Heresy 157

[Black Crow]

There are too many possibilities about that context and unstated knowledge which may be completely different. E.g., as some stated before, it's even possible Lyanna died long before that fight. And Ned's motives for comming are not so clear. If it is for Lyanna, why the band is so small?

Essentially I agree. The point about all of this, or rather the argument here in Heresy, is that we don't know and nobody outside of GRRM actually knows. All we can do is try to put together the clues to come up with a workable theory. Even if we discard the outright crackpot ideas and those which flatly contradict the text we are left with the simple fact that the little evidence we do have can be reasonably interpreted in different ways.

The problem here is that one particular interpretation of the text has moved beyond theory to become presented as an accomplished fact and that anyone disagreeing is either incapable of understanding or a troll or both. And thus, as I said above, the unconfined joy over the Viserys confirmation arises not because it demolishes that interpretation of itself but because it demonstrates that it is not an accomplished fact but a theory which is still wide open to debate.

[Frey family reunion]

They are definitely there when Ned turns up.

Lyanna is still in her bed of blood, which means she has given birth recently, and dies of a fever. So she gave birth some time in the last 10 days or so.

Its unlikely they have moved around a lot in the last stages of her pregnancy, both because of the pregnancy and because moving around is inherently more dangerous to a party in hiding (from both Aerys and the rebels) than staying quietly in one secret place. SO they've probably been in the same place for at least a month, maybe longer.

Their news is post-sack and very likely to have taken some time to reach them.

The sack timing is around 2-6 weeks or so before ToJ.

So they have very very likely received the news while they were at ToJ.

I do have a contention with the assumption that Lyanna's death occurred within 10 days of the birth. Post-partem hemorrhaging can occur up to six weeks after the birth of a child. And if you recall Elia was bedridden for six months after the birth of her first child, so obviously the books acknowledge that a the health of a new mother can be very precarious even long after the birth of a child. I think a bed of blood can refer to the after effects of a pregnancy and not just an after birth.

And while my theory of Jon possibly having a better claim than Aerys to the throne hasn't gotten any traction anywhere on this board I would like to point out that if Aerys did disinherit Rhaegar, then the Kingsguards belief that they were fulfilling their vow by guarding Lyanna's child despite this fact lends credence that they may have believed that Lyanna's child's claim to the throne trumped everyone else's claim.

[Black Crow]

But yet their professed allegiance in that exchange was to Aerys

[TheSmallOther]

Random crackpot time.

What if Rhaegar and the 3 KG, with or without Lyanna, went north of the Wall? It would explain the "far away" answer instead of "we were here at TOJ".

Why would they be north of the Wall? Some ideas would be digging in the Frostfangs or Rhaegar and his prophecy business.

I doubt the required travel time gets them to TOJ in time starting from Rhaegar's disappearance, but thought for food.

If they weren't at TOJ, which their "far away" answer seems to imply, where the hell were they?

Rhaegar was preparing to become King beyond the Wall and Arthur Dayne thought it would be nice to join the Black :cool4: I assume you've heard these theories a number of times.

[Frey family reunion]

But yet their professed allegiance in that exchange was to Aerys

Read the exchange again. They said if they had been at King's Landing Aerys would still be on the Iron Throne (did not refer to him as king btw) but what goes unsaid is that their choice not to be at King's Landing may reflect their desire that Aerys no longer sit on the Iron Throne or at least their indifference to it. ( Which is different then killing Aerys which Jaime did because Aerys is still of the royal family even if they don't consider him their king)

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Read the exchange again. They said if they had been at King's Landing Aerys would still be on the Iron Throne (did not refer to him as king btw) but what goes unsaid is that their choice not to be at King's Landing may reflect their desire that Aerys no longer sit on the Iron Throne or at least their indifference to it. ( Which is different then killing Aerys which Jaime did because Aerys is still of the royal family even if they don't consider him their king)

I like that nuance. It's a good observation... though it hinges on the issue of choice, and I do take GRRM's famous interview response as something of a caution against reading too much choice into the behavior of the KG3.

[Frey family reunion]

I like that nuance. It's a good observation... though it hinges on the issue of choice, and I do take GRRM's famous interview response as something of a caution against reading too much choice into the behavior of the KG3.

