R+L=J v 150

[Lady Darry]

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.

 

 

 

Ned could hold Lyanna and Jorah to different standards, because there is a major difference between them. Jorah escaped justice and Lyanna died.

 

Ned didn't hold random grudges, IMO. He didn't like Jorah, Jamie, Tywin...etc, because they did something bad and they escaped justice. Would he think the same about Jorah has he joined the NW or faced the execution? To me it seems that his main problem  with Jorah after all those years was that he run off. Lyanna (might) did something 'bad', but she died, same with Rhaegar and Aerys. (Maybe he thought gods punished her with fever and death, or something like that.) 

[Alia of the knife]

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

I think Ned absolutely loved Lyanna, but I think there is a lot of trauma surrounding that period and it's hard to know for sure whether it stems from something that cost her her life because of her choices and actions, or because she didn't have any choices, which leads me to Brandons response.
Some argue that he didn't call for Lyanna due to his anger at her, (don't really get that, but alright), but I speculate angry and scared, he panicked and rode into KL much like Sonny Corleone, and called out Rhaegar because Rhaegar is who he held responsible.
Neither brother was thrilled with the crowning of Lyanna. Ned just didn't show it. But he remembers the thorns of the crown.

The brothel moment and his possibly comparing Rhaegar and Robert can still mean what we think, that Rhaegar would have been the faithful of the two men, especially if he wanted Lyanna bad enough to die for her.
However, I have seen the theory that Neds thoughts pointed to Rhaegar taking what he wanted rather than pay for it, but THAT I personally don't believe.
I think it's the former.

But at the point the first book was written, Martin had to be cautious as to what he gave away, even in Neds private thoughts, so an absence of something isn't necessarily proof of something.

As for Arya and his buying a VERY expensive "dancing" master might stem from the fact he wanted her well trained, not half trained as was likely the case for Lyanna.
Maybe if Lyanna had had a "dancing" master...

Again, I tread with caution with what Ned thinks.

[Sasha Steelsong]

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.

Agreed, but if Lyanna did choose to break her betrothal, those actions wouldn't have resulted in any punishment for House Stark or the possibility of them losing Winterfell at the time, given that Robert was just a lord and Rhaegar was the crown prince.  That possibility only arose once House Targaryen was dethroned and Robert became King.  Given that Ned likely chose to protect Lyanna and the family by proxy, instead of turning Jon over to Robert as Rhaegar's son (which he likely is regardless of whether they got married and he was legitimate) suggests that he didn't fault Lyanna.  From the brief moments we have where Ned thinks of his sister, I get the impression there was genuine love there with no qualifiers, i.e. Ned wouldn't have thought differently about Lyanna if she did in fact ditch Robert or if she was taken.  Granted that could be because she died in the end, but either way the end result is the same where he doesn't fault her beyond thinking she was a little reckless. 

[The Wolves]

 
 
 
Ned could hold Lyanna and Jorah to different standards, because there is a major difference between them. Jorah escaped justice and Lyanna died.
 
Ned didn't hold random grudges, IMO. He didn't like Jorah, Jamie, Tywin...etc, because they did something bad and they escaped justice. Would he think the same about Jorah has he joined the NW or faced the execution? To me it seems that his main problem  with Jorah after all those years was that he run off. Lyanna (might) did something 'bad', but she died, same with Rhaegar and Aerys. (Maybe he thought gods punished her with fever and death, or something like that.) 

I'm way late to the convo so I missed some things sorry.

But I don't think Ned would hold a grudge against Lyanna he seemed to have loved her and plus he is probably raising her son. I think Ned made peace with Lyanna years ago.

And does anyone else find it weird that Ned never has any negative thoughts about the Targaryens?

[Alia of the knife]

And does anyone else find it weird that Ned never has any negative thoughts about the Targaryens?

 

To the point I heavily speculate it has more to do with the Authors not wanting a reveal that early on.

 

Ned dislikes Jaime because he killed Aerys, breaking his vow, and then sitting upon the IT?  Yet he has no rancor towards the man who killed his father, brother, and called for his and Roberts heads?? :shocked:

 

No wonder Jaime needed therapy.

