R+L =J v.135

[Ser Creighton]

I'm not up on the backstory or history, so bear with me, but who was the mother of Runcels, (Runcel?), child? A northerner, a Stark? I mean, I thought the Starks kind of were the ones who sort of kept an eye on the doings of the Wall and the NW, and might have been silent controllers.

Yeah, which would be very disappointing. :bang:

The thing is is that they could have kept Jeyne, and if they wanted to show King Robb stupid enough to bring his pregnant queen into the House of the family whose daughter might have been queen, then hey, go for it.

Of course it would pit them against the Lannisters, OR they could have just left the scene as it was which was horrible enough.

Turning Loras into a fop was :bang:

Dany and Arya can't find their way out of a wet paperbag, but Cat could flit from one kings camp to the other, and now Sansa is in the bowels of a burned out WF. I do hope she does something terrible since she is dressed like "evil Lily" from "Legend."

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pbFZ_9UVlIA3LKJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzNGx1cm81BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANmYWU0MmMxNDI4ZjBlOWFmYjE1M2RjN2JkZDFmZDdkOARncG9zAzE4BGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Devil%2Blily%2Bfrom%2Blegend%26fr%3Dyhs-iry-fullyhosted_003%26hsimp%3Dyhs-fullyhosted_003%26hspart%3Diry%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D18&w=324&h=269&imgurl=www.figmentfly.com%2Flegend%2Fgifs%2Fevil.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.figmentfly.com%2Flegend%2Fbackground2.html&size=48.7KB&name=Lili+(Mia+Sara)+in+the+wedding+dress+given+to+her+by+Darkness+(Tim+...&p=evil+lily+from+legend&oid=fae42c1428f0e9afb153dc7bdd1fd7d8&fr2=&fr=yhs-iry-fullyhosted_003&tt=Lili+(Mia+Sara)+in+the+wedding+dress+given+to+her+by+Darkness+(Tim+...&b=0&ni=21&no=18&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11h4eqbaa&sigb=154lo157u&sigi=117mdcjnr&sigt=126l02crd&sign=126l02crd&.crumb=8NtDMZBDxJj&fr=yhs-iry-fullyhosted_003&hsimp=yhs-fullyhosted_003&hspart=iry

They changed her name at the suggestion of Martin.

Honestly Telisa did not bother me in any way shape or form, Oona Chaplin did a fine Job. Now speaking of Legend and Oona. If that is Sansa does that mean Oona and Gump are the children of the forest?

As for Sansa, as th show always does when it has related plot lines in order to save cost they combine them. There is this mistaken belief that she will be fake Arya, I doubt it. She is there for vengence, though the black is because she is in morning for her aunt. Just like Cersei was in black. Personally I see her filling in for Babs on some level even though we don't know exactly what Babs was up too. But I doubt Babs would of been stupid enough to reveal her plans to Theon. She is also there with the Vale to fill in for Manderly. Which can actually be pulled off as LF is running the Vale and the Boltons probably want help to deal with him. LF has been loyal to the Lannisters as far as they know. So literally given permission to March the Vale army into the North and right to the Door of Winterfell. Though I think they play it smart and wait for the right moment.

I doubt we get it but it would not bother me if Sansa walked up behind Roose at some welcome party "House Stark sends it's reguards." slice. But I really think she fills in for Babs, although it could be Babs and FArya or FSansa even though she is real Sansa. Not like with the Vale at her back Ramsey could be all Ramsey. Though you have to wonder about that bath scene with her. Anyway they have some legit directions they can go, I always figured Sansa would eventually end up in the North with the Vale.

I think we get more on Rhaegar from Dorne this year, you have Jaime and Doran, and I think a little Lyanna down in the crypts. If I were looking for some easter eggs or nods or mentions that is where I would look for them. I am also calling a bit of a wild shot, that the Sand Snakes will eventually replace Quin in Meereen.

[markg171]

1. Barristan's fire men vs. mud men point is primarily about Barristan himself as a mud man. To apply it to Ned vs. Brandon requires the assumption that Ned is a mud man and Brandon is a fire man. I see very little reason to describe Ned as a mud man. Sure he's the quiet wolf, but he's not the boring wolf. Brandon of course can't keep his pants on, so yeah he's a fire man.

