Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[Julia H.]

KM, that opening essay is wonderful: well-reasoned, well-written and a very enjoyable read. Bravo!

I agree with those who say that we are meant to be able to figure out Jon’s parentage because it is not the ultimate mystery the author is preparing for us, only an important step that takes us closer to the secret of Jon’s destiny. 

So where's the twist? Martin starts telling us that in Storm, too. The Bard is not the lover. He's the leader of the warrior lover (Ygritte follows and believes in Mance). The Bard is a pawn or lackey of a stronger figure (Marillion). Or the warrior is false and a servant of a twisted Bael(wish)--Dontos and Baelish.

In Feast: The Blue Bard is again a pawn. A cudgel wielded against a rose and her family. NOT the lover os the rose maid Marg.

In Dance: the Bard warps the role, working with the Bastard Stark to steal the false rose maid from the evil rulers with other help of a turn cloak. Not the lover of the false rose maid, Jayne.

@Kingmonkey is absolutely right in the OP: the Bael story is what links Rhaegar to Lyanna and Jon. But we can't only list the iterations. The context counts. Martin isn't just leaving us hanging. He's bringing up that symbol in every single book for a reason. And so far, the main twist in the repeat of the Bael story (as there are twists in every repeat) is always this: the  Bard is NOT the lover.

I think it is important to notice that the “ archetypal” story is the old story of Bael the Bard, the “bard’s truth”, while all the more or less contemporary Winter Rose stories are derived from this proto-version rather than from each other. Bael is definitely a bard but not only a bard. He is:

a bard

a warrior

a future King-Beyond-the-Wall

a “Deceiver” (Sygerrik of Skagos)

In the different “contemporary” variations of the proto-version, the original characters are represented with various twists, we agree on that. Let’s see them:

Mance: He is a bard, a warrior and a former King-Beyond-the-Wall. He also has a strong “deceiver” side, therefore he is a very close equivalent of Bael. We know that there are some striking parallels between him and Rhaegar, a large part of which, I think, is that they both reflect the Bael of the original story quite faithfully, though there are also some direct parallels between them (such as the Targaryen colours). Still, Mance is not “only” an in-story reincarnation of Bael the Bard, he has other roles as well. He only becomes Bael in his own Bael the Bard story, when he goes to Winterfell and calls himself Abel.

Ygritte: I don’t agree that in the Jon-Ygritte version of the proto-story Ygritte plays the role of the Bard’s follower. I am convinced that she plays the role of the Bard just as Jon plays the role of the “winter rose”. Ygritte is indeed a warrior, most of all, but she also has her own bard associations in the text: First of all, she tells Jon the original story, by which she does what bards usually do. She also sings on several occasions, and her singing is part of the reason why Jon is attracted to her. Even when Ygritte is dead, Jon remembers her singing. She also initiates Jon into wildling lore in general, which is one of the traditional roles of singers. Finally she claims to be a descendant of Bael. So no, Ygritte does not play the role of the bard’s follower in this version of the story, but the role of the bard directly. As for Bael’s other aspects: Ygritte can also be regarded as a kind of deceiver (she readily lies to Mance to save Jon); and while she is not a royal person, she is, in retrospect, referred to as Jon’s wildling wife, and we know that Jon will become a “King-Beyond-the-Wall” figure when he becomes a leader for the wildlings, so while Bael in the archetypal story is a future King-Beyond-the-Wall, Ygritte is the wife of a future wildling leader, an unofficial “King-Beyond-the-Wall”.

To be honest, I have a general problem with “a warrior follower of the bard” playing a key role in any of the versions simply because no such follower is mentioned in the original version (and because Bael was a warrior himself); but even if such a figure existed, Ygritte would still be a very clear Bael figure rather than anything else, while Mance is definitely (and thankfully) not the Bael of Jon’s story.

Bael in Sansa’s story: I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and here is my conclusion: The twist in Sansa’s story is that the different aspects of Bael are split. We have a singer who desires her, Marillion. We have a warrior who desires her and wants to abduct her: Sandor. Instead of singing, he requires her to sing for him. (This twist is actually similar to the reversed gender roles in the Ygritte – Jon story.) We also have a king / future king that desires Sansa: Joffrey. Finally, we have a deceiver who desires her and eventually abducts her: Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish. Of the latter, we know that he has had a long-standing grudge against the Starks, and while he is not a warrior, he did try to play this role once, and it was against a Stark (Brandon) - for a woman. Nor is he a singer, but his sigil is a mockingbird, and what do birds do? They sing. He is not a king either but is effectively trying to get as close to this role as possible – a self-made man, like any King-Beyond-the-Wall.

Regarding the Blue Bard and Margaery, this is at best a very faint reference to the original story, a southern version, where nothing is real. To me the Bael the Bard story is a Stark story first and foremost. The blue winter rose is a precious and rare flower. Margaery is another, much more common rose, I’m afraid, and the bard in the story is blue because… because his hair is dyed and he wears blue clothes. Not every girl is a blue winter rose and not every bard is Bael.

Rhaegar: He is a bard, a warrior and a Crown Prince, which is probably as close to Bael the Bard as possible in the Seven Kingdoms. How much of a deceiver he is remains to be seen, I guess. As others have said before, he is quite a perfect match for Bael.  

Now let’s see the argument that the bard is not the lover. In the original story the bard is the lover. In the Jon – Ygritte story, the bard is the lover. In Sansa’s story, each manifestation of the different aspects of Bael is a would-be lover, but Sansa resists each of them. She is saved from Joffrey, she resists Sandor’s invitation to run away with him, she is disgusted by Marillion and she calls Littlefinger her father rather than her lover. Therefore in this case, there is no lover – Sansa is still a virgin. This is quite interesting in relation to the fragmentary appearance of Bael's figure here. In the Mance – Jeyne Poole story, the bard is indeed not the lover, but there is no other lover either. The only person who might father a child on the “rose” is the (fake) Lord of Winterfell (a Bolton), the equivalent of the maiden's father in the original story, which is certainly a twist. He is now a husband, but not a “lover”. He is also the “flayer”, which is another character from the archetypal story, only this character has merged with the Lord of Winterfell figure. In any case, we are still speaking about a character from the proto-version albeit in an unusual role, not about some new character (a “follower” or anyone else). In the Blue Bard story, the bard is not a lover and the girl is not a blue winter rose, and either there is no lover or there are perhaps (rather insignificant) multiple lovers, and there is no abduction, no Winterfell, no crypts, no ice and fire contrast, not even a single Stark (real or fake)… Every true ingredient is missing, not just the bard-lover or a complex Bael figure.

Since we have evidence suggesting that Lyanna Stark gave birth to a child before she died, we must suppose that there was a lover (or a husband) in her story, i.e., a father to her child. It is interesting to note that this is the only version of the story besides the archetypal one where a child is born. Would anyone use this detail as evidence suggesting that Lyanna did not give birth to a child? The child birth motif corresponds to a very important motif in the archetypal version, and the fact that it does not appear in any other “contemporary” versions makes this particular version very significant and probably the version closest to the archetypal story. It is also the only version that the reader has to reconstruct instead of simply reading it, which further highlights its importance and uniqueness.

To conclude: There are no known versions where a “warrior follower” of the bard becomes the lover instead of the bard, not even versions where such a follower plays any key roles. The “abductor” is always a manifestation of one or more aspects of Bael; and the “singer” aspect is always present (even if it is only a bird sigil in one case). Either there is no lover or the lover is the bard / a Bael figure. On the basis of the evidence in Lyanna’s story, the “no lover” version is not possible there. (We can also discard the Lord of Winterfell as husband possibility, I guess.) Also, since the birth of a Stark child (as well as the survival of House Stark) is a very significant motif in the archetypal story, it is reasonable to expect that it will appear in at least one of the new versions, and the Lyanna version seems to be the perfect (and so far only) candidate for that. The evidence of the Bael story and its various versions strongly suggests that the father of the Stark maiden’s child is the Bael figure of that particular story, a role that Rhaegar fits to an extent that no one else even approaches in Lyanna’s story. Having a completely new character (a follower that does not even appear in the archetypal story and does not play any of the original characters in the newer versions) play a key role in place of the well-established Bael figure in the only version which the reader has to figure out on the basis of clues would seriously undermine the "bard's truth" of the archetypal story. 

