The Heresy essays: X+Y=J : Arthur + Lyanna=J

[Sly Wren]

I think the tower scene gives us many things, but the major thrust of the scene often gets lost. The core of the scene is Ned is still dreaming fifteen years later of why the Kingsguard is at the tower and not where he thought to meet them. We are supposed to question, along with Ned,  the motives of the Kingsguard for being where they are, not just to look for things within the dream that reflect reality or Ned's dream state - as important as those clues might also be.

Agreed.

Which begs the question, under your scenario, what is the motivation for the Kingsguard to fight Ned's seven in the middle of nowhere with no one in the tower they must defend from Ned? What your scenario does is not a question of defending Lyanna or a vow to Aerys because Aerys is dead and Lyanna is not there. What vow or oath demands such a fight to the death for revenge? Surely the Kingsguard knows both about the deaths of all the Targaryens, and the need to defend Viserys and Rhaella. Your idea puts their actions in the light of simple vengeance, not in a conflict between vows and loved ones. Arthur throws away his life, gives up his lover and his child, for the need to kill the rebel in front of him? He forsakes his vows to protect Viserys because he can't control his blood lust for the life of a rebel general? While all these motivations are possible, I have to say I find them extremely unlikely.

Why the KG are fighting is up to a lot of debate. 

What they think about Viserys, Rhaella, Rhaegar, any of Rhaegar's children? They don't mention them at all. They do imply Darry fled--when Ned describes him as fleeing with "your Queen" and "Prince Viserys," they say Darry's a good man, but follow up with, "But not a KG. The KG do not flee." Ouch. Not fair. But they seem angry.

The only king they mention is Aerys. They would have delivered woe to Aerys' usurper had they been on the Trident. They would have saved Aerys from their false brother. So--whatever they are doing in the middle of that pass--it seems like it's about Aerys. That's what the scene gives us. 

Why fight to the death with no hope? Oakheart does it--though he's really screwed up. Though, Arthur would have screwed up as well.  Courtney Penrose's king is dead. Has no heirs. No way to win. Refuses to give up--fight to the end rather than kneel. 

So, could these men be guarding completely unreferenced persons in the tower? Sure. Or, they could be telling us exactly what they mean. No one's there. This is about Aerys. "The KG do not flee. Then or now."

And, in the hypothetical portion: Arthur must know he's violated his vows, even if he was saving Lyanna. A last chance to salvage his honor? The knowledge that one way or another, he's dead once it gets out what he's done? Given what we've seen of men with honor who break it in these novels--seems like there are a some options. At least until the books are done.

What is even more unlikely is that after fighting such a fight, Arthur repents and seeing the "true nature" in Ned, he volunteers the location of Lyanna and his child. If Lyanna is his love, and Jon is his son, then we would expect Arthur to do everything even up to dying in order to hide them from the rebel's control. Instead he tells Ned where to find them, he, in effect, surrenders his family to the rebels. Doesn't work, in my opinion.

But Arthur's family is now a world without a country in this scenario if it gets out that they shielded Lyanna. Might Arthur know this? And why would he have to "see Ned's true nature" right then? If he's been with Lyanna, and heard about Ned's reaction to the murder of Rhaegar's children, he may have a good idea of exactly who Ned is. At this point, there might be no more rebels--just family. 

After all, Arthur is the only one described as sad in this scene. And it's his name, no one else's, that makes Ned sad about that day.

There are many types of hypotheticals. When we have ones that have us drawing conclusions that make no sense we need to reconsider the hypothetical, not go full steam ahead into the land of cracked pots and tinfoil. When we can't answer what is Arthur's motivation for telling Ned Lyanna's location other than a feeling of love for Lyanna when that revelation risks Lyanna, Jon, and his family, then it is time, in my opinion, to say it is unlikely Arthur does so.

Completely fair. Though other options re: the tower are also messy at best. And you have to assume he's fighting Ned because he sees Ned as a threat to Lyanna and Jon. As opposed to a fight for honor for the only king mentioned. If it's the latter, if the scene is saying just what it says, Arthur can fight Ned as a KG and still trust him with Lyanna.

I too find the Dayne's regard for Ned odd. I find it more than a bit odd they employ as a wet nurse for the heir of Starfall a woman who is reputed to be Ned's lover and the mother of his child. I can explain it in other scenarios. In this one it just remains odd.

All fair.

[J. Stargaryen]

 

Agree. 

