Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Prince of Ghost

R+L=J v 150

Recommended Posts

I'd rather say that some aspects of honour were very important to her, such as standing up for the weak (just like Jon did for Sam). However, the characteristics that the honourable Ned isn't honourable but wild and wilful, and the latter aspect is again confirmed by Meera's story, not easy to refuse. Time and again, we see her not submitting herself with defiance but circumventing the rules which she didn't like to do what she wanted to do. Eloping with Rhaegar instead of marrying Robert would very much be in line here.

 

BTW, this line has caught my attention:

 

All that winter the crannogman stayed on the isle (of Faces)

 

It has been speculated before that Rhaegar and Lyanna may have stayed on the isle for some time, as well - never actually leaving the place where she was staying (HH), just like the Stark maiden in Bael's story, and if I understand correctly, it was still winter when Rhaegar "fell upon Lyanna".

 

 

 

All that winter the crannogman stayed on the isle

 

I certainly think your very valid  points are one interpretation.

 

Yes--very true. One of the reasons I have trouble with "running away with Rhaegar" scenario--we may not know much about Lyanna, but we know the above and that she didn't want to marry a man who wouldn't be faithful, even if he loved her. She seems to have known her own mind and been willing to stick to it.

 

So, taking her by force (reason to be determined) or trick (reason to be determined) seems most likely scenario if Rhaegar took her.

 

Could maybe see her asking someone else to help her--but then I can't see that as Rhaegar. . . 

 

I've got to be honest, the argument that Rhaegar would just keep to her bed in a polygamous marriage because there was no reason to sleep with Elia since she couldn't have children anymore as an example of his fidelity to her, is a bit of a stretch.

 

In cultures where polygamy is the norm, NOT visiting all the wives is potentially an insult, and in Court or elsewhere, it negates Elias own power.

What if King Rhaegar and Lyanna have a big blow out fight? Where does Rhaegar go to be consoled but to a Dornish first wife who probably knows a thing or two about revenge ;)

Even if he wouldn't, given Lyannas own insights about Robert, there would always be an element of supsicion in such an arrangement.

 

Seriously however, my own interpretation of Lyannas wolfs blood and her "willfullness," is more about the overview of her character and seperate from Rhaegar.

 

Ned remembers her willfullness, but he also loved her dearly. If she had a mind to put the family in disgrace due to her deliberate actions of turning her back on her betrothed and the match, (which Robert asked for and Rickard agreed to), to run off with a married man, it would certainly be considered selfish since FAMILIAL disgrace rather than the modern, individual disgrace would be the end result,  I doubt he would be remembering her fondly or with love.

 

And honestly, Rhaegar could not offer himself as a way to get Lyanna out of her betrothal to Robert. The best thing he could do to help her would be to find Robert another match, or talk Robert out of the match as men were the only ones who could break betrothals, and usually on the accusation of the womans infidelity.

 

 

 

 

When I think of her "wolfs blood," I think of Arya challenging Joffrey over Micah as an example, or the fact that like Arya, (and this is per Maisie Williams on Aryas character), Lyanna likely saw the world in terms of black and white, right and wrong, and probably didn't have a lot of patience with bullshit and guff, again Maisies words on how she reads Arya. 

In NOT taking the middle road and compromising, keeping her mouth shut, or "playing the game," when it came to justice or right and wrong, that attitude and her acting on it, a.k.a., tKotLT, is what I speculate got her into trouble, and an early grave.

 

I think when we get the whole story of Lyanna and the tournament, Reed will not have been her only scrape and Rhaegar will probably have known exactly who to puzzle out.

 

 

Maybe it was her wolfs blood and willfulness that made her say no to Rhaegar rather than yes, and she gave Rhaegar an ulitmatum of "its either her," (Elia), "or me," (Lyanna), perhaps never actually dreaming he would set Elia aside.

 

This is not to cast Rhaegar in a bad light, but it also explains why he might have "fallen upon" her and taken the decision-making process out of her hands.

 

What was it that Viserys said, if Dany had been born first, perhaps then Rhaegar wouldn't have run after the Stark girl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to be honest, the argument that Rhaegar would just keep to her bed in a polygamous marriage because there was no reason to sleep with Elia since she couldn't have children anymore, is a bit of a stretch.

 

In cultures where polygamy is the norm, NOT visiting all the wives is potentially an insult, and in Court or elsewhere, it negates Elias own power.

What if King Rhaegar and Lyanna have a big blow out fight? Where does Rhaegar go to be consoled but to a Dornish first wife who probably knows a thing or two about revenge ;)

Even if he wouldn't, given Lyannas own insights about Robert, there would always be an element of supsicion in such an arrangement.

HA! Yes, wolfsblood runs right into Elia's relatives and their penchant for poison--seems like a mess no one in their right mind would go into. . . 

 

Seriously however, my own interpretation of Lyannas wolfs blood and her "willfullness," is more about the overview of her character and seperate from Rhaegar.

 

Ned remembers her willfullness, but he also loved her dearly. If she had a mind to put the family in disgrace due to her deliberate actions of turning her back on her betrothed and the match, (which Robert asked for and Rickard agreed to), to run off with a married man, it would certainly be considered selfish since FAMILIAL disgrace rather than the modern, individual disgrace would be the end result,  I doubt he would be remembering her fondly or with love.

 

And honestly, Rhaegar could not offer himself as a way to get Lyanna out of her betrothal to Robert. The best thing he could do to help her would be to find Robert another match, or talk Robert out of the match as men were the only ones who could break betrothals, and usually on the accusation of the womans infidelity.

 

When I think of her "wolfs blood," I think of Arya challenging Joffrey over Micah as an example, or the fact that like Arya, (and this is per Maisie Williams on Aryas character), Lyanna likely saw the world in terms of black and white, right and wrong, and probably didn't have a lot of patience with bullshit and guff, again Maisies words. 

 

In NOT taking the middle road and compromising, or "playing the game," when it came to justice or right and wrong, that attitude and her acting on it, a.k.a., tKotLT, is what I speculate got her into trouble, and an early grave.

 

I think when we get the whole story of Lyanna and the tournament, Reed will not have been her only scrape and Rhaegar will probably have known exactly who to puzzle out.

 

Maybe it was her wolfs blood and willfulness that made her say no to Rhaegar rather than yes, and she gave Rhaegar an ulitmatum of "its either her, (Elia), or me, (Lyanna), perhaps never actually dreaming he would set Elia aside.

 

This is not to cast Rhaegar in a bad light, but it also explains why he might have "fallen upon" her and taken the decision-making process out of her hands.

 

What was it that Viserys said, if Dany had been born first, perhaps then Rhaegar wouldn't have run after the Stark girl?

