R+L=J v. 148

[J. Stargaryen]

snip

I'm pretty sure she's going to say that Lyanna is not connected to the ToJ in reality, just in Ned's dream. As in, Ned found Lyanna somewhere before the Trident, and fought the KG at the ToJ after the Sack of KL.

Also, not sure why Brandon is being brought up. Maybe I missed something? Apparently wolfmaid is about 90% sure that Jon's father is Robert.

[Alia of the knife]

Yeah--if Dawn is the necessary sword and Jon needs it, Jon's being a Dayne would be important.

And I agree--the only person we have on page with direct interaction with Lyanna is Rhaegar. That interaction is extremely limited--one moment. But at least they both touch the rose crown--one of the few symbols in the story that's actually developed clearly.

But the Daynes do keep showing up. The interaction between Arya and Edric still has me intrigued. And given how old that family is, and the fact that the actual sword keeps getting mentioned in multiple contexts by more than one POV--something's up.

As for the tower--ugh--that thing is so unclear. We don't know where or how Ned heard Rhaegar called it the tower of joy. Don't even know if Rhaegar actually called it that. Don't know what the KG were doing there. Don't know if Lyanna and/or Jon were ever actually in it. We know a fight happened there. We know Ned pulled it down to build cairns. Know it shows up in Ned's dreams. But we don't know if the KG were actually guarding Lyanna--Martin's kept that vague. He just has. Which makes it hard to use it as evidence that the KG's being there means Lyanna is tied to Rhaegar.

The rose crown? Solid. but context to be determined. The tower? Vague--context really to be determined. Arthur as daddy? Possible--more evidence needed.

The Daynes are important as witnesses to history. Also, is Dawn an inherited sword, or does it go to the one worthy of wielding it?

Given what we know about the Targaryen marriages, then Jon has not only Martell blood, but Dayne as well because would Dyanna not be a grandmother to Jon if Rhaegar is his father?

Also, I speculate that Edric might have been about to approach Ned for Aryas hand, or making good on a match perhaps already made, but lost his nerve.

Such an alliance would pay for the dishonor done to House Dayne by the Starks, whether it was Brandon or Ned.

Sansa is already promised, and there are no available Dayne girls for the Stark boys, so, that leaves Arya and Edric.

[ReleaseTheHound]

I'm pretty sure she's going to say that Lyanna is not connected to the ToJ in reality, just in Ned's dream. As in, Ned found Lyanna somewhere before the Trident, and fought the KG at the ToJ after the Sack of KL.

Also, not sure why Brandon is being brought up. Maybe I missed something? Apparently wolfmaid is about 90% sure that Jon's father is Robert.

No I'm sorry I was thinking it was wolfmaid who brought up Brandon but it was crimsonsmile who did and was being irrational so I'm sorry wolfmaid but I still don't know why you are arguing against ygrains plausible analysis of the text and not offering much up against it other than "you're assuming"

[UnmaskedLurker]

Brandon and Lya? ??? What???

I understand I do but this is what Y grain and I agreed yo and its fair.The discussion we are having right now has to do with how a particular piece of text was interpreted by Y grain.

I do not accept the interpretation because

1.It requires me to accept a hypothetical belief on the part of Ned.We have Ned's thinking we have what he is saying and the context.

2. Of many conversation this is a straight shooter. Context of the line that evokes the Promise me Ned, Promise is revenge.That is what Ned brought up.

You all have already decided that all promises made had to do with Jon.The cart before the horse and you just dont see it.

I shoot down Ygrain's interpretation because logical sense shoots it down.

Follow the bread crumbs true, but dont assume along the way that at the end there must be a bakery.

For whatever it is worth, I find Ygrain's "logic" more persuasive than yours. In fact, I find Ygrain to be one of the most "logical" thinkers on the boards. I think others (like LMLB) also find Ygrain's logic more persuasive than yours. Maybe you should consider that if your logic does not seem to be persuading anyone else, that there is a flaw in your logic. Perhaps GRRM thinks more like Ygrain than like you. I certainly believe that he does, but, as with everything, future books will resolve this issue one way or the other.