[LmL]

KM, that opening essay is wonderful: well-reasoned, well-written and a very enjoyable read. Bravo!

I agree with those who say that we are meant to be able to figure out Jon’s parentage because it is not the ultimate mystery the author is preparing for us, only an important step that takes us closer to the secret of Jon’s destiny. 

I think it is important to notice that the “ archetypal” story is the old story of Bael the Bard, the “bard’s truth”, while all the more or less contemporary Winter Rose stories are derived from this proto-version rather than from each other. Bael is definitely a bard but not only a bard. He is:

a bard

a warrior

a future King-Beyond-the-Wall

a “Deceiver” (Sygerrik of Skagos)

In the different “contemporary” variations of the proto-version, the original characters are represented with various twists, we agree on that. Let’s see them:

Mance: He is a bard, a warrior and a former King-Beyond-the-Wall. He also has a strong “deceiver” side, therefore he is a very close equivalent of Bael. We know that there are some striking parallels between him and Rhaegar, a large part of which, I think, is that they both reflect the Bael of the original story quite faithfully, though there are also some direct parallels between them (such as the Targaryen colours). Still, Mance is not “only” an in-story reincarnation of Bael the Bard, he has other roles as well. He only becomes Bael in his own Bael the Bard story, when he goes to Winterfell and calls himself Abel.

Ygritte: I don’t agree that in the Jon-Ygritte version of the proto-story Ygritte plays the role of the Bard’s follower. I am convinced that she plays the role of the Bard just as Jon plays the role of the “winter rose”. Ygritte is indeed a warrior, most of all, but she also has her own bard associations in the text: First of all, she tells Jon the original story, by which she does what bards usually do. She also sings on several occasions, and her singing is part of the reason why Jon is attracted to her. Even when Ygritte is dead, Jon remembers her singing. She also initiates Jon into wildling lore in general, which is one of the traditional roles of singers. Finally she claims to be a descendant of Bael. So no, Ygritte does not play the role of the bard’s follower in this version of the story, but the role of the bard directly. As for Bael’s other aspects: Ygritte can also be regarded as a kind of deceiver (she readily lies to Mance to save Jon); and while she is not a royal person, she is, in retrospect, referred to as Jon’s wildling wife, and we know that Jon will become a “King-Beyond-the-Wall” figure when he becomes a leader for the wildlings, so while Bael in the archetypal story is a future King-Beyond-the-Wall, Ygritte is the wife of a future wildling leader, an unofficial “King-Beyond-the-Wall”.

To be honest, I have a general problem with “a warrior follower of the bard” playing a key role in any of the versions simply because no such follower is mentioned in the original version (and because Bael was a warrior himself); but even if such a figure existed, Ygritte would still be a very clear Bael figure rather than anything else, while Mance is definitely (and thankfully) not the Bael of Jon’s story.

Bael in Sansa’s story: I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and here is my conclusion: The twist in Sansa’s story is that the different aspects of Bael are split. We have a singer who desires her, Marillion. We have a warrior who desires her and wants to abduct her: Sandor. Instead of singing, he requires her to sing for him. (This twist is actually similar to the reversed gender roles in the Ygritte – Jon story.) We also have a king / future king that desires Sansa: Joffrey. Finally, we have a deceiver who desires her and eventually abducts her: Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish. Of the latter, we know that he has had a long-standing grudge against the Starks, and while he is not a warrior, he did try to play this role once, and it was against a Stark (Brandon) - for a woman. Nor is he a singer, but his sigil is a mockingbird, and what do birds do? They sing. He is not a king either but is effectively trying to get as close to this role as possible – a self-made man, like any King-Beyond-the-Wall.

Regarding the Blue Bard and Margaery, this is at best a very faint reference to the original story, a southern version, where nothing is real. To me the Bael the Bard story is a Stark story first and foremost. The blue winter rose is a precious and rare flower. Margaery is another, much more common rose, I’m afraid, and the bard in the story is blue because… because his hair is dyed and he wears blue clothes. Not every girl is a blue winter rose and not every bard is Bael.

Rhaegar: He is a bard, a warrior and a Crown Prince, which is probably as close to Bael the Bard as possible in the Seven Kingdoms. How much of a deceiver he is remains to be seen, I guess. As others have said before, he is quite a perfect match for Bael.  

Now let’s see the argument that the bard is not the lover. In the original story the bard is the lover. In the Jon – Ygritte story, the bard is the lover. In Sansa’s story, each manifestation of the different aspects of Bael is a would-be lover, but Sansa resists each of them. She is saved from Joffrey, she resists Sandor’s invitation to run away with him, she is disgusted by Marillion and she calls Littlefinger her father rather than her lover. Therefore in this case, there is no lover – Sansa is still a virgin. This is quite interesting in relation to the fragmentary appearance of Bael's figure here. In the Mance – Jeyne Poole story, the bard is indeed not the lover, but there is no other lover either. The only person who might father a child on the “rose” is the (fake) Lord of Winterfell (a Bolton), the equivalent of the maiden's father in the original story, which is certainly a twist. He is now a husband, but not a “lover”. He is also the “flayer”, which is another character from the archetypal story, only this character has merged with the Lord of Winterfell figure. In any case, we are still speaking about a character from the proto-version albeit in an unusual role, not about some new character (a “follower” or anyone else). In the Blue Bard story, the bard is not a lover and the girl is not a blue winter rose, and either there is no lover or there are perhaps (rather insignificant) multiple lovers, and there is no abduction, no Winterfell, no crypts, no ice and fire contrast, not even a single Stark (real or fake)… Every true ingredient is missing, not just the bard-lover or a complex Bael figure.

Since we have evidence suggesting that Lyanna Stark gave birth to a child before she died, we must suppose that there was a lover (or a husband) in her story, i.e., a father to her child. It is interesting to note that this is the only version of the story besides the archetypal one where a child is born. Would anyone use this detail as evidence suggesting that Lyanna did not give birth to a child? The child birth motif corresponds to a very important motif in the archetypal version, and the fact that it does not appear in any other “contemporary” versions makes this particular version very significant and probably the version closest to the archetypal story. It is also the only version that the reader has to reconstruct instead of simply reading it, which further highlights its importance and uniqueness.

To conclude: There are no known versions where a “warrior follower” of the bard becomes the lover instead of the bard, not even versions where such a follower plays any key roles. The “abductor” is always a manifestation of one or more aspects of Bael; and the “singer” aspect is always present (even if it is only a bird sigil in one case). Either there is no lover or the lover is the bard / a Bael figure. On the basis of the evidence in Lyanna’s story, the “no lover” version is not possible there. (We can also discard the Lord of Winterfell as husband possibility, I guess.) Also, since the birth of a Stark child (as well as the survival of House Stark) is a very significant motif in the archetypal story, it is reasonable to expect that it will appear in at least one of the new versions, and the Lyanna version seems to be the perfect (and so far only) candidate for that. The evidence of the Bael story and its various versions strongly suggests that the father of the Stark maiden’s child is the Bael figure of that particular story, a role that Rhaegar fits to an extent that no one else even approaches in Lyanna’s story. Having a completely new character (a follower that does not even appear in the archetypal story and does not play any of the original characters in the newer versions) play a key role in place of the well-established Bael figure in the only version which the reader has to figure out on the basis of clues would seriously undermine the "bard's truth" of the archetypal story. 

Thanks for working that out Julia, what you're saying makes a lot sense to me. Something about SlyWren's very specific interpretation re: the bard wasn't sitting right with me, but I did not have the time to figure out what. I'd also add to everything you've said that Ygritte is not a fit for Arthur Dayne, the "warrior who follows the bard." There are no parallels between the two that I can see, either literal or symbolic, even when you set gender aside. And you're very spot-on to point out that the Rhaegar story is by far the closest exact parallel to the Bael story. 

I think one of the things to notice here is that RLJ is confirmed via so many different lines of inquiry. You can go the route of KingMonkey, piecing together the narrative clues. We can analyze logistics - who was where and when - and see that RLJ works where no other theory does. You can take the Bael angle and see the clear parallels which point to RLJ. You can look at Jons dragon and Azor Ahai symbolism, which only works if Jon has dragon blood from somewhere. You can take the mythical astronomy angle which I do, and multiple lines of inquiry within that context point to RLJ. 