Edmure did not take that well. The next day he avoided her entirely on the march, preferring the company of Marq Piper, Lymond Goodbrook, Patrek Mallister, and the young Vances. They do not scold him, except in jest, Catelyn told herself when they raced by her that afternoon with nary a word. I have always been too hard with Edmure, and now grief sharpens my every word. She regretted her rebuke. There was rain enough falling from the sky without her making more. And was it really such a terrible thing, to want a pretty wife? She remembered her own childish disappointment, the first time she had laid eyes on Eddard Stark. She had pictured him as a younger version of his brother Brandon, but that was wrong. Ned was shorter and plainer of face, and so somber. He spoke courteously enough, but beneath the words she sensed a coolness that was all at odds with Brandon, whose mirths had been as wild as his rages. Even when he took her maidenhood, their love had more of duty to it than of passion. We made Robb that night, though; we made a king together. And after the war, at Winterfell, I had love enough for any woman, once I found the good sweet heart beneath Ned’s solemn face. There is no reason Edmure should not find the same, with his Roslin.

Catelyn tells us that Ned wasn't as handsome, tall, or passionate as Brandon.

[Kingmonkey]

In other news Ran finally commented on the possibility of the Viserys was Aery's heir thing being a mistake:

An end to the "It can't be true or Viserys would have shouted about it" stuff. Hurrah.

I'm going to point back to my stuff starting here from v.126 on what it would mean if the Viserys stuff is true. It covers a lot of the ground and people might want to reconsider the implications now that it's confirmed.

Looks like it's time to update the FAQ a little again.

I think we need to have a major reconsideration of the protect vs obey debate now. If the first duty of the KG is to protect the king, and that overrides every other order, then the 3KG were breaking their vows by not heading off to Dragonstone. Discuss.

[Ser Creighton]

An end to the "It can't be true or Viserys would have shouted about it" stuff. Hurrah.I'm going to point back to my stuff starting here from v.126 on what it would mean if the Viserys stuff is true. It covers a lot of the ground and people might want to reconsider the implications now that it's confirmed.Looks like it's time to update the FAQ a little again.I think we need to have a major reconsideration of the protect vs obey debate now. If the first duty of the KG is to protect the king, and that overrides every other order, then the 3KG were breaking their vows by not heading off to Dragonstone. Discuss.

You lost me bubba, on what being true? Viserys was king? Cool who was his heir again? This should get intresting. Me I am cool with it either way. KG at the tower and then the Viserys thing were kind of blah for me not debates that I got involved in, though it is cool we got an answer to something.. Though where did Ran comment on it I didn't see or here about it.

ETA: Ha, I just went and looked at it, I saw it before didn't give it a second thought. So they got passed over according to the records and it's not a law but a custom and Dany is the rightful Queen. And Jon comes from a deposed line and is the bastard argument has returned, which god I wasn't sick of that one either, but hey at least something got resolved. So all the king stuff probably means either Night King II or Jon is Dany's King Consort/pet. She can rename him Snowball, no wait Sam is Snowball, Jon can Snowflake, and he has been trained as a Steward so he will be good at washing and cleaning her stuff, and brining her her meals, and being her personal foot stool, and Ghost will be hers because he probably prefers real dragons, oh and she can put a basket around his back and ride around on him like Hodor and Bran, and you know I am just writing this to see who blows their top at me first before they finish reading it.

[Kingmonkey]

You lost me bubba, on what being true? Viserys was king? Cool who was his heir again? This should get intresting. Me I am and will cool with it either way. KG at the tower and then the Viserys thing were kind of blah for me. Though where did Ran comment on it I didn't see or here about it.

Jon was his heir, of course -- why else would the 3KG be there? ;^) I dealt with that in the linked, which was an attempt to show that the Viserys-as-heir story from TWOAIF could fit into the R+L=J narrative perfectly well. A lot of people were dismissing it as either a mistake or some Lannister bias that couldn't possibly be true.

RumHam pointed a couple of pages up to Ran finally addressing the question:

Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.

Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time.

[corbon]

DP

[Ser Creighton]

Jon was his heir, of course -- why else would the 3KG be there? ;^) I dealt with that in the linked, which was an attempt to show that the Viserys-as-heir story from TWOAIF could fit into the R+L=J narrative perfectly well. A lot of people were dismissing it as either a mistake or some Lannister bias that couldn't possibly be true.

RumHam pointed a couple of pages up to Ran finally addressing the question:

Yeah, remember the debate, I was in it for a bit, though it was more focused on something else but I remember it went on for a few threads and I got sick of it. But I am glad it is resolved. I did go and look at it.

[SFDanny]

An end to the "It can't be true or Viserys would have shouted about it" stuff. Hurrah.

I'm going to point back to my stuff starting here from v.126 on what it would mean if the Viserys stuff is true. It covers a lot of the ground and people might want to reconsider the implications now that it's confirmed.

Looks like it's time to update the FAQ a little again.

I think we need to have a major reconsideration of the protect vs obey debate now. If the first duty of the KG is to protect the king, and that overrides every other order, then the 3KG were breaking their vows by not heading off to Dragonstone. Discuss.