1. Yes--the characters of both Lyanna and Rhaegar are always the wall I run into when trying to figure this out. We have them on page with the crown, have the roses and their scent tied to Lya both physically and symbolically, and have the "common knowledge" that they disappeared together--knowledge no one has contradicted so far. Good.

 

And then have to deal with why on earth either of them would have gone. I agree with your assessment on Lyanna--Have a hard time seeing her "convinced to leave.

 

2. If she was Knight of the Laughing Tree, if that got she in more scrapes, if she needed help--could maybe see her asking for help. But that's a lot of if's. And not sure why not go to her brothers instead. Or someone else she trusts. She doesn't seem faint of heart.  And not sure why the crown prince would risk crossing his father on this. 

 

3. Rhaegar taking the decision out of her hands--it's the best scenario I've got, too. But Rhaegar's character--dutiful, dedicated--we really need more evidence. As is--I'm floundering on a good motive that fits their characters. Some kind of abduction is the best I've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
Absolutely true, but when we combine the Targaryen version of the events with multiple clues of people who rebel against their Lord's or their father's wishes in marriage, and Lyanna's explicit reservations about Robert, and add the strangely absent call by Brandon for his sister's return, as well as other clues we get a convincing case, in my opinion, that the author is pointing us in this direction. I don't offer the above quote as proof this is true, but as one more in a long line of clues to show an observant reader that it is likely this was not a "kidnapping." It is important to remember that while we have Robert's view of what happened stated up front as the truth, the author has gone to great lengths to lay multiple clues to undermine this version, and to tell us that this may well not be the truth. It becomes hard not to see, in a work of fiction, that the hidden clues are telling us the real story. In short, Viserys's "romantic story" is more believable than Robert's delusions.

Agree we're supposed to doubt Robert's account. And question his understanding of Lyanna--Ned gives us that flat out. But think we're supposed to doubt all accounts--can't see why Dany's account given her from Viserys is more believable than Robert's. Both seem equally suspect. Just think the texts says no one who has actual knowledge is telling us what happened. So, all stories suspect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fire Eater,

 

do you have any textual evidence for your claim about where legitimized bastards come in the line of succession in regards to trueborn children? I don't remember such a line but if a legitimation is a true legitimation then a legitimized bastard is, for all intents and purposes, a trueborn child after he/she has been legitimized, which should mean that where he/she comes in the line of succession should be totally dependent on who is the elder, no? I don't remember George establishing it that legitimized come always after the trueborn children.

 

Addam/Alyn:

 

The text states that they were legitimized after Addam mounted the dragon and Alyn failed to mount a dragon. You claim they were legitimized because Addam mounted a dragon (and ignore Alyn's failure in the process). Your assumption that there is a causal relation - Addam becoming a dragonrider causes the legitimation of the brothers - isn't supported by the text. The brothers were Corlys' sons, and he and Jace may have pushed Rhaenyra to legitimize them even if Addam hadn't become a dragonrider - simply to have spare Velaryon/Targaryen heirs at hand should something happen to him and/or his brothers in the coming battles. Other people's believes on the parentage of the boys is irrelevant - Jace and Corlys had direct access to the grieving Queen Regnant, and effectively calling the shots at that time anyway (with Jace acting in Robb-like way, and Corlys serving as Hand of the Queen).

 

Orys Baratheon wasn't Aerion's acknowledged bastard. There were rumors that this was the case, or rather, that he was Aegon's bastard brother. That's it.

 

I did not say Jaehaerys I had any bastards, have I? But even that's a possibility considering that there was a First Quarrel between him and Alysanne that led to a period of separation prior to the Second Quarrel. I imagine that either Alysanne or Jaehaerys (or both) having a public affair may have been what caused this. And Aegon I may indeed have been infertile since nothing suggests that either Rhaenys or Visenya were ever pregnant before they gave birth to Aenys and Maegor, respectively - and by that time they had been married for over a decade or more. I don't think Daemon is an ancestor of Hugh or Ulf (but he could be Nettles' father). Candidates for Targaryen ancestors of the dragonseeds living after the Conquest include Aenys I (who was a womanizer in his youth, unlike Maegor - the detail for that come from 'The Sons of the Dragon'), Prince Aemon and Prince Baelon (Aemon only had Rhaenys with Jocelyn - it is entirely likely he fathered lots of bastards on various women in the wake of his wife's death - the same goes for Baelon), Viserys and the mystery prince Aegon, Viserys and Daemon's younger brother, as well as Viserys himself. Again, Prince Viserys was married to an 11-year old girl in 93 AC while he was sixteen. If I was in his position I'd look for fun elsewhere. And it seems that he may have had an affair with Alicent while Aemma was still alive (and pregnant with the son whose birth then killed her).

 

The Cersei crisis is different from the Targaryens during the dragon days. Cersei cheated on the king, but Rhaenyra may have 'cheated on Laenor' with the latter's permission and consent. Laenor was the son of the richest man of Westeros and a former pretender to the Iron Throne - and he was very much gay, and possibly not willing to ever marry prior to the Rhaenyra offer. Do we have to assume that a man like Laenor had any interest to ever share the bed of his wife because 'society and his family expected that'? No, we don't. Countless monarchs and nobles in the past refused to have intimate relations with wives they abhorred or despised, regardless of what effects that had on the succession - Frederick the Great or Queen Victoria's uncles are good examples for this. And in the series itself we have Rhea Royce and Daemon Targaryen as well as Stannis Baratheon and Selyse Florent.
 
Winterfell is a rather unlikely place for any decisive battle against the Others simply because it is unlikely that all the people will rush North to help these guys out if they aren't likely to believe stories about the Others until they have hard evidence. As soon as the Wall falls the North will be lost simply because there too few people there to do oppose to Others.
Not to mention that we don't know how long Stannis will last - if Daenerys causes his downfall, then his men may very well join her thereafter.

 

Okay, I admit I thought I had a GRRM quote, but I can't find it. 

 

They were accepted as Velaryons after Addam mounted a dragon. When Addam mounted the dragon of the man he claimed was his father, it was considered convincing that had Velaryon blood. The text states the legitimization happened not long after Addam mounted Seasmoke, meaning there is a connection. Before, Addam was just some bastard son of a shipwright's daughter with no deeds to his name. Some might have called legitimizing Addam and Alyn before he mounted a dragon. After he mounted a dragon, something so revered that even dragonriders have been regarded as closer to gods then men. He had performed an impressive feat and had one of the world's deadliest weapons at his disposal. It doesn't say whether Alyn tried to mount Sheepstealer before or after they were legitimized. 

 

Then how was Orys able to befriend the heir Aegon if he was just some smallfolk's bastard?  

 

Never said you did. It isn't stated Jaehaerys cheated on Alysanne. Aegon's wives were his sisters, and Aerys II had the same problem with his wife for a while. I doubt Daemon would sleep with his own daughter. In this society, I don't know if they wouldn't have a bedding for an eleven year-old. There is nothing in the text to suggest an affair with Alicent.  