And nothing, not one fact, cuts against RLJ in any compelling way and points to another answer, at least so far. I mean, I know there's a wrap up thread coming, but isn't this what we are supposed to be seeing in the various heresy essays, evidence suggesting something other than RLJ? So far we aren't seeing it. I'll keep watching, but so far...  there is nothing to even suggest a different father. The closest thing is Jons SOTM symbolism laid out marvelously by Sly Wren, but there no evidence of Arthur as Jons father, as Lyanna's lover. If Martin intended that, he would have left clues about Arthur and Lyanna, but he did not  

Finally, the attempts to poke holes in RLJ are falling well short, as Julia H and Corbon have demonstrated in this thread. The interpretation of the 7 vs 3 and only 2 walked away phrase as applying to everyone at the tower is wrong, because Ned was only referring to the fighters in that thought - the 7 vs. 3. Trying to take Lyanna away from the ToJ doesn't work, as we've seen, and it's not even hinted at that she was anywhere else. As many have said, Neds sober thought about the recurring dream is that it is about the bed of blood. If Lyanna isn't there, the dream isn't about her, and in the dream, she IS there, screaming and dropping rose petals / having her petals blow in the wind. The "it's too obvious" objections don't hold any water, because as we've said, Jons parentage is itself only a piece to a larger puzzle which none of us have the definitive answer to. Also, many / most readers do not figure it out on first read. 

Thats what I am seeing so far, fwiw. 

[Sly Wren]

I think it is important to notice that the “ archetypal” story is the old story of Bael the Bard, the “bard’s truth”, while all the more or less contemporary Winter Rose stories are derived from this proto-version rather than from each other. Bael is definitely a bard but not only a bard. He is:

a bard; a warrior; a future King-Beyond-the-Wall; a “Deceiver” (Sygerrik of Skagos)

In the different “contemporary” variations of the proto-version, the original characters are represented with various twists, we agree on that. Let’s see them:

Agreed that the versions of the Blue Rose story are not exact. Any more that the Night's King, or Robert's Rebellion, or the Last Hero, or Rhaegar and Lyanna--their story is a variant as well. Would also add that Bard's motivation as told in Ygritte's story is expressly to use a woman to makes a political and personal point. To use her against her family.

Ygritte: I don’t agree that in the Jon-Ygritte version of the proto-story Ygritte plays the role of the Bard’s follower. I am convinced that she plays the role of the Bard just as Jon plays the role of the “winter rose”. Ygritte is indeed a warrior, most of all, but she also has her own bard associations in the text: First of all, she tells Jon the original story, by which she does what bards usually do. She also sings on several occasions, and her singing is part of the reason why Jon is attracted to her. Even when Ygritte is dead, Jon remembers her singing. She also initiates Jon into wildling lore in general, which is one of the traditional roles of singers. Finally she claims to be a descendant of Bael. So no, Ygritte does not play the role of the bard’s follower in this version of the story, but the role of the bard directly. As for Bael’s other aspects: Ygritte can also be regarded as a kind of deceiver (she readily lies to Mance to save Jon); and while she is not a royal person, she is, in retrospect, referred to as Jon’s wildling wife, and we know that Jon will become a “King-Beyond-the-Wall” figure when he becomes a leader for the wildlings, so while Bael in the archetypal story is a future King-Beyond-the-Wall, Ygritte is the wife of a future wildling leader, an unofficial “King-Beyond-the-Wall”.

To be honest, I have a general problem with “a warrior follower of the bard” playing a key role in any of the versions simply because no such follower is mentioned in the original version (and because Bael was a warrior himself); but even if such a figure existed, Ygritte would still be a very clear Bael figure rather than anything else, while Mance is definitely (and thankfully) not the Bael of Jon’s story.

1. Agree that no such follower is mentioned in the original story. Nor are a lot of things in the contemporary iterations. Same with all of the old stories: so far, seems like the Last Hero's part is being played out by both Bran and Jon to some extent. Both Sansa and Arya are echoing elements of Lyanna. The Night's King story in out version has some big variants.

The main issue with the "follower" seems to be tied to the motivation of the taking/imprisoning of the rose maid. Bael takes the rose maid for a political grudge match to stick it to the Starks. So, is the taking rose maid about making the bard figures own point? Someone else's?

2. As for Mance vs. Ygritte: Yes, Ygritte has bard elements with her heritage--as do Jon and Sansa and all of the Starks. She sings and tells stories to teach heritage and teach truths--as does Sansa to herself, to others, and especially to Sweetrobin. So, the elements are there, no doubt. But if that means she's the bard instead of Mance, wouldn't that make Sansa something similar?

3. But Mance is the closest version of Bael in that he is a King Beyond the Wall who has stolen into Winterfell and now has a Stark maid as hostage for leverage and political gain. Mance is both bard and leader. Ygritte is his occasionally singing follower.

4. Plus the taking of the rose maid is for Mance's political purpose. Ygritte vouches for Jon to keep him safe. But, when it comes down to it, the Bard King is holding the Stark Maid, not his singing follower with bard elements. Ygritte fights for/with Mance at the end. She's a follower to his purpose. And she dies long before the story can play out.

4. And, almost as if Martin doesn't trust us, he brings Mance back in. As Abel. Steals a Stark maid for both political/tribal reasons--and to work with the Stark at the Wall (another twist). The books and thus the pattern aren't done. But it really seems like Martin is putting the "Bael" label on the bard king--Mance. At least for now. 

Bael in Sansa’s story: I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and here is my conclusion: The twist in Sansa’s story is that the different aspects of Bael are split. 

Again--I agree that the elements are mixed up. Storm is chock-a-bloc full of the referents. But the political intent--that's Baelish. He's using the Stark rose maid for his own purposes--and, arguably, his issues with the Starks. Dontos (the "knight" out of a song) and Marillion (working for the unstable Lysa) both ultimately answer to him--the political manipulator using the Stark maid. Until we see Sansa's lover, the pattern is not done. Until the books aren't done, the pattern's not done. But for now--Baelish uses both the bard and the "knight" for his intent. 

Regarding the Blue Bard and Margaery, this is at best a very faint reference to the original story, a southern version, where nothing is real. To me the Bael the Bard story is a Stark story first and foremost. The blue winter rose is a precious and rare flower. Margaery is another, much more common rose, I’m afraid, and the bard in the story is blue because… because his hair is dyed and he wears blue clothes. Not every girl is a blue winter rose and not every bard is Bael.

Okay--on the other ones I understand your focus on the ambiguity. And while we disagree, I see your point.

But on the Blue Bard--I'm struggling. He's southron, yes--as is Rhaegar. Bael the Bard is a northern story of a King Beyond the Wall sticking it to the Starks--which should kick Rhaegar out. If Rhaegar can fit, why not poor monsieur bleu? Kingmonkey even makes a point of the "ae" in Bael as being like the Targ names. Not sure I buy that, but still--if southron is the key, then Rhaegar is out.

QUOTE: "Not kind," said Cersei, "merely truthful. Taena tells me that you are called the Blue Bard."

"I am, Your Grace." The singer's boots were supple blue calfskin, his breeches fine blue wool. The tunic he wore was pale blue silk slashed with shiny blue satin. He had even gone so far as to dye his hair blue, in the Tyroshi fashion. Long and curly, it fell to his shoulders and smelled as if it had been washed in rosewater. From blue roses, no doubt. At least his teeth are white. They were good teeth, not the least bit crooked. Feast, Cersei IX.

Martin is hitting us upside the head with a big blue rose scented mallet. If this isn't a reference to the blue rose, I don't know what is. It's the only way the word "bard" is used in this book, Feast--in direct reference to this bard. No other (according to searchoficeandfire). Yes the bard is false, but the reference really, really holds. So, what is Martin telling us with that?

As for Margaery--she's expressly brought up in Game as a potential Lyanna look-alike so her family can use her to tempt Robert and oust Cersei. A rose maid used for political purposes--in the hopes that she looks like Lyanna. In Feast, a novel where Lyanna's name is completely absent (as opposed to the rest of the novels), the false Lyanna is maligned by a blue bard for the political purpose of sticking it to her family. The intent holds. The reference is big, and blue, and scented. If this isn't what Martin is doing with this twist, I have no idea why the Blue Bard is there. All blue and smelly.

Unless Martin has a blue fetish. . . 

