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

[Sly Wren]

Ahh yes i forgot those,but again where's the Arthur connection. I see the Lyanna but not something unique that connect her to Arthur.

It's Sansa's lover/protectors which could arguably be seen as a tie to Arthur. She thinks of knights all the time. Then gets disillusioned/cynical over them. But one Kingsguard stands out.

If Sansa is echoing Lyanna (which I think she is)--her protector/lover/champion is the Kingsguard with the soiled cloak. The Hound. Protecting her from the Targ wannabes--Joff and Cersei.

The Hound seems to be a fighter without many peers. And even Ned notes how he steps in to protect Loras--that while Gregor tires to hack at the Hound's head, the Hound never once swings for his brother's head, even though the Mountain doesn't have a helmet. The Hound may seems vicious, but he is distinct from the mindless violence of the Mountain. Or the brutality of Joff's child-beating KG. Or the spinelessness of Arys Oakheart's useless protests against beating Sansa--which he then does anyway.

The Hound is separate from all of them. In a different way from how Arthur was. But still--distinct. And Sansa's protect. Comforting/helping her with his white cloak in the throne room. Leaving her with his white cloak, soiled with blood and fire (Martin's words, not mine), after which she wraps herself in it for comfort.

Could all of that just be character building? Sure. But with the echoes of Lyanna in Sansa, the fact that she's so closely tied to the Kingsguard and knights--seems like that could be a pointer to another Kingsguard who stands apart from all the rest.

[Sly Wren]

Sly Wren, I'm havnig trouble both breaking up the posts, as well as quoting them, for some reason, so if there's a post you made in reply to me that I missed as a result of these issues, please tell me.

 

I think you're good.

Jon did not seek out Ygritte though. He did not initiate a fight between him and her. Arhur did initiate a fight. And instead of letting Hightower or Whent fight Ned, it appears Arthur and Ned were the ones to duel.

 

Agreed. But the fight starts after Arthur says, "the KG do not flee." And then Hightower's "vow" line. . . I think. 

Sounds like Arthur is standing with his KG brothers. As Jon decided to stand with his brothers. And if Ygritte's brother had come to fight for the Wall--Jon does fight all of her allies and friends. The line seems to have been drawn in the tower scene. The scene's really vague on some of the context--hence the long history of debate and analysis. But since Arthur's standing with his KG brothers--seems like the fight just is going to happen.

That  not all KG are capable of staying true to their vows concerning women, is quite clear. But we also see that the other KG either stay out of that (like Arys refuses to even speak about the women his sworn brothers were seeing, on occasion; and like how Barristan never spoke of any paramour of Lewyn, despite him knowing about it), or punish a man for it (Lucamore the Lusty)... We don't see them actively trying to help their sworn brother break his vows, initiating a war because of it. That would be the complete opposite.

Agreed. If Arthur is Jon's father, I tend to think it's something like what we see echoed in Sansa and Arya's storylines: escape and rescue/help by someone who was originally loyal--the Hound "helps" both of them. So, the war wouldn't have started over Arthur and Lyanna's running off. That would have happened after the war started. . . if the echoes with Sansa and Arya are an indication. 

We know that Gerold was not at Starfall. We know he was in the Red Mountains, at a place Rhaegar had named the tower of joy, and we know, due to maps from the books, where that tower is. 

We know that Gerold was at the tower in Ned's dreamed memory, yes. We also know the KG say they were "far away"--and we don't know what they mean by this. We also have no indication of how long they've been at the tower or if they recently arrived from elsewhere. So, lots of options for where they could have been--including Starfall.

Concerning ToJ (including the first two lines of the post of yours I quoted above). We have canon sources implying, and semi-canon sources specifically stating, as well as inside information that until at least 2008 (iirc), with no signs of anyone having changed their minds, the author had marked Lyanna's location of death at ToJ. Meanwhile, we have nothing indicating another location. 

So I do have to wonder, what the problem is with accepting that with reasonable certainty, ToJ is Lyanna's location of death. If the original plans of the World Book's family tree, with all the places of birth and death, had been published, would that have changed anything?

No problem with accepting the toj as death-scene as possible.

But the "canon-sources implying" are a description of the contents of his dream and then the scream at the end of the dream. A dream Martin has told us to be wary of taking literally (though without actually qualifying that statement in any helpful manner, grumble, grumble). And then that's it. Very, very little clear information. With all of those gaps, my cynical bird-brain can't help but wonder why on earth they are there. I fully concede that it could be nothing. And that Lyanna's dying in the tower is very possible. But it's not set. Not yet.

As to "nothing clearly indicating a single location"... She will have died in only one location usually, people die only once (except in zombie movies, but I doubt that's what happened to Lyanna  ).

Zombie Lyanna?!?!? Quelle horreur! 

And, touche! Well played.

There's no semi-canon debate about the wiki. The wiki is a wikipedia, very simple. A gathering of all the sources, canon and semi-canon, that we have, as exact as we can (or so we try our very best), written by people who volunteer to do so. Who named Starfall as being part of the Red Mountains, I don't know. But looking at the maps from The Lands of Ice and Fire, I can see why someone might have categorized it as such.

But is Starfall an option? Ned encounters the three KG at the place the three KG had named the ToJ.. we have sources (semi-canon) explicitly stating that ToJ was where she died, and we have the ToJ located on maps, multiple maps, showing it is nowhere near Starfall.

 

Yes--on Starfall, I stumbled on the Red Mountains thing in regards to something else. But it looks like it qualifies as being in the region.

As for Starfall as an option--without doubt, the fight happens at the tower. And the tower is pulled down for the cairns. But Lyanna in her room that smells of blood and roses? The tower is an option. But so might a place with roses be. Or the home of Jon's wet nurse and milk brother. And the place Ned brought Arthur's sword. A place that would (probably) be a lot more convenient to defend, and live in, and brith a baby in. 

Martin brings the Daynes back into the story big time in Storm. And brings the Starfall ties to Jon's infancy straight out into the narrative. It might not mean anything--but with the gaps in the narrative around Jon's birth, including location, seems like somewhere other than the tower is still possible. And with Starfall's being brought up in relation to Jon's infancy, seems like it is an option. At least for now.

And I am out of time. . . 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I think you're good.

Agreed. But the fight starts after Arthur says, "the KG do not flee." And then Hightower's "vow" line. . . I think. 

Sounds like Arthur is standing with his KG brothers. As Jon decided to stand with his brothers. And if Ygritte's brother had come to fight for the Wall--Jon does fight all of her allies and friends. The line seems to have been drawn in the tower scene. The scene's really vague on some of the context--hence the long history of debate and analysis. But since Arthur's standing with his KG brothers--seems like the fight just is going to happen.

Well, it looks like I can suddenly break up posts again, which wasn't possible the last time, for some odd reason..

Jon does not fight Ygritte, but her allies/friends instead. So why did Arthur fight Ned, and did not allow Gerold Hightower, for example, to fight Ned instead? Lord Commander against leader?

It's not a perfect parallel.. Jon infiltrated Ygritte's people with the intention of betraying them and returning to his brotherhood. Arthur would have nothing to infiltrate by seemingly betraying his brotherhood. 

There are so many scenario's that would make more sense than the one presented in this essay. If Rhaegar wanted his friend to go off and have his romance, why go into the Riverlands and disappear for so long? Why not say to the King that he had send Arthur of on some mission, and let Arthur go alone and in secret (which would also attract less attention than travelling with a group would). Why drag Whent along? I assume that helping your sworn brother break his KG vows will lead to your own execution/punishment as well as your sworn brother's. 