As a clarification, do you believe that Robert is the father or that Brandon is the father? There seems to be some confusion on this point. But if you believe Robert is the father, the timing analysis I set forth above in post #302 would work for Robert not being the father as well, given that we know that Robert did not see Lyanna after she disappeared prior to the start of the war. We know this fact based on Robert's statements regarding Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna prior to the war.

[Sly Wren]

The Daynes are important as witnesses to history. Also, is Dawn an inherited sword, or does it go to the one worthy of wielding it?

Given what we know about the Targaryen marriages, then Jon has not only Martell blood, but Dayne as well because would Dyanna not be a grandmother to Jon if Rhaegar is his father?

Also, I speculate that Edric might have been about to approach Ned for Aryas hand, or making good on a match perhaps already made, but lost his nerve.

Such an alliance would pay for the dishonor done to House Dayne by the Starks, whether it was Brandon or Ned.

Sansa is already promised, and there are no available Dayne girls for the Stark boys, so, that leaves Arya and Edric.

I believe the sword goes to the worthy Dayne of the generation--that's who gets to be Sword of the Morning (really think that title goes back to the Long Night). So, not Darkstar. Maybe Edric--don't know his sword swinging abilities yet. Jon--good with a sword. Assuming he survives his pincushion impression.

And yes, if Rhaegar=dad then Jon has some Dayne blood. Much less direct than via Arthur--but there.

The conversation between Edric and Arya--it could be about marriage proposals. But Edric stresses his connection to Jon Snow via Wylla--which seems odd to me. The Lord of Starfall is taking the time to point out that he's milk brothers with the bastard of Winterfell? He is an awfully polite and deferential kid--maybe he's just gracious by nature. But still--back to one of the few specific symbols in the story. Milk glass and the Daynes--milk glass sword, milk brothers . . .

I don't want to push this too hard because it's one conversation. But it is there. And bringing Edric into the story seems unnecessary otherwise--not that including unnecessary things has ever stopped Martin before.

Plus, Edric's attitude about the romance with Ned and Ashara--it doesn't seem like he thinks the Starks have anything to make up for to the Daynes. Sounds more sad and respectful to all involved. Why do they like Ned so much? Not remotely sure. But something's up.

[Ygrain]

For whatever it is worth, I find Ygrain's "logic" more persuasive than yours. In fact, I find Ygrain to be one of the most "logical" thinkers on the boards. I think others (like LMLB) also find Ygrain's logic more persuasive than yours. Maybe you should consider that if your logic does not seem to be persuading anyone else, that there is a flaw in your logic. Perhaps GRRM thinks more like Ygrain than like you. I certainly believe that he does, but, as with everything, future books will resolve this issue one way or the other.

Lol, I am definitely complimented :D Good to know that the years spent dissecting texts were not entirely wasted :D

[LmL]

For whatever it is worth, I find Ygrain's "logic" more persuasive than yours. In fact, I find Ygrain to be one of the most "logical" thinkers on the boards. I think others (like LMLB) also find Ygrain's logic more persuasive than yours. Maybe you should consider that if your logic does not seem to be persuading anyone else, that there is a flaw in your logic. Perhaps GRRM thinks more like Ygrain than like you. I certainly believe that he does, but, as with everything, future books will resolve this issue one way or the other.

As a clarification, do you believe that Robert is the father or that Brandon is the father? There seems to be some confusion on this point. But if you believe Robert is the father, the timing analysis I set forth above in post #302 would work for Robert not being the father as well, given that we know that Robert did not see Lyanna after she disappeared prior to the start of the war. We know this fact based on Robert's statements regarding Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna prior to the war.