 

Agreed, but if Lyanna did choose to break her betrothal, those actions wouldn't have resulted in any punishment for House Stark or the possibility of them losing Winterfell at the time, given that Robert was just a lord and Rhaegar was the crown prince.  That possibility only arose once House Targaryen was dethroned and Robert became King.  Given that Ned likely chose to protect Lyanna and the family by proxy, instead of turning Jon over to Robert as Rhaegar's son (which he likely is regardless of whether they got married and he was legitimate) suggests that he didn't fault Lyanna.  From the brief moments we have where Ned thinks of his sister, I get the impression there was genuine love there with no qualifiers, i.e. Ned wouldn't have thought differently about Lyanna if she did in fact ditch Robert or if she was taken.  Granted that could be because she died in the end, but either way the end result is the same where he doesn't fault her beyond thinking she was a little reckless. 

 

I don't know.

 

Aerys already had the notion the north was out to get him. Had Aerys lived with Viserys as his new heir, he may very well have put House Stark under attainment, and given the Wardenship of the North, Stark lands and WF to someone of his choosing.

[Alia of the knife]

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. 

 

Not my reasoning, but this:

 

An interview with GRRM from an article called "The Wit and Wisdom of George R. Martin"

 

"Arranged marriages were integrally woven into the fabric of medieval noble society. Nobles used arranged marriages like CEOs use corporate mergers today. The unions cemented partnerships, united neighboring patches of land, which increased wealth, and provided united fronts against common enemies. Arranged marriages were a tool of international diplomacy – the idea being kings were not as apt to declare war on the king married to their daughter." - Jennifer Vineyard

 

Marriage was a form of political alliance. It was a way to cement a political alliance – one of the ways to bind to families together and hopefully make peace between them or to establish that… they would be allies against a third common enemy. You didn’t want your sons or daughters, if you were a lord, marrying for love. That was, that was insane… If you had a vassal whose loyalty you questioned, maybe you married him to one of your daughters and thereby bind him more closely to the family. If you have a rival you’d been at war with and now you make peace, you marry a daughter to his son…”“-GRRM

 

 

 

I suspect there will be more story to Blackfish, and there were blow-backs from the Olenna affair as Selmy says. It was  Aegon V's youngest son. Prince Daeron who broke the betrothal, (as I suspected), and not Olenna as she says. And it was part of that back story that brought anger and treachery where Aegon might have had alliances. The fact that Olenna still lies about it shows its something that still rankles, especially the insulting way in which she describes Daeron.

 

The result is her very Tywin-esque scheming that will likely destroy her family also.

[Fire Eater]

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.

Apology accepted, but I have dealt with even worse poster, even ones who behaved like 8 year-olds when I tried to apologize and called me names. Yet, I try to keep my cool. If you get frustrated, stay away from replying or don't reply at all. I do address each paragraph. I think it is because I feel you keep missing what I am trying to get across. The quote above has sentences I failed to complete. 

 

I never said it was a test to prove their heritage, but it clearly had role in their legitimization and was seen as proof of their Velaryon lineage. The general belief is only people with Targaryen or Velaryon blood can mount dragons, and if a Westerosi can mount a dragon, then they must have Targaryen or Velaryon blood. I said Dany would put it to Jon as a test given it had the benefit of killing off a possible false pretender. Addam and Alyn weren't given a lord's education or training, and were generally unknown. Corlys likely wouldn't have considered legitimizing them until then given his wife had just died, and just legitimizing those two baseborn sons of his so soon afterward wouldn't have been viewed well by the public or his wife's family. However, legitimizing the sons of the son he had by Rhaenys, Laenor, circumvents that. It  Addam went from peasant to dragonrider, making him more desirable as an heir. It likely helped that Addam mounted Laenor's dragon, Laenor being the man he claimed to be the son of. After all Maegor, was able to mount his father's dragon, Balerion, likely just as Aegon I mounted Balerion after his father died or his mother. 

 

I never said they were known to be noble bastards. You're putting words in my mouth as I know Corlys never acknowledged knowing the fiery temper of his wife. As to the last sentence, I see you still haven't calmed down, and are still being fresh and insulting. Did my last paragraph in my last post mean anything at all? From that response, I would think I was talking to a teenager not a grown man, no offense.  