 

Agreed. If Arthur is Jon's father, I tend to think it's something like what we see echoed in Sansa and Arya's storylines: escape and rescue/help by someone who was originally loyal--the Hound "helps" both of them. So, the war wouldn't have started over Arthur and Lyanna's running off. That would have happened after the war started. . . if the echoes with Sansa and Arya are an indication. 

What is important when considering the Hound, though, is that he time and time and time again states how he is not a knight. With the emphasize being put on "but all KG are knights" and the Hound refusing to take his vows still.. I'd also consider Brienne, not a knight (due to being a woman), but who lives by knightly values more than most other knights do. In his own way, the Hound might do so as well, though I think he'd sooner call it 'doing the complete opposite from Gregor'.

So would this non-knight who never fitted into the KG, despite people's attempts to place him there, be a parallel for Arthur, who is described as having been the finest knight Ned ever saw?

In fact, would Ned ever describe a person who stole away a girl, impregnated her with a bastard, and then fought when confronted with the possibility of having to give her up?

We know that Gerold was at the tower in Ned's dreamed memory, yes. We also know the KG say they were "far away"--and we don't know what they mean by this. We also have no indication of how long they've been at the tower or if they recently arrived from elsewhere. So, lots of options for where they could have been--including Starfall.

No problem with accepting the toj as death-scene as possible.

But the "canon-sources implying" are a description of the contents of his dream and then the scream at the end of the dream. A dream Martin has told us to be wary of taking literally (though without actually qualifying that statement in any helpful manner, grumble, grumble). And then that's it. Very, very little clear information. With all of those gaps, my cynical bird-brain can't help but wonder why on earth they are there. I fully concede that it could be nothing. And that Lyanna's dying in the tower is very possible. But it's not set. Not yet.

Hmm..  I can't help but notice the similarity between three dreams

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

 

She dreamt an old dream, of three girls in brown cloaks, a wattled crone, and a tent that smelled of death.

 

He dreamt an old dream of a hovel by the sea, three dogs whimpering, a woman's tears.

 

The first dream is Ned's, the second dream is Cersei's, and the last is Varamyr's. 

All call their dreams old, all have a repetition of three (knights, girls, dogs), all describe a woman (Lyanna, wattled crone, woman), and all describe a location (a tower long fallen, a tent that smelled of death, and a hovel by the sea). In fact, all three are immediately connected with death as well. Lyanna's bed of blood, the tent's smell, and the reason for the woman's tears (her dead son).

In Cersei's case, we get a good description of her dream, which is not a fever dream. All her memories of the event prior and later on imply that the actual event went exactly as she had dreamt it, if I'm not mistaken. And in her case, we know that there were three girls who went to a tent smelling like death to see the wattled crone.

With Varamyr, if I recall it correctly, his is a fever dream. Yet he thinks about the event as well, clearly, in the remainder of his chapter. He is describing the death of his younger brother, with the three dogs whimpering as his father went to kill them, and his mother crying at Bump's death. All in one location.

So when I look at Ned's dream, and the description, and the similarity of the sentence, both the way it is written as well as the contents, I think it really does imply that it should be read in the same way as the other two. All three aspects mentioned are connected, all were in one location. And the fact that it is a fever dream doesn't have to change that (see Varamyr).  

 

Yes--on Starfall, I stumbled on the Red Mountains thing in regards to something else. But it looks like it qualifies as being in the region.

As for Starfall as an option--without doubt, the fight happens at the tower. And the tower is pulled down for the cairns. But Lyanna in her room that smells of blood and roses? The tower is an option. But so might a place with roses be. Or the home of Jon's wet nurse and milk brother. And the place Ned brought Arthur's sword. A place that would (probably) be a lot more convenient to defend, and live in, and brith a baby in. 

Martin brings the Daynes back into the story big time in Storm. And brings the Starfall ties to Jon's infancy straight out into the narrative. It might not mean anything--but with the gaps in the narrative around Jon's birth, including location, seems like somewhere other than the tower is still possible. And with Starfall's being brought up in relation to Jon's infancy, seems like it is an option. At least for now.

For the second paragraph here, I think what I wrote above applies.

Is Starfall brought up in relation to Jon's infancy? At the moment, all I can think of is the mentioning of Wylla... And we don't know whether she was serving at Starfall, at the time, or not. She's serving there now, she was definitly serving there a few years after the Rebelllion... But during? We can't say, making Jon's connection to Starfall rather thin.

Unless, of course, I'm currently not thinking about a quote?

 

And I am out of time. . . 

:)  Me as well.. We continue on the morrow!

[SFDanny]

Concerning ToJ (including the first two lines of the post of yours I quoted above). We have canon sources implying, and semi-canon sources specifically stating, as well as inside information that until at least 2008 (iirc), with no signs of anyone having changed their minds, the author had marked Lyanna's location of death at ToJ. Meanwhile, we have nothing indicating another location. 

So I do have to wonder, what the problem is with accepting that with reasonable certainty, ToJ is Lyanna's location of death. If the original plans of the World Book's family tree, with all the places of birth and death, had been published, would that have changed anything?

As to "nothing clearly indicating a single location"... She will have died in only one location usually, people die only once (except in zombie movies, but I doubt that's what happened to Lyanna  ).

There's no semi-canon debate about the wiki. The wiki is a wikipedia, very simple. A gathering of all the sources, canon and semi-canon, that we have, as exact as we can (or so we try our very best), written by people who volunteer to do so. Who named Starfall as being part of the Red Mountains, I don't know. But looking at the maps from The Lands of Ice and Fire, I can see why someone might have categorized it as such.

But is Starfall an option? Ned encounters the three KG at the place the three KG had named the ToJ.. we have sources (semi-canon) explicitly stating that ToJ was where she died, and we have the ToJ located on maps, multiple maps, showing it is nowhere near Starfall.

 

When you spot such errors, we have a thread where you can post them (or you just change it yourself, if you have an account).

I have not been able to spend as much time tracking this down as I would like, but my initial reaction to looking at the maps again is that the maps place Starfall in the mountains to the west of the river, but the descriptions clearly place it on a island in the middle of the river where the river widens out to the sea. I can see why someone looking at the maps would include Starfall as part of the citadels in the mountains of Dorne. I have a hard time understanding why someone reading the text both from AGoT and TWoI&F would do so. It also may be that the Daynes control in the region stretches into the mountains and the name Starfall is used to mean not the citadel itself, but the area of Dayne control.

I have to run, but I'll continue to look at it and see if I can find more information. I think we may need to ask Ran on this one.

[wolfmaid7]

Hmm. I see I wasn't clear of the point I had wanted to make. It was clearly stated that Cersei and/or the Lannisters were suspected for having killed Jon Arryn. Ned begins to investigate. He discovers the secret, he even thinks of the way Arryn was killed. But Cersei never admits to it, and throughout the entire book we keep getting hints that something is off, that neither Cersei nor Jaime seem to fit the bill. And meanwhile, we are subtley fed hints about Lysa, her motifs, and why she would have done it. Even LF's conversation with Sansa on the eve of Joffrey's death can be seen as a part of that puzzle ("Why should I wish him dead? I had no motif."). Because the answer to "Who killed Jon Arryn?" is simply "Lysa Tully and Petyr Baelish", and the hints for that start really early in AGOT.

So if we are to take Jon Arryn's murder as an example, GRRM sets up a scenario, accuses someone of having done the deed, and begins to drop subtle clues about 1) the accused who is explicitly named, and who turns out not to be guilty, and 2) the actual guilty party, and why they did what they did.

More or less it comes down to there were "clues" very overt that would lead one to believe the Lannisters had something to do with it.While there were more subtle clues that hinted that it wasn't.With respect to this topic,i can say that i haven't seen any clues subtle or overt to tell me that Lyanna and Arthur were an item.But currently,arguements are being put forth to show this.Which is where we are now.