In particular, the idea that Lyanna could have made Ned promise revenge can be ruled out, because:

1.) We know Ned has kept that promise - he thinks to himself about how much keeping the promise has cost

2.) Ned has never taken revenge on Robert, nor thought about it

Wolfmaid threw a lot of confusing sentences out but it's really that simple. Additionally, there is no correlation between Lyanna as the KotLT (which I think she probably was), where she killed nobody and tried to kill nobody - instead, the KotLT made a point about honor - and making her brother promise to to try to kill his best friend for revenge, an act which would plunger the entire country BACK a into civil war.

[IMNHAAO]

Yeah--if Dawn is the necessary sword and Jon needs it, Jon's being a Dayne would be important.

And I agree--the only person we have on page with direct interaction with Lyanna is Rhaegar. That interaction is extremely limited--one moment. But at least they both touch the rose crown--one of the few symbols in the story that's actually developed clearly.

.......

It might be really wrongheaded of me, but I take Barristan's "Prince Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna, and thousands died for it." as a direct link which makes very hard for me to consider other possibilities.

He is a simple man in certain things, so he could just be accepting the story that was told, only he doesn't, he doesn't accept the "kidnapping and rape" which is the official story after all, he remembers a man in love with a woman and that woman isn't "Lyanna Stark" or any other moniker used for her, he remembers her as "his lady Lyanna" which to me makes it more believable that he had it like that from Rhaegar himself. I cannot recall him using that kind of phrasing in other circumstances even when talking about similar subjects, but I couldn't swear on it, no research has gone into it at all. I am just going by my admittedly imperfect memory. :blushing:

I don't even know if I am just rambling about nothing trying to find holes where there is none. Still... I like the Daynes for some weird reason so that hole in the net would be welcome. :cool4:

[LmL]

Just for the record, my opinion is that Dawn is actually the original Ice of House Stark. Thus, Jon is an heir to its legacy, if anyone can ever somehow reveal that it is actually Ice. No idea how that would happen... But we also have no idea how or if Dawn will leave Starfall or who will wield it, so... Just pointing out that if it is the original Ice, Jon would be able or qualified to wield it, from our point of view. But I have no idea how they characters in the book would figure that out, in fairness.

If Lightbringer is still around anywhere, and Jon is "AA reborn" in some sense, and a Targaryen, he would be qualified to wield either sword, potentially.

ETA: if Dawn is Ice then Jon does not necessarily need to be a Dayne to wield it or activate it's potential magic, IF he can get his hands on it and IF blood descent means anything in the context of magic swords

[The Twinslayer]

The timeline SSM with emphasis provided by me....

"All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts.

I do intend to publish a timeline as an appendix in one or other of the later volumes, but even when I do, I am not certain I'm going to start detailing things down to months and days. With such a huge cast of characters, just keeping track of the =years= drives me half mad sometimes. Not to mention the colors of everybody's eyes."

So not more than a year before Dany. The time of Jon's birth is said to be between not more than a year and probably closer to eight or nine months. Martin did not say the time of Jon's birth is eight or nine months before Dany's.

And another SSM

"The reason I am never specific about dates and distances is precisely so that people won't sit down and do this sort of thing.

My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story."

Well, sometimes it's hard to put those away. But when we do, we should keep this in mind.

The first SSM is, in my opinion, unreliable. It is from 1999, not long before the publication of ASOS. The questioner was trying to get GRRM to confirm that Ashara could not be Jon's mother because Ned and Ashara weren't in the same place at the right time to have conceived Jon. GRRM's response was to say that Ashara was not in Starfall during the entirety of the Rebellion and that he was planning to reveal in ASOS some information about Ashara, in particular that she lived with Elia in King's Landing early in the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage.

For some reason, between the time he made the SSM and the time he publishes ASOS, GRRM changed his mind. ASOS says nothing about where Ashara was during the Rebellion, and it does not mention her being with Elia early in the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage. That story line got left on the cutting room floor. Later, when GRRM published the World Book, he decided that Elia and Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone early in their marriage. We still don't know whether he still has her being a companion to Elia during that time, but if he does, then she wasn't in King's Landing as GRRM thought back in 1999.