Her promise is surely not "Ned, promise me to bring my bones to winterfell",

It must be "Ned, promise me you will build a beautiful statue for me in winterfell crypt. I know it is only for lords and kings, but I really want be a unique stark woman! promise me, Ned."

Ned: but this is not the tradition.....nobody did this for 10000 years. 

Lyanna: but I want one! Promise me!

Ned: all right......

Then he was haunted forever by breaking this 10000-year old rule. 

 

But Artos "The Implacable" Stark has a statue despite never being the lord of Winterfell. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Artos_Stark

[purple-eyes]

But Artos "The Implacable" Stark has a statue despite never being the lord of Winterfell. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Artos_Stark

I mean female one. 

Brandon already broke the rule of "lords and kings" since he was likely dead before his father. 

Lyanna is the only female with a statue we heard about. 

We never heard they had statues for queens and ladies and I am sure most of the Kings of the North had queens. 

 

 

[J. Stargaryen]

 

So, could these men be guarding completely unreferenced persons in the tower? Sure. Or, they could be telling us exactly what they mean. No one's there. This is about Aerys. "The KG do not flee. Then or now."

So, the fact that Rhaegar was said to have named this place the tower of joy is just a coincidence? That seems like a stretch. Especially when you realize that "ToJ" is likely inspired by, or a reference to, Lancelot's castle, Joyous Gard. Signalling that the name "ToJ" is probably meant to be significant.

I mean, I could probably imagine some in-universe scenarios where the level of coincidence is somewhat mitigated. But it seems like really poor storytelling. If it's a red herring, it's a completely unnecessary one, since we're already led to believe Lyanna is at the tower.

The lengths we have to go to explain Lyanna not being at the tower tell me that she was indeed there, as the text indicates.

I mean female one. 

Brandon already broke the rule of "lords and kings" since he was likely dead before his father. 

Lyanna is the only female with a statue we heard about. 

We never heard they had statues for queens and ladies and I am sure most of the Kings of the North had queens. 

I don't think there were any other females. But one exception begets another.

[Sly Wren]

So, the fact that Rhaegar was said to have named this place the tower of joy is just a coincidence? That seems like a stretch. Especially when you realize that "ToJ" is likely inspired by, or a reference to, Lancelot's castle, Joyous Gard. Signalling that the name "ToJ" is probably meant to be significant.

Agree the Joyous Gard reference, like a lot of the Arthurian imagery around the Daynes, could be important. Arthur Dayne does have a lot of Lancelot qualities to him. 

All we know about why the KG are there si what they tell us. And it's very Aerys oriented.

As to the actual source of the name:

"It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory."

It's also said that Rhaegar is a rapist. And Jon is Ned's son. And Cersei's kids are Baratheons. Without context on the name, with only that one unattributed statement without any comment from Ned or its origins--we need more data. 

I mean, I could probably imagine some in-universe scenarios where the level of coincidence is somewhat mitigated. But it seems like really poor storytelling. If it's a red herring, it's a completely unnecessary one, since we're already led to believe Lyanna is at the tower.

The lengths we have to go to explain Lyanna not being at the tower tell me that she was indeed there, as the text indicates.

The text closely associates Lyanna with the tower. "Leads us to believe"--something of a relative term. And without more data, not likely to be a debate soon ended.

[corbon]

yes, absolutely. Agree with you here. It's easy to see the point you guys are trying to make - the dream is unreliable, foggy, whatever. Maybe Ned combines the scream and the Tower in the dream, okay. If this is the case, it's seems certain that Martin would leave another trail of breadcrumbs to follow, other clues that she was in Starfall or anywhere else. So... Where are those breadcrumbs? That's my question. The text strongly suggests, implies, etc. that Lyanna was in the tower. Where is the evidence that cuts against that?

I can see the point, I just can't agree with it.
So what if the dream is foggy, unreliable etc. Not relevant. Its not the contents of the dream that primarily place Lyanna in her bed of blood at the tower. Its that Ned categorises this old dream (ie not the dream we see, but the regular dream he has had before without poppy or fever) as the dream about X,Y and Z. And its a dream with deep emotional resonance, but X and Y have no inherent emotional resonance of their own, so the emotional resonance comes from Z. The dream is about Z - X and Y are just identifiers that help uniquely identify that particular dream. As a writer you can't label the dream about something and then not show anything connecting directly to that something in the dream. You aren't giving the readers the information they need if you do that, you are just screwing with them for the sake of screwing.