Not much to discuss in the way you frame it. The Kingsguard is breaking their oath by not sending at least one of their number to guard Viserys once Aerys issues this decree and Aerys dies. The question before us is, first, did they know of Aerys's decree, and second, if so, then why did they break their vows. I've speculated above the reason why I think they would - the same reason Selmy did, and he called his action treason. I've also written about how I think that undercuts an argument I've made since about version two of these threads. So, if you want a discussion about the implications of Ran's post, I think I've already started some of that. And, yes, the FAQ should be updated to reflect the new reality of The World of Ice and Fire quote that Ran confirms. That's what happens when we get new information. We have to revise our understanding. Nothing wrong with that.

[corbon]

"He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady." To me, that doesn't sound like he has no interest in Ashara's name. On the contrary he addresses the issue of Jon's parentage and then goes on to specifically ask about the Ashara's name coming into it.

Read carefully. He doesn't ask anything about Ashara's name, or the details of the rumour, he asks where the rumour (about Jon's origins) comes from. He's interested in closing down the rumour (about Jon's origins), not in Ashara's name.

Certainly he doesn't want people spreading rumours about Jon's origins, but he goes further than this. "That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her." He obviously does not want to talk about Wylla either, but there simply isn't that strong a reaction when talking about Wylla as there is talking about Ashara. Whether that's because he had an affair with Ashara before his marriage to Cat or not, it surely represents a strong feeling relating to Ashara.

There is a reaction with Wylla (to close down the conversation), but its a reduced reaction, for very good reason. Catelyn is making enquiries (danger!), King Bob is making statements of (inaccurate) fact (no danger!).

Hence you get a visceral reaction in one case and a same-but-less-visceral reaction in the other.

Sorry, but I see very little difference between my "painfully bad mis-characterisation of the data" and your summary.

Reducing everything down to only one argument, stated in the worst simplest and most negative possible way, is a painful mischaracterisation.

1. Barristan's fire men vs. mud men point is primarily about Barristan himself as a mud man. To apply it to Ned vs. Brandon requires the assumption that Ned is a mud man and Brandon is a fire man. I see very little reason to describe Ned as a mud man. Sure he's the quiet wolf, but he's not the boring wolf. Brandon of course can't keep his pants on, so yeah he's a fire man.

Go and check what Barristan thought mud men did and fire men did.

Mud men are good for their women, they promote growth and health and longevity. Like Ned did for his 15 year marriage to the stranger Catelyn. A marriage that turned into the most healthy relationship in the series.

Fire men burn hot and exciting, but also flame out early causing lots of damage along the way. Like Brandon.

It requires quite a blinker to not see Ned as mud man and Brandon as a fire man, regardless of who else you look at.

And I can't see Barristan ascribing many, of any, of the qualities of mud men to himself. there is not a lot of growth and health and security for a woman being with a KG.

Another thing about this line of argument is that it assumes Barristan knows what he's talking about when it comes to women, which is an odd assumption. Frankly it's just as likely that this is a hint that Ashara would chose Ned over Brandon as the other way around: it would hardly be unique for GRRM to be using someone being wrong as a hint to what actually happened.

So your argument here is because a character thinks one way about people, we should therefore assume that the people were actually another way? Even when everything else we know about that character fits with the thought?

I think I'll stick with the idea that Barristan is more likely to be right than wrong, on the people he has observed, even if he could be mistaken.

2. Except we do see interest in Ashara. In the passage above, Cat remembers him reacting with extreme emotion to Ashara's name.

I disagree. As I have pointed out, he reacts with extreme emotion to someone prying into Jon's origins. He displays no actual interest in the Ashara angle.

We know he was attracted to Ashara at HH.

No we do not. Nothing says Ned was attracted to Ashara. All we have is that Ned was shy, generally, and sitting on his bench. And that Brandon asked Ashara to dance with him. We can't tell if that was Ned's desire, or what Brandon thought Ned needed.

We can't expect to see Ashara in Ned's PoV thoughts for the same reason he doesn't think about Jon's parentage in his PoV thoughts. GRRM wants to keep his secrets. Finally consider this passage:

Ned feels pity for Cersei. He feels sadness about Lyanna and the events that have led to this moment. He reacts to Cersei's slap with dry humour. Yet when Cersei brings up Ashara (and Arthur, I suspect that's important too) his attitude changes dramatically. He is no longer advising her, he is flatly laying out the law. He no longer feels pity for her, but says that exile is "kinder than she deserves." Finally, he refers to "more mistakes than you can possibly imagine" which gives an idea of where his thoughts have turned.

Yes, he thinks about Ashara, we just don't get to see his thoughts internally.