 

Fair, the Targaryens had the IT and inhuman beauty to add to their mystique. The point is dragonriders are respected and revered since Aegon I.  

 

 

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 am talking about in terms of class in a society where class structures had teeth. I wonder where Orys trained at arms enough to be one of Aegon's top commanders?

 

I didn't address that point, because I never read the "Sons of the Dragon," and I don't know if it's canon or not given it was taken out of WOIAF, and wasn't in any official published work by GRRM. Besides, I didn't see the point of arguing if Aenys banged any girls on Dragonstone. But okay, I never meant offense by it. Many royal families that practiced incest snuffed out deformed children in the real world. Well, they had children by Aegon I so Aegon wasn't infertile. Sharra knew Aegon didn't have any children, and he needed an heir. Well, I think there is another explanation for Maegor. With Rhaenys dead, Visenya was Aegon's only bedmate. The problem with Aegon's sons is that they were each their mother's son. 

 

Daemon wasn't as big a lecher as Aegon IV, he didn't sleep around during his marriage to Laena. If he learned she was his daughter, well, I think there are certain lines even Daemon wouldn't cross. I think there is a chance he slept with Alicent, and that Alicent killed off Aemma to marry Viserys.    

 

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.

Aerys I wasn't gay just asexual, and he had two younger brothers with sons of their own as heirs so the line was secure. Laenor was expected by Viserys I and likely his parents to have children by Rhaenyra given both parties wanted to see their grandchildren sit the IT.

 

For starters at the ToJ there is Arthur Dayne whose sword fits the same description as Excalibur. Arthur's father, Uther. used the sigil of a red dragon and impregnated and married the wife of his enemy (just as Rhaegar did to Robert's betrothed). Arthur's mother died from the complications of his birth just as Lyanna did from Jon's. Arthur was raised in hiding as Sir Ector's bastard ignorant of his royal heritage for the first 18 years of his life as Jon was raised in hiding as Ned's bastard with the same problem.  

 

But to do that you have to ignore the author's own words. You accuse me of speaking things with no support in the text while theorizing things that directly contradict what GRRM said in interviews. GRRM said "Oh, you think he's dead, do you?" implying Jon isn't dead. If Jon was killed in the attack then he is dead. The problem with that theory of changing/damaging Jon is that his character development would end there, and he would cease to be a POV character like it was with Cat. The changes he will likely get is the knowledge of his true heritage.  

 

I think if the eggs did hatch it would have been mentioned. 

 

That dragon could be the dragon in her, the new Dany. In WOIAF, when it said Aegon V dreamed about flying dragons across Westeros, they clearly didn't mean literally but in terms of aspiration, reverie or simply daydream. He was preoccupied with bringing dragons back, and daydreams don't count as prophecy. The rule is still there. I did provide evidence, in D&E, and every animal in a prophecy is representative of something else, that includes dragons. Name to me one animal in a prophecy that is just a literal animal. The author himself said prophecy shouldn't be too literal.   

 

No, I didn't forget, you just made a false assumption. I know it referred to Gregor and Hoat at Harrenhal. Prophecy can use a lot of symbolism and clues, which need to be found in other parts of the story to get. GRRM said prophecy shouldn't be too easy after all. 

 

That is the author's way of surprising the reader, and keeping the story from being predictable. He does that often. 

 

That is done in AGoT given no one else is suspected in Arryn's death, and in ACoK, Pycelle stated from the look on Cersei's face she needed Arryn dead. It is I never believed Tyrion murdered Arryn given he wasn't at court in KL at the time, I think. I knew he wasn't one who sent the assassin to Bran after giving Bran a design for a special saddle. Up to that point I had only known Tyrion for a few chapters. 

 

 

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'.

I think it alludes to Brienne saving Jaime in the BwB. I think the other part is when R+L=J is revealed, and Jaime feels conflicted wrt Jon.

 

The scene was consensual, but the few times after that was marital rape, I never said otherwise.

