The Tower of Joy- What exactly happened?

[three-eyed monkey]

I totally believe R+L=J, but I'm not so convinced by a lot of theories surrounding the events at the ToJ. I know it was a fever dream but from a narrative point of view I take the dream as a fairly accurate, though purposefully incomplete, recreation of the events. Otherwise what's the point?

I don't know whether there was a wetnurse or a midwife present, or by what means Howland saved Ned, or how Ned tore down the tower. There is very little detail to work with and multiple plausible explanations for any one of those questions. There are a few more questions the scene always brings up for me. Can we be sure Howland killed Ser Arthur? And how come honourable Ned returned Dawn to Starfall, Lord Dustin's horse to Barrowton, but never made arrangements, even at a later date, to have the bones of the fallen returned to their homes?

But the big question for me is, should we view the scene through the game of thrones filter or the ice and fire filter? (As I say, I believe R+L=J so I'm assuming Jon is the unseen centrepiece of the scene, and I'm also assuming J=TPwwP.) If we look at the scene through the game of thrones filter, then we see Jon as the king of the Seven Kingdoms, the Kingsguard as guardians of the king, and the vow as the Kingsguard vow. This forms the basis of the Legitimate Jon theory, which is a solid argument. But not one I take as cannon because when we look at the scene through the ice and fire filter, other possibilities do arise. Jon becomes TPwwP, the Kingsguard become the Promisedprinceguard, and the vow becomes one to Rhaegar. Personally, I don't ever see Jon sitting on the throne, but I do see him leading the fight against the Others, so the ice and fire filter is my preference.

[stateofdissipation]

Time frame:

As things stand Ned needs to travel from King's Landing to Storm's End and on to the tower of joy in two weeks.... or simply not be present for the birth.

The fever had taken her strength

The room smelled of blood and roses

Lyanna most likely died of Puerperal infection:

Puerperal infections, also known as postpartum infections, puerperal fever or childbed fever, is any bacterial infection of the female reproductive tract following childbirth or miscarriage. Signs and symptoms usually include a fever greater than 38.0 °C (100.4 °F), chills, lower abdominal pain, and possibly bad-smelling vaginal discharge.^[1] It usually occurs after the first 24 hours and within the first ten days following delivery.^[2]

So, if Jon is born @ 8 month before Daenerys (2 weeks after the Sack) and Lyanna could have gotten the fever up to 10 days after the birth of Jon, that would give Ned @ 3 weeks and 3 days (24 days) to get from King's Landing to Storm's End to the Tower of Joy.

Lyanna most likely died of Puerperal infection:

Puerperal infections, also known as postpartum infections, puerperal fever or childbed fever, is any bacterial infection of the female reproductive tract following childbirth or miscarriage. Signs and symptoms usually include a fever greater than 38.0 °C (100.4 °F), chills, lower abdominal pain, and possibly bad-smelling vaginal discharge.^[1] It usually occurs after the first 24 hours and within the first ten days following delivery.^[2]

Puerperal infections are by definition .... after childbirth.... You found a condition to support death some time after childbirth.... To do so you looked up fever..... after childbirth.

Fever in childbirth----

Chorioamnionitis is a complication of pregnancy caused by bacterial infection of the fetal amnion and chorion membranes.

• Maternal fever (intrapartum temperature >100.4°F or >37.8°C): Most frequently observed sign ^[

If you look up fever in childbirth--- you get another answer entirely.....

So, if Jon is born @ 8 month before Daenerys (2 weeks after the Sack) and Lyanna could have gotten the fever up to 10 days after the birth of Jon, that would give Ned @ 3 weeks and 3 days (24 days) to get from King's Landing to Storm's End to the Tower of Joy.

Exactly why you need the puerperal fever.... without it Lyanna's child may or may not be Jon...

The funny part is "or thereabouts"..... GRRM did not give a straight answer..... 7 months two weeks and 9 months two weeks are "thereabouts" of 8 and 9 months.... they are not 7 or 10.

That gives Ned 29 days to make the trip in time and arrive for Jon's birth....

If Ned could make the trip to arrive 10 days after in 24 days... he could arrive 4 days before Jon was born as well.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Exactly why you need the puerperal fever.... without it Lyanna's child may or may not be Jon...

We both agree that Lyanna died due to childbirth right? Whether it was during or a week or so after. She died due having a baby right?

Any father of that baby, except Rhaegar, there would be no reason for Ned to hide it. That baby is only in danger if it is a Targaryen baby (there is no evidence that states Aerys could be anywhere near Lyanna). Any other father and Ned tells Robert what happened. He shows Robert the baby and they grieve for Lyanna together.

And if Jon is not that baby, why would he take that baby somewhere else? If he was willing to take Jon (in this case his actual bastard) back to Winterfell, why wouldn't he take Lyanna's baby as well? Say they were twins or something? He is not a loyal Targaryen man trying to make sure the baby one day comes back to take the throne. And who would Lyanna know other than the Starks to ask Ned to promise her to take the baby to?

If Jon is not the baby, it makes no sense at all. NONE.

[stateofdissipation]

We both agree that Lyanna died due to childbirth right? Whether it was during or a week or so after. She died due having a baby right?

Any father of that baby, except Rhaegar, there would be no reason for Ned to hide it. That baby is only in danger if it is a Targaryen baby (there is no evidence that states Aerys could be anywhere near Lyanna). Any other father and Ned tells Robert what happened. He shows Robert the baby and they grieve for Lyanna together.

And if Jon is not that baby, why would he take that baby somewhere else? If he was willing to take Jon (in this case his actual bastard) back to Winterfell, why wouldn't he take Lyanna's baby as well? Say they were twins or something? He is not a loyal Targaryen man trying to make sure the baby one day comes back to take the throne. And who would Lyanna know other than the Starks to ask Ned to promise her to take the baby to?

If Jon is not the baby, it makes no sense at all. NONE.

Agreed Lyanna died in childbirth... in the time frame given for Jon's birth by GRRM.

Any father of that baby, except Rhaegar, there would be no reason for Ned to hide it.

We really have no evidence that hiding Jon was a priority. Raising him with a family was a priority by Ned's prayer.

I generally do not like reason by exclusion.... Too many variables.

We have evidence of Rhaegar's love for Lyanna... stories and his last word.

We have evidence of Lyanna's love for Rhaegar.... crowns of pale blue roses

That baby is only in danger if it is a Targaryen baby (there is no evidence that states Aerys could be anywhere near Lyanna).