Rhaegar: He is a bard, a warrior and a Crown Prince, which is probably as close to Bael the Bard as possible in the Seven Kingdoms. How much of a deceiver he is remains to be seen, I guess. As others have said before, he is quite a perfect match for Bael.  

Except for the intent--we don't yet know why Rhaegar took Lyanna. True love and prophecy would be a variant on the original story. Where the WHOLE POINT of taking her is to stick it to an enemy. Rhaegar has variants, too. No way around it. But if the pattern holds, he, or someone directing him, has political intent against the rose maid's family.

Now let’s see the argument that the bard is not the lover.

On this issue of lovers: Sansa has none yet, as you say. The pattern is not yet done. Maybe she'll end up with a bard. So far, no go. And maybe Ygritte will end up being the bard. She has elements as you say. But right now, it's Mance. His intent and his bardiness. A point driven home in Dance. And for Marg, the bard is not the lover.

To conclude: There are no known versions where a “warrior follower” of the bard becomes the lover instead of the bard, not even versions where such a follower plays any key roles. The “abductor” is always a manifestation of one or more aspects of Bael; and the “singer” aspect is always present (even if it is only a bird sigil in one case). Either there is no lover or the lover is the bard / a Bael figure. 

On the new characters--one way or another, the story has variants. There are new characters and split versions of the old and new stories in more than one of the echoes/repeats. 

But the intent to take the maid is the whole point of Bael's taking the daughter in the first place. And, with Ygritte, that intent is Mance's. With the Blue Bard, it's Cersei (the Targ wannabe). Sansa's bards--the intent is driven by Bearish (and, for a while, Lysa). 

But the lover--Ygritte--is subservient/follower of the confirmed Bael the Bard figure. Confirmed in multiple books. Even with her singing, Mance really seems like he's emerging as the bard AND the leader. Right now--the pattern I stated seems to be holding. Though that is ABSOLUTELY subject to change. 

Until the books are done, there's no way to know for sure how the story's going to go. And I apologize if I asserted or implied any such certainty.

But Martin doesn't stop the bard and rose references with Clash. He keeps it going. He's giving us hints to Rhaegar's role and intent in the Bael story. In every single novel. So far, we know Rhaegar gave the roses, that he's blamed for the disappearance, and that Ned associates the blue rose crown with Lyanna's death. As for the rest--we need to keep reading the symbol. 

[Sly Wren]

right on Sly. Consider this: she's running from a cold darkness, and then she basically combusts as she runs away from that a- her feet melt stone, her blood boils, and she turns into a dragon. That's waking the dragon, and the kingly hosts are rooting for her to wake her dragon. I'm not sure what to make of that except that they seem to be encouraging her. 

I'm with you on the blood sacrifice - #teamabomination and all - I just don't know what Martin is doing with blood sacrifice in his novels. I know how I feel about it, but I'm leery of projecting my own morality onto the story. And I'm certainly not predicting that Jon will embrace human sacrifice - only that he bears the weight of a legacy which does involve it, and he'll likely have to confront that somehow. Also, there's the long string of occasions where Jon has been forced to break oaths and dishonor himself for the greater good, and I'm worried about how far Martin will take that. 

Agree on Jon's bearing the weight of the blood sacrifice legacy. All of the Starks--it seems like that's some of what we are seeing with Bran's vision of the sacrifice borne out with the sickle in front of the heart tree.

The Targaryens and Valyrians have the same heritage--assuming we haven't been mislead. So far, seems like Dany's embracing hers (or it's catching her--I guess that's another take on the dream). While Jon instinctive rejects Craster, even with his warm keep, even before he finds out about the sacrifices. And Jon loathes what Mel is doing.

So far, among other things, seems like the blood sacrifice can be useful, but has a big cost. We'll have to see where Martin goes with this.

Until then: #Teamabomination.

[All-Seeing Aye]

Great analysis, especially how you pay attention to the literary importance of structure, character introduction, and subtly showcasing ideas that are later reinforced and challenged.

Looking back at Ned's chapters in AGOT in particular I had forgotten just how, for lack of a better word, obvious it is that R+L=J.  I mean, the reader is essentially being beaten over the head, inundated with all of the structural and factual clues you point out.

To put it bluntly, the only reason that theory is still a theory is because having Ned confirming it in his POV, which he comes close to doing several times thematically and thought-wise as you point out, would rob the story of dramatic tension.

What irks me about other speculation for Jon's parentage is that nothing else makes sense.  Regardless of whether they married, regardless of whether that marriage was 'legitimate' such that Jon was not a bastard, regardless of whether the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy believed they were guarding the rightful king, etc., Rhaegar and Lyanna are the parents of Jon Snow, full stop.  People who get wrapped up in secret tinfoil are over-interpreting the text.

[wolfmaid7]

@LML

See below.

 

You made me laugh with your first para,something about Sly Wren "specific" interpretation wasn't sitting right with you.But the very specific interpretation re: Rhaegar didn't phase you at all? Really?

I will skip the Arthur feedback because it doesn't belong here and lets look at RLJ for what it is and why it doesn't work in totallity.

1. The clues whereby you and others deem this theory the "one true theory" aren't clues.I repeat they aren't clues.They weren't hidden/concealed/cloaked nothing.They are what is stated by characters on the basis of their perception of details.Proponents just went a bit further by concluding that the rather superficial perception of characters and incorrect interpretation by yourselves are clues to RLJ i.e

1. That Rhaegar had anything to do with Lyanna's disappearence.

2. That Bael's rose is a baby,then a crown,then a rose again is Jon Snow

3.That the timeline so heavily depended upon is correctly derived

4. That the Bael the Bard story ( incorrectly interpreted) is exactly what happened because you all did a one to one comparison.

I disgree with you LML,sense disagrees with you,every interview GRRM has ever done about this issue disgrees with you.

Your own work and words disagree with you.The writer's intriquite way of layering is mysteries as mysteries diagree with you.

So no these arguements or "attempts to poke holes" aren't falling short they are hitting the mark square and no amount of generalization without fact is going to change that.

5. Your tower comment "malarky" to put it nicley because if she was or wasn't in the tower has absolutely nothing to do with who the father is.

This conclusion have has no depth has no teeth has no brainwork required to access it.All it takes is reading and accepting the perception of characters and concluding based on that. When you look at it.Can't prove love,can't prove rape,can't prove kidnapping....Can't prove Jon is Rhaegar's kid. But the essay did a great job at proving Lyanna's the mother though so there's that.

 

 

 

@ All seeing eye:Yes that is the point this mystery that the writer has deemed a mystery is isn't really a mystery at all.That's one of the points.Everytime i see someone say that the "clues" are so obvious i slap my forehead and i have to ponder if they are really aware of what they are saying.I mean your reasoning for thinking that Ned didn't reveal "this" theory boogles my mind and again i'm left to ponder how.

Nothing makes sense "to you" and that's ok i often ask myself how does this theory makes sense at all but i digress. It has many fundamental flaws which i pointed out above and we will just have to see what Martin says about it.

 

[LmL]

 

 

I'm sorry Wolfmaid I'm finding your comments totally incoherent. I have no idea what you're trying to say. 

[wolfmaid7]

 

If "that" was incoherent to you i really can't help you pal.I was replying to your post starting with you taking issue with Sly Wren's literal interpretation of the Bael the Bard story while having no problems with Rhaegar whom you a post ago claim matches Bael perfectly.So i was remarking that i find that statement funny.

 

[Sly Wren]

Rhaegar: He is a bard, a warrior and a Crown Prince, which is probably as close to Bael the Bard as possible in the Seven Kingdoms. How much of a deceiver he is remains to be seen, I guess. As others have said before, he is quite a perfect match for Bael.  

Julia H: I've been thinking over your argument as well as the text, trying to figure out what Martin is doing. And I noted your point re: the Blue Bard's being both southron and "false"--I'm not sure how you meant false, but at least one of the ways is that discrediting the rose maid for political gain (the counterfeit Lyanna) is NOT his idea. Nor is the gain his.

The Blue Bard's actual name is barely mentioned. Mostly just "the Blue Bard"--almost like he's more symbol than person.

Mance stays pretty close to some of the Bael stuff, especially when he actually invades Winterfell. He's both the Bard and the King beyond the Wall--as is Bael. Sticks to the northern story, as you said: it is a northern story.