It's Sansa's lover/protectors which could arguably be seen as a tie to Arthur. She thinks of knights all the time. Then gets disillusioned/cynical over them. But one Kingsguard stands out.

If Sansa is echoing Lyanna (which I think she is)--her protector/lover/champion is the Kingsguard with the soiled cloak. The Hound. Protecting her from the Targ wannabes--Joff and Cersei.

The Hound seems to be a fighter without many peers. And even Ned notes how he steps in to protect Loras--that while Gregor tires to hack at the Hound's head, the Hound never once swings for his brother's head, even though the Mountain doesn't have a helmet. The Hound may seems vicious, but he is distinct from the mindless violence of the Mountain. Or the brutality of Joff's child-beating KG. Or the spinelessness of Arys Oakheart's useless protests against beating Sansa--which he then does anyway.

The Hound is separate from all of them. In a different way from how Arthur was. But still--distinct. And Sansa's protect. Comforting/helping her with his white cloak in the throne room. Leaving her with his white cloak, soiled with blood and fire (Martin's words, not mine), after which she wraps herself in it for comfort.

Could all of that just be character building? Sure. But with the echoes of Lyanna in Sansa, the fact that she's so closely tied to the Kingsguard and knights--seems like that could be a pointer to another Kingsguard who stands apart from all the rest.

I would say that was an echo in characterization vs experiance.We know of Sansa's eperiance with the Hound,but we can still only guess with Lyanna and Arthur.It woould be more of and echo in that respect if there was something that we can link experiances by.We could make similar associations with Arya and Yoren for example,all because there isn't anything specific to start from if we want to make that connection.

 

.

So would this non-knight who never fitted into the KG, despite people's attempts to place him there, be a parallel for Arthur, who is described as having been the finest knight Ned ever saw?

In fact, would Ned ever describe a person who stole away a girl, impregnated her with a bastard, and then fought when confronted with the possibility of having to give her up?

 

So when I look at Ned's dream, and the description, and the similarity of the sentence, both the way it is written as well as the contents, I think it really does imply that it should be read in the same way as the other two. All three aspects mentioned are connected, all were in one location. And the fact that it is a fever dream doesn't have to change that (see Varamyr).  

 

 

1.A good question

2.I think Ned would say that person is dishonorable.Given the time and culture this series mirrors the honorable thing would probably be to fight for her against the one she was with so you wouldn't have to kidnap her. 

[corbon]

1. Corbon i'm not arguing against the first line,part of what you said is what VOTFM and i were saying.

But you still add extra stuff that isn't in the text to adapt it to your liking. And thats not good enough.

2.The form you are suggesting is a baby that is no political threat toward him right? I'm saying initially that would not matter.My proof.

Ned and Cat both say (rightfully) Ned would not only kill Cersie had he found out he would kill the children because "It is something elsethis was a knife thrust to the soul" the kids would be innocent,but he would kill them because there's hurt,betrayal anger,dishonor tied to them.Killing them would have nothing to do with his throne it would be personal.

Not the right angle. Its not just that the baby is no political threat, but with Arthur+L=J its also not personal. His anger is focused on the Targaryens and Rhaegar. And would be on Cersei. Dayne is at best a catspaw, and accomplice, even if Ned names him father.

3. I will explain in the appropriate thread.

Not good enough. If its part of the argument here, then it must be explained here - its your problem, you brought it into the argument. The pathetic attempts you make to 'keep things separate' act against acceptable discourse, because you freely allow arguments on one side but then attempt to censor the discussion of those arguments, which is not acceptable. Little wonder then that your attempts are ignored by most.

4.Corbon,Jstar,Ygrain have all done this starting on the below page.You all can point out the shortcommings of the theory within dropping the like RLJ. Others can do that,others choose not to do that because this is Arthur's space. What that would incite people to do is start dropping in their prospects into the thread as well to show comparison.We will do that yes in the final thread."The reflections" when we line them up side by side an eliminate.

Arthur as a viable prospect will rise or fall on its own merit not because any other bombards the thread with other.

Its merit includes answering the clues.
Selecting and addressing only the 'good' clues in the text and refusing to address the 'bad' clues is not rising to its merits. Its dishonest.

Apparently I need to avoid posting right after reading to my kid.

So, let me clarify: when I say "Horton," I meant in the sense that once he's made a promise, he works hard to keep it. Doesn't manage to keep all of his promises. But we have evidence that he tries. Given the emotion that seems tied to Lyanna's promise, seems not unreasonable to assume he's tried hard to keep it.

Sure. I assume he'd try hard to keep all his promises.
But I don't buy ridiculous promises invented for the sake of a bad theory that fails in multiple places.
And I don't buy 'protecting Lyanna's honour' when the official story is she was kidnapped and raped 1000 times. There is no honour in that and a baby resulting from it makes no difference.

Yes, but also note the whole sentence--Ned's comforting Robert's loss by telling him he avenged Lyanna on the Trident. But, if her loss wasn't about that--he's hearing her voice, reminding him of the promise or secret. An interpretation which, of course, works for multiple versions of X+Y=J, including, at least for now, Arthur.

I don't get what you are saying. There is no 'her loss'. He's talking about Robert's loss (Lyanna) and the trident, and that leads him to her promises. The connection is Lyanna-Trident-? and ? doesn't work for Arthur because he wasn't at the Trident.

Agreed. But the fight starts after Arthur says, "the KG do not flee." And then Hightower's "vow" line. . . I think. 

"Then or now" in between, but more or less, yes.

 

But the "canon-sources implying" are a description of the contents of his dream and then the scream at the end of the dream. A dream Martin has told us to be wary of taking literally (though without actually qualifying that statement in any helpful manner, grumble, grumble).

Not quite. Lyanna's death is not part of the dream at all. Lyanna's bed of blood however is tied to the three knights in white cloaks and a tower long fallen. And not by the contents of the dream, which you can argue (I don't agree, I think its quite clear what is dream-problem and real in that sequence and I think that people misuse GRRM's words to avoid stuff they don't like) are affected by poppy/fever, but by the description (title so to speak) of the old dream, which is not something affected by poppy/fever.
Whatever else you might think about the ToJ, Lyanna's bed of blood is firmly tied to 3 knights in white cloaks and a tower long fallen.
ToJ is the only real candidate we have. There are no 'towers long fallen' that we know of at Starfall and nor do we have 3 knights in white cloaks placed there.

As for Starfall as an option--without doubt, the fight happens at the tower. And the tower is pulled down for the cairns. But Lyanna in her room that smells of blood and roses? The tower is an option. But so might a place with roses be. Or the home of Jon's wet nurse and milk brother. And the place Ned brought Arthur's sword. A place that would (probably) be a lot more convenient to defend, and live in, and brith a baby in. 

 

 

Her bed of blood is connected to the tower long fallen. And not by poppy or fever.
Her death... well, there's blood, and she's in bed...

[wolfmaid7]

 

 

Touche, ser!

 

 

[Sly Wren]

You bring up a really interesting point about the disconnect between Ned's emotional response to crown and giver, but I think when people question Ned's emotional response to Rhaegar, they don't take into account one thing that's very important to Ned: Rhaegar's dead. It just doesn't seem to be in Ned's nature to retain much emotional baggage about the dead.

He maintains some emotional baggage with the dead--his family. Lyanna certainly haunts him. And the KG at the tower seem to have shown up in his dreams a few times.

And, if Bran is reading Ned right, Ned is retaining a fair amount of emotional baggage about Arthur.