A teen girl gives birth. The father is dead and she is dying.

Does she go over the importance of car seats, choking hazards, walkers around stairs, and dangers?

Would Ned tell her of the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys? If so why? Lyanna was not stressed enough...

Would Lyanna need a promise to guarantee the safety of her child.... without it she expected Ned to let it die?

Again.... I do not like excluding. The father was not the entire population of westeros... minus 1. That is a whole bunch of excluding.

Any other father and Ned tells Robert what happened.

Why?

Ned knew Robert loved Lyanna. Telling Robert that his beloved died giving birth to another man's child serves no function other than to hurt Robert more.

Ned showed he would not add to Robert's hurt when it served no purpose when he did not tell him Joff was not his son.

No matter who the father was. Ned would not tell him.

He shows Robert the baby and they grieve for Lyanna together.

Jon first appears in Winterfell. He was in residence there with his wet nurse when Cat arrived.

And if Jon is not that baby, why would he take that baby somewhere else? If he was willing to take Jon (in this case his actual bastard) back to Winterfell, why wouldn't he take Lyanna's baby as well?

There are actually two babies connected to Ned during his war in the south. Lyanna's child and Ashara's child. One of these children is a dead girl the other is Jon.

Say they were twins or something?

or triplets or quints or not....

He is not a loyal Targaryen man trying to make sure the baby one day comes back to take the throne.

He actually was.... Robert's stronger claim was Targ blood. Ned was fighting Aerys not the Targaryens. It is an odd dilemma, However, Aerys named Viserys his heir over Aegon.... Viserys not Rhaegar's son was king when Aerys died.

And who would Lyanna know other than the Starks to ask Ned to promise her to take the baby to?

Howland Reed... who also happened to be there.

If Jon is not the baby, it makes no sense at all. NONE.t.

Still do not like negatives.... Lyanna had a baby. Not all babies are boys. Not all babies live. Ned lied to Robert about Lyanna's death and her relationship with Rhaegar.... Lots more can be added.... there are ways to make sense of things without Jon being Lyanna's son.

There are other viable candidates for Jon's mother

Ned's relationship with Ashara and her suicide for example.

Ned telling Jon about his mother would include Ned's role in her death.

Ned telling Cat about his relationship with Ashara going back to Harrenhal and continuing until after their marriage resulting in Jon.... is an entirely different animal than a random war baby from a man's needs--- she barely accepted the latter.

I am not saying it happened--- I just can't exclude it.

[Sly Wren]

But the big question for me is, should we view the scene through the game of thrones filter or the ice and fire filter? (As I say, I believe R+L=J so I'm assuming Jon is the unseen centrepiece of the scene, and I'm also assuming J=TPwwP.) If we look at the scene through the game of thrones filter, then we see Jon as the king of the Seven Kingdoms, the Kingsguard as guardians of the king, and the vow as the Kingsguard vow. This forms the basis of the Legitimate Jon theory, which is a solid argument. But not one I take as cannon because when we look at the scene through the ice and fire filter, other possibilities do arise. Jon becomes TPwwP, the Kingsguard become the Promisedprinceguard, and the vow becomes one to Rhaegar. Personally, I don't ever see Jon sitting on the throne, but I do see him leading the fight against the Others, so the ice and fire filter is my preference.

Agree with all the holes you point out in the narrative--and then some.

And agree on the ice and fire filter. Based on the tower scene, can't quite buy Jon's supposed to be the king of the seven kingdoms. The KG speak of the usurper--who was trying to usurp from Aerys--not Rhaegar, who actually died on the Trident. They call Jaime false for murdering Aerys--but don't mention Rhaegar's death at all. Not a lot to go on, but even they don't seem focused on Rhaegar's son being an heir.

They do mention Viserys, whom Aerys named his heir. But even then, they don't seem to be doing anything that could really help them crown a prince--haven't called for reinforcements from Starfall or Dorne despite having had time to hear about what's been happening. Don't even take cover in the tower--at least ostensibly a better strategic position. Not exactly sure what's going on in the scene--but "crown Rhaegar's son as king" doesn't merit even a hint.

Bottom line: focus of the books is on Jon's northern role. And not even the tower scene mentions anything about his being king of the 7 kingdoms--I think your "filter" reading makes more sense than the "return of the king" scenario.

[Brian Powers Of Palantíri]

We know Ned made a promise in a room that smelled of blood and roses, we know a fight happened and people died. We know Lya got a crown, but why? We know Rhaegar, Whent and Dayne took Lya. We know Brandon Stark flipped out, and came calling for Rhaegar to die. We know Ned lived at the Eyrie, not Winterfell, and we know Benjen joined NW. We know Brandon took what he wanted, ask Lady Dustin, and he had the Wolf blood. We know Jon has Stark blood, and that Ned was deeply troubled by lies he told, secrets he kept. We know lya cried after a song from Rhaegar. We know Ned put statues of his siblings on ether side of his father. We know Ashara Dayne was Elia's lady in waiting and that she left KL for unknown reasons. We think she killed herself, we think R+L-J, and all that implies. What I propose is different, not as pretty. Brandon + Lyanna =Jon. Rhaeegar + Ashara = Daenerys

OK, here we go, Brandon is a dick, does, and takes what he wants and he takes lya, she confides in Ben, no plans what to do. Tourney at Harrenhal, song, tear, KoLT, Ben?Lya? Reed?. Queen of Beauty.If Lya tells Ned, Lord Stark , Brandon will die, she can't. Lya speaks to noble, helpful, great dude of a crown Prince, and he promises to help somehow. Rhaegar and Ashara fall for each other, Lya, Ashara preggers. Help me, abduction, freak out, war. TOJ Ned,6 guys, 3 KG, 8 graves, Lya died birthing Jon, Ashara died birthing Daenerys Storm of Swords born. Dany dreams of beams carved with animal faces, a red door, and a lemon tree outside her window,in Braavos? Lemons grow in Dorne not Braavos, Dany dreams of Rhaegar a lot, her face in his armor. Remember who you are, the dragons know. And the pale sword, Gemstone emperor make more sense. Dany was raised in Dorne early years. We know Dany has haunting violet eyes lie ashara and dreams of Rhaegar, Selmy thinks to himself, she could be ashara daughter. Jon has Stark blood like Joffreys got Lannister blood. That's why his wolf is white on red, because he is an abomination, bastard born of incest, just like those evil trees, and their ruler, the great singers of the song Of.THe.EaRth, O.TH.E.R , from the old tongue, short clipped sounds say it slowly, monosyllabically, Of Earth, SotSoE. only name they give, no metal, no sun, pale white weirwwod spiders, dead servants (greenseer)