This is the context in which GRRM said that Jon was born about 8-9 months before Dany. Evidently, he was planning to drop some hints about Ned meeting up with Ashara 9 months before Jon was born, but decided against it for some reason. Which calls into question the statement about the timing of Jon's birth in relation to Dany's.

So I, for one, am not prepared to rely on this SSM to tell us the approximate time of Jon's birth.

Wait. Twins? Is This HL = J and....M, I assume? But why would anyone care about Lyanna and Howland's children? They don't pose a threat to the crown or the throne, not in the same way that a son of Rhaegar does to the Baratheon/Lannister throne. Lyanna and Howland's children have no reason to fear a Baratheon/Lannister party.

I don't subscribe to any H+L theory, but if Lyanna had a child by anyone other than Robert, it would be prudent to keep that child secret, because Robert convinced himself that Lyanna would not have taken up with anyone but him willingly. He vowed to kill Rhaegar "for what he did" to Lyanna. He'd make the same vow for anyone else.

Thanks for both of those. I had forgotten the passages you linked. However, Brandon was still male, and the heir apparent, and his appearance in the crypt is less odd than a female. So why Lyanna? Yes, it could be because "sister" or something more, especially if Ned needs to hide something.

I think the only other family that erects a statue to one of their daughters is the Blackwoods. They erected a statue of Melissa to honor her for being a royal mistress.

That's an old one :P

And ties to the whole issue of Ashara, or any other woman, as Ned's love interest. The only women that Ned ever thinks about are Lyanna and Cat.

By this logic, Ned didn't love his own mother, since he never thinks of her in his POV chapters.

[stateofdissipation]

In particular, the idea that Lyanna could have made Ned promise revenge can be ruled out, because:

1.) We know Ned has kept that promise - he thinks to himself about how much keeping the promise has cost

2.) Ned has never taken revenge on Robert, nor thought about it

Wolfmaid threw a lot of confusing sentences out but it's really that simple. Additionally, there is no correlation between Lyanna as the KotLT (which I think she probably was), where she killed nobody and tried to kill nobody - instead, the KotLT made a point about honor - and making her brother promise to to try to kill his best friend for revenge, an act which would plunger the entire country BACK a into civil war.

1.) We know Ned has kept that promise - he thinks to himself about how much keeping the promise has cost

Ned thought of the price he paid "to keep them (promises)"

Paid a price to keep a promise =/= paying a price to keep a promise.

Paid a price to keep a promise=/=keeping a promise has much cost.

a paid ticket to New York=/=a trip to New York happened.

If you change the textual infinitive phrase for a gerund or a verb in the past tense, then you can claim:

Ned was keeping the promise---gerund

Ned kept the promise---past tense

If it takes whiteout and a pen to make the interpretation, do not make it.

[LmL]

1.) We know Ned has kept that promise - he thinks to himself about how much keeping the promise has cost

Ned thought of the price he paid "to keep them (promises)"

Paid a price to keep a promise =/= paying a price to keep a promise.

Paid a price to keep a promise=/=keeping a promise has much cost.

a paid ticket to New York=/=a trip to New York happened.

If you change the textual infinitive phrase for a gerund or a verb in the past tense, then you can claim:

Ned was keeping the promise---gerund

Ned kept the promise---past tense

If it takes whiteout and a pen to make the interpretation, do not make it.

Does this make sense to anyone? I consistently cannot make sense of anything Stateofdissipation says, is it just me? I'm not even sure what he's trying to say here.

If Ned promised to avenge Lyanna, he has not kept that promise, nor tried to, nor thought about doing so. Ergo, that is not what he promised, since we know he has kept his promise to her.

[UnmaskedLurker]

The first SSM is, in my opinion, unreliable. It is from 1999, not long before the publication of ASOS. The questioner was trying to get GRRM to confirm that Ashara could not be Jon's mother because Ned and Ashara weren't in the same place at the right time to have conceived Jon. GRRM's response was to say that Ashara was not in Starfall during the entirety of the Rebellion and that he was planning to reveal in ASOS some information about Ashara, in particular that she lived with Elia in King's Landing early in the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage.