But when the southron echoes show up--the Blue Bard, Marillion--the bards are NOT the kings. They are being used by the powerful in plots having to do with rose maids.

In short, I think your point about their being false might be something more than just an objection (might also be that, too). Because Rhaegar is also southron. And his intent in giving those roses is as yet unknown--HIGHLY speculated on, but unknown. And the whole "abduction" and its context are not given at all. 

So, seems like we might need to keep an eye out for whether Rhaegar is following the more specific to the original, Northern version of being both the bard and the King in charge. Or if he's with the so far VERY scant southron version of the Bard's being used. . . for political machinations.

Maybe. . . 

[Julia H.]

The main issue with the "follower" seems to be tied to the motivation of the taking/imprisoning of the rose maid. Bael takes the rose maid for a political grudge match to stick it to the Starks. So, is the taking rose maid about making the bard figures own point? Someone else's?

2. As for Mance vs. Ygritte: Yes, Ygritte has bard elements with her heritage--as do Jon and Sansa and all of the Starks. She sings and tells stories to teach heritage and teach truths--as does Sansa to herself, to others, and especially to Sweetrobin. So, the elements are there, no doubt. But if that means she's the bard instead of Mance, wouldn't that make Sansa something similar?

3. But Mance is the closest version of Bael in that he is a King Beyond the Wall who has stolen into Winterfell and now has a Stark maid as hostage for leverage and political gain. Mance is both bard and leader. Ygritte is his occasionally singing follower.

4. Plus the taking of the rose maid is for Mance's political purpose. Ygritte vouches for Jon to keep him safe. But, when it comes down to it, the Bard King is holding the Stark Maid, not his singing follower with bard elements. Ygritte fights for/with Mance at the end. She's a follower to his purpose. And she dies long before the story can play out.

4. And, almost as if Martin doesn't trust us, he brings Mance back in. As Abel. Steals a Stark maid for both political/tribal reasons--and to work with the Stark at the Wall (another twist). The books and thus the pattern aren't done. But it really seems like Martin is putting the "Bael" label on the bard king--Mance. At least for now. 

 

I probably couldn’t explain my point clearly enough in my previous post. I think there are different Bael the Bard stories and each has its own set of actors. Mance plays the role of the bard in his own Bael story, which takes place in Winterfell and Mance even receives a separate name for this: Abel. Ygritte in her own Bael the Bard story is not just “someone with some bard associations” – she is the Bael of that particular version, and her Bael role is totally independent of another character’s Bael role in another Bael story. You may think that Mance is more similar to Bael than Ygritte, the fact remains that they both play the role of Bael the Bard in two different versions of the archetypal story.

Mance is not Jon’s Bael, because Jon’s Bael is Ygritte - a wildling warrior who also sings. In the archetypal story Bael “plucks” the winter rose of Winterfell. Ygritte “plucks” Jon. Bael and the Stark maiden go to the crypts together. Ygritte and Jon go to a cave together – another underground place associated with the dead. Jon is a Stark descendant. Ygritte is a descendant of the original Bael. The parallel is very clear. Besides, if we accept that in this version Jon represents the Stark maiden, then the logic of the reversed gender roles demands that Bael should be represented by a woman here.

With regard to her relationship with Jon, Ygritte is not anyone’s follower: When she seduces Jon she follows her own agenda, not Mance’s. It is also Ygritte who first suggests that Jon should join the wildlings, she even invites Jon to run away with her (leaving behind his brothers), which is another echo of what Bael in the story did.

Forcing Mance into the role of this Bael on the basis that he plays the role of Bael better in another version of the story or that he sings more often than just “occasionally” (do we know that?) seems to have a single purpose: to prove that the “lover” is not really Bael, therefore Rhaegar with his very obvious Bael parallels is not Jon’s father. However, that can only be done if we ignore all the Ygritte - Bael parallels in the text (see above). We also have to start with the premise that the “contemporary” versions of the Bael story are derived from each other rather than from the proto-story, which seems counterintuitive to me, but even then we would have to explain the parallel between Ygritte and Rhaegar: both are fire people in love (or allegedly in love) with an ice “maiden”, a parallel that would be difficult to ignore in a novel with this particular title.

Having said that, yes, I agree that Mance is also Bael – only he is not the only Bael in the novel and certainly not a Bael to Jon’s Stark maiden role.

The Bael the Bard story may be very important but it is not the only driving force behind the different storylines in the series. Mance is not merely a reincarnation of Bael – he has other roles. He is also a wildling king trying to save his people from the Others and the wights. He is also a deserter of the Night’s Watch. He is also husband to Dalla. He also plays a mentor role / father figure to Jon Snow (which makes his Rhaegar echoes even more interesting). Similarly, Jon does not play the role of the “Stark maiden” all the time. He is also Jon Snow, the bastard of Winterfell, a man of the Night’s Watch, later Lord Commander, a friend to Samwell Tarly and so on. His role is not restricted to replaying the Bael story. He has his “Stark maid” moments, and then moves on. I would guess he stops playing that role when he comes out of the cave. In the Bael story, “the maiden is killed” in the crypts and the woman / mother is born to return to life and Winterfell.  With the heir to House Stark being born in the crypts, the family effectively comes back from death. No one knows better than you that coming out of the cave is a symbolic rebirth for Jon - his role is different from that moment on. Mance truly becomes Bael only after losing his kingship and surviving his “own” execution. Ygritte does not survive her Bael role. Apparently, playing a role in that particular story comes at a cost.

Re: your question: “She sings and tells stories to teach heritage and teach truths--as does Sansa to herself, to others, and especially to Sweetrobin. So, the elements are there, no doubt. But if that means she's the bard instead of Mance, wouldn't that make Sansa something similar?”

I think I have shown that Ygritte is not Bael just because she “occasionally sings” to some random person (and not Bael "instead of Mance"). If you equate all of Ygritte’s Bael parallels with Sansa singing to Sweetrobin, then I’m not sure what more to say about this. Bael’s story is not just about a singer’s exploits, there is a lot more to it, which includes the survival and heritage of House Stark. It takes place at a point in history when House Stark is close to extinction but eventually survives due to Bael’s bastard son (and that’s independent of Bael’s original purpose), who does not know who his father is. This is a relevant aspect at a moment when House Stark is again on the brink of extinction in a much worse way than in the Bael story.

I’m not arguing against your interpretation of the Bael story as a political game. Perhaps Bael didn’t love the Stark maiden. So what? Bael may have been playing a political game with her, but the story is quite unambiguous regarding the identity of the father of the Stark maiden’s child. The question we are discussing is the identity of Jon’s father. The idea that Lyanna may have been used only as a pawn in the game of thrones does not mean that her Bael could not have made her pregnant. If I understand you, in your opinion this is what happens in the archetypal Bael story, too. If we read the romance between the original Bael and the Stark girl as a political game, it makes it possible that something similar happened between Lyanna and Rhaegar. Who knows? Jon and Ygritte were in love, but since this is another derived story, it does not directly affect the structure of another derived story, in my opinion. The original story seems somewhat elliptical in this respect, but it is very definite about the point that the child is fathered by Bael. That is a more important structural element than the exact feelings or purposes of the parents.

[Julia H.]

1. But it really seems like Martin is putting the "Bael" label on the bard king--Mance. At least for now. 

2. Again--I agree that the elements are mixed up. Storm is chock-a-bloc full of the referents. But the political intent--that's Baelish. He's using the Stark rose maid for his own purposes--and, arguably, his issues with the Starks. Dontos (the "knight" out of a song) and Marillion (working for the unstable Lysa) both ultimately answer to him--the political manipulator using the Stark maid. Until we see Sansa's lover, the pattern is not done. Until the books aren't done, the pattern's not done. But for now--Baelish uses both the bard and the "knight" for his intent. 

3. Except for the intent--we don't yet know why Rhaegar took Lyanna. True love and prophecy would be a variant on the original story. Where the WHOLE POINT of taking her is to stick it to an enemy. Rhaegar has variants, too. No way around it. But if the pattern holds, he, or someone directing him, has political intent against the rose maid's family.

1. On this issue of lovers: Sansa has none yet, as you say. The pattern is not yet done. Maybe she'll end up with a bard. So far, no go. And maybe Ygritte will end up being the bard. She has elements as you say. But right now, it's Mance. His intent and his bardiness. A point driven home in Dance. And for Marg, the bard is not the lover.