Compare the way that Ned thinks about Rhaegar with the way Ned thinks about Aerys. Ned has every reason to hate Aerys. Ned considers Aerys a terrible king:

Yet if we look for emotionally laden memories of Aerys, we get something quite different:

 There's no sign of hatred -- the imagery is about Aerys' pain, Aerys' sorrow, Aerys' life's blood leaking away, Aerys dying, Aerys drowning. It's almost sympathetic. Whatever hatred Ned may have had about Aerys in the past, it's gone, supplanted by his hatred for the Lannisters. In Ned's mind, Aerys, the murderer of his brother and father, seems more like victim than villain. I think this is just a part of who Ned is: once someone's dead, why waste time with hatred? Concentrate on the enemies who are still alive.

Agreed that Ned is focusing more on the Lannisters--the line about Aerys' life leaking away because of the gilded blade is in context with other lives taken by the Lannisters--including Aerys' murder (as Ned sees it) by Jaime. And in context of his memory about Cersei's calling for Lady's death. So, in that instance, Ned's potential anger at Aerys seems supplanted over his current anger and loathing of the Lannisters.

But Ned still seems to harbor some memory of hostility to Aerys:

Quote: "Whereas Daenerys is a fourteen-year-old girl." Ned knew he was pushing this well past the point of wisdom, yet he could not keep silent. "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" Game, Eddard VIII

Seems like he still remembers at least some of his anger and horror over Aerys, despite the living atrocities of the Lannisters.

In this context, the disconnect between crown and giver makes perfect sense. Rhaegar's dead, and in Ned's mind it's not worth hating him any more. The crown however seems to signify something beyond Rhaegar. Ned sees the crown in the context of Lyanna -- not just something she has been given, but something that she accepted. Lyanna wearing the crown, Lyanna grasping the crown in her dying hands, these are the images that stick in Ned's mind. This ties in with what Ned said to Arya, about Lyanna's wolf blood leading her to an early grave. 

Very possible. And, given that Lyanna's wearing the crown in the crypts while the Kings of Winter look at Ned with eyes of ice while their direwolves growl--seems like Ned associates that crown with his own failings (reasons to be determined) as opposed to focusing on blaming others. Which all fits with the idea that we might not know the purpose of that crown.

One thing: we don't know Lyanna is clutching the rose crown when she's dying. Rose petals? Yup. Rose crown? Don't know that. We never actually see her "take" the crown in Ned's memory. She wears it in the nightmare in the crypts. Ned touches it after Rhaegar puts it in her lap--and the imagery turns to thorns and blood. But her reaction to the crown? We don't get that on page. Just her wearing it with bleeding eyes. 

Bottom line: I agree that it all may be nothing. But the idea that we may not know what's up with the crown or that someone other than Rhaegar might have been the impetus for the crown-giving--given the gaps in the text, seems like that idea is still viable. NOT an absolute. But viable. For now.

[Sly Wren]

Jon does not fight Ygritte, but her allies/friends instead. So why did Arthur fight Ned, and did not allow Gerold Hightower, for example, to fight Ned instead? Lord Commander against leader?

Exactly what's going on in that scene can--and has--be interpreted in multiple ways. Why they don't have a fight between leaders is an excellent question, in lots of scenarios.

But the idea that this is a last stand. A fight for honor, even though Aerys (the only king they mention) is dead. . . if (hypothetically speaking) that were the case, might explain why they all fight. One way or another, the "then or now" and the "swore a vow" seem a key part of it. 

It's not a perfect parallel.. Jon infiltrated Ygritte's people with the intention of betraying them and returning to his brotherhood. Arthur would have nothing to infiltrate by seemingly betraying his brotherhood. 

There are so many scenario's that would make more sense than the one presented in this essay. If Rhaegar wanted his friend to go off and have his romance, why go into the Riverlands and disappear for so long? Why not say to the King that he had send Arthur of on some mission, and let Arthur go alone and in secret (which would also attract less attention than travelling with a group would). Why drag Whent along? I assume that helping your sworn brother break his KG vows will lead to your own execution/punishment as well as your sworn brother's. 

1. Agreed--the parallel is not perfect. The key point is simply that in the novels, people can end up fighting those they love. Or those loved by those they love--hopefully that sentence makes sense.

2. I completely agree re: the scenario in the OP. While I think it's possible that Arthur is Jon's father, the romantic run-away with Arthur is hard to make work logistically. Not to mention symbolically--we have Martin telling us symbolically that Sansa is echoing Lyanna. If that's the case, then we should pay at least some attention to her plot line and "romance." And a running away with a lover before the conflict isn't there.

But the idea that Lyanna might have needed out of a tight spot--both Arya and Sansa's experiences seem to back that idea up. And that the situation could get misinterpreted and out of hand? Seems possible, too.

Whent's role in all of this gives me pause, too. Was he with Rhaegar and they went (bad pun) looking for Arthur? Did Arthur convince them to help him help her? The scenario DEFINITELY has holes. We do have Marillion the Bard in the Vale--right after telling blue-dressed Sansa that he's writing a song called the Roadside Rose for her--being forced to take the fall for the plottings and actions of those with more power. . . might (key word is "might") be a clue as to how Whent and/or Rhaegar could have gotten caught up in all of this. . . 

Bottom line: I, too, think the romantic running away scenario seems very unmanageable.

What is important when considering the Hound, though, is that he time and time and time again states how he is not a knight. With the emphasize being put on "but all KG are knights" and the Hound refusing to take his vows still.. I'd also consider Brienne, not a knight (due to being a woman), but who lives by knightly values more than most other knights do. In his own way, the Hound might do so as well, though I think he'd sooner call it 'doing the complete opposite from Gregor'.

So would this non-knight who never fitted into the KG, despite people's attempts to place him there, be a parallel for Arthur, who is described as having been the finest knight Ned ever saw?

In fact, would Ned ever describe a person who stole away a girl, impregnated her with a bastard, and then fought when confronted with the possibility of having to give her up?

1. The Hound is a non-knight largely because of his disdain for the hypocrisy of knighthood. As you say, being "not Gregor." So, Sandor's non-knight-ness and anti-knight-ness (sorry about all of the hyphens) is more a reaction against the many failings of knighthood. Given that Ned himself talks about how the KG have fallen from the long ago ideal, the Hound's attitude has a kind of rough connection to that. 

2. Plus, the Sword of the Morning office--Dawn and the Daynes vastly pre-date knighthood. So the wielders of Dawn would not have been knights for thousands of years. Something far older than the current state of knighthood. The Hound, as you say, is living some knightly values better than the KG. Values older than the current state of knighthood. Maybe.

3. As for Arthur's fineness, the question of what Ned values seems like it comes back into play. And if Arthur had been willing to protect Lyanna as the Hound protects Sansa--I can see Ned respecting both of them

And, as the Hound and Arys Oakheart both demonstrate with Joff, as as Jaime shows with Aerys, sometimes to follow the ideals, a Kingsguard is a better "knight" for disobeying his king. If the Sansa/Lyanna parallels hold (by no means a done deal, I grant you, but possible), I can definitely see Ned thinking kindly and even respectfully of both the Hound and Arthur for breaking from an evil king to protect an innocent. 

Okay--I'm going to break up my answer so this post doesn't get too unwieldy.

[Sly Wren]

Hmm..  I can't help but notice the similarity between three dreams

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

She dreamt an old dream, of three girls in brown cloaks, a wattled crone, and a tent that smelled of death.

He dreamt an old dream of a hovel by the sea, three dogs whimpering, a woman's tears.

So when I look at Ned's dream, and the description, and the similarity of the sentence, both the way it is written as well as the contents, I think it really does imply that it should be read in the same way as the other two. All three aspects mentioned are connected, all were in one location. And the fact that it is a fever dream doesn't have to change that (see Varamyr).  