 

I don't think it happened that way given the Lyanna we are given is basically Arya's prototype, I doubt she would have fallen for him after he abducted her against her will. From the descriptions we get of Rhaegar, he wasn't that kind of guy.

 

I doubt Ned would forgive the guy who kidnapped his sister. While what Rhaegar did with Lyanna was disrespectful to House Stark in this society, I think Ned was more concerned about.

 

I guess it's a toss up at this point. He may have been angry about the exclusion, or the idea of leaving the only home he had ever known.  

 

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.

Agreed

[Ygrain]

 I don't recall him trashing Aerys and he had a lot to hate Aerys for.

"The mad king did his last mad act", or something in this line.

 

To me, it seems that Ned didn't hold a grudge against Aerys because of his madness. No point in hating on a madman, just like you don't hate on an earthquake.

[Sasha Steelsong]

 

To the point I heavily speculate it has more to do with the Authors not wanting a reveal that early on.

 

Ned dislikes Jaime because he killed Aerys, breaking his vow, and then sitting upon the IT?  Yet he has no rancor towards the man who killed his father, brother, and called for his and Roberts heads?? :shocked:

 

No wonder Jaime needed therapy.

 

 

I don't know.

 

Aerys already had the notion the north was out to get him. Had Aerys lived with Viserys as his new heir, he may very well have put House Stark under attainment, and given the Wardenship of the North, Stark lands and WF to someone of his choosing.

 

Aerys had that notion however (specific to the North as opposed to everyone which is why he went to Harranhal) because Brandon came to Kings Landing and made a scene.  Given that Aerys called for Ned's head as one of the events that kicked off the war I think the survival of House Stark was dependent on Aerys not being on the throne in the end regardless of whether Lyanna and Rhaegar were together in a willing way.  My comment was more for the period before Brandon showed up in Kings Landing, after Brandon's arrest Lyanna's situation was really a non-factor in the future of House Stark.  Had the heir to House Stark not threatened the Crown Prince, I really don't get the impression House Starks' place was in the kind of jeopardy that it was in once it started harboring a child of House Targaryen from the new king.  If anything I think Aerys would have liked a northern hostage to keep the North in line much like he kept Elia close to control Dorne.  

 

As for why Ned didn't speak too ill of Aerys, I think Ygrain has the right of it, Ned recognized the insanity and while he knew that meant Aerys couldn't be trusted to rule, it didn't require the same sort of lingering grudge because 1) the man was crazy and 2) dead. 

[Alia of the knife]

 

Aerys had that notion however (specific to the North as opposed to everyone which is why he went to Harranhal) because Brandon came to Kings Landing and made a scene.  Given that Aerys called for Ned's head as one of the events that kicked off the war I think the survival of House Stark was dependent on Aerys not being on the throne in the end regardless of whether Lyanna and Rhaegar were together in a willing way.  My comment was more for the period before Brandon showed up in Kings Landing, after Brandon's arrest Lyanna's situation was really a non-factor in the future of House Stark.  Had the heir to House Stark not threatened the Crown Prince, I really don't get the impression House Starks' place was in the kind of jeopardy that it was in once it started harboring a child of House Targaryen from the new king.  If anything I think Aerys would have liked a northern hostage to keep the North in line much like he kept Elia close to control Dorne.  

 

As for why Ned didn't speak too ill of Aerys, I think Ygrain has the right of it, Ned recognized the insanity and while he knew that meant Aerys couldn't be trusted to rule, it didn't require the same sort of lingering grudge because 1) the man was crazy and 2) dead. 

 

:dunno: Or, he had buried the traumas inflicted by Aerys and his House, wanting to forget them and its not until the current traumas dredge all of that up again.

 

If I remember correctly, Aerys went to Harrenhal because he didn't trust his son, and he didn't trust the northmen, especially after Rhaegar crowned Lyanna.

 

And while it might have been unwise of Brandon to challenge the Crown Prince for justice, and likely to combat on his own "turf," he had every right to do so, because it was Rhaegar whom he clearly thought had taken his sister, and Rhaegar, CP or not had zero right to do what the perception is he did.