The "choice" I refer to is the decision that they made in determining the location they needed to be in to fulfill their paramount vow, to protect the king. Once they became convinced that Lyanna's child had the rightful claim to the throne their vow bound them to the tower.

[WeaselPie]

The "choice" I refer to is the decision that they made in determining the location they needed to be in to fulfill their paramount vow, to protect the king. Once they became convinced that Lyanna's child had the rightful claim to the throne their vow bound them to the tower.

Which begs some questions.. how did they hear about Rhaegar's death and Aerys's death and Aegon's death, but not the naming of Viserys as heir? Since they were all still alive when Aerys name Viserys, that news would have been before the news of any of their deaths, or at the very least combined with the news of those deaths.

[JNR]

Demonstrate they weren't?

Why? The idea is that you're going to show us how you concluded the KG were at an abandoned watchtower when Aerys named Viserys his heir, and therefore, that they had "limited communications" by which to learn that critical fact.

My position, on the other hand, isn't that they weren't there. My position is that we don't know where they were. If you want to contradict it, you need to demonstrate we do know. So far, you haven't.

Instead, we just get this sort of thing:

Best information we have places Dayne and Whent with Rhaegar when Lyanna was 'abducted'. Latest information we have places them with her when she is found.

The problem is that there is over a year between point one and point two. Ergo, we have no idea where

1. Two of the three KG were in that year

2. Rhaegar was until he returned to King's Landing

3. Lyanna was until she was found by Ned (itself an event of uncertain location)

Arbitrarily assuming all three (KG, Rhaegar, Lyanna) were at "an abandoned watchtower" for the maximum possible time allowed by the text isn't going to help, and can't be demonstrated.

And building more theories on top of that giant assumption is a risky business indeed.

It's much better simply to admit the truth: we don't know where they were.

[Essan]

The "choice" I refer to is the decision that they made in determining the location they needed to be in to fulfill their paramount vow, to protect the king. Once they became convinced that Lyanna's child had the rightful claim to the throne their vow bound them to the tower.

But how long ago was Lyanna's child born?

Before the Trident, the death of Aerys and flight of Rhaella? Else why were they 'far away' when those events took place?

The idea that they avoided the war in order to protect the heir to the throne who was only born after the war finished, just days before his uncle - whom no-one had any reason to suppose would not equally protect him - turned up, just doesn't stake up. IHMO.

[JNR]

The problem here is that one particular interpretation of the text has moved beyond theory to become presented as an accomplished fact and that anyone disagreeing is either incapable of understanding or a troll or both. And thus, as I said above, the unconfined joy over the Viserys confirmation arises not because it demolishes that interpretation of itself but because it demonstrates that it is not an accomplished fact but a theory which is still wide open to debate.

Largely agreed, but really... it always was wide open to debate.

The RLJ theory has always depended on assuming Rhaegar, Lyanna, Whent, and Dayne were constantly together while they were all gone from the public's awareness. But this cannot be shown... not for the entire time, not for any month of that time, and in fact, not for one day of that time.

It certainly cannot be shown for the period in which Lyanna would have become pregnant (if indeed she did).

I like that nuance. It's a good observation... though it hinges on the issue of choice, and I do take GRRM's famous interview response as something of a caution against reading too much choice into the behavior of the KG3.

Yes, agreed. I interpret that to mean they were following Rhaegar's orders as given well before the Trident, and based on Rhaegar's assumptions at that point about what would happen next.

[Frey family reunion]

But how long ago was Lyanna's child born?

Before the Trident, the death of Aerys and flight of Rhaella? Else why were they 'far away' when those events took place?

The idea that they avoided the war in order to protect the heir to the throne who was only born after the war finished, just days before his uncle - whom no-one had any reason to suppose would not equally protect him - turned up, just doesn't stake up. IHMO.

I think that they had to be convinced that Aerys was not the rightful heir to the throne. Which means that there had to be a lineage that trumped Aerys birthright to the throne. Which makes me think that we will learn that Duncan the Small (the eldest of Aegon V's children) was reinstated as heir to the throne at Summerhall, and that Jenny of Oldstones was pregnant at the time of Summerhall. And that Jon's paternal grandparents are Duncan the Small and Jenny of Oldstones (Jenny who claimed descent from Kings of the First Men). Thus they abandoned Aerys to insure that Lyanna would go through with the pregnancy and to be there to protect the king (or queen) when he (or she) was born.