For some reason, between the time he made the SSM and the time he publishes ASOS, GRRM changed his mind. ASOS says nothing about where Ashara was during the Rebellion, and it does not mention her being with Elia early in the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage. That story line got left on the cutting room floor. Later, when GRRM published the World Book, he decided that Elia and Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone early in their marriage. We still don't know whether he still has her being a companion to Elia during that time, but if he does, then she wasn't in King's Landing as GRRM thought back in 1999.

This is the context in which GRRM said that Jon was born about 8-9 months before Dany. Evidently, he was planning to drop some hints about Ned meeting up with Ashara 9 months before Jon was born, but decided against it for some reason. Which calls into question the statement about the timing of Jon's birth in relation to Dany's.

So I, for one, am not prepared to rely on this SSM to tell us the approximate time of Jon's birth.

I don't subscribe to any H+L theory, but if Lyanna had a child by anyone other than Robert, it would be prudent to keep that child secret, because Robert convinced himself that Lyanna would not have taken up with anyone but him willingly. He vowed to kill Rhaegar "for what he did" to Lyanna. He'd make the same vow for anyone else.

I think the only other family that erects a statue to one of their daughters is the Blackwoods. They erected a statue of Melissa to honor her for being a royal mistress.

By this logic, Ned didn't love his own mother, since he never thinks of her in his POV chapters.

Here is my problem with your logic regarding disregarding the 1999 SSM. Yes, I agree that he likely stated some points about future books and then changed his mind. We don't know why he changed his mind, but I am not sure it matters. The point is that anything he might state about contents of future books clearly will be subject to change based on how he writes the books. But the statement about Jon and Dany being 8-9 months apart in age is not really just a reference to future book events. GRRM planted the seeds of their ages in GoT -- prior to 1999. Sure, he has wiggle room to change his mind, but the ages of these central characters seem to be fairly important to the overall plot. And GRRM states that he does not "lie" in the sense that once he sets something up with clues in a book, he does not just discount the clues and go a different direction.

So the relative ages of Jon and Dany, as they would have been thought in GRRM's mind in 1999, likely are not going to be subject to change. Even if he failed to come up with a way to add a "red herring" about Ned and Ashara running into each other at the theoretical conception time for Jon, there are many reasons that point might have been left out. But the point about the ages goes deeper than any proposed scene in a future book -- it goes to the mysteries surrounding two of the main characters. And those mysteries were established in GoT. GRRM is not going to go a different direction now on those fundamental points about main characters.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Does this make sense to anyone? I consistently cannot make sense of anything Stateofdissipation says, is it just me? I'm not even sure what he's trying to say here.

If Ned promised to avenge Lyanna, he has not kept that promise, nor tried to, nor thought about doing so. Ergo, that is not what he promised, since we know he has kept his promise to her.

No, it is not just you.

[Sly Wren]

It might be really wrongheaded of me, but I take Barristan's "Prince Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna, and thousands died for it." as a direct link which makes very hard for me to consider other possibilities.

He is a simple man in certain things, so he could just be accepting the story that was told, only he doesn't, he doesn't accept the "kidnapping and rape" which is the official story after all, he remembers a man in love with a woman and that woman isn't "Lyanna Stark" or any other moniker used for her, he remembers her as "his lady Lyanna" which to me makes it more believable that he had it like that from Rhaegar himself. I cannot recall him using that kind of phrasing in other circumstances even when talking about similar subjects, but I couldn't swear on it, no research has gone into it at all. I am just going by my admittedly imperfect memory. :blushing:

I don't even know if I am just rambling about nothing trying to find holes where there is none. Still... I like the Daynes for some weird reason so that hole in the net would be welcome. :cool4:

Agree with your assessment of Barristan's character. And he might have heard it from Rhaegar--but he doesn't say. Doesn't give any context or evidence for the statement. No reason whatsoever to think that Barristan is "lying." But that doesn't mean he's right. Martin refused to let us have Barristan's evidence--grrr!