 

 

 

Neds cryptic remarks and his "non-thoughts" are often used as "proof" that he harbored no ill will towards House Targaryen, and my point is the absence of something is not necessarily proof of something, especially as this particular thread tends to have somewhat of a Targaryen, specifially Rhaegar bias, which makes it hard to have any meaningful discussion about them as you have to "stay in the sandbox" and make sure Rhaegars perfect character is always preserved, usually at the expense of every other character relevant to those events.

There is even a theory Lyanna kidnapped Rhaegar. :huh:

 

And I certainly think the animosity between Aerys and Rhaegar would have put the Starks in a bad place due to the crowning of Lyanna and its implications, and since Rhaegar didn't survive, had Jaime not killed Aerys, the Starks would have been more vulnerable.

 

There are still a lot of blanks that have to be filled in to get the full picture, and Ned remains  an enigma because much of what he did is contradictory and what he thought is open to question.

 

 

And I am not actually anti Rhaegar. I believe he did love Lyanna and did anything he could to get her, even interpret or skew whatever unknown prophesy to justify his taking her, what we do for love and all, I just don't go through all the trouble of giving him a noble foil for doing so.

[Avalatis]

"The mad king did his last mad act", or something in this line.

 

To me, it seems that Ned didn't hold a grudge against Aerys because of his madness. No point in hating on a madman, just like you don't hate on an earthquake.

 

Yeah that's rational. Though humans are more emotional than rational, but I can see how he has made peace with it.

[Avalatis]

Neds cryptic remarks and his "non-thoughts" are often used as "proof" that he harbored no ill will towards House Targaryen, and my point is the absence of something is not necessarily proof of something, especially as this particular thread tends to have somewhat of a Targaryen, specifially Rhaegar bias, which makes it hard to have any meaningful discussion about them as you have to "stay in the sandbox" and make sure Rhaegars perfect character is always preserved, usually at the expense of every other character relevant to those events.

There is even a theory Lyanna kidnapped Rhaegar. :huh:

 

I'd like to point out that this discussion started because:

 

 

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.

 

Which is kind of the same thing. Ned doesn't remember his bitterness and anger at Lyanna, thus there never was any. Which is where your theory that it is more likely that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna. So if we are using the argument: "Ned has selective memories and emotions of memories, so we can't use the absence of emotion as evidence" then it is hard to use Ned for your theory as well.

[The other prince]

 

Yeah that's rational. Though humans are more emotional than rational, but I can see how he has made peace with it.

Aerys also died. Even if he did have a lot of resentment in the beginning in the end the Targs lost the throne, the king, the prince, the princess and their children. So it's not like Aerys got away with anything. 

[Lady Darry]

I'm way late to the convo so I missed some things sorry.

But I don't think Ned would hold a grudge against Lyanna he seemed to have loved her and plus he is probably raising her son. I think Ned made peace with Lyanna years ago.

And does anyone else find it weird that Ned never has any negative thoughts about the Targaryens?

 

Yeah, I also don't think he would hold a grudge towards her, but there is a speculation that if she would disgrace her family, he would not remember her as positively as he did.

 

The way I understand Ned, he was able to hold a grudge and hate and also to be bitter and also to keep thinks in his subconscious, but he would never feel that way about Lyanna. Not just because he loved her with all his heart, but also because she died. Jamie, Tywin and Jorah are living, breathing examples of terrible man (in his opinion) who escaped justice. He couldn't make peace with Jamie, because Jamie was still there, under his nose, disgracing the KG and importance of vows.

 

Rhaegar is dead, Robert killed him for what he did to Lyanna. Case closed. He had 15 years to come to terms with a dead man. And maybe he also didn't want to think about him, because it made him feel uncomfortable. And Aerys was not sane and the last thing he experienced was double betrayal, first from his ex buddy Tywin and then his own KG. I think he thought he was punished enough. And Lyanna no matter what she did, she died. It is one think to hate someone who is dead and doesn't have an impact on present time (Lyanna, Targs...(well they have an impact on present time, but he didn't think that)) and another to hate/dislike/hold a grudge someone who is still there.