[Frey family reunion]

Largely agreed, but really... it always was wide open to debate.

The RLJ theory has always depended on assuming Rhaegar, Lyanna, Whent, and Dayne were constantly together while they were all gone from the public's awareness. But this cannot be shown... not for the entire time, not for any month of that time, and in fact, not for one day of that time.

It certainly cannot be shown for the period in which Lyanna would have become pregnant (if indeed she did).

Yes, agreed. I interpret that to mean they were following Rhaegar's orders as given well before the Trident, and based on Rhaegar's assumptions at that point about what would happen next.

I think we lose a bit of gravitas with the conversation between Eddard and the Kingsguards if they were merely there following orders from Rhaegar which contradicted their ultimate vow to protect the king, or if they were merely there in ignorance of the events happening around them. Which makes me believe they have an argument that they were fulfilling their ultimate vow by protecting Lyanna's child as opposed to protecting Aerys or defending his regime.

[JNR]

I think we lose a bit of gravitas with the conversation between Eddard and the Kingsguards if they were merely there following orders from Rhaegar which contradicted their ultimate vow to protect the king, or if they were merely there in ignorance of the events happening around them.

I see your point, but ultimately, it comes down to why GRRM chose to respond to that particular question with that particular answer.

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

It appears to me that either

1. The KG were at the TOJ at that time, and fought Ned, because of Rhaegar's pre-Trident orders, or

2. GRRM gave a nonsensical answer to the question

[Frey family reunion]

I see your point, but ultimately, it comes down to why GRRM chose to respond to that particular question with that particular answer.

It appears to me that either

1. The KG were at the TOJ at that time, and fought Ned, because of Rhaegar's pre-Trident orders, or

2. GRRM gave a nonsensical answer to the question

GRRM gives a lot of nonsensical answers to questions he doesn't want to answer.

[Black Crow]

Largely agreed, but really... it always was wide open to debate.

Of course it was, and the point is that the Viserys business demonstrates that by removing the certainty.

If for example we take this bit;

"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.

According to the R+L=J argument this is interpreted as meaning that Ser Willem Darry can flee, but they don't because they're protecting the king - supposed to be the newborn Jon Snow. Now we know that Darry was protecting the King, and so there we come into my argument that while Darry had fled with Viserys, taking him to a place of safety they, as the Kingsguard, were not fleeing but doing their job by eliminating the threat to their king, hence the "Now it begins".

[Urrax2]

I see your point, but ultimately, it comes down to why GRRM chose to respond to that particular question with that particular answer.

It appears to me that either

1. The KG were at the TOJ at that time, and fought Ned, because of Rhaegar's pre-Trident orders, or

2. GRRM gave a nonsensical answer to the question

On assumption 1, what exactly were those pre-Trident orders, I wonder.

[Black Crow]

It appears to me that either

1. The KG were at the TOJ at that time, and fought Ned, because of Rhaegar's pre-Trident orders, or

2. GRRM gave a nonsensical answer to the question

I don't think that the answer was nonsensical. Rather I think that, just as with his other response to the why fight at the tower question and now this Viserys business, GRRM was simply trying, without being explicit to say that they were not at the tower to protect King Jon Snow.

[markg171]

There are just three references to the tower in text, all in AGoT 39 Eddard:

He dreamed an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

They waited before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks blowing in the wind.

Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns on the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed.

So like I thought, nothing says it was ever an abandoned tower. That's simply become part of the narrative over the years, but it's not true.

Something else worth mentioning here is the conspicuous absence of Lyanna in the exchange in front of the tower. Were Lord Eddard searching for his sister surely the dialogue would open with "where is she?" or words to that effect. The response has been offered that the trio were declining to admit they were defending "their" king, but by the traditional interpretation Eddard knows nothing of that so why doesn't he ask?

Is it not worth questioning whether Lord Eddard and his companions were actually hunting down the last three surviving members of Aerys' Kings Guard and that Lyanna was already dead after extracting the "promise" to take them [or at least Ser Arthur] alive?