 

Cheating is still looked down upon, and Rhaenyra created conflict by passing on Strong's bastards as trueborn heirs. Except this society did expect that of Laenor. It was what their families expected of him. Frederick the Great and Victoria were after the Middle Ages, and in the Middle Ages, Richard I was gay but he still married. Edward II was as well, but he still married and had children. Stannis and Selyse had a child, and Daemon was a wild card. 

 

Not if Dany goes North to subdue it by capturing the capital of WF. Davos wouldn;t join Dany, especially since Tyrion would be one of her advisers, whose wildfire gambit killed off four of Davos's eldest sons. The Northmen likely would be averse to joining Dany. 

 

George can easily kill off Jon Snow in the final battle without allowing him ever to sit on the Iron Throne. Being the rightful king doesn't mean you'll ever sit the throne. At least not in that world. Especially if Jon Snow were to reject that destiny in favor to sacrifice himself to save all of humanity or something like that. If he is the prophesied savior I expect that to happen - and this series doesn't have an afterlife King's Cross station from where you can come back...

 

In my book, Jon Snow would be dead yet if only his body is dead and his spirit is trapped in Ghost. He would only be dead when the last remnant of his human self is gone.

 

Your claim that the fire magic continually consumes or burns memory or identity of the resurrected people if they are only resurrected one time (or only their body was resurrected this way and they later reclaimed it via skinchanging) is unsupported by the text. Beric only didn't remember the name of his betrothed and stuff after he had come back six times.

 

Well, Daenerys' magic worked when she was only thinking stuff, right? She intentionally hatched the dragon eggs. We don't know what happened at Summerhall - Aegon V may have made a mistake or his ritual may have been sabotaged. And who knows - perhaps the eggs hatched but the dragons were killed in the wildfire inferno? We know that high temperatures can even kill dragons.

 

Maester Aemon has never been to Asshai or read the scrolls there, right? That he and Melisandre believe stuff doesn't mean it is true, right? Especially not if Aemon believes Daenerys is the promised princess ;-). I'm sure both Melisandre and Aemon believe that both prophecies (or what they know about them) refer to the same hero, but who is to say that either of their beliefs is accurate?

 

Daenerys dreamed about a literal Drogon multiple times in AGoT. Reread the chapters. And just because something appeared to be rule in this series for quite some time there is no reason to believe the rules cannot change. Until Daenerys hatched the dragon eggs all Targaryens trying to do such a things were considered to be mad, and it was considered that this could never ever work - but if you have an open mind this put things into a completely different perspective. It is not completely impossible that the others could have succeeded or that Aerion or Aerys could actually have transformed themselves into actual dragons with the right spell and knowledge.

 

Not sure if all of Patches ramblings are prophecies - some of them are, others may not be. Not everything is a prophecy. The Red Wedding vision in the House of the Undying and the Ghost's prophecies were pretty straightforward, right?

 

Cersei makes herself believe Margaery is the one but there is a clue in AFfC that she herself does not believe Margaery was ever more beautiful than she was (and Cersei is still a beauty despite having gained some weight) thus making it clear that the queen of the prophecy isn't Margaery. There is a reason why Daenerys never comes up once in Cersei's chapters in AFfC or ADwD, right?
 
Unless valonqar is suddenly referring to everybody and their grandmother's younger brother or some elaborate metaphor for who knows what it is either referring to Tyrion or Jaime - most likely to Jaime, since he has subtly been introduced as Cersei's younger brother. See, not all that difficult.
 
The outlandish thing is that you use this Trios guy as a key element to understand the story.

Then what is the point of the hints? That goes against what GRRM said: "To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well you work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure up the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar." If the clues point to Jon being king, and he doesn't become king then GRRM by his own definition is a liar. GRRM doesn't seem to do self-sacrifice, and I don't see anything pointing to Jon sacrificing himself. How would Jon's sacrifice realistically stop the Others? It's not like he can kamikaze them. 

 

Jon isn't dead as a resurrection would damage his story arc, and GRRM doesn't do full-scale resurrections. R+L=J would matter less. 

 

That means he likely forgot things the first time he was resurrected since GRRM himself said Beric loses a little more of himself each time he's revived.. Those resurrected are worse for the wear. 

 

You think magic is psychic? The more likely explanation is that fire and blood was needed for the eggs with dragon eggs acting as focii for magic Dragons are impervious to flame, and the hatchlings could have survived dragonflame which is hotter than wildifre as the pyromancers stated. 

 

Maester Aemon studied at the Citadel which no doubt had some scrolls from Asshai, or copies of them. TPtwP and AA are the same person. Jon is AA by Mel's quote, and the bleeding red star in the form of Ser Patrek points to him as AA as well as possibly the promise surrounding Jon Ned made. 

 

How do you know the dragon wasn't her? Then why does every animal mentioned in a prophetic vision turn out to be someone's sigil or something else like a ship? You're saying dragons are the exception to the rule. The rules seem established, and I doubt a dragon referring to a Targaryen in D&E is for nothing. Aerys and Aerion were literally insane, and warging is the closest we get to transformation in the series.

 

Patchface is the Cassandra of this series. The RW vision wasn't obvious until ASoS, and the GoHH prophecies aren't clear until usually after the events. The dog descending on the goat in the hall of kings isn't even made clear-cut in the text with only Arya wondering the possibility of it meaning Gregor and Hoat in Harrenhal.

 

It isn't made clear who the younger queen is. It is difficult, because it could still mean a lot of other younger siblings, and Jaime is her twin. It is only mentioned once that he is younger than Cersei with the story of him holding her heel as she was born. He also isn't little, but tall. 

 

How is that outlandish? Trios is the only three-headed thing we see in the series, and it is three parts of a single individual. The two outermost heads performing opposite functions speaks to the idea of ice and fire. 

 

 

Oberyn was never a main character of this series, and Tyrion didn't die in the process. George could have skipped the whole trial-by-combat episode and still have ended the ASoS the same way - Varys and Jaime arranging his escape, and the subsequent murder of Shae and Tywin.

There aren't any red herrings in this story I can remember, nor are there deliberate attempts to deceive or confuse the readers. Characters misremember stuff or make mistakes, but that's it. There are never false revelations of mysteries. Take Jon Arryn's murder, for instance. While certain characters believe 'the Lannisters' (Cersei/Tyrion) are behind that, the clues to the actual culprit are there since AGoT. My own mother figured that one out when she read the first book. But George never gave us a sort of preliminary conclusion to 'the murder investigation' having an honest POV give us his line of reasoning why he has reason to think that character A did it for this and that reason. Instead, the thing remained a mystery until Lysa explained everything to us in ASoS.