I don't agree with your assessment of that passage.

Yes, there is pity, and sadness. Thats just a distraction though, he's there for a purpose. The distraction is over by the slap, which gets the instant dry response, but as soon as Cersei has finished her tirade he does what he came to do. I don't see any big change because of Ashara being indirectly mentioned (or Arthur, or Jon).

I still don't see anywhere where he ever thinks of Ashara. Its always about Jon, or Lyanna.

3. Yeah, Brandon can't keep his pants on.

There is more to Brandon's characterisation than 'can't keep his pants on'. He's characterised as more attractive (bigger, stronger, handsomer, more confident), more skilled, entitled, arrogant, rash, hot-tempered etc. He actually has history with deflowering young noblewomen compared to Ned's never-the-boy-you-were. That speaks to honour brands as much as pants-control.

4. Why wouldn't Barristan respect Ned? He could perfectly well have once been jealous that Ashara had "looked to" Ned rather than him but still respect Ned. Ned hadn't taken marriage vows at that point, so it's not like he'd been breaking any vows. Barristan might have thought it foolish and dangerous, but then he thinks that people do foolish and dangerous things for love without losing respect for them. See Dany & Daario.

If Ned 'dishonoured' Barristan's crush, I don't see Barristan having the same level of respect for him afterward.

5. I completely agree there's nothing solid pointing to N+A, but that's simply no argument for B+A. What is there that actually points to B+A? It's simply not enough to say that N+A isn't solid, B+A has to be MORE solid than N+A. You've shown a few reasons why N+A isn't solid, but I don't see that you've moved any closer to B+A than my original "Brandon couldn't keep his pants on" which you dismissed as mis-characterising the data.

N+A= nothing solid at all. Nothing really fits at all.

B+A= characterisation of Ned fits better than N+A, characterisation of Brandon fits, Barristan's thoughts fit (and they don't with N+A), Barristan's respect for Ned fits better and Ashara's choice makes more sense (if she made one).

[Kingmonkey]

Not much to discuss in the way you frame it. The Kingsguard is breaking their oath by not sending at least one of their number to guard Viserys once Aerys issues this decree and Aerys dies. The question before us is, first, did they know of Aerys's decree, and second, if so, then why did they break their vows.

It doesn't necessarily mean they were breaking their oaths. It's entirely arguable that they were not actually beholden by their oaths to go immediately to Dragonstone, and I covered that in some length back in v.126.

Whether they knew or not is uncertain, but I think it's extremely likely that they did know. The TOJ dream dialogue, questionable as it is, seems to suggest that the 3KG were aware of the events mentioned. There's no surprise shown about Jaime having killed Aerys, or that Viserys had gone to Dragonstone, both events that took place after he'd been made heir.

[SFDanny]

It doesn't necessarily mean they were breaking their oaths. It's entirely arguable that they were not actually beholden by their oaths to go immediately to Dragonstone, and I covered that in some length back in v.126.

Whether they knew or not is uncertain, but I think it's extremely likely that they did know. The TOJ dream dialogue, questionable as it is, seems to suggest that the 3KG were aware of the events mentioned. There's no surprise shown about Jaime having killed Aerys, or that Viserys had gone to Dragonstone, both events that took place after he'd been made heir.

Both Jaime and Ser Barristan make it clear there is a first duty to protect the king. That takes precedence over everything else. The order of a dead prince doesn't mean they can ignore it. Now, it is perfectly possible for the three men to have sent one of their number to Dragonstone and still followed Rhaegar's order to guard their charges at the tower. They don't do this and it means they have ignored their most basic vow. I've always tried to make it clear this is understandable in at least three different ways.

First, is what we are talking about that it means the Kingsguard trio is guarding the heir at the tower and therefore they don't need to send anyone to Dragonstone. With the new material, I think we have to say that if they know about Aerys's decree making Viserys his heir, then this is not the case. As an aside, I also find it kind of amazing this little bit of information comes now in a book of fake history, as Martin likes to call it, as opposed to, say the Jaime POVs in the main series in which we are told the most about this time period and Aerys's actions. Be that as it may, it is here now and all theories need to adjust.

Second, a simple matter of timing. Perhaps they receive the news of King's Landing and the decree shortly before Ned and company show up and the just don't have time to leave. Problem here is there is no attempt evident in their discussion with Ned to even attempt to get someone to Dragonstone through negotiation. If this is their first priority then something should have happened other than a declaration of how they follow their vows, and then a fight to the death that prevents them from doing so.

And lastly, the three men aren't who we think they are. The have broken their vows and they place what ever they see as their duty at the tower over what they clearly know they should be doing - protecting their new king. The last is what I think we are left with now as the most probable. I agree that unless for some reason Aerys keeps this decree to himself, then it is likely the trio have heard of it.