[Brian Powers Of Palantíri]

We know Ned made a promise in a room that smelled of blood and roses, we know a fight happened and people died. We know Lya got a crown, but why? We know Rhaegar, Whent and Dayne took Lya. We know Brandon Stark flipped out, and came calling for Rhaegar to die. We know Ned lived at the Eyrie, not Winterfell, and we know Benjen joined NW. We know Brandon took what he wanted, ask Lady Dustin, and he had the Wolf blood. We know Jon has Stark blood, and that Ned was deeply troubled by lies he told, secrets he kept. We know lya cried after a song from Rhaegar. We know Ned put statues of his siblings on ether side of his father. We know Ashara Dayne was Elia's lady in waiting and that she left KL for unknown reasons. We think she killed herself, we think R+L-J, and all that implies. What I propose is different, not as pretty. Brandon + Lyanna =Jon. Rhaeegar + Ashara = Daenerys

OK, here we go, Brandon is a dick, does, and takes what he wants and he takes lya, she confides in Ben, no plans what to do. Tourney at Harrenhal, song, tear, KoLT, Ben?Lya? Reed?. Queen of Beauty.If Lya tells Ned, Lord Stark , Brandon will die, she can't. Lya speaks to noble, helpful, great dude of a crown Prince, and he promises to help somehow. Rhaegar and Ashara fall for each other, Lya, Ashara preggers. Help me, abduction, freak out, war. TOJ Ned,6 guys, 3 KG, 8 graves, Lya died birthing Jon, Ashara died birthing Daenerys Storm of Swords born. Dany dreams of beams carved with animal faces, a red door, and a lemon tree outside her window,in Braavos? Lemons grow in Dorne not Braavos, Dany dreams of Rhaegar a lot, her face in his armor. Remember who you are, the dragons know. And the pale sword, Gemstone emperor make more sense. Dany was raised in Dorne early years. We know Dany has haunting violet eyes lie ashara and dreams of Rhaegar, Selmy thinks to himself, she could be ashara daughter. Jon has Stark blood like Joffreys got Lannister blood. That's why his wolf is white on red, because he is an abomination, bastard born of incest, just like those evil trees, and their ruler, the great singers of the song Of.THe.EaRth, O.TH.E.R , from the old tongue, short clipped sounds say it slowly, monosyllabically, Of Earth, SotSoE. only name they give, no metal, no sun, pale white weirwwod spiders, dead servants (greenseer)

now some people may be alive still, could be lyanna is now jyena reed, she would have had twins, meera, Jon. Or Arthur Dayne, we never know what hair and eye color he had, u may assume purple, what if he comes back to winterfell as Luwin, He is from dorne not far from oldtown citadel, on KG with Hightower who still have some influence, luwin shows up in 283 same year as TOJ, or maybe not, anby thoughts, holes to poke, please do.

[Rippounet]

We know Lya got a crown, but why?

It's the garland from the Harrenhal tournament.

[Rippounet]

And agree on the ice and fire filter. Based on the tower scene, can't quite buy Jon's supposed to be the king of the seven kingdoms. The KG speak of the usurper--who was trying to usurp from Aerys--not Rhaegar, who actually died on the Trident. They call Jaime false for murdering Aerys--but don't mention Rhaegar's death at all. Not a lot to go on, but even they don't seem focused on Rhaegar's son being an heir.

They do mention Viserys, whom Aerys named his heir. But even then, they don't seem to be doing anything that could really help them crown a prince--haven't called for reinforcements from Starfall or Dorne despite having had time to hear about what's been happening. Don't even take cover in the tower--at least ostensibly a better strategic position. Not exactly sure what's going on in the scene--but "crown Rhaegar's son as king" doesn't merit even a hint.

Bottom line: focus of the books is on Jon's northern role. And not even the tower scene mentions anything about his being king of the 7 kingdoms--I think your "filter" reading makes more sense than the "return of the king" scenario.

:agree:

In fact, the "return of the king" scenario is from another series, and I dont buy Martin going in that direction.

[corbon]

This is correct, but I think there may be more to it. Ned says he was looking for one or more of these three men at the final battle of the war. That is interesting for two reasons. First, he doesn't say he looked for them prior to the Trident. Perhaps this is because he knew they were in hiding with Rhaegar, and thought they would show themselves when Rhaegar returned. Second, he was fighting a major battle. Why was he looking for these particular knights? Possibly because he thought that one of them was someone he could deal with.

Nothing of any real interest there for me.

He has no need to 'look for them' before the Trident - none of the major royalist figures were much involved before the Trident - Aerys didn't take the rebellion seriously until after Connington was defeated at the Battle of the Bells.

And he's not actively 'looking for them' in the middle of the battle either. Its just typical phraseology for something you'd do as a leader on campaign - note which significant enemy 'pieces' are present and think about where they might be (and doing what) for the ones that aren't.

To me this is fundamental misunderstanding of the language use leading to unnecessary and unproductive tangents that don't logically follow from the text.

Oh, I just noticed the source...

I think their deflection is an attempt to uphold part of the Kingsgard vows: to keep the royal secrets. They are basically saying that they were on a secret mission and that their vows prevent them from answering his questions.

Again, there's a little more to it -- an accusation. One of your members killed the king you were supposed to protect. How did you let that happen? And the answer is, agree that we should have been there, because if we were, Aerys would be alive, Jaime would be dead, and your Rebellion would have failed. Unfortunately, we had an overriding obligation that prevented us from being there. They can't come out and say it, but they were ordered to be somewhere else and they had to obey that order.

Again, this, IMO, is overthinking it to an unnecessary and counter-productive degree.

This one is interesting because you might expect the next question to be: "When Tywin Lannister's men raped and murdered the Princess of Dragonstone, and murdered Rhaegar's son and daughter, I thought you might have tried to stop them." But Ned never asks that question, which means we have no way of knowing whether they thought Aegon was dead or alive. The conclusion is that GRRM left Aegon out of this discussion for a reason.

No, you wouldn't expect the next question to be that. He's covered the Sack already.

Aegon is pretty much an irrelevance to Ned in this context (and, other than being supposedly dead, to the KG as well at this stage) so it is entirely natural for him to be left out of the conversation.