Yes, its just a theory but its one which offers a possible solution to a fever dream not to be taken literally and in which the only certainties is that they fought by that tower and only Lord Eddard and Howland Reed rode away from it.

It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed.

Indeed that passage is in itself significant, because the bitter memory is about the fight and those who died in it.

Very good point. He's sad because of the men who died fighting, but there's nothing there about him being sad about Lyanna.

And as I've argued in the RLJ thread on the "price Ned paid to keep Lyanna's promise me's", well the common assumption is that he lost honour by claiming Jon as his son. But no one in the series cares that he has a bastard, so that can't be it.

But as we see with Lady Barbrey, his bannermen are resentful that he took his 6 to the TOJ and only he and Howland survived but he didn't even bother to bring their bones home after they'd spent the last year fighting for him. These were men who had survived the war and should have been going home to their families, but Ned took them on one last battle and got them killed. Their bones should have been brought home, and they shouldn't have been in such a fight in the first place.

And these weren't just regular bannermen, but they were his friends.

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life. Proud Martyn Cassel, Jory’s father; faithful Theo Wull; Ethan Glover, who had been Brandon’s squire; Ser Mark Ryswell, soft of speech and gentle of heart; the crannogman, Howland Reed; Lord Dustin on his great red stallion. Ned had known their faces as well as he knew his own once, but the years leech at a man’s memories, even those he has vowed never to forget. In the dream they were only shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist.

So Ned lost the support of at least the Dustins, and he got his friends killed when they should have been done fighting. That's a price paid that would haunt you, whereas the slight to his honour that having sired a bastard is supposed to bring, but which we don't see, wouldn't.

Which begs some questions.. how did they hear about Rhaegar's death and Aerys's death and Aegon's death, but not the naming of Viserys as heir? Since they were all still alive when Aerys name Viserys, that news would have been before the news of any of their deaths, or at the very least combined with the news of those deaths.

Why? The idea is that you're going to show us how you concluded the KG were at an abandoned watchtower when Aerys named Viserys his heir, and therefore, that they had "limited communications" by which to learn that critical fact.

I think another thing to note, is that the TOJ was a WATCHtower. A watchtower serves no purpose, if it's not in the line of communication. It needs to be able to communicate with other places.

But how long ago was Lyanna's child born?

Before the Trident, the death of Aerys and flight of Rhaella? Else why were they 'far away' when those events took place?

The idea that they avoided the war in order to protect the heir to the throne who was only born after the war finished, just days before his uncle - whom no-one had any reason to suppose would not equally protect him - turned up, just doesn't stake up. IHMO.

Yup. Now that we know any child there definitely wasn't king as Viserys was the heir, it makes even less sense. The KG had always been gone while the king (Aerys) lived. Them being at the TOJ because the king was there never made any sense when they'd been away from the king all along.

[PrettyPig]

Read the exchange again. They said if they had been at King's Landing Aerys would still be on the Iron Throne (did not refer to him as king btw) but what goes unsaid is that their choice not to be at King's Landing may reflect their desire that Aerys no longer sit on the Iron Throne or at least their indifference to it. ( Which is different then killing Aerys which Jaime did because Aerys is still of the royal family even if they don't consider him their king)

I've made this point about 10 times and no one addresses it. "Far away, or Aerys would YET sit the Iron Throne"...ie, if the KG had been there they would have been forced to uphold the first duty and protect him. Removing themselves from Aerys' presence & immediate vicinity provides a loophole for the failure of the first duty.....they can't be expected to protect the king if they aren't physically there.

Either they were ordered to be far away and leave Aerys unprotected (save for Jaime, whose loyalty was dubious from the start), or they chose to go/stay far away of their own accord. Either way, it accomplishes the same goal of leaving Aerys wide open for assassination, and putting Jaime in the position of defending his king to the death.

Jaime threw the monkey wrench into the machinery by not graciously dying the way he was supposed to, although he did somewhat remedy the problem by killing Aerys anyway. It still left a Lannister alive and well, but hey, you can't have everything.

ETA: can we start talking about Balrogs again? The TOJ horse is dead and rotting, but Balrogs..... *heavy breathing*