I'll use the ferrari /beach idea again, but explain it more fully. Say a character lost his kids in an accident when a ferarri lost control, left the road, crashed onto a beach and killed his kids playing on the sand during their school holiday. But the readers don't know that. So the character has a recurring dream about a ferrari that has deep emotional resonance. As a writer, you can't tell the readers that the character is having 'the ferrari dream' again, just show the kids finishing the last day of school ... and then end the dream. There is no connection to the ferrari there at all, or anything apparent of deep emotional significance. So you are screwing with the reader by deliberately withholding the necessary information they need to connect the title of the dream in any way with the substance of the dream. Its screwing for the sake of screwing unless you have something seen in the dream connect with the title.
Even showing the kids playing on the beach is not enough. Because you've told the readers the dream is about a ferrari and there is still no connection. As a writer you'd need to show a car approaching at least, or the sound of it even, but you have to have something to connect the scenes in the dream with the description of the dream you gave the readers. They have hints of a mystery, not a totally unrelated mess.

GRRM told us the dream was about Lyanna in her bed of blood - which as we know from his waking thoughts elsewhere is her death scene. Something in the dream must be a connection, a very close connection, to Lyanna's death.
The discussion at ToJ, even fighting at ToJ, even killing Lyanna's baby-daddy Arthur, does not satisfy this. I can't see anything that does, unless its that this is the location and time, more or less, of her death, and the whole thing is one death scene, just starting very early on.
I am open to other suggestions. But they have to be good enough - killing Arthur is not.

I think the tower scene gives us many things, but the major thrust of the scene often gets lost. The core of the scene is Ned is still dreaming fifteen years later of why the Kingsguard is at the tower and not where he thought to meet them. We are supposed to question, along with Ned,  the motives of the Kingsguard for being where they are, not just to look for things within the dream that reflect reality or Ned's dream state - as important as those clues might also be.

Agreed. the thrust of the dream is Lyanna's bed of blood - that is the emotional core. But the thrust of the limited scene we see is the KG and Ned not understanding why they are there.

[StarkofWinterfell]

 

Agree. 

Her promise is surely not "Ned, promise me to bring my bones to winterfell",

It must be "Ned, promise me you will build a beautiful statue for me in winterfell crypt. I know it is only for lords and kings, but I really want be a unique stark woman! promise me, Ned."

Ned: but this is not the tradition.....nobody did this for 10000 years. 

Lyanna: but I want one! Promise me!

Ned: all right......

Then he was haunted forever by breaking this 10000-year old rule. 

 

I agree. This is what I meant.

[StarkofWinterfell]

So, the fact that Rhaegar was said to have named this place the tower of joy is just a coincidence? That seems like a stretch. Especially when you realize that "ToJ" is likely inspired by, or a reference to, Lancelot's castle, Joyous Gard. Signalling that the name "ToJ" is probably meant to be significant.

I mean, I could probably imagine some in-universe scenarios where the level of coincidence is somewhat mitigated. But it seems like really poor storytelling. If it's a red herring, it's a completely unnecessary one, since we're already led to believe Lyanna is at the tower.

The lengths we have to go to explain Lyanna not being at the tower tell me that she was indeed there, as the text indicates.

I don't think there were any other females. But one exception begets another.

Your post drew me to another conclusion.

If the Tower of Joy is based off of Lancelot's Joyous Gard, and Lancelot ran away with Guinevere, then further parallels could only mean that Arthur ran away with Lyanna.

It makes sense to me.

[J. Stargaryen]

Agree the Joyous Gard reference, like a lot of the Arthurian imagery around the Daynes, could be important. Arthur Dayne does have a lot of Lancelot qualities to him. 

All we know about why the KG are there si what they tell us. And it's very Aerys oriented.

Meh, not really. Out of four exchanges there is one that is about Aerys, and another where they say that the KG don't flee. Presumably from the king, so I'll give you that one. But the first one is about the Trident, which would definitely be more "Rhaegar oriented." And the third is about lifting the siege on Storm's End. That happened after Aerys died. That's only two out of four, so I can't agree that what they tell us is "very Aerys oriented."

As to the actual source of the name:

"It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory."

It's also said that Rhaegar is a rapist. And Jon is Ned's son. And Cersei's kids are Baratheons. Without context on the name, with only that one unattributed statement without any comment from Ned or its origins--we need more data. 