[Ygrain]

I think it is a good point that Ned keeps his hate for men who are still alive and avoiding justice. However, I'm not sure if we can say that he thinks of Lyanna positively. I mean, he certainly loved her very much but he never says that she was a wonderful person or something like that, he says that she was wild and wilful. I believe that he is well aware of her faults but forgives them, because he loves her and she died. - BTW, I believe that he would have forgiven Sansa her betrayal, too.

[Alia of the knife]

 

I'd like to point out that this discussion started because:

 

 

Which is kind of the same thing. Ned doesn't remember his bitterness and anger at Lyanna, thus there never was any. Which is where your theory that it is more likely that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna. So if we are using the argument: "Ned has selective memories and emotions of memories, so we can't use the absence of emotion as evidence" then it is hard to use Ned for your theory as well.

 

And my point is, that perhaps there was another aspect of her "willfulness" that doesn't necessarily relate to her running off, or acting as a willing partner in her own abduction, and NOT using Ned as proof of anything at this point is probably wise.

 

The term "willful," stubborn, rebellious, contrary, defiant, etc.....can be applied to other ways that may not mean her own complicitness in her abduction, but rather the circumstances that led up to it, which is why that Neds feelings may have had more to do with regret, sadness and pain, etc, so in other words, he isn't angry at her, because perhaps he doesn't hold her accountable for what happened to her.

 

And when the WB uses the term of Rhaegar, "falling upon" her, in that vernacular of the times, it has a negative connotation. Couple that with being taken at swordpoing, knowing Dany likely got the cleaned up, romantic version of events, and that raises more questions.

 

You can be "willful" in ways that are not selfish. Aryas defense of Micah for the times, was willful. She refused to back down from Joffrey and stay in her "place."

Lyanna made Reed her cause, brought him back to her family, giving him a place of honor, and told him he had as much right to be there as anyone else and proceeded to don armor to fight for him.

 

There have been some assumptions that Lyannas brothers  didn't know that she was the tKotLT, but clearly the Reed children knew,  and were surprised that Neds children didn't know the story. I think we have assumed that she had the chance to tell Ned that on her deathbed, or maybe later, but how did she come by all that patchwork armor alone?

Did she sneak and steal it from other tents? Did she buy it? Or, did she have help?

Certainly those behaviors qualify as "willful" and certainly could have put her in an early grave because they were so dangerous and physically so. Its not one singular incident involving running off with Rhaegar.

 

Lastly those behaviors as the tKotLT are not enacted as acts of selfishness. That is why to me, tKotLT is a stand out in the story of "someone" who has a very black and white view of honor, right and wrong.

 

In those acts of stepping out or "her place," in that society, even in the heat of temper, she is trying to do the right thing, though it might have been reckless, Ned loved her for it, just in the same way he still loves Robert for remembering Lyanna.

 

The fact is, Ned suprressed a lot until he is back into a similar situation of stress and trauma, and now he is remembering events and people  the trauma has brought back.

 

I'm not saying Lyanna is not resposible, and in the end, didn't happily run off with Rhaegar, I just tread with caution on such assumptions.

[The Wolves]

I think it is a good point that Ned keeps his hate for men who are still alive and avoiding justice. However, I'm not sure if we can say that he thinks of Lyanna positively. I mean, he certainly loved her very much but he never says that she was a wonderful person or something like that, he says that she was wild and wilful. I believe that he is well aware of her faults but forgives them, because he loves her and she died. - BTW, I believe that he would have forgiven Sansa her betrayal, too.

Ned also doesn't talk about Lyanna much of at all that's what Arya said. I do think if Ned really talked about her than he would say some very positive things about her but I think Lyanna is still a sore subject to him especially if he is raising her son.

[Alia of the knife]

Lol true, and right now, there is a beach calling my name.......

[Avalatis]

 

And my point is, that perhaps there was another aspect of her "willfulness" that doesn't necessarily relate to her running off, or acting as a willing partner in her own abduction, and NOT using Ned as proof of anything at this point is probably wise.

 

Yeah it's possible. It's hard to rule it out with the small amount of information we have.

 

 

The term "willful," stubborn, rebellious, contrary, defiant, etc.....can be applied to other ways that may not mean her own complicitness in her abduction, but rather the circumstances that led up to it, which is why that Neds feelings may have had more to do with regret, sadness and pain, etc, so in other words, he isn't angry at her, because perhaps he doesn't hold her accountable for what happened to her.