 

And the series is clearly going to have a grand finale connecting all the plot threads still left dangling at that point. Of course, not everybody will be alive to see the grand finale, but many characters will. At least that's what George said in his original outline - and I'm believing that this series is supposed to end with a unified finale rather than people facing death in their own individual dead ends.

 

In Lyanna's case willingly isn't a clear thing. If Rhaegar hadn't informed her about his intentions, and if she was anything like Arya she may have been outspokenly and violently against her abduction even if she was actually in love with Rhaegar. Simply because she didn't want to be treated like a docile girl. Not to mention that she may have decided not to give in to her feelings for Rhaegar until her forced her to. Just like Drogo coerced Dany into enjoying having sex with him - at least that first time. If you push the physical buttons of a person you get a certain response - especially if that person is actually physically attracted to you and wants to have sex with you.

 

Ned never thinks of Rhaegar as a decent guy just that he don't think he had frequented brothels. Ned most certainly can think of Rhaegar this way even if Rhaegar had abducted his sister if Lyanna herself (or somebody knowing her heart) later had told him the full story. And it is quite clear that Robert remained Ned's best friend despite the fact that he had killed Rhaegar, right?

 

Ned may have had other motives besides Jon's security. He may have intended to protect the honor of House Stark by removing any evidence that Lyanna Stark had been Rhaegar Targaryen's willing whore. It doesn't seem as if Ned's children were told by their father that Lyanna Stark was married to Rhaegar - despite the fact that this would have been widely known if it ever happened simply because Rhaegar had no reason to keep it a secret after he returned from the tower.

 

Ned was, and we were convinced he was going to live after his false confession, but he lost his head. The point of Oberyn is that GRRM can build things up just to pull the rug out from under the reader.

 

No red herrings? Not the red herring of Tyrion being the one who sent the footpad to kill Bran, the red herring of Stannis as AA, that the Lannisters poisoned Jon Arryn? The last one you address clearly is a red herring since there is no confirmation who was responsible until Lysa mentions that she killed him, and the Lannisters had every reason to kill Arryn. Not everyone is your mother.   

 

I think it is rather different finales for different characters with a few characters involved with the final battle with the Others. I don't think the Lannisters will be involved, especially Cersei and Jaime. Nor will Arya and Sansa. 

 

She met Rhaegar long away Harrenhal according to WOIAF. It was stated outright that Rhaegar kidnapped her so with what we know that means she went willingly with him. Drogo clearly didn't coerce Dany, he asked her consent. Also, there is league of difference between beginning AGoT Dany and Lyanna. Dany at the time was abused into submission by Viserys while Lyanna was a strong, hot-tempered girl who beat up squires for beating HR and jousted against knights.   

 

Ned never thinks badly of Rhaegar, and he is the one having Robert calm down with regards to Rhaegar. Thinking Rhaegar never frequented brothels suggests Ned knew something of the man's character. Robert was Ned's best friend, and Rhaegar fought him in battle. If Robert didn't kill Rhaegar then Rhaegar would've killed him. Ned also knew Robert didn't know when he killed Rhaegar. 

 

Lyanna had married Rhaegar so she wasn't his whore. Also, Ned never thought of any woman as a whore. His sister had just died after losing his father and his brother, so I doubt he was concerned about how everyone thought of the whole thing. Rhaegar didn't need to mention he had married Lyanna. No one seemed to ask. 

 

As to Jon's feelings - reread the chapters again. First ending of the Catelyn chapter where Jon's fate is decided which concludes with Ned's announcement that he'll tell the boy himself but only when the time is right - which hasn't yet happened in the Arya chapter where they watch the boys in the yard. But in the Bran chapter shortly before Robert plans to set out back to KL it has happened. And Jon Snow is angry then.

 

The deal Ned gave Jon would have been the following - 'You entertain the idea of joining the Night's Watch. That's a good idea because that's what you are going to do. I will not take you with me to court, and in my absence there is no place for you at Winterfell. You can either join the Night's Watch or try to make a living of your own. Have a nice day.'

 

Jon may have suspected that Catelyn was behind the 'there is no place for you at Winterfell in my absence' thing but Ned wouldn't have told him that. And if you reread the Catelyn chapter Ned is at first against the NW idea because Jon is too young (and presumably because he isn't his son) but he doesn't fight very much there. Surely that would have been an ideal opportunity to tell Catelyn the truth about Jon Snow (later, when Luwin was gone again) to convince her to let him remain at Winterfell. Yet that didn't happen - and neither did Ned tell Jon himself who he was so that he could make the decision to join the NW while he actually knew who he was.

Jon also was excluded from activities with the royals. Why would he be angry about a decision that was his idea?

 

Ned would never make that kind of Hobb's choice to Jon. Ned fights Cat on kicking Jon out, and he feels if that is what Jon wants to do, then it solves the problem with Cat over where Jon should go. 

 

Well, Fire Eater seems to have a very rigid view on how things are supposed to be regardless whether he has any reason to do so.

 

We can all agree that it is quite unlikely that Jon Snow would not try to usurp the place of his trueborn brothers, but you have to have either a huge ego or some deep special insight into the psyche of fictitious characters to actually claim she would never claim the Iron Throne for herself in Jon's place. Or to claim she would only fight against Aegon if she had reason to doubt his parentage.

 

Not to mention that ten-year-old Rhaenyra Targaryen didn't speak up upon the day of Aegon's birth in this fashion:

 

'Papa, you now have to name brother Aegy Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone in my place since all the laws and customs of Westeros dictate that trueborn sons have to always come before mere daughters. Besides, we all know your own claim comes from the fact that great-grandpapa Jaery passed over Auntie Rhaenys back before my birth, and then you and strong Uncle Daemon later schemed with Grandpapa Otto convince the Lords to send girlish Cousin Laenor back to Driftmark to play with his dolls. And you don't want to make Mommy Alice unhappy, do you?'

 

If you have claimed the throne you either go through with it or you die. This setting can't suffer any abdications - especially during war times. Secret princes either win their wars, too, or they join the teams of existing pretenders to eventually end up on the throne as their heirs/consorts/whatever, but the story doesn't suddenly turn on its head to accompany those who look forward to the clichéd ending.

 

To the bolded, very mature.You're saying that if someone disagrees with you they must have a big ego. You're supposed to be 32 years-old, start acting like it. Keep this conversation professional and respectful, otherwise, you've just disqualified yourself from this conversation by showing you lack the maturity, discipline and respect to engage in it. Do you like it when people insult you like that? If not, then why do you do it to others? 

 

Dany is doing what she does out of a feeling of duty for her family. You're saying she would betray that exact same family for personal gain, and spit in the memory of the late brother she honors.   