4. On the new characters--one way or another, the story has variants. There are new characters and split versions of the old and new stories in more than one of the echoes/repeats. 

5. But the intent to take the maid is the whole point of Bael's taking the daughter in the first place. And, with Ygritte, that intent is Mance's. With the Blue Bard, it's Cersei (the Targ wannabe). Sansa's bards--the intent is driven by Bearish (and, for a while, Lysa). 

1. Sorry, are you saying now that Mance is the only character that plays the role of Bael in the series? If you say that, then I don't understand why you are also saying that the Blue Bard and others also play the role of Bael. If, however, there are multiple Baels (and there must be multiple Baels if there are multiple Stark roses), then I don't know how Mance's Baelness takes away from Ygritte's. The series is not only about the Bael the Bard story. Mance's Bael role is not confirmed in Dance, it happens in Dance. That is when Mance Rayder becomes Bael the Bard, not before, and he does so in relation to Jeyne Poole's "Stark rose". 

2. We may see a lover for Sansa who somehow fits the Bael the Bard story in future, but it is also possible that she will simply stop playing that role. As I said in my previous post, the Bael the Bard story is not the only driving force behind the plot. If Sansa (for example) settles down for a respectable political marriage or kills Littlefinger or returns to Tyrion and fails to to give birth to a mysterious bastard son, we may just conclude that she is not playing the Bael the Bard story any more, in the same way as Jon's Lord Commander role is not a variation of the original Stark maiden character. A variation makes sense only as long as the original pattern is still recognizable. Sansa, being a complex POV character, probably has other roles in the plot than simply replaying the Bael the Bard story. (Ygritte, on the other hand, could be said to be mainly a Bael character, as she has no other storyline.)  Nor do I think that all the Bael the Bard versions can be expected to go full cycle in the series. After all, how many (Stark) bastard sons can we expect to see growing up with no knowledge of their true parentage in the course of the series? There is no need for all the versions to be completed. 

3. And that does not negate the possibility of Rhaegar being Jon's father, just as Bael became the father of the child of another Stark rose, perhaps entirely for the purpose of political gain.

4. There are new characters because the contemporary versions are more detailed, more elaborate (as they should be) than the archetypal story. There are also variations, definitely. My problem with the "follower" character is that you put him into a key role (usurping the original role of Bael) in a version of the original story that we are supposed to figure out on the basis of clues, when in all of the known variant stories the structurally key roles are played by characters that correspond to the original set of characters even if their roles change somehow. The extra characters play only supporting roles. For example, the original story includes a Bolton (a flayer). In Mance's version, the flayer becomes the Lord of Winterfell. Here two original characters are merged. Also, the Lord of Winterfell is not a father but a husband, which is another variation. Yet, the original character is still recognizable. In Sansa's story Bael is split into different characters, but they are still recognizable as different aspects of an original character. Inserting a follower who does not appear in the original story into a key role (i.e. the role of an original character, like saying that the Stark rose had a child but the child's father was not a Bael figure but ... well, someone else?) would be structurally unfounded and a form of cheating. 

5. No, the intent is entirely Ygritte's. Ygritte had wanted the Stark rose even before Jon and Mance met for the first time. It is Ygritte who does her best to seduce Jon and it is not because that is Mance's plan. Baelish plays the role of Bael, and yes, the intent is his. I see no problem with that. Lysa is different though. She does not intend to seize the Stark maiden in any way, she merely puts up with her appearance in the Vale and agrees to Littlefinger's plans. If she has any role in Sansa's Bael story, that's a typical supporting role with no relevance to any key positions. 

Regarding the Blue Bard, I will come back with a reply later.

[Julia H.]

Julia H: I've been thinking over your argument as well as the text, trying to figure out what Martin is doing. And I noted your point re: the Blue Bard's being both southron and "false"--I'm not sure how you meant false, but at least one of the ways is that discrediting the rose maid for political gain (the counterfeit Lyanna) is NOT his idea. Nor is the gain his.

The Blue Bard's actual name is barely mentioned. Mostly just "the Blue Bard"--almost like he's more symbol than person.

Mance stays pretty close to some of the Bael stuff, especially when he actually invades Winterfell. He's both the Bard and the King beyond the Wall--as is Bael. Sticks to the northern story, as you said: it is a northern story.

But when the southron echoes show up--the Blue Bard, Marillion--the bards are NOT the kings. They are being used by the powerful in plots having to do with rose maids.

In short, I think your point about their being false might be something more than just an objection (might also be that, too). Because Rhaegar is also southron. And his intent in giving those roses is as yet unknown--HIGHLY speculated on, but unknown. And the whole "abduction" and its context are not given at all. 

So, seems like we might need to keep an eye out for whether Rhaegar is following the more specific to the original, Northern version of being both the bard and the King in charge. Or if he's with the so far VERY scant southron version of the Bard's being used. . . for political machinations.

Maybe. . . 

 

Okay--on the other ones I understand your focus on the ambiguity. And while we disagree, I see your point.

But on the Blue Bard--I'm struggling. He's southron, yes--as is Rhaegar. Bael the Bard is a northern story of a King Beyond the Wall sticking it to the Starks--which should kick Rhaegar out. If Rhaegar can fit, why not poor monsieur bleu? Kingmonkey even makes a point of the "ae" in Bael as being like the Targ names. Not sure I buy that, but still--if southron is the key, then Rhaegar is out.

QUOTE: "Not kind," said Cersei, "merely truthful. Taena tells me that you are called the Blue Bard."

"I am, Your Grace." The singer's boots were supple blue calfskin, his breeches fine blue wool. The tunic he wore was pale blue silk slashed with shiny blue satin. He had even gone so far as to dye his hair blue, in the Tyroshi fashion. Long and curly, it fell to his shoulders and smelled as if it had been washed in rosewater. From blue roses, no doubt. At least his teeth are white. They were good teeth, not the least bit crooked. Feast, Cersei IX.

Martin is hitting us upside the head with a big blue rose scented mallet. If this isn't a reference to the blue rose, I don't know what is. It's the only way the word "bard" is used in this book, Feast--in direct reference to this bard. No other (according to searchoficeandfire). Yes the bard is false, but the reference really, really holds. So, what is Martin telling us with that?

As for Margaery--she's expressly brought up in Game as a potential Lyanna look-alike so her family can use her to tempt Robert and oust Cersei. A rose maid used for political purposes--in the hopes that she looks like Lyanna. In Feast, a novel where Lyanna's name is completely absent (as opposed to the rest of the novels), the false Lyanna is maligned by a blue bard for the political purpose of sticking it to her family. The intent holds. The reference is big, and blue, and scented. If this isn't what Martin is doing with this twist, I have no idea why the Blue Bard is there. All blue and smelly.

Unless Martin has a blue fetish. . . 

Re: “southern” and “false”. I did not complain about the Blue Bard being a southerner, and I absolutely remember that Rhaegar is a southerner as well. What I mean is that the version itself is a southern version of the story featuring the Tyrells instead of the Starks, which seems more than just a casual change to me. The Tyrells are associated with a rose, but it is a different rose, not a blue winter rose, and Margaery is not an ice maiden. The original Bael the Bard story states:

“Now as it happened the winter roses had only then come into bloom, and no flower is so rare nor precious.”

This quote, I think, sets apart the winter (Stark) rose from more ordinary roses, and I think Margaery falls into the latter category. The Blue Bard may dye his beard blue using winter roses, he may also dress in blue, he still does not behave like Bael and he does not appear to have any of Bael’s important characteristics besides being a bard and his interest in blue winter roses. (Bael is never described as "blue". He doesn't need to be.) In other words, the Blue Bard's ”Baelness” is only skin-deep (based on dye!), and it does not make Margaery a true winter rose or a rare flower. The reference is, of course, there, I don’t doubt that, but as I said, it is false. Intentionally false. Let me explain what I mean by that:

There is indeed in the text a comparison between Margarey and Lyanna. How exactly does it go?

Inside was a miniature painted in the vivid Myrish style, of a lovely young girl with doe’s eyes and a cascade of soft brown hair. Renly had seemed anxious to know if the girl reminded him of anyone, and when Ned had no answer but a shrug, he had seemed disappointed. The maid was Loras Tyrell’s sister Margaery, he’d confessed, but there were those who said she looked like Lyanna. “No,” Ned had told him, bemused.