 

That is possible. Or in his older age he realized she was young girl prone to making mistakes. You can't really expect a 16 year old to make the best decisions. Even Brandon made a huge mistake running off to Kingslanding. There are any number of explanations including Ned's tailored memory for why we don't get any of the resentment.

 

I think I and other readers side with the "she ran off with him" because it is actually contrary to the story we've been told so far. We were led to believe that Rhaegar Kidnapped and raped her (repeatedly). We know that bias comes from King Robert's personal opinion and Ned *probably* doesn't have the heart to tell him.We have hints of the Knight of the Laughing Tree as well as the crown at Harrenhal that suggests maybe more was going on there that we the readers are not aware of. Lyanna wasn't abducted from Winterfel, she was oddly enough down by Harrenhal and we're told of no causalities in her abduction (where were her guards?)

 

The story just doesn't seem to add up. But I admit the whole thing is vague enough that you could be correct.

 

 

And when the WB uses the term of Rhaegar, "falling upon" her, in that vernacular of the times, it has a negative connotation. Couple that with being taken at swordpoing, knowing Dany likely got the cleaned up, romantic version of events, and that raises more questions.

 

Meh, world book isn't telling us anything that isn't the commonly stated in world. The language is definitely dramatic. The book was written for King Robert and his children. They're not going to write that Robert's childhood love and the Lord Protectorate of the North ran off willingly with the hated Targaryen's. Good way to get your head removed.

 

 

There have been some assumptions that Lyannas brothers  didn't know that she was the tKotLT, but clearly the Reed children knew,  and were surprised that Neds children didn't know the story. I think we have assumed that she had the chance to tell Ned that on her deathbed, or maybe later, but how did she come by all that patchwork armor alone?

Did she sneak and steal it from other tents? Did she buy it? Or, did she have help?

Certainly those behaviors qualify as "willful" and certainly could have put her in an early grave because they were so dangerous and physically so. Its not one singular incident involving running off with Rhaegar.

 

Assuming she was it and Ned knew, it is interesting that such a fascinating story wasn't related to Ned's Children. He obviously told Bran about the tourney but managed not to include such a fun aside for it. He didn't even have to tell Bran that it was Lyanna. Yet he didn't. But this is another argument of: "Why did Ned omit information, emotions, etc". I would claim that omission is because it ties too closely to the Lyanna/Rhaegar romance and he wants no one talking about it (because of course Jon).

 

The reed children are shocked Bran doesn't know probably because they aren't aware of the truth of Jon. Howland probably swore a vow of secrecy to Ned about that. But he had no such vow regarding Harrenhal.

 

 

Lastly those behaviors as the tKotLT are not enacted as acts of selfishness. That is why to me, tKotLT is a stand out in the story of "someone" who has a very black and white view of honor, right and wrong.

 

In those acts of stepping out or "her place," in that society, even in the heat of temper, she is trying to do the right thing, though it might have been reckless, Ned loved her for it, just in the same way he still loves Robert for remembering Lyanna.

 

Robb was also very honorable and would go out of his way to do the right thing. That doesn't mean he wasn't young and didn't make mistakes that some might consider contradict that code of ethics. The same can be said of Lyanna.

 

In the story the "wolf's blood" I sort of took as being impulsive. Maybe I'm wrong in my reading of it. So Brandon's "wolf's blood" made him charge off to Kingslanding and demand a duel with Rhaegar. Lyanna's might be that when she fell in love she didn't care about the rules and went with her heart. As with the Harrenhal Tourney she saw a wrong being committed to Howland and took it upon herself to teach them a lesson. Again fairly impulsive. She could have handled it a very different way and still had the "right and wrong" you're talking about.

 

Finally we don't know the extent of Lyanna's and Rhaegar's communication. It could have been spontaneous, it could have been something they had discussed for months via letters. There is too little information to claim that she would have saw the act as wrong. Obviously after the war broke out and many people died I'm sure that view might have changed.

[Shinjuku Thief]

So, no killer essays?