So assuming the most probable, I think the reason most likely for the trio committing what Selmy calls treason when speaking of his own act is the same as his - their observations of the young Viserys being as mentally unstable as his father was. If not as batshit crazy as he is during the war, at least they see the signs saying that is where the prince is headed. Not hard to understand why someone would not want to commit themselves to serving the rest of their lives to such a king, especially after having to watch Aerys destroy the realm and not being able to do anything to stop it without forsaking their oaths, but whatever their reasons, it still violates their first duty. That combined with obvious feelings for Rhaegar have pushed them to decide to abandon Viserys.

What this means for the question of whether or not Jon is legitimate I've tried to deal with above. I think there are other reasons and other pieces of evidence that point to this being so without anything to do with what the kingsguard did at the tower.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

@Ser Creighton: Sansa in the Winterfell crypts - would rather be playing the Mance's part, I guess.

With the Sansa-Jon juxtaposition and her while being apart becoming more similar to Jon, this, was it not the show, might link into Jon's recurring dream of the crypts. But it is the show so that maybe is not working well.

[Kingmonkey]

Read carefully. He doesn't ask anything about Ashara's name, or the details of the rumour, he asks where the rumour (about Jon's origins) comes from. He's interested in closing down the rumour (about Jon's origins), not in Ashara's name.

He absolutely and specifically asks "I will know where you heard THAT NAME". I can't see how you can read that as not being about Ashara's name. He could have asked about the general, who was spreading rumours about Jon's parentage. He asked the specific instead. He's already cut down the question about Jon's parentage -- "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know." Then he addresses the question of Ashara's name.

Reducing everything down to only one argument, stated in the worst simplest and most negative possible way, is a painful mischaracterisation.

No, it may be a simplification, it may even be an unfair simplification. It is only a mis-characterisation if it misrepresents that argument. OK, my line about "Brandon couldn't keep his pants on" is a negative way to put the argument, I don't deny it. However I'm not seeing how it's a misrepresentation. What is there that actually LINKS Brandon and Ashara? Arguments against N+A are not arguments for B+A. What are the arguments for B+A other than that Brandon was a bit of a player?

Go and check what Barristan thought mud men did and fire men did.

(snip)

And I can't see Barristan ascribing many, of any, of the qualities of mud men to himself. there is not a lot of growth and health and security for a woman being with a KG.

Ned's nurturing nature in his marriage to Cat doesn't really bear on Ned's appeal or lack thereof to Ashara, years earlier. Ned is not slow to anger, and he's a man who helped lead a rebellion against Aerys. Barristan personally witnessed him standing up to Robert, and rashly resigning as hand, while Barristan himself could only apologetically tell Robert he agreed with Ned's view. Ned certainly has fire. Well, Ice. "Cold rage" and all that.

I disagree that Barristan doesn't see himself as a mud man -- that whole thing about if he'd unhorsed Rhaegar, perhaps Ashara would have looked to him, is his way of saying that if he had been more romantic and exciting, he might have had a chance with her.

In short, while Brandon is certainly more of a fire man than Ned, Ned is certainly more of a fire man than Barristan.

So your argument here is because a character thinks one way about people, we should therefore assume that the people were actually another way? Even when everything else we know about that character fits with the thought?

I think I'll stick with the idea that Barristan is more likely to be right than wrong, on the people he has observed, even if he could be mistaken.

No, my argument is that it is a far from uncommon technique in GRRMs writing to have people say things that turn out to be ironically the opposite of what actually happened.

In the case of Barristan, why would anyone think he's a good judge of how women pick men? He's been celibate since forever, and his attitudes are very obviously coloured by ancient personal feelings. Really, Barristan is saying "Young women always pick bad boys". I don't understand why anyone would think that's a brilliant insight that must be true, rather than the defensive reaction of someone who felt overlooked.

Which is the fire and which the mud between Robert and Rhaegar? Which did Lyanna chose? Barristan is not always right.

No we do not. Nothing says Ned was attracted to Ashara. All we have is that Ned was shy, generally, and sitting on his bench. And that Brandon asked Ashara to dance with him. We can't tell if that was Ned's desire, or what Brandon thought Ned needed.

"The crannogman saw a maid with laughing purple eyes dance with a white sword, a red snake, and the lord of griffins, and lastly with the quiet wolf . . . but only after the wild wolf spoke to her on behalf of a brother too shy to leave his bench." I don't deny it's possible to interpret that either way, but that Brandon speaks to her "on behalf of a brother too shy to leave his bench" certainly sounds more like Ned was too shy to ask her himself.