A fair point. And possible. Though I've read the wording as being more of an indication that we are entering a memory of key importance that shapes the remember's future. Perhaps a bit like the tendency of characters to go down a spiral stair or cross a bridge before engaging in a significant scene. Like a prelude or a marker that Martin uses to get attention. So, the wording not as a sign that all three things are present, but that all three things are key. And that this is a dream to pay close attention to.

Is Starfall brought up in relation to Jon's infancy? At the moment, all I can think of is the mentioning of Wylla... And we don't know whether she was serving at Starfall, at the time, or not. She's serving there now, she was definitly serving there a few years after the Rebelllion... But during? We can't say, making Jon's connection to Starfall rather thin.

Unless, of course, I'm currently not thinking about a quote?

I'm mostly referencing Arya's conversation with Edric Dayne. A reasonably long narrative pointer that Jon (and Ned) are connected to Starfall. And that Jon's connection is about his infancy. And he has a milk brother at the place. And Arya's thought that she needs to tell Jon about all of this. And then, right afterwards, thinks, "There was an Arthur Dayne. . . . The one they called the Sword of the Morning."

Seems like Martin's telling us that Jon is connected to Starfall--through his wet nurse (infancy) and milk brother and Ned. How much so? To be determined. But he spends a bit of time on it--in the same novel where he has Jon see the Sword of the Morning. 

And of course, Jon can have all of those connections and have never been at Starfall. But Martin does take time on it. In the novel with a lot of Arthur Dayne references.

[Sly Wren]

I would say that was an echo in characterization vs experiance.We know of Sansa's eperiance with the Hound,but we can still only guess with Lyanna and Arthur.It woould be more of and echo in that respect if there was something that we can link experiances by.We could make similar associations with Arya and Yoren for example,all because there isn't anything specific to start from if we want to make that connection.

Right--but if Martin tells us (at least a few times) that Sansa is echoing Lyanna and her past, that's a reason to consider Sansa's storyline as possible clues to what happened to Lyanna. Sansa, as the stolen/hostage bride, is connected to knights as saviors and potential lovers. 

And, to get a bit ridiculous, in the scene where the Hound breaks into her room, the sky is filled with the green glow of wildfire, Aerys' favorite toy. The Hound endures a lot from Joff, but when the Lannisters use fire on enemies and tell him to fight in that mess, that's when he breaks from his "loyalty." Over the fire. Tells Sansa he's going somewhere that isn't on fire. And he leaves Sansa with his cloak, stained with "blood and fire." Seems like these could be Targaryen references, specifically to Aerys. 

I can't be the only one to wonder this, but given Jaime's reactions to Aerys' Wildfire Governance, I do wonder how a fine knight like Arthur would have reacted to Aerys. Did he eventually break? Given the above, and given Sansa's ties to Lyanna, seems not unreasonable to consider her storyline with the Hound as potential clue to Lyanna.

[Sly Wren]

Sure. I assume he'd try hard to keep all his promises.
But I don't buy ridiculous promises invented for the sake of a bad theory that fails in multiple places.

Fair enough, but until we know what the promise is, it covers a lot of potential ground. If she asked Ned to lie about Jon, I think he would, whether he thought it was necessary or not.

BAnd I don't buy 'protecting Lyanna's honour' when the official story is she was kidnapped and raped 1000 times. There is no honour in that and a baby resulting from it makes no difference.

Yeah--this is more Voice's point. So I'll let him field it when he gets around to it.

Though, once again, I realize I'm the de facto defender of a theory I only think is possible. Not sure how I keep getting myself into this position. . .

I don't get what you are saying. There is no 'her loss'. He's talking about Robert's loss (Lyanna) and the trident, and that leads him to her promises. The connection is Lyanna-Trident-? and ? doesn't work for Arthur because he wasn't at the Trident.

I meant "her loss" as in "Robert mourns her loss." Apologies for the unclear phrasing.

And the connection is "avenging Lyanna on the Trident." I think the "avenging" is potentially the key part. . . Ned's comforting Robert with the knowledge that he avenged Lyanna. But if Arthur was the father, and if Rhaegar wasn't the key problem, then killing Rhaegar wasn't avenging much of anything. 

Whatever else you might think about the ToJ, Lyanna's bed of blood is firmly tied to 3 knights in white cloaks and a tower long fallen.
ToJ is the only real candidate we have. There are no 'towers long fallen' that we know of at Starfall and nor do we have 3 knights in white cloaks placed there.

Her bed of blood is connected to the tower long fallen. And not by poppy or fever.
Her death... well, there's blood, and she's in bed...

1. Yup! The tower, knights, and the Lyanna's bed of blood are clearly tied together. But in importance and association. In significance of Ned's memory, not necessarily in location. 

2. Starfall or other locations are open in large part because Ned's memory hasn't pinned down the location of the room that smelled of blood and roses. Not yet.

3. Lyanna really might have died in the tower. But the info is so scant and vague. . . for now, Martin hasn't pinned it down.

[Kingmonkey]

 

He maintains some emotional baggage with the dead--his family. Lyanna certainly haunts him. And the KG at the tower seem to have shown up in his dreams a few times.

And, if Bran is reading Ned right, Ned is retaining a fair amount of emotional baggage about Arthur.

True enough, it would have been better to say that he bears no hatred of the dead. He can certainly regret the past, but his "you already killed him" speech to Robert seems consistent with his own world view, rather than just being an attempt to calm Robert.  

But Ned still seems to harbor some memory of hostility to Aerys:

Quote: "Whereas Daenerys is a fourteen-year-old girl." Ned knew he was pushing this well past the point of wisdom, yet he could not keep silent. "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" Game, Eddard VIII

As with the quote I gave about Aerys being a far worse king than Robert, there's no question that Ned thinks badly of Aerys, but it seems like it is a pragmatic rather than emotional judgement. In the passage you quote, his comment is impersonal -- he doesn't rail against Aerys the individual, he talks of the actions that made the rebellion a necessity. He talks about an abstract, the murder of children, yet does not refer here to the far more personal murder of two adults, his father and brother. If Rhaegar's sins were purely of a personal nature, a shared responsibility for Lyanna's fate, then why should we expect him to retain a greater emotional response towards him than he retains for Aerys who's sins were personal AND global?

Very possible. And, given that Lyanna's wearing the crown in the crypts while the Kings of Winter look at Ned with eyes of ice while their direwolves growl--seems like Ned associates that crown with his own failings (reasons to be determined) as opposed to focusing on blaming others. Which all fits with the idea that we might not know the purpose of that crown. 

 Yes, an interesting angle to explore. Ned certainly has a lot of emotional baggage about his own failings. But then, he's still alive at the time.  

Little hints like this - and the peculiar symmetry of Arthur and Ned's sad smiles - make me wonder if Ned was perhaps not quite as in the dark over events then as it seems. I've considered the possibility that there was some interaction between Rhaegar and the Starks we've not been made aware of yet. Perhaps after Harrenhal there had been some negotiation between the two sides, and Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna occurred in the context of two potential allies having failed to come to an agreement. This could certainly help explain Ned's sense of personal responsibility, and could have given Brandon a sense of betrayal which might explain the precipitous nature of his doomed actions. Arthur might have acted as the go-between for Rhaegar, using the Stark family connection with Ashara as an in. 

GRRM has responded in an SSM to questions of how such a noble knight as Arthur could have sat idly by while Aerys did his mad kinging with one of his famous "keep reading" answers.  A scenario along the above lines could help explain a lot of the hints that Superunknown plays with in this essay without resorting to the notion that Rhaegar would make such politically fraught moves all for the sake of Cyrano de Dayne's two-handed trouser-Dawn.  

Bottom line: I agree that it all may be nothing. But the idea that we may not know what's up with the crown or that someone other than Rhaegar might have been the impetus for the crown-giving--given the gaps in the text, seems like that idea is still viable. NOT an absolute. But viable. For now.

