sentence that stood out for me - I read that as the Lord Dustin option not actually being an option until the Ned option was officially off the table via his stand-in marriage to Cat. If that is the case, then Barbrey's marriage to Dustin took place sometime after Jon Arryn foisted Ned onto Cat/called his own banners, but before Ned called his banners.....which per her account was about a 6 month span give or take.

I read the same bit as Rickard saying no to Barbrey for Ned right then. As if Rickard did have some marriage plan for Ned. If, for instance, Rickard tells Lord Ryswell off (No Brandon or Ned for Barbrey) before he heads south for Brandon's wedding, Ryswell needs to find Barbrey a husband ASAP.

With Brandon about to wed and Lyanna set to marry Robert, it only makes sense that Rickard had some plan for Ned. And with both of those weddings imminent, it must have been on Rickard's mind.

With the example of Tyrek's wedding to Lady Hayford, I have always pegged Rickard to be looking for a Lord with only daughters, and getting the eldest for Ned to marry.

The idea that she only got married after Brandon's death just doesn't compute in my head.

Also, "Not half a year" could be 3 months. Tricksy GRRM and his writing style.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

When Barbrey says "not yet half a year", I would think that she had been married for 3 to 5,9 months.. wouldn't you voice it diffetently if you had been married for only a month or two?

Which would place Barbrey's wedding either before or around the time of Brandon and Rickards death. Perhaps Barbrey was married off when Rickard was killed, because her father wanted to make certain both his daughters were wed before a possible war?

Her wedding being any later might be a bit strange, yet around the time of Rickards death, there was no betrothal yet for Ned and Cat..

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Double post

[markg171]

oh yea, I meant that rhetorically. It's a weak rebuttal to the claim that Lyanna had a baby. I'm just dumbfounded by how often it is used as a counterpoint.

Because you guys routinely change your argument that the bloody bed indictates birth had just happened when Ned gets there, to it could have happened weeks or months ago whenever someone brings up the timeline issue.

Your argument is that the bloody bed is a sign of child birth as that's how it's described in the novels. Fine. But nowhere is it described in the novel following a birth that a bed remains bloody enough to soak the bed for months afterwards. In fact GRRM gives a fairly large lack of regard to any of the problems associated with after a birth in the novels. So you can't just come out and say that a bloody bed, which you guys say can only indicate a child birth, can instead be used to indicate a birth months ago. It doesn't fit.