Regardless, your solution still leaves the readers with a massive coincidence. Which means it's a poor solution from a storytelling perspective.

The text closely associates Lyanna with the tower. "Leads us to believe"--something of a relative term. And without more data, not likely to be a debate soon ended.

I'm sure you guys will continue to argue your opinions with the utmost zeal.

Your post drew me to another conclusion.

If the Tower of Joy is based off of Lancelot's Joyous Gard, and Lancelot ran away with Guinevere, then further parallels could only mean that Arthur ran away with Lyanna.

It makes sense to me.

It's a popular idea in AD+L=J theories, but not the only interpretation. Keep in mind that Arthur Dayne is simultaneously King Arthur and Lancelot here. And GRRM makes use of Arthurian themes throughout ASoIaF.

[wolfmaid7]

I will repeat this again. I’ve seen no evidence presented that Lyanna was in the place Rhaegar called toj  nor that she was there when Ned had the showdown with the KGs.I see no evidence that she died at said tower in the time period Ned fought or at all. I’ve seen arguments that place Lyanna’s bed of blood moment in a dream that had the Kgs fight and a tower long fallen.There is difference sorry LML but that’s me being honest and if you can’t handle that too bad.I think and I mean this with the utmost respect that people look at these things already having formed a conclusion and that’s the problem.Instead of looking at this together and respecting that someone may have another angle on something the fall back becomes some stupid accusations that make it sound like it’s some type of conspiracy…..Please. So let’s look at this.

 

Relevant text starting with Ned’s dream and I’ll edit the dialogue between them as its not important right now.

 

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

 

"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.”

 

Now this is after he had a woken and speaking with Poole about giving them over to the silent sisters before sending the bodies of his slain men back to WF. Ned gives a detailed account of before and after the fight and the introduction her screaming is what seems out of place a bit. Given Lya’s state it’s impossible for Ned to hear her scream with the song of swords and men grunting and such happening.Some may think that Lya's cream put her there ok. Given the preceeding i would think it was the sword fighting that that was the link.But hey that's just me.

 

“It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory's father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed. He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.”

Now the quote below is his mental and verbal account to Robert.

I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his.”

 

Forget all the “they” etc but something very telling is made clear Ned admits his memory goes on the fritz,He is in shock.He can't remember anything.

 

So now I’m going to fill this in with ‘information” and stop me when it sounds ridiculous as it is intended to show how absurd I believe some of these claims are.

 

Dorne is a desert, bone dry there’s a war going on so explain to me where these flowers are suppose to come from during a war when they are suppose to be hiding? Is it so unrealistic to think that where Lyanna was had easy access to flowers ?

 

So in the baking Dornish sun Ned pulls down the tower while Howland saddles Lyanna’s body to a horse and Wylla is holding baby Jon.And maybe they go to Starfall gives Dayne’s Sword back to Ashara. Howland is watering the horses probably while Silent sister’s either put Beetles or boil Lyanna’s body because a dead body going all the way to Winterfell is not going to keep well.

 

For those of you that we who question this are just poking holes at nothing....Yeah nah i don't think so.We can take certain elements of the dream and verify it in the waking world.We know the showdonw with Ned and the KGS went down when and where because in the waking world it verified.For Lyanna and her presence there no.

 

 

[SFDanny]

Agreed.

Why the KG are fighting is up to a lot of debate. 

What they think about Viserys, Rhaella, Rhaegar, any of Rhaegar's children? They don't mention them at all. They do imply Darry fled--when Ned describes him as fleeing with "your Queen" and "Prince Viserys," they say Darry's a good man, but follow up with, "But not a KG. The KG do not flee." Ouch. Not fair. But they seem angry.

The only king they mention is Aerys. They would have delivered woe to Aerys' usurper had they been on the Trident. They would have saved Aerys from their false brother. So--whatever they are doing in the middle of that pass--it seems like it's about Aerys. That's what the scene gives us. 

Why fight to the death with no hope? Oakheart does it--though he's really screwed up. Though, Arthur would have screwed up as well.  Courtney Penrose's king is dead. Has no heirs. No way to win. Refuses to give up--fight to the end rather than kneel. 

So, could these men be guarding completely unreferenced persons in the tower? Sure. Or, they could be telling us exactly what they mean. No one's there. This is about Aerys. "The KG do not flee. Then or now."