Viable I would not argue with. Viable isn't a sufficient condition for a strong hypothesis though. That way crackpot lies. We need to find positive reasons, not just a lack of negative reasons, to support a hypothesis. What's lacking here is a necessary rather than sufficient condition for raising the doubt.

The way Ned responds emotionally towards Aerys does not hint that we should absolve Aerys of the actions credited to him; by extension there's no reason to suspect that his similarly unemotional response to Rhaegar hints that he should be absolved of the actions ascribed to him. While the possibility cannot be dismissed, there's no reason to adopt it. Thus my conclusion, that Ned's emotional response to the memory of the crown itself, rather than to Rhaegar, doesn't give us any guidance here. It's not an argument for AD+L, or against R+L. It's just what you'd expect, given Ned's personality, in either case.  

 

[wolfmaid7]

Right--but if Martin tells us (at least a few times) that Sansa is echoing Lyanna and her past, that's a reason to consider Sansa's storyline as possible clues to what happened to Lyanna. Sansa, as the stolen/hostage bride, is connected to knights as saviors and potential lovers. 

And, to get a bit ridiculous, in the scene where the Hound breaks into her room, the sky is filled with the green glow of wildfire, Aerys' favorite toy. The Hound endures a lot from Joff, but when the Lannisters use fire on enemies and tell him to fight in that mess, that's when he breaks from his "loyalty." Over the fire. Tells Sansa he's going somewhere that isn't on fire. And he leaves Sansa with his cloak, stained with "blood and fire." Seems like these could be Targaryen references, specifically to Aerys. 

I can't be the only one to wonder this, but given Jaime's reactions to Aerys' Wildfire Governance, I do wonder how a fine knight like Arthur would have reacted to Aerys. Did he eventually break? Given the above, and given Sansa's ties to Lyanna, seems not unreasonable to consider her storyline with the Hound as potential clue to Lyanna.

Echoing of individual characteristic yes,but not mirroring of experiances,and here's why this important imo.We have two characters that echoes Lyanna in certain aspect of behavior.One more than the other that may impact how Lyanna might have reacted in a similar situations which is problematic because its a toss up. When it comes to figuring out what happened to her in a particular situation all we have to go on is any author connection in relation to the eperiance we are looking at. 

So we have the Sansa + Hound experiance that is something we can say happened to her its tangible.What we don't have is a retrospective look at a Lyanna + Arthur incident which connects.We have a guess of what might have happened ,but equal to that we have Arya who was more like Lyanna and it's likely she tried to fight being taken got hurt or runaway and ended up on some crazy adventure. 

What's hard for me to grasp is not the possibility,but the possibility in relation to something that's tangible.If anything,anything had appeared on page that was specific and unique to her an Arthur i would be all on board. But for now that link between her and him is what's missing for me anyway.

[Sly Wren]

What's hard for me to grasp is not the possibility,but the possibility in relation to something that's tangible.If anything,anything had appeared on page that was specific and unique to her an Arthur i would be all on board. But for now that link between her and him is what's missing for me anyway.

This may be the fundamental question: is Martin setting up Jon's identity through logistics, symbolism and character development, or a combination of both?

If you look at logistics, one answer pops out. But if you look at what Jon is learning and valuing and the symbols around him, what he sees and does--Arthur and the Sword of the Morning are right there. 

Same with the Sansa stuff. Martin's made it very clear he's echoing Lyanna-as-marriage-prospect in Sansa with Ned's first Game POV. If so, then what happens to her re: marriage and sexuality should make us take notice. Unless we are going to argue for an immaculate conception (which would make a truly heretical essay). 

So, seems like at least one of the questions Martin is presenting us with re: Jon's parentage is what matters most: logistics, symbolism and character development, or a combination? Something else?

[Sly Wren]

Viable I would not argue with. Viable isn't a sufficient condition for a strong hypothesis though. That way crackpot lies. We need to find positive reasons, not just a lack of negative reasons, to support a hypothesis. What's lacking here is a necessary rather than sufficient condition for raising the doubt.

On this we almost agree. Is this enough doubt on which to base Jon's parentage? Hell, no. Is this enough to make me scratch my head and wonder about what on earth that crown actually means? Yup.

 Yes, an interesting angle to explore. Ned certainly has a lot of emotional baggage about his own failings. But then, he's still alive at the time.  

Little hints like this - and the peculiar symmetry of Arthur and Ned's sad smiles - make me wonder if Ned was perhaps not quite as in the dark over events then as it seems. I've considered the possibility that there was some interaction between Rhaegar and the Starks we've not been made aware of yet. Perhaps after Harrenhal there had been some negotiation between the two sides, and Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna occurred in the context of two potential allies having failed to come to an agreement. This could certainly help explain Ned's sense of personal responsibility, and could have given Brandon a sense of betrayal which might explain the precipitous nature of his doomed actions. Arthur might have acted as the go-between for Rhaegar, using the Stark family connection with Ashara as an in. 

GRRM has responded in an SSM to questions of how such a noble knight as Arthur could have sat idly by while Aerys did his mad kinging with one of his famous "keep reading" answers.  A scenario along the above lines could help explain a lot of the hints that Superunknown plays with in this essay without resorting to the notion that Rhaegar would make such politically fraught moves all for the sake of Cyrano de Dayne's two-handed trouser-Dawn.  

1. This is where my head goes, too--was Ned involved? Especially in the crowning? That nightmare in the crypts has all of the Starks and their direwolves angry and hostile towards Ned. Then, ends with the image of Lyanna, crowned with bleeding eyes. Really seems like they are mad at him for something he's done--betrayal? mistake? But something to do with the crown.

2. Had not thought of Arthur and/or Ned as go-betweens. Are you thinking something like what Renly and Loras try to do with Margery? Something else?

3. I've been thinking it might be the Knight of the Laughing tree mess. Lyanna is known to have fought with the squires--not mask or pretense, etc. But the knight is not known--heavily speculated and debated, but not known.

When Arya defends Mycah, that seems to be a rough echo of Lyanna's defense of Howland.  But the wrong wolf pays--pays for a crime that no one actually committed, but pays. As others have speculated before me, this makes me wonder if Lyanna was the wrong wolf, paying. The she wolf with her bones sent home. For Ned's actions, possibly as the knight. 

Something like that seems like a guilt that would stay with Ned. A "crime" placed on Lyanna that led to her being crowned (reason to be determined) and ultimately dead. But the echo is rough for now. One way or another, really think Ned feels like he's betrayed his family over something to do with that crown.

4. Agree on the "Cyrano" critique. If Arthur is the father, am thinking it's going to be a scenario echoing what's happening to Sansa and Arya--fighters who help them out of tight spots. After they are in danger.  

[Julia H.]

I really like the idea of this project.

The OP presents some interesting points, but I confess I don’t find them, on the whole, really convincing – and that’s, of course, my opinion only. Still, I must also say that the idea is among my favourite ASOIAF theories, and it is mainly because of Sly Wren’s thread about the connection between Jon Snow and the Sword of the Morning. I can absolutely see this connection: Jon (if a certain theory that I find very convincing is true) was guarded at birth by the last Sword of the Morning, and he also has a vision of the star constellation so named in an important moment in his life. Jon has also pronounced himself to be “the sword in the darkness”. I find the conclusion that all this may foreshadow that Jon will be the Sword of the Morning very compelling.  

Now I must ask the question whether it also means that Jon must be Arthur’s son, or that Jon must be a Dayne. Yes, I know that the Sword of the Morning is defined as a member of House Dayne who is deemed worthy of wielding the sword by House Dayne. Yet, this is only a tradition, and traditions may change. It is also an open question who may be considered to be a member of House Dayne.