If not that question, you might expect the next one to be about Viserys. But no, even though Mace Tyrell's army at Storm's End would have received the news of defeat on the Trident and the Sack, Ned expected them to be at Storm's End, not trying to make their way to Dragonstone.

Well, duh. One of the things KG do, so long as the King is actively guarded by one or more of their fellows, is operate as generals. Since they weren't with the Rhaegar and the main army at the Trident, and they weren't with the King in KL, the next logical place to look for some or all of them is with the other main royalist army at Storms End.

The question is a little different than that. Ned does not ask why they did not "sail to" Viserys. He says he thought they "might have sailed with" Willem Darry. In other words, he's talking about why they did not flee with Viserys before the Sack. He's not talking about why they did not try to follow Viserys after the Sack.

'To' covered 'with' as well, for my part. One of the options for them to be assigned initially might have been to go with Rhaella and Viserys when they went to Dragonstone. Its a feasible thing for Aerys to send 1 or more (though 3 stretches credibility it would seem to me) KG with his heir.

Another possibility is that they were doing something else, or literally between assignments, or whatever, but for some reason missed the Trident and the Sack and then went to their should-be king Viserys. Its a fairly reasonable possibility for Ned to consider.

It is interesting to note that they don't invoke their Kingsguard "vows." Barristan swore "vows," plural, to Ser Gerold Hightower, about protecting the king. Jaime talks about his "vows" many times. But Hightower isn't at the TOJ to uphold his "vows." He is upholding a "vow."

So what is the singular "vow" that they swore?

We don't know, but we do have some examples where Kingsguard swear a singular vow. Jaime swore one, to Lady Catelyn, to return Sansa and Arya safely. Ser Willas Fell swore one to Lord Larys, when Larys ordered him to leave King Aegon II in the care of a bastard knight. Fell swore to take Princess Jaehaera, who was not even the heir, to Hightower.

To me this is otherthinking it again, as usual based on a failure to understand the use of language. Whether the kingsguard bow is a single vow with many clauses or sections, or multiple separate vows, or some other similar construct, it is still referable in language as 'a vow' at some times and as 'my vows' at others.

True. I still think he would have stated at some point that he was only there for his sister, not to fight.

Yes, Ned isn't bad with words. It's just that... There's something poetic about this passage. Maybe it's the repetition, maybe it's the words. There's just something slightly "un-Nedish" about the whole. Call it a hint. Call it opinion.

Well, Martin refers to the "account" and the "dream." He doesn't say "parts of it" may be not entirely literal, but he seems to qualify the whole.

But yes, we can agree to differ here.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see any need for him to state that he is here for his sister, not to fight. Much of what is in that thought would be covered by the unstated cues of body language, silent actions and positionings. More would be covered by the KG clearly barring his way forward, and the whole conversation showing their unwillingness to back off, so he has to fight them to go forward.

Clearly, if Lyanna is there, they know she is, and they must also know he's come for her, what with suddenly appearing at this place of all places, and with so few men he's clearly not there to take them down. So everyone knows what is going down here, yet they clearly are deliberately and forcefully blocking him. Its just unnecessary to state that he's here for Lyanna. Have you ever seen any such dramatic faceoff scene where anyone who is not the weak-idiot-comic-relief-character babbles on with all the unnecessary shit?

Ned is not that type. He's not a babbling talker at the best of times, certainly not in a showdown moment like this.

I would say most sentences are probably accurate but some are missing and others may have been spoken by someone else. For instance, I'm not sure the Kingsguard took turns talking to Ned, I would find it easier to believe that Gerold Hightower did most of the important talking.

It's still possible the actual conversation does matter though. It would be nice to know what the Kingsguard already knew and what info was brought by Ned. And many people wonder if the Kingsguard were protecting the king.

Only Howland Reed knows. ;)

I don't have any particular textual problems with thinking this way (ie it generally accurate but not word for word), but I do have philosophical ones. Whats the frikken point? We already have multiple possibilities, both textual and metatextual, to cover the 'its a fever dream' (but an old one) aspect that GRRM deceptively noted.

There are only two possible reasons for such thinking. The first is so that one can throw out, or twist, the data we have that don't suit one's particular theory whenever and wherever one desires , and plenty of people do that. The second is purely to satisfy personal idiosyncratic style preferences (which is what seems to be happening mostly in this thread). I despise the first reason, and have no respect for the second - effectively its downgrading the data source based on cosmetic preferences rather than objective data.

- Can we be sure Howland killed Ser Arthur?

- And how come honourable Ned returned Dawn to Starfall,

- ...Lord Dustin's horse to Barrowton,

- ...but never made arrangements, even at a later date, to have the bones of the fallen returned to their homes?

- There's no evidence HR did kill Arthur. Just that Arthur would have killed Ned if not for HR, which is an entirely different thing. And that of the 10 fighters, only 2 rode away, and there were 8 cairns.

- its DAWN. Its a unique, House specific artifact. The oldest (that we know of), most honourable, most storied House in Westeros is almost entirely founded, supposedly 10,000 years ago, on this artifact. Its indirectly in the name of their Holdfast and in their House symbol. Its difficult to see Ned doing anything else but return it to Starfall, especial given the respect he still holds Arthur in.

- Horses are extremely useful, and literally transport themselves (as well as many other useful things) much of the time. And its a significant thing for House Dustin too. It was an easy and practical thing for Ned to do.

- because the bones of those fallen in battle are almost always buried where they fell. And its highly impractical to return Dustin's bones, immediately (logistics) or later (secrecy).

But the big question for me is, should we view the scene through the game of thrones filter or the ice and fire filter? (As I say, I believe R+L=J so I'm assuming Jon is the unseen centrepiece of the scene, and I'm also assuming J=TPwwP.) If we look at the scene through the game of thrones filter, then we see Jon as the king of the Seven Kingdoms, the Kingsguard as guardians of the king, and the vow as the Kingsguard vow. This forms the basis of the Legitimate Jon theory, which is a solid argument. But not one I take as cannon because when we look at the scene through the ice and fire filter, other possibilities do arise. Jon becomes TPwwP, the Kingsguard become the Promisedprinceguard, and the vow becomes one to Rhaegar. Personally, I don't ever see Jon sitting on the throne, but I do see him leading the fight against the Others, so the ice and fire filter is my preference.

I don't think we should apply any filter when viewing the scene. I think thats backwards. I think we should construct our theories (filters) based on the data, not examine the data through the lens of our theories.