And, in the hypothetical portion: Arthur must know he's violated his vows, even if he was saving Lyanna. A last chance to salvage his honor? The knowledge that one way or another, he's dead once it gets out what he's done? Given what we've seen of men with honor who break it in these novels--seems like there are a some options. At least until the books are done.

But Arthur's family is now a world without a country in this scenario if it gets out that they shielded Lyanna. Might Arthur know this? And why would he have to "see Ned's true nature" right then? If he's been with Lyanna, and heard about Ned's reaction to the murder of Rhaegar's children, he may have a good idea of exactly who Ned is. At this point, there might be no more rebels--just family. 

After all, Arthur is the only one described as sad in this scene. And it's his name, no one else's, that makes Ned sad about that day.

Completely fair. Though other options re: the tower are also messy at best. And you have to assume he's fighting Ned because he sees Ned as a threat to Lyanna and Jon. As opposed to a fight for honor for the only king mentioned. If it's the latter, if the scene is saying just what it says, Arthur can fight Ned as a KG and still trust him with Lyanna.

All fair.

I don't have a problem with arguing the Kingsguard trio are fighting for revenge. I don't agree with it, but one can argue it. What bothers me is to say they are fighting for revenge and also for their duty as members of the Kingsguard. These two motives are incompatible here. They swore vows to protect their king and from what we can tell their king is on Dragonstone. Fighting a needless fight in the middle of nowhere just to kill some rebels, even if one of them is a rebel general, is the antithesis of what their vows tell them. Their vows tell them they should be going to Viserys.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with arguing the Kingsguard trio is fighting for revenge, but one can't argue that and argue Arthur is also fighting to protect the woman he loves and the child she bore him. Not if he is giving up her location as he lays dying. These two ideas are also incompatible.

If Arthur knows of Ned's argument with Robert and draws the conclusion he is not a threat to Lyanna then why, oh why, does the fight take place in the first place if they are all "just family"? They fight to the death because either Arthur is just out for Ned's blood, or he sees him as a threat. They don't kill eight men for entertainment at a family get together.

[corbon]

 

So now I’m going to fill this in with ‘information” and stop me when it sounds ridiculous as it is intended to show how absurd I believe some of these claims are.

 

Dorne is a desert, bone dry

 

Stop already. Gee, that didn't last long did it?

Parts of Dorne are a bone dry (maybe) desert. This isn't one of them. Its in the pass, the borderlands between Dorne and the Stormlands.

there’s a war going on so explain to me where these flowers are suppose to come from during a war when they are suppose to be hiding? Is it so unrealistic to think that where Lyanna was had easy access to flowers ?

Stop again.
Flowers grow independent of wars. And the war (the fighting and destroying part) hasn't reached this part of the world. And no one said Lyanna had easy access to flowers.
But hell, for all we know the Tower has wild roses around it (probably not, but the point illustrates the ridiculousness of your attempted point),.

So in the baking Dornish sun Ned pulls down the tower while Howland saddles Lyanna’s body to a horse and Wylla is holding baby Jon.

Stop again.
You are just making shit up and making it up deliberately badly I think.
Ned has a dozen or so horses to help pull down the tower and probably Howland helping as well.

And maybe they go to Starfall gives Dayne’s Sword back to Ashara. Howland is watering the horses probably while Silent sister’s either put Beetles or boil Lyanna’s body because a dead body going all the way to Winterfell is not going to keep well.

Still doing this as badly as you can. This tactic only mocks one person.

[corbon]

I will repeat this again. I’ve seen no evidence presented that Lyanna was in the place Rhaegar called toj  nor that she was there when Ned had the showdown with the KGs.I see no evidence that she died at said tower in the time period Ned fought or at all. …..Please. So let’s look at this.

How about instead of repeating your very well known opinions again you address the challenges made to your claims that there is 'plenty, plenty' that disputes the idea that the fight with the 3KG and Lyanna's death scene happened at (roughly) the same time and place (the ToJ).
Show us some text that supports your claims.
1. that her bed of blood was not at ToJ
2. that her bed of blood was somewhere else

Saying "I don't think so" doesn't cut the mustard if you can't give coherent explanations why not and come up with support for alternatives.

 

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

A tricky question without more data.

But, I'm reminded of the fact that when I look back at the passages which convinced me Cersei ordered or performed the poisoning of Jon Arryn, none of the clues is "wrong." Cersei even admits the motive. And--she didn't do it. She had motive, means, and opportunity. But it's not her and Jaime.