As for "Nothing says Ned was attracted to Ashara", actually it's a widely-held belief. Cersei has heard the story. Ned's own men believe it to be true, and spread the story in Winterfell before Ned stops people talking about it. Even Ashara's own family believe it was true. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but there certainly is reason to believe it.

What says that Brandon was attracted to Ashara? He didn't even dance with her at Harrenhal. Is there ANY connection between Ashara and Brandon?

There is more to Brandon's characterisation than 'can't keep his pants on'. He's characterised as more attractive (bigger, stronger, handsomer, more confident), more skilled, entitled, arrogant, rash, hot-tempered etc. He actually has history with deflowering young noblewomen compared to Ned's never-the-boy-you-were. That speaks to honour brands as much as pants-control.

All of which comes down to the same thing: he's the cool kid, the bad boy, the can't-keep-his-pants-on player. Even if we accept the (let's be honest, stupid) idea that women always pick the bad boy, is he the only bad boy in Westeros? Why assume that Ashara would have picked him, rather than Robert?

Nothing here says that there was anything between Ashara and Brandon. So what if he was bigger and braver and cooler and could't keep his trousers on has history with deflowering young noblewomen? You yourself say that's a mis-characterisation of the argument. So what IS the argument?

If Ned 'dishonoured' Barristan's crush, I don't see Barristan having the same level of respect for him afterward.

Why? Barristan is no fool, he knows that a good man (or woman) can think through their trousers, and frequently do. He has a speech about the problems it causes, mentioning Duncan the small, Rhaegar and Dany, amongst others. I don't think we can assume he hasn't got a great deal of respect for any of those people, either.

Barristan notes that Ashara's grief may have been for the man who dishonoured her, so obviously we're talking about something mutual here. Barristan might have resented the man who his dream girl fell for, but that doesn't mean he couldn't respect the man.

[Kingmonkey]

Both Jaime and Ser Barristan make it clear there is a first duty to protect the king. That takes precedence over everything else. The order of a dead prince doesn't mean they can ignore it. Now, it is perfectly possible for the three men to have sent one of their number to Dragonstone and still followed Rhaegar's order to guard their charges at the tower. They don't do this and it means they have ignored their most basic vow. I've always tried to make it clear this is understandable in at least three different ways.

Take a look at my post here where I address this. It cannot be categorically stated that they must have been ignoring their vows if they do not go to Dragonstone at once.

And lastly, the three men aren't who we think they are. The have broken their vows and they place what ever they see as their duty at the tower over what they clearly know they should be doing - protecting their new king. The last is what I think we are left with now as the most probable. I agree that unless for some reason Aerys keeps this decree to himself, then it is likely the trio have heard of it.

When addressing this, people often bring up the problem of Hightower, that he appears to be the stickler for the rules, who does what the king says even when he thinks it's wrong. I suspect that you are exactly right with "aren't who we think they are" about two of the three, Dayne and Whent, but not the third, Hightower. In the post linked above I address the idea that the arguments for not going to Dragonstone don't have to be valid, they merely have to be persuasive enough to convince Hightower.

So assuming the most probable, I think the reason most likely for the trio committing what Selmy calls treason when speaking of his own act is the same as his - their observations of the young Viserys being as mentally unstable as his father was. If not as batshit crazy as he is during the war, at least they see the signs saying that is where the prince is headed. Not hard to understand why someone would not want to commit themselves to serving the rest of their lives to such a king, especially after having to watch Aerys destroy the realm and not being able to do anything to stop it without forsaking their oaths, but whatever their reasons, it still violates their first duty. That combined with obvious feelings for Rhaegar have pushed them to decide to abandon Viserys.

On Viserys' unstability, see Jaime's memory of being asked who should be declared king after he killed Aerys. He considers Viserys, then his thoughts turn to Aegon, then he looks at Aerys' blood on the floor and remembers that they both share his blood. Now of course that's Jaime's thoughts, not the thoughts of the 3KG, but it's worth remembering that Jon shares Aerys' blood as much as Aegon did.

In ACoK ch.55, we have Jaime recalling: "Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, ‘You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.' That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree." That doesn't really fit with Hightower judging Viserys as potentially as unstable as Aerys.

However, we do know that Rhaegar and Aerys were at odds, and Rhaegar wanted to, at the least, diminish Aerys' power. Whent and particularly Dayne were very close to Rhaegar and seem to have been very much on Team Rhaegar. I suspect that as far as those two were concerned it didn't matter who Aerys declared his heir, they weren't backing that horse anyway.

[Ygrain]

... and now everything hinges on the KG being aware of the decree or not. Because if they didn't know about it, it changes nothing.