Based on the tower scene, can't quite buy Jon's supposed to be the king of the seven kingdoms. The KG speak of the usurper--who was trying to usurp from Aerys--not Rhaegar, who actually died on the Trident. They call Jaime false for murdering Aerys--but don't mention Rhaegar's death at all. Not a lot to go on, but even they don't seem focused on Rhaegar's son being an heir.

They do mention Viserys, whom Aerys named his heir. But even then, they don't seem to be doing anything that could really help them crown a prince--haven't called for reinforcements from Starfall or Dorne despite having had time to hear about what's been happening. Don't even take cover in the tower--at least ostensibly a better strategic position. Not exactly sure what's going on in the scene--but "crown Rhaegar's son as king" doesn't merit even a hint.

Their whole conversation is still hiding Jon, of course they are not giving clues to Ned about their motivations. :bang:

And of course they aren't actively trying to crown a prince at this stage. They are trying to keep him hidden long enough so that they can escape and let him grow up enough to actually be a threat to take back the throne.

And taking cover in the tower is strategic suicide. Clearly Ned has found them, but equally clearly he's keeping things on the quiet, with so few comrade. If they fall back into the tower then it becomes suicide for Ned to fight them and they force a standoff which they can only lose long term - Ned has options and resources available to him over time to win such a standoff, they do not. Their only strategic option at this time is to wipe out Ned's party right now so there are no survivors to bring back more troops and maybe that will keep their location secret a while longer and they can leave still in secret. That means they have to draw Ned and his fellows in and allow them at least a chance to win - no chance for Ned to win = no fight = standoff = strategic loss for KG.

Its quite frustrating how many times I've had to explain this. Tactics are informed by strategy, and good tactics that are bad strategically are not in fact good tactics, whatever they appear like on the surface.

[Rippounet]

I don't have any particular textual problems with thinking this way (ie it generally accurate but not word for word), but I do have philosophical ones. Whats the frikken point? We already have multiple possibilities, both textual and metatextual, to cover the 'its a fever dream' (but an old one) aspect that GRRM deceptively noted.

There are only two possible reasons for such thinking. The first is so that one can throw out, or twist, the data we have that don't suit one's particular theory whenever and wherever one desires , and plenty of people do that. The second is purely to satisfy personal idiosyncratic style preferences (which is what seems to be happening mostly in this thread). I despise the first reason, and have no respect for the second - effectively its downgrading the data source based on cosmetic preferences rather than objective data..

I have a third: because Martin doesn't want to reveal too much. The whole conversation might reveal some important plot points: how the Kingsguard saw Lyanna (hostage? queen? paramour?), whether Jon is legitimate or whether the Kingsguard defended him as TPtwP, what Rhaegar's specific orders were, what the Kingsguard intended to do with Jon (and Lyanna, should she survive). In other words, the whole conversation might make the reason for the fight more obvious, and I believe this reason is quite important.

Maybe everything was obvious for the people involved and the obvious didn't have to be stated (and the baby didn't have to be mentioned at that point). I can't rule that out.

Maybe the Kingsguard deliberately avoid making their motive clear. Can't rule that either.

But Ned using innuendos bothers me.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see any need for him to state that he is here for his sister, not to fight. Much of what is in that thought would be covered by the unstated cues of body language, silent actions and positionings.

Beg to differ. I think Ned's willingness to let the Kingsguard go if he gets Lyanna back is not all that obvious. The Kingsguard rule out fleeing, but neither Lyanna nor Jon are mentioned.

I think what bothers me is the fact that Ned doesn't make his intentions and motives all that clear in the exchange we have. It's easy to explain why the Kingsguard would give him vague answers, but Ned is being overly subtle in this passage. One might even wonder what he really intended to do there...

Of course, if I'm wrong about my reading of the SSM, it's all moot. :)

[TheWinterKnight]

Very interesting thread, and I wanted to shine my light on it.

First I will tackle the question why the Kingsguard were present at the ToJ. I often think, reading people's comments, they got the Kingsguard wrong. Yes, they're the greatest knights in the Seven Kingdoms and yes, they're meant to protect the king and the royal family, but hey come on... They're not robots. They're human. They have thoughts and emotions and preferences, etc. Take Arthur Dayne for example. Rhaegar was his king. Not in a literal sense, but you know what I mean. He was utterly devoted to Rhaegar in every way. He was his best friend and closest confidante. His loyalties lie with Rhaegar, not with Aerys. Arthur Dayne would follow him everywhere, whether Rhaegar was wrong or right. I even think Arthur Dayne was a player at the game of thrones or at least an agent on behalf of either Jon Arryn or Tywin Lannister, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

But back to the question why they were there... IMO they were not protecting the NEW KING or the HEIR, but the "Child of Ice and Fire". Although they did not know it. I'll come back to that in a bit. I also believe that's what their "vow" was. The vow the 3 KG made had nothing to do with their vows solely as Kingsguard. It was a vow they made to Rhaegar, to protect Lyanna and the child, no matter the cost, no matter the consequences, no matter the outcome of the battle. And for those who disagree... explain to me this: Why would Rhaegar leave 3 KG with Lyanna and the child because he was a possible heir to the throne? When Rhaegar was absolutely sure he would return from the Trident. So follow me in this scenario: Rhaegar returns from the Trident and the Rebellion is crushed. A Great Council is called, Aerys is disposed as king and Rhaegar becomes regent until his father dies. Then Rhaegar is king and who is king after Rhaegar? Right, Aegon.. Not his (possible) son by Lyanna. The only reason he made them vow to protect Lyanna is he believed the child of their union was the Prince that was Promised. But he did not tell them. It seems to me it is very unlikely that they would have believed him. Possibly Arthur would, but that's a far stretch IMO. Picture this.... You're an atheist and your very, very best friend comes to you saying he or she has seen the light. He or she has met God or whatever... You as a non believer would ridicule this. That's an oversimplification of what happened in my guess. In Rhaegars eyes the matters of the realm were not his prior concern for a very long time, the game of thrones was nothing to him..

But well, Rhaegar did not tell these 3 KG about the prophecy. I tackled this in another thread, but there I said... First Rhaegar believed he himself was TPTWP... But after his son Aegon was born, he realised he was wrong and Aegon was TPTWP. I also explained my views on how R and L came together, but that's another subject... But... During his time with Lyanna and only then, Rhaegar AGAIN realized he was wrong... Lyanna was Ice to his Fire and a child of their union would be TPTWP. He had been wrong all along. That's why I think Rhaegar made these 3 KG swear a vow to him, making sure they would protect his child... because that child would the one that would protect humanity against the Others.