 

Maegor tried to usurp his nephews, and failed. Dany would have to have claimed the IT in the first place, which I doubt she'll do. Everything is a cliche as every idea has been done before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fire Eater,

 

I apologize if I sound or read frustrated at time, but it is quite hard to discuss with you since most what you do is rephrasing the same stuff again and again and not actually addressing what you opponent has to say. You also make claims you cannot really back up. Like the following, and I go to the tedious business of quoting you verbatim now:

 

'They were accepted as Velaryons after Addam mounted a dragon. When Addam mounted the dragon of the man he claimed was his father, it was considered convincing that had Velaryon blood. The text states the legitimization happened not long after Addam mounted Seasmoke, meaning there is a connection. Before, Addam was just some bastard son of a shipwright's daughter with no deeds to his name. Some might have called legitimizing Addam and Alyn before he mounted a dragon. After he mounted a dragon, something so revered that even dragonriders have been regarded as closer to gods then men. He had performed an impressive feat and had one of the world's deadliest weapons at his disposal. It doesn't say whether Alyn tried to mount Sheepstealer before or after they were legitimized.'

 

You are right about the fact that they were legitimized after Addam mounted a dragon, but that was no test proving their Velaryon heritage. That is what you claim, and it is not based on anything in the text. It is a figment of your imagination, something you think you can use to back up your interpretation of what's going to happen (or rather, what has to happen in later books) in regards to Jon Snow. Corlys Verlaryon would have always known that those boys were his, he didn't need any proof, and thus nobody else did because no who your illegitimate children or grandchildren isn't the concern of the general public. Perhaps the fact that Addam had mounted Seasmoke helped sway Rhaenyra to legitimize him - however, she certainly wouldn't have legitimized had she not known for a certainty that he was fathered by a Velaryon. And that means that your whole setting - Addam proving his Velaryon heritage by mounting a dragon - is wrong.

 

If you check the same of Addam and Alyn they are giving as 'Addam/Alyn of Hull, sons of Marilda of Hull', suggesting that they didn't even have a bastard's name or were considered to be noble bastard because no noble ever acknowledged them. There is no textual evidence to support your take that they were known to be (noble) bastards. Are you sloppy there or actively trying to twist Addam/Alyn into people who more closely resembling Jon Snow (who has a bastard name).

 

Finally I don't see where this whole 'dragonriders are regarded closer to gods than men' comes from. Targaryens were regarded that way, right, and dragonriding most likely had something to do with that. But if Gyldayn's account is any indication then Hugh and Ulf were not considered this way by a majority, especially not after the Betrayal.

 

How should I know how Orys and Aegon befriended each other? Perhaps because Dragonstone isn't the biggest of islands, and doesn't exactly have all that many settlements? Orys is rumored to be Aegon's bastard brother, but that is never confirmed. We don't even know whether Orys is supposed to be a noble or a baseborn bastard. The name Baratheon could indicate the former, but we don't even know what that name means or whether it is the name of a noble family.

 

Another trait of yours seems to be that you cannot acknowledge a point of your opponent. You recall that I also mentioned Aenys I again as a possible Post-Conquest ancestor of the dragonseeds since he is described as popular with the women in 'The Sons of the Dragon'. Yet you completely ignore that point and jump ahead to Jaehaerys where you state that there is no quote confirming that he had an affair when you know perfectly well that I never said that. I referred to the fact that there was a First Quarrel we know nothing about and suggested that some affair may have caused that (either on Jaehaerys or Alysanne's side). It would have been good style to acknowledge as much and writing something like 'Oh, I never thought about that. Could be a possibility, though I'm not sure I believe that.' It doesn't hurt to publicly consider the possibility that others might have good ideas, too.

 

The difference between Aerys-Rhaella and Aegon-sisters is that we know for the former that they desperately tried to have more children after Rhaegar and failed each time up until Viserys while there is no shred of textual evidence that Rhaenys or Visenya were ever pregnant prior to the births of Aenys and Maegor. That is very, very odd. 'The Sons of the Dragon' adds more fuel to all that since Visenya is revealed to be considered to be barren in 10 AC when Rhaenys dies, Aenys reverts to a crawling state, and the Lords push Aegon to take another wife to replace Rhaenys. There are other clues as well, as I've laid out elsewhere. Sharra Arryn pushes Aegon to name her son Ronnel his heir should he agree to marry her - technically an odd request but possibly Sharra's attempt to help Aegon's cause if it was by that time (during the Conquest) widely assume that Lord Aegon Targaryen's seed was rather bad. Remember, Aegon was in his mid-twenties during the Conquest, and the usual marriage custom could suggests that they were already married for a decade (or at least for quite a few years) at that point. Fathering an heir was of paramount importance for the stability of the Targaryen rule after the Conquest - dragons could cow the lords into submission, but that would only work as long as the Targaryens were young and agile enough to mount the dragons (if one of the siblings died nobody would be left to mount that dragons if there were no heirs) - yet Aenys was only born seven years after the Conquest. If King Aegon and his sister-queens desperately tried to have children and suffered many miscarriages, stillbirths or children dying in the cradle then one would expect that Yandel or Gyldayn would have mentioned it (but neither 'The Sons of the Dragon' nor TWoIaF suggests such a scenario). That would have been a great tragedy for the royal family, and worthy to be mentioned in any history written about them. More importantly, the conception of Maegor in 11 AC clearly reeks of magic - after Aegon declines all offers for another wife, Visenya suddenly announces she is pregnant and knows she will deliver a strong boy long before that actually happens. My take on that is that Maegor was clearly created with a spell - either by magically making Aegon's semen viable or by creating a male clone of Visenya. Gyldayn paints Aenys and Maegor as the Conqueror split in half - Aenys got all the charisma and Maegor all the fighting skills - yet a much better interpretation is that Aenys is a weaker version of Rhaenys (who was charismatic and popular but also somewhat changeable) while Maegor is a dialed-up version of Visenya (who was a strong warrior herself but a very distant and unlikeable person - a trait Maegor inherited since he supposedly had no friend at all).

 

Aegon IV seems to have slept with own daughter. Why not Daemon, too? Especially if he fell in love with her before he learned she was his daughter. I imagine Viserys bedded Aemma around the time of their wedding, but that's not the point. The point is that child brides aren't the women you usually lust after if you are a healthy young man... Viserys' affair with Alicent prior to Aemma's death is mentioned in TRP. Alicent supposedly had three lovers before her marriage - Jaehaerys I in his senility (only mentioned in TWoIaF) and Daemon and Viserys I (TRP).

 

I imagine if gay kings in the Middle Ages or those disgusted by their wives had other men father their children on those wives this would not necessarily be part of official history, would it? A marriage is one thing, actually having sex/father a child another. If your throne is secure dynastic problems usually only emerge in your old age, and many monarchs had the luxury to hand succession issues to the next generation. Aerys I would be another example for a king in Westeros who refused to father any children for no apparent reason. This thing can work - but Rhaenyra, of course, had to have heirs of her body or else she would risk losing her position as Viserys' Heir Apparent. And I totally could see Laenor being quite wroth with Rhaenyra - blaming her and her affairs for the death of his paramour, Joffrey Lonmouth, and subsequently leaving Dragonstone without consummating the marriage even once.