I agree with those who say it is difficult to find any personal connection between Arthur and Lyanna, however, I think there is a textual, though symbolic, connection between Jon and Arthur.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips. The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands.

A few of them gave Jon dark looks but Longclaw was in his hand, and no one troubled him.

The first two quotes refer to Arthur with Dawn in his hands standing guard outside a tower in the middle of a war, guarding (as I’m convinced) a new-born child (royal - in a way) whose mother is dying. The third quote is about Jon standing guard, with Longclaw in his hand, outside a tent, where a “royal” child is being born, and the mother is dying, in the middle of a battle. At the moment Jon is a black-cloaked “Kingsguard” echoing both Arthur and Ned. (As has often been pointed out, the fate of Mance’s baby son seems to be similar to Jon’s in more ways than one.) However, the parallel between Jon and Arthur Dayne truly works only if Arthur was not guarding his own son. Jon is guarding his enemy’s son, this is what is so remarkable (and so Ned-like) about him. Arthur was not guarding a baby for his enemy, but he was still guarding a baby who was “Eddard Stark’s blood” and was later brought up as Eddard Stark’s son. Eddard was (sadly) Arthur’s enemy.

My conclusion at the moment is that there is a connection between Arthur Dayne and Jon Snow, but it is probably not a father-and-son relationship.

In addition, I’m beginning to think that GRRM may have tricked us all (or at least most of us, readers) regarding the mystery about Jon Snow. We, readers, tend to think that the mystery we have to solve is Jon Snow’s origin. But perhaps GRRM is using this mystery to hide a more important secret: Jon Snow’s future. This is not a whodunit story, like the murder of Jon Arryn. The mystery is not completely solved by finding out who the parents were.

Many readers speculate on whether Jon Snow is AA or TPTWP or the Last Hero, but the real answer may be something that relatively few readers have noticed yet (kudos to Sly Wren, who has noticed it and let me know, too) – that Jon Snow is the future Sword of the Morning. But even the most observant reader is then faced with the question how Jon can be the Sword of the Morning if he is not a Dayne. It is only prudent to watch out for clues indicating that he is a Dayne – but let’s face it, those clues seem to have difficulty coming. The paradox that Jon apparently has a lot to do with the Sword of the Morning but very little with the Dayne family may be the underlying mystery behind the secret of his parentage, the mystery that the reader is not supposed to solve (or even notice), the mystery whose solution may take even the most careful readers by surprise.

As I said above, it is tradition that defines the Sword of the Morning as a member of House Dayne, but merit is also important, and in an extreme situation exceptional merit may count for more than the name. (Jon is certainly a true Stark without the Stark name, and he already carries an ancient Mormont sword without being a Mormont.) Traditions may also change – and there may be other, stronger traditions. To cite an example from Narnia: there is The Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time, but there is also The Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time, and the latter overrides the former. (Pun is not intended, but the Dawn connection is interesting.) There may be a condition under which Dawn can be given to someone who is not a Dayne (or a knight), though he may be – as a Stark – somehow connected with the Daynes and Dawn … perhaps from before the Dawn of Time. The paradox may have a solution, and that may be the real surprise GRRM is preparing for us. Perhaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LmL]

I really like the idea of this project.

The OP presents some interesting points, but I confess I don’t find them, on the whole, really convincing – and that’s, of course, my opinion only. Still, I must also say that the idea is among my favourite ASOIAF theories, and it is mainly because of Sly Wren’s thread about the connection between Jon Snow and the Sword of the Morning. I can absolutely see this connection: Jon (if a certain theory that I find very convincing is true) was guarded at birth by the last Sword of the Morning, and he also has a vision of the star constellation so named in an important moment in his life. Jon has also pronounced himself to be “the sword in the darkness”. I find the conclusion that all this may foreshadow that Jon will be the Sword of the Morning very compelling.  

Now I must ask the question whether it also means that Jon must be Arthur’s son, or that Jon must be a Dayne. Yes, I know that the Sword of the Morning is defined as a member of House Dayne who is deemed worthy of wielding the sword by House Dayne. Yet, this is only a tradition, and traditions may change. It is also an open question who may be considered to be a member of House Dayne.

I agree with those who say it is difficult to find any personal connection between Arthur and Lyanna, however, I think there is a textual, though symbolic, connection between Jon and Arthur.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips. The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands.

A few of them gave Jon dark looks but Longclaw was in his hand, and no one troubled him.

The first two quotes refer to Arthur with Dawn in his hands standing guard outside a tower in the middle of a war, guarding (as I’m convinced) a new-born child (royal - in a way) whose mother is dying. The third quote is about Jon standing guard, with Longclaw in his hand, outside a tent, where a “royal” child is being born, and the mother is dying, in the middle of a battle. At the moment Jon is a black-cloaked “Kingsguard” echoing both Arthur and Ned. (As has often been pointed out, the fate of Mance’s baby son seems to be similar to Jon’s in more ways than one.) However, the parallel between Jon and Arthur Dayne truly works only if Arthur was not guarding his own son. Jon is guarding his enemy’s son, this is what is so remarkable (and so Ned-like) about him. Arthur was not guarding a baby for his enemy, but he was still guarding a baby who was “Eddard Stark’s blood” and was later brought up as Eddard Stark’s son. Eddard was (sadly) Arthur’s enemy.

My conclusion at the moment is that there is a connection between Arthur Dayne and Jon Snow, but it is probably not a father-and-son relationship.

In addition, I’m beginning to think that GRRM may have tricked us all (or at least most of us, readers) regarding the mystery about Jon Snow. We, readers, tend to think that the mystery we have to solve is Jon Snow’s origin. But perhaps GRRM is using this mystery to hide a more important secret: Jon Snow’s future. This is not a whodunit story, like the murder of Jon Arryn. The mystery is not completely solved by finding out who the parents were.

Many readers speculate on whether Jon Snow is AA or TPTWP or the Last Hero, but the real answer may be something that relatively few readers have noticed yet (kudos to Sly Wren, who has noticed it and let me know, too) – that Jon Snow is the future Sword of the Morning. But even the most observant reader is then faced with the question how Jon can be the Sword of the Morning if he is not a Dayne. It is only prudent to watch out for clues indicating that he is a Dayne – but let’s face it, those clues seem to have difficulty coming. The paradox that Jon apparently has a lot to do with the Sword of the Morning but very little with the Dayne family may be the underlying mystery behind the secret of his parentage, the mystery that the reader is not supposed to solve (or even notice), the mystery whose solution may take even the most careful readers by surprise.

As I said above, it is tradition that defines the Sword of the Morning as a member of House Dayne, but merit is also important, and in an extreme situation exceptional merit may count for more than the name. (Jon is certainly a true Stark without the Stark name, and he already carries an ancient Mormont sword without being a Mormont.) Traditions may also change – and there may be other, stronger traditions. To cite an example from Narnia: there is The Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time, but there is also The Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time, and the latter overrides the former. (Pun is not intended, but the Dawn connection is interesting.) There may be a condition under which Dawn can be given to someone who is not a Dayne (or a knight), though he may be – as a Stark – somehow connected with the Daynes and Dawn … perhaps from before the Dawn of Time. The paradox may have a solution, and that may be the real surprise GRRM is preparing for us. Perhaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FWIW, I'm in agreement with Julia here, almost 100%. I think that House Dayne represents a formula for making a Last Hero, dragon blood and First Men / skinchanger blood. I think the original House Dayne was founded when the Dawn Age dragonlords who built the fused stone fortress at Battle Isle married into a First Men house, perhaps Brandon of the Bloody Blade. The pre-Valyrian fused stone fortress tells us that dragonlords existed in the Dawn Age in Westeros, and thus the occasional "Valyrian looks" which pop up in house Dayne are likely the sign that their ancestry has something to do with them. I think the two leading candidates for the family descent of the Last Hero are Stark and Dayne, and my guess is that he was both. Similarly, Jon represents the union of dragon-blood and Westerosi skinchanger blood, and perhaps this is the important aspect of Jon's lineage - not a claim to the throne, but the right genetic and magical legacy, which, when tempered by the principles and values he learned as the son of Eddard Stark, might position Jon to do "that which must be done," whatever that turns out to be that the new Last Hero, the new bringer of dawn, must do. 