This war... This rebellion was in Rhaegar's eyes not the war that mattered, nevertheless one that had to be fought, but not one that mattered. The war that mattered was humanity VS the Others. And that's why it's so crucial these 3 KG would protect the child.

As for the conversation between Ned and the KG. I don't think it's an exact recollection of what happened, but most of it did happen I think. I like to think Ashara played some part in it, pointing Ned in the right direction either for her love of Brandon or Ned. I heavily lean on the former, but that's also another subject. I think as soon as Ned saw them, he realized they were because Lyanna was there. But he didn't know the WHY of it. Why were they there? That's what he tried to find out in this conversation. In a very subtle way. He also found out during this conversation there would be no middle ground with these men. They would not flee. They swore a vow. One side had to die, that's why they fought.

Only after finding Lyanna with the babe, he realized what that vow was (in his opinion). They stayed true to Rhaegar even after his death, they had kept their vow as true knights to the one person they believed in, the one person they would follow everywhere. They had stayed true to him and tried to protect his child even at the cost of their own lives. In his eyes these three men were the embodiement of duty of true loyalty, beyond everything else. Of course he respected these knights, but after this they had earned his uttermost respect. Ned gave them ways out during their conversation, but they would not hear of it.

BTW... That last part fits with GRRM saying the KG were meant to follow orders from the royal family even if they didn't like the order. These 3 knights would have of course argued with Rhaeger, stating they would be of far greater use to him at his side during the Battle of the Trident, but nevertheless he made them swear to stay there and guard his child.

And as for someone in this thread stating: Barristan Selmy did not seem to have a problem serving the new king. I can't find the quote in the books but the ASOIAF wiki states this: "Barristan had moral reservations about serving the new king, Robert I Baratheon, but served loyally nontheless. Barristan recalled, however, that if he had seen Robert smile when Tywin Lannister presented him with the bloody bodies of Rhaegar's children, he would never have served Robert and nothing on earth would have stopped Selmy from killing him."

And Rippounet, as for Ned not stating his intentions when he arrived at the ToJ... I think both groups of men clearly understood the how and what of the situation. Very simple example, haha: if a masked man comes into a bank armed with a gun, no one wonders what that man is doing there. It's quite obvious.

So that's that. Let me know what you think of it.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Nothing of any real interest there for me.

He has no need to 'look for them' before the Trident - none of the major royalist figures were much involved before the Trident - Aerys didn't take the rebellion seriously until after Connington was defeated at the Battle of the Bells.

And he's not actively 'looking for them' in the middle of the battle either. Its just typical phraseology for something you'd do as a leader on campaign - note which significant enemy 'pieces' are present and think about where they might be (and doing what) for the ones that aren't.

To me this is fundamental misunderstanding of the language use leading to unnecessary and unproductive tangents that don't logically follow from the text.

Oh, I just noticed the source...

Again, this, IMO, is overthinking it to an unnecessary and counter-productive degree.

No, you wouldn't expect the next question to be that. He's covered the Sack already.

Aegon is pretty much an irrelevance to Ned in this context (and, other than being supposedly dead, to the KG as well at this stage) so it is entirely natural for him to be left out of the conversation.

Well, duh. One of the things KG do, so long as the King is actively guarded by one or more of their fellows, is operate as generals. Since they weren't with the Rhaegar and the main army at the Trident, and they weren't with the King in KL, the next logical place to look for some or all of them is with the other main royalist army at Storms End.

'To' covered 'with' as well, for my part. One of the options for them to be assigned initially might have been to go with Rhaella and Viserys when they went to Dragonstone. Its a feasible thing for Aerys to send 1 or more (though 3 stretches credibility it would seem to me) KG with his heir.

Another possibility is that they were doing something else, or literally between assignments, or whatever, but for some reason missed the Trident and the Sack and then went to their should-be king Viserys. Its a fairly reasonable possibility for Ned to consider.

To me this is otherthinking it again, as usual based on a failure to understand the use of language. Whether the kingsguard bow is a single vow with many clauses or sections, or multiple separate vows, or some other similar construct, it is still referable in language as 'a vow' at some times and as 'my vows' at others.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see any need for him to state that he is here for his sister, not to fight. Much of what is in that thought would be covered by the unstated cues of body language, silent actions and positionings. More would be covered by the KG clearly barring his way forward, and the whole conversation showing their unwillingness to back off, so he has to fight them to go forward.

Clearly, if Lyanna is there, they know she is, and they must also know he's come for her, what with suddenly appearing at this place of all places, and with so few men he's clearly not there to take them down. So everyone knows what is going down here, yet they clearly are deliberately and forcefully blocking him. Its just unnecessary to state that he's here for Lyanna. Have you ever seen any such dramatic faceoff scene where anyone who is not the weak-idiot-comic-relief-character babbles on with all the unnecessary shit?

Ned is not that type. He's not a babbling talker at the best of times, certainly not in a showdown moment like this.

I don't have any particular textual problems with thinking this way (ie it generally accurate but not word for word), but I do have philosophical ones. Whats the frikken point? We already have multiple possibilities, both textual and metatextual, to cover the 'its a fever dream' (but an old one) aspect that GRRM deceptively noted.

There are only two possible reasons for such thinking. The first is so that one can throw out, or twist, the data we have that don't suit one's particular theory whenever and wherever one desires , and plenty of people do that. The second is purely to satisfy personal idiosyncratic style preferences (which is what seems to be happening mostly in this thread). I despise the first reason, and have no respect for the second - effectively its downgrading the data source based on cosmetic preferences rather than objective data.

- There's no evidence HR did kill Arthur. Just that Arthur would have killed Ned if not for HR, which is an entirely different thing. And that of the 10 fighters, only 2 rode away, and there were 8 cairns.

- its DAWN. Its a unique, House specific artifact. The oldest (that we know of), most honourable, most storied House in Westeros is almost entirely founded, supposedly 10,000 years ago, on this artifact. Its indirectly in the name of their Holdfast and in their House symbol. Its difficult to see Ned doing anything else but return it to Starfall, especial given the respect he still holds Arthur in.

- Horses are extremely useful, and literally transport themselves (as well as many other useful things) much of the time. And its a significant thing for House Dustin too. It was an easy and practical thing for Ned to do.