 

I have to admit that I simply don't see all those Arthurian references - or rather, that I don't interpret them in the way that they have to mean Jon will sit the Iron Throne in the end.

 

Repeating again and again that George won't do full-scale resurrections when the present storyline may actually require such a plot device isn't any good. It may be that Jon Snow isn't dead but you don't have any proof for that, so don't pretend you do. And he may even go as far as him not doing a full-scale resurrection on Jon simply because he wants to permanently change/unhinge/damage Jon in the process of his resurrection. That is a viable possibility - and there could actually come some good from that. Perhaps he loses part of his Stark identity/memories in the process and instead unlocks some memory of his early childhood, remembering him Lyanna or Wylla and beginning to ask some questions.

 

If I remember my dragonlore correctly then young hatchlings cannot yet breathe fire and are much more susceptible to hot temperatures than mature dragons. The wildfire idea was just a guess - I don't believe Egg's plan worked (either because he made a mistake or because his efforts were sabotaged) but if it did the inferno could still have killed the hatchlings (say, collapsing Summerhall has smashed them).

 

Dany doesn't dream about herself because she is featuring in her dream alongside the dragon she sees. Not to mention that Aegon V also repeatedly dreamed about dragons flying across Westeros - not sure how those are supposed to be Targaryens (unless you just proclaim they have do). Not to mention that you seem to see a rule where no rule has to be. You say a dragon dream always has to refer to a Targaryen but you are making that rule from two examples - you don't have textual evidence that establishes that rule in-universe.

 

I think you forget the fact that Gregor actually descended on Hoat in ASoS and began dismembering him which he then cut short with an execution when he was recalled to KL for the trial-by-combat. That is quite obvious to me. My point with prophetic hints is that they don't need to be deciphered using vast amounts of theory building. They are quite easily decipherable if you know what they allude to. While you are still missing pieces of the puzzle it is harder - but you usually realize that this is the case if you don't know what exactly this stuff is referring to or what's talked about.

 

It is one thing to build up expectation during some action scene, and another to spend the entire series with a character who is again and again suggested to be special and the savior and then she is not.

 

I'd consider a red herring a hint that pretty much makes clear that such-and-such is the culprit/had done the deed. That is never actually done in AGoT in regards to Jon Arryn. Lysa claims it in a letter, but never get a convincing case against Cersei or Tyrion. Did you ever believe Tyrion might have murdered Jon Arryn or sent the assassin after Bran during your first read of AGoT? I didn't. Stannis is established as a false savior as early as the Lightbringer-from-pyre scene. The reader realizes that this is no magic sword because wildfire was used, and the glowing Lightbringer that Stannis wields later isn't the same sword. Not to mention that the House of the Undying practically spills out for everyone to see that 'the blue-eyed king without a shadow' isn't the savior. That is all the same book. Just because Stannis and Melisandre still don't know that doesn't mean we haven't known for a long time.

 

Jaime and Brienne seem to be destined for something special if that weird weirdwood dream from ASoS is any indication. I always thought that this is some weird prelude for their role in the War for the Dawn.

 

Drogo asked for Dany's consent when he first deflowered her. I don't remember him asking her in her chapter after that when he constantly threw himself upon her night after night despite the fact that she clearly didn't want to and suffered from that. Marital rape is still rape, right?

 

I'm not saying Lyanna may have been subdued by Rhaegar the way Drogo subdued Daenerys. I'm saying Rhaegar may have forced Lyanna into a relationship with him by abducting her - sort of the classical date rape thing ('I know you want it, too!') but true in her case since Lyanna actually did love Rhaegar but needed Rhaegar's manly abduction thing to be convinced to not do her duty and marry Robert. That would still meet the criteria of coercion although in retrospect Lyanna - like Dany - may have considered it the best thing that ever happened to her. I'm pretty sure the coronation thing at Harrenhal didn't have any immediate romantic consequences precisely because Lyanna didn't want to go through with an affair/marriage (or not continue the affair they had already begun at Harrenhal).

 

Ned only once thinks of Rhaegar, and that is actually rather weird - are you a good guy in another guy's mind just because he thinks you most likely did not frequent brothels the way his best friend does? I'm not sure about that. I think Ned may have forgiven Rhaegar for what he did to Lyanna and the honor of his house (that's what 'the whore' thing is about: Rhaegar took a Stark girl against the will of her family and dishonored her and House Stark by deflowering/marrying her without the consent of the head of House Stark - that means Rhaegar made the Starks look like fools you can publicly humiliate with impunity).

 

Again, Jon is quite happy and content while he doesn't yet know that he has to join the NW. From Bran's perspective that has changed after he learned that he now had to leave Winterfell. It is one thing considering an option and another to actually realize that this is suddenly your only option - Jon faced the latter situation after Ned had made up his mind. And he conveniently failed to explain to him what the NW exactly was/had become in the last centuries, or else Jon wouldn't have reacted the way he later did when meeting his 'brothers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree we're supposed to doubt Robert's account. And question his understanding of Lyanna--Ned gives us that flat out. But think we're supposed to doubt all accounts--can't see why Dany's account given her from Viserys is more believable than Robert's. Both seem equally suspect. Just think the texts says no one who has actual knowledge is telling us what happened. So, all stories suspect. 

 
Thanks, for the response Sly Wren.
 
I agree we need to be skeptical about all stories. That doesn't mean all, or in this case both, are "equally suspect." I think the author has given us many clues to where his story leads and we have to shift through them to make educated guesses on where we are going. I'd be happy to go through why I think "Viserys's story" (assuming that is really where Daenerys gets her information) is a better path to the truth than Robert's tale, but, today is a family day, and my time on Westeros is limited. You likely know most of the reasons, but if you want to go into it just let me know and we can do so at a later date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ned remembers her willfullness, but he also loved her dearly. If she had a mind to put the family in disgrace due to her deliberate actions of turning her back on her betrothed and the match, (which Robert asked for and Rickard agreed to), to run off with a married man, it would certainly be considered selfish since FAMILIAL disgrace rather than the modern, individual disgrace would be the end result,  I doubt he would be remembering her fondly or with love.

On the other hand, Lyanna paid an ultimate price for her actions, and a kind and compassionate person that Ned was wouldn't hold a grudge with their little sister who paid with her life  for her errors. I'd rather suspect that he tended to place the blame with Rhaegar and that this is why he kept suppressing memories about him, until he was eventually forced by circumstances into that comparison of Rhaegar and Robert in which Rhaegar comes out as a better partner for Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA! Yes, wolfsblood runs right into Elia's relatives and their penchant for poison--seems like a mess no one in their right mind would go into. . . 