So, without further data--I'm not sure how to argue that the inference of the tower doesn't hold. Or that another option holds "better." 

Given what we've seen so far, when Martin finally gives us the ending, the in-tower inference could still completely hold WHILE she ends up as not having been in the tower. Like the Arryn mess. And possibly other things. Or, she could end up as having been in the tower.

So, I can't see how to settle this without more data.

The thing with the Arryn-murder, though, is that we were flat-out told that Cersei or the Lannisters in general were behind the murder, and while we were being told that, we were getting hints left and right that neither Cersei nor Jaime had nothing to do with it, as well as seeing from Tyrion's perspective that he was innocent as well.

[Ygrain]

Your post drew me to another conclusion.

If the Tower of Joy is based off of Lancelot's Joyous Gard, and Lancelot ran away with Guinevere, then further parallels could only mean that Arthur ran away with Lyanna.

It makes sense to me.

It makes about as much sense as Lancelot running away with Guinevere and Mordred calling the place they run to "Joyous Gard".

[Sly Wren]

 

I don't have a problem with arguing the Kingsguard trio are fighting for revenge. I don't agree with it, but one can argue it. What bothers me is to say they are fighting for revenge and also for their duty as members of the Kingsguard. These two motives are incompatible here. They swore vows to protect their king and from what we can tell their king is on Dragonstone. Fighting a needless fight in the middle of nowhere just to kill some rebels, even if one of them is a rebel general, is the antithesis of what their vows tell them. Their vows tell them they should be going to Viserys.

And yet they imply Darry fled, even though with Viserys and Rhaella. Fled whom? Rhaegar? Darry wasn't with Rhaegar. Or "far away" with the 3 KG. Darry was with Aerys. He fled Aerys--which isn't really fair of the KG. But they seem angry. And they are fighting.

Ned dreams this dream again (or at least this part of it) right after the stupid fight with Jaime. A pointless grudge match for honor. Might be a reason why those events happened that way.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with arguing the Kingsguard trio is fighting for revenge, but one can't argue that and argue Arthur is also fighting to protect the woman he loves and the child she bore him. Not if he is giving up her location as he lays dying. These two ideas are also incompatible.

If Arthur knows of Ned's argument with Robert and draws the conclusion he is not a threat to Lyanna then why, oh why, does the fight take place in the first place if they are all "just family"? They fight to the death because either Arthur is just out for Ned's blood, or he sees him as a threat. They don't kill eight men for entertainment at a family get together.

Jon makes common cause with the Wildlings against a common enemy--after he defeats them. And they trust him because he knows the same cause they do. And yet--they all still fought each other beforehand.

So, not entertainment. Honor and oath, even though very likely pointless. And then--when the point of honor to an oath is useless, and survival of those you love matters most--make common cause. Jon's situation is more general--saving everyone. Arthur and Ned are trying to save Lyanna and her child--and Arthur (in this hypothetical) would likely be considering his family as well. So, fewer to save. But they are family.

And we've seen what Jon was willing to do re: his oath when he though family was on the line. And there was no one left to help.

[Sly Wren]

The thing with the Arryn-murder, though, is that we were flat-out told that Cersei or the Lannisters in general were behind the murder, and while we were being told that, we were getting hints left and right that neither Cersei nor Jaime had nothing to do with it, as well as seeing from Tyrion's perspective that he was innocent as well.

Perhaps--but I, at least, didn't focus on the hints. I focused on what "made sense." And, when I re-read the scene with Tyrion and Pycelle--the assumptions I made are completely compatible with the basic facts of the text. And with the characters. But, to make it proof of Cersei's guilt, I have to fill in gaps. If I leave them be--I get a different answer. Which is also consistent with the text. Martin's just a sneaky, little. . . stopping now.

As for "hints left and right:"

We're told flat out that Jon wants to win a sword to gain a family name. That he is a wolf and that he's the "better sword." That he values oaths and family, but will break them for a higher purpose, which is consistent with protecting people. That he will help the small folk, and deal with enemies. That he sees the sword of the morning. And that all of this imagery is consistent with Stark and Dayne--two of the most ancient families on the continent. And Jon's gearing up to face the most ancient foe of Westeros.