- because the bones of those fallen in battle are almost always buried where they fell. And its highly impractical to return Dustin's bones, immediately (logistics) or later (secrecy).

I don't think we should apply any filter when viewing the scene. I think thats backwards. I think we should construct our theories (filters) based on the data, not examine the data through the lens of our theories.

Their whole conversation is still hiding Jon, of course they are not giving clues to Ned about their motivations. :bang:

And of course they aren't actively trying to crown a prince at this stage. They are trying to keep him hidden long enough so that they can escape and let him grow up enough to actually be a threat to take back the throne.

And taking cover in the tower is strategic suicide. Clearly Ned has found them, but equally clearly he's keeping things on the quiet, with so few comrade. If they fall back into the tower then it becomes suicide for Ned to fight them and they force a standoff which they can only lose long term - Ned has options and resources available to him over time to win such a standoff, they do not. Their only strategic option at this time is to wipe out Ned's party right now so there are no survivors to bring back more troops and maybe that will keep their location secret a while longer and they can leave still in secret. That means they have to draw Ned and his fellows in and allow them at least a chance to win - no chance for Ned to win = no fight = standoff = strategic loss for KG.

Its quite frustrating how many times I've had to explain this. Tactics are informed by strategy, and good tactics that are bad strategically are not in fact good tactics, whatever they appear like on the surface.

Very well said

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

But the big question for me is, should we view the scene through the game of thrones filter or the ice and fire filter? (As I say, I believe R+L=J so I'm assuming Jon is the unseen centrepiece of the scene, and I'm also assuming J=TPwwP.) If we look at the scene through the game of thrones filter, then we see Jon as the king of the Seven Kingdoms, the Kingsguard as guardians of the king, and the vow as the Kingsguard vow. This forms the basis of the Legitimate Jon theory, which is a solid argument. But not one I take as cannon because when we look at the scene through the ice and fire filter, other possibilities do arise. Jon becomes TPwwP, the Kingsguard become the Promisedprinceguard, and the vow becomes one to Rhaegar. Personally, I don't ever see Jon sitting on the throne, but I do see him leading the fight against the Others, so the ice and fire filter is my preference.

Absolutely. I'll eat my hat if the ToJ turns out to be as stilted and cliched as it seems under prevailing "Jon is King" theories.

[three-eyed monkey]

- There's no evidence HR did kill Arthur. Just that Arthur would have killed Ned if not for HR, which is an entirely different thing. And that of the 10 fighters, only 2 rode away, and there were 8 cairns.

- its DAWN. Its a unique, House specific artifact. The oldest (that we know of), most honourable, most storied House in Westeros is almost entirely founded, supposedly 10,000 years ago, on this artifact. Its indirectly in the name of their Holdfast and in their House symbol. Its difficult to see Ned doing anything else but return it to Starfall, especial given the respect he still holds Arthur in.

- Horses are extremely useful, and literally transport themselves (as well as many other useful things) much of the time. And its a significant thing for House Dustin too. It was an easy and practical thing for Ned to do.

- because the bones of those fallen in battle are almost always buried where they fell. And its highly impractical to return Dustin's bones, immediately (logistics) or later (secrecy).

- That's my point. There is no evidence Howland killed Ser Arthur. Even the line about seven against three, and only two rode away is ambiguous because the "they were seven against three" technically refers to "they" as seven, not ten, so is it two of the seven that rode away or is it two of the ten? It's very debatable, in my opinion. As is the contents of the cairns. There's certainly room for a twist.

- We agree on why Ned returned Dawn and Lord Dustin's horse. My question was why didn't he return the bones? Obviously it would have been impractical at the time, but he could have made arrangements at a later date. You suggest people are buried where they fall, but was Lord Willam Stark buried at Long Lake? Didn't Lord Blackwood make arrangements with Jaime to have his sons bones returned for burial at home? Weren't Jory Cassel's bones returned home to lie beside his grandfather's? Ned's own bones? There is a strong tradition of returning bones in the novels. I agree that many smallfolk would be buried where they fell, but these were Ned's trusted friends and bannermen, many from esteemed houses, some even lords in their own right. It is a reasonable question and I think it stands.

I don't think we should apply any filter when viewing the scene. I think thats backwards. I think we should construct our theories (filters) based on the data, not examine the data through the lens of our theories.

I don't think it is backwards. The scene is too sparse in detail to fully know what happened. Assumptions have to be made whatever way you look at it. Those assumptions filter how we interpret the data, and it is how we interpret the data that gives shape to our theories. For example, if you assume the vow sworn is a Kingsguard vow then logic dictates that Jon is the rightful king, hence Jon must have been legitimate, therefore Rhaegar and Lyanna must have been married, etc. And while your reasoning might be excellent, and I can totally buy it, we should remember that it is built upon an initial assumption. It is the exact same for the other side of the argument. If you assume the vow was sworn to Rhaegar to protect TPwwP, then your reasoning takes a different line.

In the absence of fact, people speculate. And there is quite a gap in the factual record of what happened at the Tower of Joy. So until such time as more information is revealed we all have ToJ theories that, to one degree or another, lean on speculation. It is my speculation, based on everything from the title of the series to Rhaegar's obsession with TPwwP, that the scene is all about ice and fire and has nothing to do with the game of thrones. Could be wrong, but at this stage it is as plausible as the alternative, more so in my personal opinion.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

- We agree on why Ned returned Dawn and Lord Dustin's horse. My question was why didn't he return the bones? Obviously it would have been impractical at the time, but he could have made arrangements at a later date. You suggest people are buried where they fall, but was Lord Willam Stark buried at Long Lake? Didn't Lord Blackwood make arrangements with Jaime to have his sons bones returned for burial at home? Weren't Jory Cassel's bones returned home to lie beside his grandfather's? Ned's own bones? There is a strong tradition of returning bones in the novels. I agree that many smallfolk would be buried where they fell, but these were Ned's trusted friends and bannermen, many from esteemed houses, some even lords in their own right. It is a reasonable question and I think it stands.

Why wouldn't the families go and get the bones?

Ned is supposed to carry the bones back of all the men that died for him during the rebellion? That's insane

He buried them so they would not be carrion for the vultures and marked their cairns. The families could go back and get the bones if they so wished.

A horse is a living thing that would be useful to Ned in his travels back (especially he had a new kid and wet nurse to take along) and Dawn is the most prized sword on the planet, of course he returns that.