Renly suggests that Margaery looks like Lyanna, but Ned, the northerner who knew Lyanna well (I’m not sure that Lyanna and Renly ever met) flatly denies the similarity. The description of Margaery does not suggest any striking similarity either. I mean… doe’s eyes? Lyanna is compared to a wolf and a horse and she is described as having a „wild beauty”, but she is never ever compared to a doe. We know that Lyanna objected to her family’s marriage plans because of the character of her betrothed, while all Margaery is doing is marrying meekly one husband after the other in accordance with the changing plans of her family. We never hear about her objections to marrying her brother’s lover, the little crowned monster or the cute baby husband. No wonder she is compared to a doe. The similarity between Margaery and Lyanna is brought up but is promptly denied, which seems to be a means of highlighting their differences rather than their similarities.

The Blue Bard is accused of seducing Margaery, a charge that both parties deny, and he is then forced to name various other men as Margaery’s lovers. It does sound like a denial of the Blue Bard's Bael role as well.

So what is the story of the Blue Bard and the Tyrell rose?

A Tyrell rose who is said to look like Lyanna (the winter rose) is said to have been seduced by a blue bard who has some superficial connections with Bael the Bard. If we look at the story this way, we can actually conclude that the most basic ingredients of the archetypal Bael the Bard story are there, only they appear as lies. The Blue Bard story refers to the Bael the Bard story as -2 refers to +2. If we accept that Renly’s mistaken suggestion about Margaery’s similarity to Lyanna is enough to put Margaery into a Stark maiden role, if we accept that the bard’s outward blueness is enough to put him into a Bael role, then Cersei’s totally false accusation of the seduction must also be enough for us to say that we have the bard – Stark rose romance element in this version of the story as well. The Blue Bard is a lover in this version exactly the same way as Margaery is a Stark maiden / blue winter rose. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

In the story, yes, Bael is the lover. But Martin does not run his echoes straight. He always twists them. Both Jon and Stannis have elements of the Night's King. @Lady Barbrey and others have pointed out the echoes of the Night's Queen in Mel. Jon and Bran both seem to be echoing parts of the Last Hero. Ned echoes both himself and his father when he comes south again. Robb echoes Robert in his rebellion. But none of the echoes run the same. There's always at least one twist. Or more.

In Game, we get that Lyanna is Jon's mother, that the roses and blood are connected to her death and Jon, and that Rhaegar gave her the roses.

In Clash, we get the Bael the Bard story. And see the blue flower (later called a rose) in the wall of ice.

Storm: Confirms that Rhaegar was the bard to Lyanna's Stark rose maid. Now, all of the elements fit. Even the potential for politics from the Bael story.

So where's the twist? Martin starts telling us that in Storm, too. The Bard is not the lover. He's the leader of the warrior lover (Ygritte follows and believes in Mance). The Bard is a pawn or lackey of a stronger figure (Marillion). Or the warrior is false and a servant of a twisted Bael(wish)--Dontos and Baelish.

In Feast: The Blue Bard is again a pawn. A cudgel wielded against a rose and her family. NOT the lover os the rose maid Marg.

In Dance: the Bard warps the role, working with the Bastard Stark to steal the false rose maid from the evil rulers with other help of a turn cloak. Not the lover of the false rose maid, Jayne.

Mance (The Bard) is not the lover of a Stark, but that is not necessary in order to be a parallel. Because he is a bard, who "steals" a maid (Dalla), who becomes pregnant with his child, and who dies in childbirth. And that child has parallels to Jon. In fact, together with his milk brother, he shared quite a lot of parallels with Jon, IIRC.

He's also the Bard who goes with six companions to Winterfell in order to steal  a Stark maid, just as Rhaegar went into the riverlands with six companions, where he eventually would encounter Lyanna. 

[Sly Wren]

Mance (The Bard) is not the lover of a Stark, but that is not necessary in order to be a parallel. Because he is a bard, who "steals" a maid (Dalla), who becomes pregnant with his child, and who dies in childbirth. And that child has parallels to Jon. In fact, together with his milk brother, he shared quite a lot of parallels with Jon, IIRC.

He's also the Bard who goes with six companions to Winterfell in order to steal  a Stark maid, just as Rhaegar went into the riverlands with six companions, where he eventually would encounter Lyanna. 

Agreed--but with Dalla, is the "I'm sticking it to a political rival" or "insulting the man who insulted me" element there? That really seems like that's the impetus in the story Ygritte tells Jon.

I don't have this all figured out (HA!! As if you couldn't tell that!) and am trying to work it through with incomplete data.

But it really sounds like one of the keys with the Bael story is the "stick it to those who have insulted you" or "right a political insult." Not just "stolen." A Bard King who steals a rivals daughter to stick it to the rival as a result of an insult.

Mance seems more like he's doing that with the promise of "getting land back" for "his people" from those who stole it. And is using the stolen Stark maid as the process.

Mance really embraces and then inverts the pattern when he "steals" the fake Stark maid from the Winterfell with Theon. 

And he's discussed in Clash in the Jon POV's in and around where Ygritte tells Jon the story. Really seems like, for now, Mance is true the the pattern.

Which makes analyzing how Rhaegar might fit very interesting. . . .

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Agreed--but with Dalla, is the "I'm sticking it to a political rival" or "insulting the man who insulted me" element there? That really seems like that's the impetus in the story Ygritte tells Jon.

Does it have to be? It isn't present for Lyanna (Rickard didn't insult anyone, as far as we are told, nor can I really count him under the category of 'political rival' for Rhaegar). 

[Sly Wren]

I probably couldn’t explain my point clearly enough in my previous post. I think there are different Bael the Bard stories and each has its own set of actors. Mance plays the role of the bard in his own Bael story, which takes place in Winterfell and Mance even receives a separate name for this: Abel. Ygritte in her own Bael the Bard story is not just “someone with some bard associations” – she is the Bael of that particular version, and her Bael role is totally independent of another character’s Bael role in another Bael story. You may think that Mance is more similar to Bael than Ygritte, the fact remains that they both play the role of Bael the Bard in two different versions of the archetypal story.

Mance is not Jon’s Bael, because Jon’s Bael is Ygritte - a wildling warrior who also sings. In the archetypal story Bael “plucks” the winter rose of Winterfell. Ygritte “plucks” Jon. Bael and the Stark maiden go to the crypts together. Ygritte and Jon go to a cave together – another underground place associated with the dead. Jon is a Stark descendant. Ygritte is a descendant of the original Bael. The parallel is very clear. Besides, if we accept that in this version Jon represents the Stark maiden, then the logic of the reversed gender roles demands that Bael should be represented by a woman here.

I think I started the problem by writing things down too fast. A problem I may be repeating--I'm a bit to used to Heresy and TLH where we discuss and figure things out as we go. . .

On Bael: I agree that there are multiple bard elements and bard figures in the story.

But it REALLY seems like Mance is the Bael figure in Jon's story. Mance is a King Beyond the Wall, a Bard, trying to strike back at southerners and those who would curtail both his freedom and those of his people. 

I see your point re: Ygritte. But Jon is Mance's political weapon: against the Watch. Eventually against Winterfell. Ygritte shares Mance's intent. But she is not the impetus: the Bard King Beyond the Wall is.

A point Martin drives home when Mance invades Winterfell as Abel to steal a Stark maid in a clear (if inverted) parallel to the story Ygritte tells.

With regard to her relationship with Jon, Ygritte is not anyone’s follower: When she seduces Jon she follows her own agenda, not Mance’s. It is also Ygritte who first suggests that Jon should join the wildlings, she even invites Jon to run away with her (leaving behind his brothers), which is another echo of what Bael in the story did.

As the seducer--yes that's Ygritye's idea. But again--the point of stealing the Stark maid is political. For the King to strike a blow. That's the intent I meant. In that, Ygritte is the follower of the Bard King. And her running away would be against Mance's Bael-like intent of using the Stark maid to gain a political and personal advantage. A romance, not a political strike. 

Having said that, yes, I agree that Mance is also Bael – only he is not the only Bael in the novel and certainly not a Bael to Jon’s Stark maiden role.

The Bael the Bard story may be very important but it is not the only driving force behind the different storylines in the series. Mance is not merely a reincarnation of Bael – he has other roles.