But I think his assessment might have something to do with his being a loyalist. The only other person who gives the "love" scenario is Viserys--less reliable than a fortune-telling goat, but a loyal to the family. And Barristan seems loyal to Rhaegar. Only other mention of "not rape" I can think of is Cersei--that Rhaegar wouldn't have needed the "wolf girl" if he'd married Cersei instead of Elia--but again, she CANNOT be compared to Barristan for integrity and has no direct knowledge at all.

Just think that without Barristan's evidence or any other independent evidence--can't take his word re: R and L as gospel. And, as a loyalist, can see how his beliefs could be colored.

And agree on the Daynes--they bugged me early on. I had RLJ figured before I'd finished my first read of AGOT. I have a cynical nature. But the Daynes--really think there's something there--if not Jon, still something. I like them, too. :)

[Sly Wren]

Does this make sense to anyone? I consistently cannot make sense of anything Stateofdissipation says, is it just me? I'm not even sure what he's trying to say here.

If Ned promised to avenge Lyanna, he has not kept that promise, nor tried to, nor thought about doing so. Ergo, that is not what he promised, since we know he has kept his promise to her.

I think--key word is "think"--sod's saying that just because Ned thought about the price he'd paid to keep promises, that doesn't mean the promises were ultimately kept. Just that he paid a price at some point trying.

And that if some promises were kept, doesn't mean that those promises were the ones that had cost him. I think . . .

[mormont]

[mod] Guys, I say this often and I am saying it again: please, discuss the books, not each other. Statements like 'you guys all think like this' are not helpful. Statements like 'this argument isn't making much sense to me' are fine, statements like 'you never make sense' are not. Don't personalise. [/mod]

[LmL]

“She does.” Eddard Stark had touched the baby’s fine, dark hair. It flowed through his fingers like black silk. Robert’s firstborn had had the same fine hair, he seemed to recall.

“Tell him that when you see him, milord, as it … as it please you. Tell him how beautiful she is.”

“I will,” Ned had promised her. That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he’d made Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he’d paid to keep them. (AGOT, Eddard)

Eddard kept the promises. He paid a price in order to keep them. No white out or assumption-ing is needed here.

Not only that, but consider the scene: Ned is dealing with the fact that Robert forgets about his promises of love, and does not take care of his children. Ned, on the other hand keeps his promises.. to... take care of children. Not really a leap there, either. That is the context in which Ned thinks about the price he has paid to keep his promises - which make perfect sense if RLJ is true and Ned has had to cause a rift in his marriage to keep his promise to take care of Jon.

Again, there's no twisting or stretching needed to make this work.

[JonSnow4President]

Does this make sense to anyone? I consistently cannot make sense of anything Stateofdissipation says, is it just me? I'm not even sure what he's trying to say here.

If Ned promised to avenge Lyanna, he has not kept that promise, nor tried to, nor thought about doing so. Ergo, that is not what he promised, since we know he has kept his promise to her.

He's trying to say that "he paid a price to keep the promises" doesn't mean "he actually kept the promises." He's comparing it to a real world situation where the payment precedes the thing, like an airline ticket to New York. I may have bought the ticket a month ago, but it doesn't mean I've taken the flight yet.

He then brings up some vaguely grammatically technical sounding garbage to try and reinforce this, saying your interpretation requires changing what was actually written.

Of course, the whole argument is illogical and inconsistent with the way anyone, anywhere, uses the English language. A price paid to keep a promise cannot precede keeping the promise (or at least trying to), unless the promise actually involved purchasing something but somehow didn't go through. So maybe Lyanna really wanted that designer handbag from Braavos, but it got lost in the mail. Then, and only then, would state's argument make any sense.

[Ygrain]

Ned was keeping the promise---gerund

That's past continuous, not a gerund.