 

1. Yes--the characters of both Lyanna and Rhaegar are always the wall I run into when trying to figure this out. We have them on page with the crown, have the roses and their scent tied to Lya both physically and symbolically, and have the "common knowledge" that they disappeared together--knowledge no one has contradicted so far. Good.

 

And then have to deal with why on earth either of them would have gone. I agree with your assessment on Lyanna--Have a hard time seeing her "convinced to leave.

 

2. If she was Knight of the Laughing Tree, if that got she in more scrapes, if she needed help--could maybe see her asking for help. But that's a lot of if's. And not sure why not go to her brothers instead. Or someone else she trusts. She doesn't seem faint of heart.  And not sure why the crown prince would risk crossing his father on this. 

 

3. Rhaegar taking the decision out of her hands--it's the best scenario I've got, too. But Rhaegar's character--dutiful, dedicated--we really need more evidence. As is--I'm floundering on a good motive that fits their characters. Some kind of abduction is the best I've got.

 

I just tend to think that if Maisie Williams reading of Arya is correct, and speculating Lyanna had the same black and white world view, (and it is only Arya who is compared to Lyanna), I would find it hard to believe that Lyanna would compromise and parce such a rigid world view to accept the notion that if she entered into a polygamous marriage with him, he would only keep to her bed given the political nature of his and Elias union, especially if it is confirmed that Elia did indeed love her husband, which would likely become very apparent to Lyanna and call into question the mutuality of such an agreement, thus throwing into question Rhaegars credibility on such fidelity.

 

Now, thats not to say that Martin would "grey" Lyanna up like that, but that would be a huge character overhaul if we are to believe Lyanna is like Arya given her own "execution" of a NW brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just tend to think that if Maisie Williams reading of Arya is correct, and speculating Lyanna had the same black and white world view, (and it is only Arya who is compared to Lyanna), I would find it hard to believe that Lyanna would compromise and parce such a rigid world view to accept the notion that if she entered into a polygamous marriage with him, he would only keep to her bed given the political nature of his and Elias union, especially if it is confirmed that Elia did indeed love her husband, which would likely become very apparent to Lyanna and call into question the mutuality of such an agreement, thus throwing into question Rhaegars credibility on such fidelity.

 

Now, thats not to say that Martin would "grey" Lyanna up like that, but that would be a huge character overhaul if we are to believe Lyanna is like Arya given her own "execution" of a NW brother.

:agree: Absolutely.

 

 
Thanks, for the response Sly Wren.
 
I agree we need to be skeptical about all stories. That doesn't mean all, or in this case both, are "equally suspect." I think the author has given us many clues to where his story leads and we have to shift through them to make educated guesses on where we are going. I'd be happy to go through why I think "Viserys's story" (assuming that is really where Daenerys gets her information) is a better path to the truth than Robert's tale, but, today is a family day, and my time on Westeros is limited. You likely know most of the reasons, but if you want to go into it just let me know and we can do so at a later date.

No worries--with so little information, hard to have the debate be definitive one way or the other.

 

Have a fabulous family day.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned remembers her willfullness, but he also loved her dearly. If she had a mind to put the family in disgrace due to her deliberate actions of turning her back on her betrothed and the match, (which Robert asked for and Rickard agreed to), to run off with a married man, it would certainly be considered selfish since FAMILIAL disgrace rather than the modern, individual disgrace would be the end result,  I doubt he would be remembering her fondly or with love.

 

I just want to jump in on this comment. I never got the impression that Ned was a vain person (for both "family honor" and himself). Tywin for sure would disown and hate anyone who disgraced the Lannister family publicly. Ned I think put his love for family above family honor, considering he disgraced himself and his family to protect his daughters.

 

Ned also respected his brother Brandon who was a man whore that slept around (supposedly). He has a statue built in his honor. He also has shown a strong bond with Robert who is anything but honorable when it comes to love and families. He also supports Ayra's 'wolf blood' even though some might see it as disgraceful. Ned himself fathered a bastard (supposedly), so I would imagine he would understand that people make mistakes or he would be a huge hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
I just want to jump in on this comment. I never got the impression that Ned was a vain person (for both "family honor" and himself). Tywin for sure would disown and hate anyone who disgraced the Lannister family publicly. Ned I think put his love for family above family honor, considering he disgraced himself and his family to protect his daughters.
 
Ned also respected his brother Brandon who was a man whore that slept around (supposedly). He has a statue built in his honor. He also has shown a strong bond with Robert who is anything but honorable when it comes to love and families. He also supports Ayra's 'wolf blood' even though some might see it as disgraceful. Ned himself fathered a bastard (supposedly), so I would imagine he would understand that people make mistakes or he would be a huge hypocrite.


And he is also covering up quite a bit to protect the honor of his family.
Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by dishonor in the sense the type of "dishonor" that could have stripped his family of WF, or gotten the rest of his family killed or attainted.

In the Medieval period, while Ned can take dishonor on himself, Lyannas dishonor either in the truth of Jon, or her breaking the betrothal would have been reflected on the entire family, and actually Brandons behaviors as well, which is why he wouldn't have been able to break his betrothed to Cat unless SHE was accused of infidelity.

And if it came out Brandon was the father of Asharsas child, Rickard would have likely had Ned marry her.
House Stark likely still owes Dayne for the dishonor be it Ned or Brandon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyanna stuff:

 

What we have with the Starks being pissed at Harrenhal is a classical patriarchal 'men are protecting the honor of the family by treating the girl like property' thing. We don't know to what extent that can go in Westeros, but honor killings aren't completely unheard of in Westeros (the wife beating case which established the 'Rule of Six' law through Queen Rhaenys as well as the blacksmith who beat Merry Meg to death after Prince Viserys had returned her to her husband).

 

I don't think the Starks would have done that, but broken marriage contracts as well as deflowering/stealing/dishonoring noble daughters are very serious crimes to those houses, and taken rather seriously. Lyonel Baratheon went to great lengths to defend the honor of his house as well as avenge his daughter - who apparently was suffering greatly after she was spurned by Prince Duncan - and even the Freys retaliated quite harshly after Robb broke his marriage contract.

 

Lyanna running away with Rhaegar and having sex with him wouldn't have been considered to be a good thing by the Starks. Even if they married before anything happened between them there is the question whether the Starks would accept that marriage (polygamy) or how they would react to that fact that this happened without the consent of the head of the family. We see that they are prickly about that - another example is the forced marriage between Torrhen's daughter and Lord Ronnel Arryn.

 

The rules for men are quite different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, Lyanna paid an ultimate price for her actions, and a kind and compassionate person that Ned was wouldn't hold a grudge with their little sister who paid with her life  for her errors. I'd rather suspect that he tended to place the blame with Rhaegar and that this is why he kept suppressing memories about him, until he was eventually forced by circumstances into that comparison of Rhaegar and Robert in which Rhaegar comes out as a better partner for Lyanna.