[corbon]

He absolutely and specifically asks "I will know where you heard THAT NAME". I can't see how you can read that as not being about Ashara's name. He could have asked about the general, who was spreading rumours about Jon's parentage. He asked the specific instead. He's already cut down the question about Jon's parentage -- "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know." Then he addresses the question of Ashara's name.

But the thrust, the important thing he's asking, is where that name was heard. He is not asking anything further about that name, for any details pertaining to it, he just wants to suppress the rumouring, and he's already demonstrated what was important about that - "never ask me about Jon".

No, it may be a simplification, it may even be an unfair simplification. It is only a mis-characterisation if it misrepresents that argument. OK, my line about "Brandon couldn't keep his pants on" is a negative way to put the argument, I don't deny it. However I'm not seeing how it's a misrepresentation. What is there that actually LINKS Brandon and Ashara? Arguments against N+A are not arguments for B+A. What are the arguments for B+A other than that Brandon was a bit of a player?

It misrepresents that argument by taking the whole argument into only one aspect.

What links Brandon to Ashara? A lot of the same things as we thought linked Ned. She looked to a Stark. She actually talked with, and did the bidding of, Brandon in Meera's story. Thats more than she did with Ned, a simple dance which she also did with several others.

Ned's nurturing nature in his marriage to Cat doesn't really bear on Ned's appeal or lack thereof to Ashara, years earlier. Ned is not slow to anger, and he's a man who helped lead a rebellion against Aerys. Barristan personally witnessed him standing up to Robert, and rashly resigning as hand, while Barristan himself could only apologetically tell Robert he agreed with Ned's view. Ned certainly has fire. Well, Ice. "Cold rage" and all that.

Ned's nurture makes him fit Barristan's definition of a mud man.

Ned's rage is cold, and takes some working up first. Not anything like a Fire man.

I disagree that Barristan doesn't see himself as a mud man -- that whole thing about if he'd unhorsed Rhaegar, perhaps Ashara would have looked to him, is his way of saying that if he had been more romantic and exciting, he might have had a chance with her.

In short, while Brandon is certainly more of a fire man than Ned, Ned is certainly more of a fire man than Barristan.

I disagree with your reading of that comment. I don't think he ever wishes he 'might have had a chance with her' - he's always been committed to the KG thing. He didn't have a chance with her because he chose it that way, put the KG first, not because he wasn't exciting enough to interest her.

Consequently I see that comment as what it actually says, not a hidden comment on something that doesn't fit his character or lifelong choices. If he had've won, and named Ashara, perhaps she would have realised she could have had a (non-romantic) supporter for her troubles, not an alternate romantic liaison.

I still don't see anything mud-like, as defined by Barristan, in himself. And Ned fits the bill perfectly.

No, my argument is that it is a far from uncommon technique in GRRMs writing to have people say things that turn out to be ironically the opposite of what actually happened.

Which means... you are arguing to take the opposite of what the data says because sometimes GRRM uses this technique.

And in this case, even when all the other data supports what Barristan says.

In the case of Barristan, why would anyone think he's a good judge of how women pick men? He's been celibate since forever, and his attitudes are very obviously coloured by ancient personal feelings. Really, Barristan is saying "Young women always pick bad boys". I don't understand why anyone would think that's a brilliant insight that must be true, rather than the defensive reaction of someone who felt overlooked.

He's saying that in his experience its always true. That means the ones he knows about, the ones that matter to him, its been true. It doesn't have to be brilliant, or insightful, or true for every girl, its just telling us that in the cases Barristan has been intimately connected to, all of those cases, the girl chose a fire man who was wrong for them and who flamed out early. Its brought on by Dany doing exactly that, and the other case we know Barristan would be intimately involved in is Ashara, his silent-crush.

Which is the fire and which the mud between Robert and Rhaegar? Which did Lyanna chose? Barristan is not always right.

No, he's not. But Lyanna and her choice is not relevant to his personal experience.

"The crannogman saw a maid with laughing purple eyes dance with a white sword, a red snake, and the lord of griffins, and lastly with the quiet wolf . . . but only after the wild wolf spoke to her on behalf of a brother too shy to leave his bench." I don't deny it's possible to interpret that either way, but that Brandon speaks to her "on behalf of a brother too shy to leave his bench" certainly sounds more like Ned was too shy to ask her himself.

As you say, it can be read either way. Yet you say we know Ned was attracted to Ashara. All I'm saying is no we don't know that.

As to which is more likely, we have Ned sitting on his bench all night (so far), too shy to even leave it. Which is more likely? Brandon was sitting in the back with Ned and shy Ned asked him to talk to a random girl, and said random girl just did what Brandon asked because... although she's partying with the cream, a too-shy nothing much boy hiding in the back, caught her eye. Or confident, experienced, bold Brandon was out in the party and saw his stiff little brother missing out entirely and so got one of the partying girls to drag Ned out of himself?