Ned's bones were returned after his family went and made a deal to get them.They were not just sent back because that's what everyone does.

[Punchenbag]

Whilst this particular topic has been discussed to death, there's something that I've always wanted to point out: The Kingsguard go where the King and the Royal Family tell the to go. The fact that Arthur and the others were at the Tower of Joy is often cited as "proof" that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married (and thus their child was a true Targaryen), it's not.

Anyway, with this in mind:

They were simply following Rhaegar's orders, exactly as they were supposed to, honour-bound to even.

Rhaegar was not the king. Orders would need to come from the Mad King, no?

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Rhaegar was not the king. Orders would need to come from the Mad King, no?

And Rhaegar was long dead.

[The Twinslayer]

Nothing of any real interest there for me.

He has no need to 'look for them' before the Trident - none of the major royalist figures were much involved before the Trident - Aerys didn't take the rebellion seriously until after Connington was defeated at the Battle of the Bells.

And he's not actively 'looking for them' in the middle of the battle either. Its just typical phraseology for something you'd do as a leader on campaign - note which significant enemy 'pieces' are present and think about where they might be (and doing what) for the ones that aren't.

To me this is fundamental misunderstanding of the language use leading to unnecessary and unproductive tangents that don't logically follow from the text.

Oh, I just noticed the source...

Probably best just to agree to disagree where your response is that the analysis was "overthinking." But there are a few substantive points.

No, you wouldn't expect the next question to be that. He's covered the Sack already.

Aegon is pretty much an irrelevance to Ned in this context (and, other than being supposedly dead, to the KG as well at this stage) so it is entirely natural for him to be left out of the conversation.

I think the fact that they fail to mention Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon is very significant and highlights why I disagree with your analysis of this dialogue. Under your interpretation, the location of Rhaella is irrelevant, because she is on Dragonstone (which is covered by the question about Viserys) and under your interpretation, Ned's ultimate question is "why aren't you on your way to Viserys."

So this becomes an important question: why do they talk about Rhaegar, then Aerys, then Rhaella and Viserys, but skip over Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon? It can't be because Ned thinks they are dead, because Rhaegar and Aerys are dead, too. It can't be because talking about Aerys covers the Sack, because talking about Viserys covers Rhaella, too.

This is why I say that the omission of Elia and the children is significant.

Well, duh. One of the things KG do, so long as the King is actively guarded by one or more of their fellows, is operate as generals. Since they weren't with the Rhaegar and the main army at the Trident, and they weren't with the King in KL, the next logical place to look for some or all of them is with the other main royalist army at Storms End.

Save for your premise (that one KG is actively guarding the King), I agree with this statement. But I think it undercuts the point you are trying to make. Ned believes that Aerys, Rhaegar, Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon are dead. The only two living Targaryens left are on Dragonstone. Under your theory, if the Kingsguard knew this, one of them at least would stop doing whatever else he is doing and go to Dragonstone. But that is not what Ned expects them to do. He says clearly that he thought that under those circumstances, he thought they would remain with Mace Tyrell's army at Storm's End. It is only after he realizes that they are not at Storm's End that he turns to the possibility that they would be with Viserys. In other words, once the rest of the royal family are dead, going to Dragonstone is not the first thing Ned thinks the KG will do. It is the last thing he thinks they will do.

To me this is otherthinking it again, as usual based on a failure to understand the use of language. Whether the kingsguard bow is a single vow with many clauses or sections, or multiple separate vows, or some other similar construct, it is still referable in language as 'a vow' at some times and as 'my vows' at others.

Are there any instances where a Kingsguard knight refers to the part of the oath to protect the king as a "vow" rather than "vows." I couldn't find any, and Barristan uses "vows": "Ser Gerold Hightower himself heard my vows . . . to ward teh king with all my strength . . . to give my blood for his . . ." The only examples I found where a Kingsguard knight swears a "vow" are the examples I gave where they took a separate vow to do something other than protect the king.

- because the bones of those fallen in battle are almost always buried where they fell. And its highly impractical to return Dustin's bones, immediately (logistics) or later (secrecy).

Just a quick side note on this, because it is interesting. Some Southerners' bones seem to lie where they fall (or the body is cremated), but it appears that it is very important to Northerners (or is it followers of the Old Gods?) to get the bones home for burial. We don't hear of any bones missing from the Winterfell crypt (Catelyn says that Ned "was a Stark, and his bones must be laid to rest beneath Winterfell"; Ned says that Lyanna's place was in the Winterfell crypts because she "was a Stark of Winterfell"; and there are already places waiting for Robb, Bran, Sansa and Arya in the crypts early in the story). And it is not just Starks. Rickard Karstark's sons died in battle and he planned to take their bones home (he laments that that is all that is left to take home). And Lady Dustin puts on a convincing (and perhaps genuine) display of being upset that Ned failed to bring Lord Dustin's bones home.

Apart from that, bringing home the bones can be important to Southerners. We know that the Tullys send theirs to the river, just as the Ironborn send them to the sea, but when Jon Arryn went to Sunspear to make peace with the Martells, he took Prince Lewyn's bones with him, and we know that Lewyn died in battle.

[three-eyed monkey]

Why wouldn't the families go and get the bones?

Ned is supposed to carry the bones back of all the men that died for him during the rebellion? That's insane

He buried them so they would not be carrion for the vultures and marked their cairns. The families could go back and get the bones if they so wished.

A horse is a living thing that would be useful to Ned in his travels back (especially he had a new kid and wet nurse to take along) and Dawn is the most prized sword on the planet, of course he returns that.

Ned's bones were returned after his family went and made a deal to get them.They were not just sent back because that's what everyone does.

If you actually read the post you replied to, I stated that obviously It would be impractical at the time. How you get from there to "Ned is supposed to carry the bones back of all the men that died for him during the rebellion?" is beyond me.

As I have already said, I agree with why he returned Dawn and the horse, so I don't see what that has to do with it?

And I'm not suggesting everyone sends the bones back, but there is multiple mentions throughout the series. It is not uncommon amongst the nobility. And while it is often part of a deal, the reason it is part of a deal is because the bones have value to one of the parties, ie. the loved ones of the slain. But it is also a mark of respect, and the honourable thing to do. I don't buy Ned adopting a "you want them, go get them" approach, tbh. These were trusted friends of his whose houses he would depend on as Lord of Winterfell. Why would he risk offending them without good cause?