[wolfmaid7]

This may be the fundamental question: is Martin setting up Jon's identity through logistics, symbolism and character development, or a combination of both?

If you look at logistics, one answer pops out. But if you look at what Jon is learning and valuing and the symbols around him, what he sees and does--Arthur and the Sword of the Morning are right there. 

Same with the Sansa stuff. Martin's made it very clear he's echoing Lyanna-as-marriage-prospect in Sansa with Ned's first Game POV. If so, then what happens to her re: marriage and sexuality should make us take notice. Unless we are going to argue for an immaculate conception (which would make a truly heretical essay). 

So, seems like at least one of the questions Martin is presenting us with re: Jon's parentage is what matters most: logistics, symbolism and character development, or a combination? Something else?

IMO a combination of both logistics and symbolism each on its own doesn't hold firm but together it's more in sync with the overall narrative ,which by the way is subjective and that's another thing we'll find ourselves arguing over..I think character development is a matter of Jon's choice.We may find that he is presented with a part similar to his progeny but in the end it is his choice that defines him forming his own identity..

I really like the idea of this project.

Now I must ask the question whether it also means that Jon must be Arthur’s son, or that Jon must be a Dayne. Yes, I know that the Sword of the Morning is defined as a member of House Dayne who is deemed worthy of wielding the sword by House Dayne. Yet, this is only a tradition, and traditions may change. It is also an open question who may be considered to be a member of House Dayne.

I agree with those who say it is difficult to find any personal connection between Arthur and Lyanna, however, I think there is a textual, though symbolic, connection between Jon and Arthur.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips. The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands.

A few of them gave Jon dark looks but Longclaw was in his hand, and no one troubled him.

The first two quotes refer to Arthur with Dawn in his hands standing guard outside a tower in the middle of a war, guarding (as I’m convinced) a new-born child (royal - in a way) whose mother is dying. The third quote is about Jon standing guard, with Longclaw in his hand, outside a tent, where a “royal” child is being born, and the mother is dying, in the middle of a battle. At the moment Jon is a black-cloaked “Kingsguard” echoing both Arthur and Ned. (As has often been pointed out, the fate of Mance’s baby son seems to be similar to Jon’s in more ways than one.) However, the parallel between Jon and Arthur Dayne truly works only if Arthur was not guarding his own son. Jon is guarding his enemy’s son, this is what is so remarkable (and so Ned-like) about him. Arthur was not guarding a baby for his enemy, but he was still guarding a baby who was “Eddard Stark’s blood” and was later brought up as Eddard Stark’s son. Eddard was (sadly) Arthur’s enemy.

My conclusion at the moment is that there is a connection between Arthur Dayne and Jon Snow, but it is probably not a father-and-son relationship.

In addition, I’m beginning to think that GRRM may have tricked us all (or at least most of us, readers) regarding the mystery about Jon Snow. We, readers, tend to think that the mystery we have to solve is Jon Snow’s origin. But perhaps GRRM is using this mystery to hide a more important secret: Jon Snow’s future. This is not a whodunit story, like the murder of Jon Arryn. The mystery is not completely solved by finding out who the parents were.

Many readers speculate on whether Jon Snow is AA or TPTWP or the Last Hero, but the real answer may be something that relatively few readers have noticed yet (kudos to Sly Wren, who has noticed it and let me know, too) – that Jon Snow is the future Sword of the Morning. But even the most observant reader is then faced with the question how Jon can be the Sword of the Morning if he is not a Dayne. It is only prudent to watch out for clues indicating that he is a Dayne – but let’s face it, those clues seem to have difficulty coming. The paradox that Jon apparently has a lot to do with the Sword of the Morning but very little with the Dayne family may be the underlying mystery behind the secret of his parentage, the mystery that the reader is not supposed to solve (or even notice), the mystery whose solution may take even the most careful readers by surprise.

As I said above, it is tradition that defines the Sword of the Morning as a member of House Dayne, but merit is also important, and in an extreme situation exceptional merit may count for more than the name. (Jon is certainly a true Stark without the Stark name, and he already carries an ancient Mormont sword without being a Mormont.) Traditions may also change – and there may be other, stronger traditions. To cite an example from Narnia: there is The Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time, but there is also The Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time, and the latter overrides the former. (Pun is not intended, but the Dawn connection is interesting.) There may be a condition under which Dawn can be given to someone who is not a Dayne (or a knight), though he may be – as a Stark – somehow connected with the Daynes and Dawn … perhaps from before the Dawn of Time. The paradox may have a solution, and that may be the real surprise GRRM is preparing for us. Perhaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you have brought up what a lot of us have been pondering,i think there is symbolism and parallels to be made between Jon and Arthur but for me the connection has more to do with their vow of service to instituitions that "regard" this stuff.Therefore,one may find like so many members of the KGs which we can actually point to Jon has been confronted with weighing these vows against the conflicts of the heart.I think that's the connection which to me doesn't make it specific to Artthur but specific to man who are held to a vow.

Also,the connection i see is more with regards to House Dayne itself and i think that came out of making Jon a "milk kin" to Edric Dayne which in effect is a form of an alliance by breast milk.

The other concern of mine ofcourse is the blood angle.Depending on what prospect you are looking at there's going to be cross contamination so to speak.I mean how do you measure this? Its like Westrosi version of Eugenics. What's the acceptable about of Targ blood which one way of the other he may have,or Dayne blood which one way or the other he will have,or FM blood which he definitely has.It becomes less unique.Blood will tell,but magically speaking that's going to be like impossible to base parentage on.

[Voice]

Is Starfall brought up in relation to Jon's infancy? At the moment, all I can think of is the mentioning of Wylla... And we don't know whether she was serving at Starfall, at the time, or not. She's serving there now, she was definitly serving there a few years after the Rebelllion... But during? We can't say, making Jon's connection to Starfall rather thin.

Unless, of course, I'm currently not thinking about a quote?

Unless Jon was nursed by Starfall's wetnurse away from Starfall, or was not in his infancy while being nursed by Wylla (both of which seem unlikely), then the passage in question seems to serve no other purpose than to connect Jon to Starfall's wetnurse in his infancy. Peculiar, right? But, imo, such would make the following passage far less cryptic:

They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his.

 

I'm mostly referencing Arya's conversation with Edric Dayne. A reasonably long narrative pointer that Jon (and Ned) are connected to Starfall. And that Jon's connection is about his infancy. And he has a milk brother at the place. And Arya's thought that she needs to tell Jon about all of this. And then, right afterwards, thinks, "There was an Arthur Dayne. . . . The one they called the Sword of the Morning."

Seems like Martin's telling us that Jon is connected to Starfall--through his wet nurse (infancy) and milk brother and Ned. How much so? To be determined. But he spends a bit of time on it--in the same novel where he has Jon see the Sword of the Morning. 

And of course, Jon can have all of those connections and have never been at Starfall. But Martin does take time on it. In the novel with a lot of Arthur Dayne references.

Agreed. But I must frown and wonder why folks must justify discussing Arthur Dayne as Jon's father in an Arthur Dayne + Lyanna = Jon thread.