Agreed--as do many others. But, based on the evidence we have, Mance fits Bael best. The others are traces and echoes. Mance--not Bael reincarnated. None of the old stories come again work that way. But he fits the story best--so far. Seems like we should look at how the same images are used in later novels (than Clash and Storm). Look at what Martin is telling us with the story.

I’m not arguing against your interpretation of the Bael story as a political game. Perhaps Bael didn’t love the Stark maiden. So what? Bael may have been playing a political game with her, but the story is quite unambiguous regarding the identity of the father of the Stark maiden’s child. The question we are discussing is the identity of Jon’s father. The idea that Lyanna may have been used only as a pawn in the game of thrones does not mean that her Bael could not have made her pregnant. If I understand you, in your opinion this is what happens in the archetypal Bael story, too. If we read the romance between the original Bael and the Stark girl as a political game, it makes it possible that something similar happened between Lyanna and Rhaegar. Who knows? Jon and Ygritte were in love, but since this is another derived story, it does not directly affect the structure of another derived story, in my opinion. The original story seems somewhat elliptical in this respect, but it is very definite about the point that the child is fathered by Bael. That is a more important structural element than the exact feelings or purposes of the parents.

Agreed that the story is quite clear on the identity of the child. But it is also clear on the intent for engendering the child. Revenge. 

In The Knight of the Laughing Tree story, the King was wroth. Which fits the Bael story to some extent. One king angry that he has been insulted by another lord. But Rhaegar gives the roses. And Rhaegar is accused--on, at present, incredibly scant evidence (curse the World Book!!!)--of falling on Lyanna and taking her. 

So--why is the Dragon Prince giving the roses when the story says the King Beyond the Wall leaves the roses after taking the maid? What is Rhaegar's intent? And is it even his? Or, does it fit the story, and the intent is the King's? 

[Sly Wren]

Does it have to be? It isn't present for Lyanna (Rickard didn't insult anyone, as far as we are told, nor can I really count him under the category of 'political rival' for Rhaegar). 

But Aerys is wroth over the perceived insult of the Knight of the Laughing Tree. The rest of the story that establishes Rhaegar as bard-like, though not the King Bard. That ties Rhaegar's giving of the roses to the Bael story. We don't have nearly enough data on how all of that played out--but the King is wroth over a perceived insult. Before the rose crown is given by the dragon prince.

Really seems like the impetus of the stealing is a key part of Ygritte's story. And we should keep an eye out.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

But Aerys is wroth over the perceived insult of the Knight of the Laughing Tree. The rest of the story that establishes Rhaegar as bard-like, though not the King Bard. That ties Rhaegar's giving of the roses to the Bael story. We don't have nearly enough data on how all of that played out--but the King is wroth over a perceived insult. Before the rose crown is given by the dragon prince.

Really seems like the impetus of the stealing is a key part of Ygritte's story. And we should keep an eye out.

Hmm... But the point of Bael the Bard was that Bael felt insulted... and thus stole the daughter of the Stark lord who had insulted him. If Lyanna is the maid, and it has to be a perfect parallel, Rickard, her father, must have insulted whoever "stole" Lyanna... And that was Rhaegar, and as far as we know, Rickard did not insult Rhaegar.

Nor are we told that Rhaegar perceived the KotLT as an insult.. So there's no insulting from the Stark side, to anyone involved in the "stealing" of the Stark maid. 

Aerys doesn't really tie into the Bael the Bard parallels, as far as I know. And whatever he felt about the KotLT, the mystery knight disappeared and Aerys is not mentioned to have undertaken any action to do anything about this mystery knight, any further. Nor was he insulted. he was afraid, and angry, believing the mystery knight to be an enemy. But just as the mystery knight disappeared, so too did Aerys' interest in the knight, it seems... 

[Sly Wren]

1. Sorry, are you saying now that Mance is the only character that plays the role of Bael in the series? If you say that, then I don't understand why you are also saying that the Blue Bard and others also play the role of Bael. If, however, there are multiple Baels (and there must be multiple Baels if there are multiple Stark roses), then I don't know how Mance's Baelness takes away from Ygritte's. The series is not only about the Bael the Bard story. Mance's Bael role is not confirmed in Dance, it happens in Dance. That is when Mance Rayder becomes Bael the Bard, not before, and he does so in relation to Jeyne Poole's "Stark rose". 

Sorry, I've been a bit of all over the place--I'm saying that Mance fits it best. Not the only echo, but the clearest. As for "taking away from Ygritte"--I think the reason Mance is Jon's Bael is the intent for a political and personal strike. Ygritte asks Jon to run away, not go back to Styr and Yarl. Away from the politics and everything. Which doesn't seem to fit the impetus Ygritye's story gives us.

3. And that does not negate the possibility of Rhaegar being Jon's father, just as Bael became the father of the child of another Stark rose, perhaps entirely for the purpose of political gain.

Agreed. But, so far, the intent of anger over an insult has been shown, briefly, as Aerys' intent. The King is wroth over an insult. But the Dragon Prince gives the roses. Are they united in the intent? Are they working together? Is the King running the show and the prince is following orders from the King who seems like he's there (in part) to sabotage the prince's desire to unite the realm? 

 Baelish plays the role of Bael, and yes, the intent is his. I see no problem with that. Lysa is different though. She does not intend to seize the Stark maiden in any way, she merely puts up with her appearance in the Vale and agrees to Littlefinger's plans. If she has any role in Sansa's Bael story, that's a typical supporting role with no relevance to any key positions. 

Agreed on Lysa--the echo is simpler if Baelish (Martin did get really cute with that name) is the echo.

As I said above, in the Knight of the Laughing tree story, the intent belongs to the King (as far as the limited info we have gives us). Then, we get Baelish--not a King, but using a bard. For political gain in a plot involving a Stark maid--a plot we don't know all the way through, but which I highly suspect has at least something to do with a grudge against the Starks--and a Brandon.

But again--unlike Mance where the echo is clearish--Baelish's intent is driving things. He's using a bard, but he's driving the bus (assuming Westeros has buses). So--is Rhaegar the bard-prince driving things, or is this split also? Is Aerys using the bard-prince?

[Sly Wren]

A Tyrell rose who is said to look like Lyanna (the winter rose) is said to have been seduced by a blue bard who has some superficial connections with Bael the Bard. If we look at the story this way, we can actually conclude that the most basic ingredients of the archetypal Bael the Bard story are there, only they appear as lies. The Blue Bard story refers to the Bael the Bard story as -2 refers to +2. If we accept that Renly’s mistaken suggestion about Margaery’s similarity to Lyanna is enough to put Margaery into a Stark maiden role, if we accept that the bard’s outward blueness is enough to put him into a Bael role, then Cersei’s totally false accusation of the seduction must also be enough for us to say that we have the bard – Stark rose romance element in this version of the story as well. The Blue Bard is a lover in this version exactly the same way as Margaery is a Stark maiden / blue winter rose. 

I completely agrees that the Blue Bard story is false. Very specifically false. To steal from @Pretty Pig, a kind of inverted parallel.

A blue rose maid vs. a gold rose maid

The real daughter of Winterfell vs. her look alike

A real disappearance resulting in a baby vs. an imprisonment based on a complete lie

It's all false when compare to the Bael story.

But the intent to stick it to a rival is still there in both Bael and in the Blue Bard incident. So, who has the intent and who carries it out?

It seems to echo both Baelish and Aerys: Cersei is the one with the known intent. But the bard is the one who delivered the blow. Baelish's is indirect--he uses poor skeevy Marillion to get himself off of the hook.

But Cersei tortures the Bard into being the cudgel against a political rival.

From the very limited info we have on the giving of the roses, that giving is preceded by Aerys' anger over being insulted. And the bard prince gives the roses, not the insulted King. 

So--are we seeing the same thing in Rhaegar? Is he, too, the cudgel without the direct intent, of the wildfire loving ruler?

Does this innately preclude Rhaegar as being the child's father? Of course not. But the intent to steal the maid and leave a child--that's a key part of the Bael story. If the intent is not with the bard, and if, when the intent is not with the bard, there is no sex or baby (so far), would the pattern still hold in this symbol that Martin keeps giving us information on?

In short, can we use the Bael story as proof that Rhaegar is the father?

We need more data.