"Do you remember Ser Jorah Mormont?"
"Would that I might forget him," Ned said bluntly. The Mormonts of Bear Island were an old house, proud and honorable, but their lands were cold and distant and poor. Ser Jorah had tried to swell the family coffers by selling some poachers to a Tyroshi slaver. As the Mormonts were bannermen to the Starks, his crime had dishonored the north. Ned had made the long journey west to Bear Island, only to find when he arrived that Jorah had taken ship beyond the reach of Ice and the king's justice. Five years had passed since then.
"Ser Jorah is now in Pentos, anxious to earn a royal pardon that would allow him to return from exile," Robert explained. "Lord Varys makes good use of him."
"So the slaver has become a spy," Ned said with distaste. He handed the letter back. "I would rather he become a corpse."


Yes Ned isn't one to hold grudges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not about holding grudges.

I think Ned was still conflicted despite his love for Lyanna.

This wasn't about him, it was how things were.
He treated Theon as a son, but Theon was a hostage that Ned would have killed if his father misbehave and rose up again.

There were many a father/brother who were aggrieved over a family members betrayal, and even kings, but who had to exact justice.

Edward IV famously had his brother drowned in a vat of malmsey wine for his treason.

Rickard, and then Ned were the Wardens of the entire North, how does it look if they can't control members of their own household?

Robb disinherited Sansa did he not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he is also covering up quite a bit to protect the honor of his family.
Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by dishonor in the sense the type of "dishonor" that could have stripped his family of WF, or gotten the rest of his family killed or attainted.

In the Medieval period, while Ned can take dishonor on himself, Lyannas dishonor either in the truth of Jon, or her breaking the betrothal would have been reflected on the entire family, and actually Brandons behaviors as well, which is why he wouldn't have been able to break his betrothed to Cat unless SHE was accused of infidelity.

And if it came out Brandon was the father of Asharsas child, Rickard would have likely had Ned marry her.
House Stark likely still owes Dayne for the dishonor be it Ned or Brandon.

 

While that may or may not be true, I was talking specifically about:

 

 

I doubt he would be remembering her fondly or with love.

 

You can be mad at a family member for taking selfish actions while still loving/remembering them fondly after they died. Ned did not seem to be the type of man who put family politics ahead of his love for his family. He also seemed to dismiss Lyanna's actions due to "wolf's blood". Ned might be of the opinion that she was wrong, while still loving his little sister. Ned also thought Ayra was wrong to be playing with swords and acting like a boy, but he still loved her and made certain she would be trained in the proper use of a sword so she wouldn't be hurt. I don't think he valued Arya any less than Sansa.

 

I guess my point is that Ned wasn't the type of character that would place family vanity above his family bonds. So whether or not Lynna chose to run off with Rhaegar wouldn't have made him not love his sister or remember her fondly years after her death. Now if we flip the coin and say that Rhaegar had indeed kidnapped Lyanna against her will, I would imagine there would be a bit more vile for the Targaryen prince. Though maybe his respect for the dead is absolute. I don't recall him trashing Aerys and he had a lot to hate Aerys for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not about holding grudges.

I think Ned was still conflicted despite his love for Lyanna.

This wasn't about him, it was how things were.
He treated Theon as a son, but Theon was a hostage that Ned would have killed if his father misbehave and rose up again.

There were many a father/brother who were aggrieved over a family members betrayal, and even kings, but who had to exact justice.

Edward IV famously had his brother drowned in a vat of malmsey wine for his treason.

Rickard, and then Ned were the Wardens of the entire North, how does it look if they can't control members of their own household?

Robb disinherited Sansa did he not?


The quote I was responding to specifically said that Ned wouldn't hold a grudge against Lyanna for her errors (presumably in running away and breaking off her betrothal). I pointed out that 5 years later Ned still hates Jorah Mormont for dishonoring the north by selling slavers to pay for his wife's extravagant lifestyle. He clearly will hold a grudge for someone's errors despite however good their intentions and in fact he even says that he's particularly angry because Jorah was a northman and his action dishonored the north and not just his family. Lyanna running away would have dishonored the Starks and the north.

It's a valid comparison. I'm not sure why we should hold Lyanna to any different standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote I was responding to specifically said that Ned wouldn't hold a grudge against Lyanna for her errors (presumably in running away and breaking off her betrothal). I pointed out that 5 years later Ned still hates Jorah Mormont for dishonoring the north by selling slavers to pay for his wife's extravagant lifestyle. He clearly will hold a grudge for someone's errors despite however good their intentions and in fact he even says that he's particularly angry because Jorah was a northman and his action dishonored the north and not just his family. Lyanna running away would have dishonored the Starks and the north.

It's a valid comparison. I'm not sure why we should hold Lyanna to any different standard.

 

Perhaps we shouldn't but that isn't to say that Ned wouldn't. People are funny when it comes to their families. Ned probably loved his brother and mourned him but he's obviously got some bitterness toward Brandon all these years later and the cup that was passed to Ned because of Brandon's (and Aerys's) actions. When it comes to family and those we love, sometimes emotion and feelings make you change your tune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote I was responding to specifically said that Ned wouldn't hold a grudge against Lyanna for her errors (presumably in running away and breaking off her betrothal). I pointed out that 5 years later Ned still hates Jorah Mormont for dishonoring the north by selling slavers to pay for his wife's extravagant lifestyle. He clearly will hold a grudge for someone's errors despite however good their intentions and in fact he even says that he's particularly angry because Jorah was a northman and his action dishonored the north and not just his family. Lyanna running away would have dishonored the Starks and the north.

It's a valid comparison. I'm not sure why we should hold Lyanna to any different standard.


Sorry I'm at work, and I see this in bits and pieces.
I see what you are saying now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he is also covering up quite a bit to protect the honor of his family.
Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by dishonor in the sense the type of "dishonor" that could have stripped his family of WF, or gotten the rest of his family killed or attainted.

In the Medieval period, while Ned can take dishonor on himself, Lyannas dishonor either in the truth of Jon, or her breaking the betrothal would have been reflected on the entire family, and actually Brandons behaviors as well, which is why he wouldn't have been able to break his betrothed to Cat unless SHE was accused of infidelity.

And if it came out Brandon was the father of Asharsas child, Rickard would have likely had Ned marry her.
House Stark likely still owes Dayne for the dishonor be it Ned or Brandon.

I'm sorry, I cannot agree with your reasoning here.  We have too many in-story broken betrothals that do not amount to what you suggest.  Blackfish, Queen of Thorns, etc.  I don't believe that broken betrothals are as serious in Westeros as they were in our middle ages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×