We're told flat out that Sansa is bookending Lyanna's plot in Game. That it's her wolf who ends up dead. That Lady represents Lyanna's being taking back to Winterfell. And that Sansa's a "rose", all dressed in blue, so named by a bard. Seems like if we want to know how the wolf maid got dead, we should look at her echo. And that echo is in a hefty bind. Knows she needs an ally. And ally that's a true knight, because all else are schemers and somewhat useless. Because now she's in the hands of Bael-ish.

We're told repeatedly of the difficulties of being a KG and how hard it is to know what is right to do. How hard it is to keep an oath in the face of depravity.

We're told repeatedly of links between the Starks and the Daynes--both literal links and symbolic ones. And we meet an actual Dayne, Edric. Whose only purpose so far is to demonstrate connections between Winterfell and Starfall.

Martin's not putting all of this in willy nilly. He's set it up well throughout the novels. So, if this is where he's going, he's given us clues--multiple ones. In every single book.

[SFDanny]

I will repeat this again. I’ve seen no evidence presented that Lyanna was in the place Rhaegar called toj  nor that she was there when Ned had the showdown with the KGs.I see no evidence that she died at said tower in the time period Ned fought or at all. I’ve seen arguments that place Lyanna’s bed of blood moment in a dream that had the Kgs fight and a tower long fallen.

 

 

Then you are deliberately ignoring the evidence repeatedly cited that says just that.

1- in Ned's dream of the events at the tower he hears Lyanna's voice shout out his name.

2- in the A Game of Thrones appendices under Lyanna's entry she is said to have died in the Red mountains of Dorne. Supporting the evidence of Ned's dream.

3- in the official app under Lyanna's entry her death is said to have taken place at the Tower of Joy.

One can, of course, argue the strength of, and the meaning of, this evidence, but it is intellectually dishonest to maintain it doesn't exist.

[SFDanny]

And yet they imply Darry fled, even though with Viserys and Rhaella. Fled whom? Rhaegar? Darry wasn't with Rhaegar. Or "far away" with the 3 KG. Darry was with Aerys. He fled Aerys--which isn't really fair of the KG. But they seem angry. And they are fighting.

Ned dreams this dream again (or at least this part of it) right after the stupid fight with Jaime. A pointless grudge match for honor. Might be a reason why those events happened that way.

It is Ned who first uses the word "fled" in describing Ser Willem Darry, Rhaella, and Viserys, and it may well be he also supplies the dream response of the Kingsguard not fleeing. In fact the oath tells them they must do whatever it takes to safeguard the king. That includes fleeing, dying, and hiding - among many other kinds of actions. Assuming, for the moment, this is really what the Kingsguard said in response then it is quite a stretch to make it into a rebuke of Darry's action. If any or all of them were ordered to go with the Queen and Viserys and to protect them from harm they would have done the same as Darry without question. So, I think you're reading something into the dialogue that's not there.

Jon makes common cause with the Wildlings against a common enemy--after he defeats them. And they trust him because he knows the same cause they do. And yet--they all still fought each other beforehand.

So, not entertainment. Honor and oath, even though very likely pointless. And then--when the point of honor to an oath is useless, and survival of those you love matters most--make common cause. Jon's situation is more general--saving everyone. Arthur and Ned are trying to save Lyanna and her child--and Arthur (in this hypothetical) would likely be considering his family as well. So, fewer to save. But they are family.

And we've seen what Jon was willing to do re: his oath when he though family was on the line. And there was no one left to help.

Problem here is that by fighting Ned they show they think him a threat. What changes Arthur's mind during the course of being beaten by Howland and Ned that makes him think it is a good idea to entrust Lyanna and Jon's location to this rebel general? It makes much more sense if he dies refusing to tell Ned anything about Lyanna.

[LmL]

Then you are deliberately ignoring the evidence repeatedly cited that says just that.

1- in Ned's dream of the events at the tower he hears Lyanna's voice shout out his name.

2- in the A Game of Thrones appendices under Lyanna's entry she is said to have died in the Red mountains of Dorne. Supporting the evidence of Ned's dream.

3- in the official app under Lyanna's entry her death is said to have taken place at the Tower of Joy.

One can, of course, argue the strength of, and the meaning of, this evidence, but it is intellectually dishonest to maintain it doesn't exist.

{LYANNA}, his younger sister, died in the mountains of Dorne,

Wow, how I have I not noticed / heard anyone talk about this before?

It doesn't even say "she is said to have died" - just "died in the mountains of Dorne"