Well, you think the first, and I think the second. Fair enough, either is possible. However you are saying that we know Ned was attracted to Ashara and using this as evidence...

As for "Nothing says Ned was attracted to Ashara", actually it's a widely-held belief. Cersei has heard the story. Ned's own men believe it to be true, and spread the story in Winterfell before Ned stops people talking about it. Even Ashara's own family believe it was true. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but there certainly is reason to believe it.

Both Cersei and Winterfell's stories come after Ned returns from Starfall with a bastard and Ashara commits suicide. They are natural outcomes of that, but neither source actually witnessed Ned and Ashara together that we know of.

Ned Dayne meanwhile tells a similar story yet is so confused that he believes Ned and Ashara were in love, but Wyall bore Ned's child. Does that make any sense at all? What does make sense there is that his source, Allyria, was probably not around at the time either (her betrothal to Berric Dondarion indicates youthfulness) and has no idea of the truth either. However, the N+A story paints her aunt's suicide in a tragic instead of pathetic light, which is a better belief for her family to claim.

This is the point of N+A not actually having any real substance. There is a lot of surface fluff, but when examined closely it blows away rather thoroughly.

What says that Brandon was attracted to Ashara? He didn't even dance with her at Harrenhal. Is there ANY connection between Ashara and Brandon?

Brandon actually talked to her there. She even was comfortably enough with him to do something he asked her too. Thats certainly ahead of a mere dance, when she had mutiple other partners.

All of which comes down to the same thing: he's the cool kid, the bad boy, the can't-keep-his-pants-on player. Even if we accept the (let's be honest, stupid) idea that women always pick the bad boy, is he the only bad boy in Westeros? Why assume that Ashara would have picked him, rather than Robert?

Because that fits with the 'looked to Stark' and also in a way with the N+A rumours. At Harrenhal, she is dishonoured and connected to a Stark. Later Ned takes away a bastard and she commits suicide. The dishonour doesn't fit Ned, does fit Brandon. But even if it was Brandon, but vague, that reinforces the creation of rumours about N+A later when Ned takes Jon and Ashara suicides.

Nothing here says that there was anything between Ashara and Brandon. So what if he was bigger and braver and cooler and could't keep his trousers on has history with deflowering young noblewomen? You yourself say that's a mis-characterisation of the argument. So what IS the argument?

As I've stated, its in 4 or more parts, not just one.

Why? Barristan is no fool, he knows that a good man (or woman) can think through their trousers, and frequently do. He has a speech about the problems it causes, mentioning Duncan the small, Rhaegar and Dany, amongst others. I don't think we can assume he hasn't got a great deal of respect for any of those people, either.

Barristan notes that Ashara's grief may have been for the man who dishonoured her, so obviously we're talking about something mutual here. Barristan might have resented the man who his dream girl fell for, but that doesn't mean he couldn't respect the man.

Right, if he doesn't respect people because of what they did we see that come through.

I don't think thats very likely that he could respect such a man. I think that Barristan would hold a grudge against the man who dishonoured, abandoned, and led to the suicide of the women he was crushing on. Which is what happened if N+A. But if B+A then Barristan has no reason to have any beef with Ned.

FWIW I think we are running out of purpose here. There appears to be too little common ground on basic reading and understanding of the text and contexts.

[Mithras]

Rhaegar's realistic plan was possibly to convince the Great Lords that Aerys was not fit to rule by himself; so a regent should be appointed for him until he died or got better. As the eldest son and heir of Aerys, Rhaegar was going to be that regent and Aerys would spend the rest of his days in custody under the name "medical care".

If Rhaegar came up with this idea and explained it to the KG, what could be their reactions?

[corbon]

... and now everything hinges on the KG being aware of the decree or not. Because if they didn't know about it, it changes nothing.

Its very unlikely they knew. Its clear that their information is post-sack. At that point, the ones freely, deliberately, even aggressively, disseminating information about the fall of the Targaryens are the victorious rebels, and there is no reason that they would be telling anyone about Viserys being named heir in the last few weeks even if they knew.

[Franziska]

Even if Aerys did pass over Rhaegar and named Viserys his heir, it doesn't really change a thing. Viserys is dead.

So only the remaining Targaryens can ascend the throne. Which leaves us to Dany, Aegon (fake or true) and Jon as possible candidates.

[FrozenFire3]

... and now everything hinges on the KG being aware of the decree or not. Because if they didn't know about it, it changes nothing.

I agree. Also, am I the only one who finds the 'Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time' bit slightly... ambiguous?