Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[Sly Wren]

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. 

We are working with incomplete data., 

But we definitely know that the King feels insulted by this northern-symboled knight. And is wroth that he can't find him

Am wondering if it echoes the scene when Lady is sentenced for a crime no one committed--in response to Arya's defense of her friend--which we now know echoes Lyanna's defense of Howland. "We have a wolf," says Cersei. She doesn't care about accuracy. She cares about impact. Based on what we know of Aerys (a tricky premise to star from), would he have cared about precision or impact?

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... 

Do we have any indication it did disappear? Last we hear--he's angry. And he's known to stew over his "rivals." If the World Book is right, he came to Harrenhal in part to stop people from plotting against him.

I agree that Aerys isn't Bael anywhere near as well as Mance is. But the story says the King Beyond the Wall is angry. The only potential backstory we get on those roses is the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Ned doesn't give us the story behind the crown. Just reacts to it. 

So, since Bael is acting in response to an insult to deliver a political blow, seems like we need to look for that intent. So far, the text gives that intent to Aerys. We've never been told what Rhaegar's intent might have been. Only that the Starks are angry.

If the blue rose is a Bael reference, seems like Bael's intent should be considered and looked for, too. At least until we have more data.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

We are working with incomplete data., 

But we definitely know that the King feels insulted by this northern-symboled knight. And is wroth that he can't find him

Am wondering if it echoes the scene when Lady is sentenced for a crime no one committed--in response to Arya's defense of her friend--which we now know echoes Lyanna's defense of Howland. "We have a wolf," says Cersei. She doesn't care about accuracy. She cares about impact. Based on what we know of Aerys (a tricky premise to star from), would he have cared about precision or impact?

That's the thing. In regards to what happened at Harrenhal, Aerys does not seem to have reacted..

 

Do we have any indication it did disappear? Last we hear--he's angry. And he's known to stew over his "rivals." If the World Book is right, he came to Harrenhal in part to stop people from plotting against him.

..Because we know who Aerys suspected of being the mystery knight (Jaime), and it would seem that nothing came from that suspicion.

 

I agree that Aerys isn't Bael anywhere near as well as Mance is. But the story says the King Beyond the Wall is angry. The only potential backstory we get on those roses is the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Ned doesn't give us the story behind the crown. Just reacts to it. 

So, since Bael is acting in response to an insult to deliver a political blow, seems like we need to look for that intent. So far, the text gives that intent to Aerys. We've never been told what Rhaegar's intent might have been. Only that the Starks are angry.

If the blue rose is a Bael reference, seems like Bael's intent should be considered and looked for, too. At least until we have more data.

I have to disagree that a similar intent is necessary for the parallel. It is possible that the intent was similar, sure, but absolutely not necessary. You mention Arya defending Mycah as an echo for Lyanna defending Howland.. But there are such clear differences between these two situations.. Both in how the situation begins, how it transpires, and what happens afterwards. 

Nothing in the text implies that whatever happened to Harrenhal made Aerys want to deliver a political blow.. Rhaegar, however, was intent to deliver a political blow, if rumours can be believed, by being intent on 'dealing with Aerys', in whatever way he wanted to do so. But the Stark maid does not seem to be involved in that..

[LmL]

Slywren, it's evidence, not proof. Nothing short of a paternity test or eyewitness account we can rely on is "proof." We are all talking about evidence here. The Bael story is very strong evidence of Rhaegar as the father, but it's not proof. When you combine Bael to all the other evidence and lines of inquiry, though, the evidence does start piling up pretty high. I personally don't think we "need more data" - I think King Monkey has shown that all the info we need is in the first book. All the rest of this stuff is icing on the cake - Ned's inner monologues are very strongly indicative on their own. And what is there to suggest anything else? That's the whole point of this project, I realize. But that's the bar to clear - is there any other parentage theory which has evidence to support it? 

[Sly Wren]

That's the thing. In regards to what happened at Harrenhal, Aerys does not seem to have reacted..

..Because we know who Aerys suspected of being the mystery knight (Jaime), and it would seem that nothing came from that suspicion.

I agree--the story ends before we ever find out whether or not Aerys figured out that a weirwood might not be a Casterly Rock reference, etc. We have a MASSIVE gap between the false spring of Harrenhal, and the return of the winter with Aerys lighting fires in King's Landing to magically drive away the winter while the World Book only tells us where Rhaegar isn't.

But we do know Aerys could stew over slights. And we have no evidence that Rhaegar was angry over the Harrenhal incident. We have no idea what he did or did not feel about it at all. In the Knight of the Laughing Tree tale, the bard part of Bael is Rhaegar, no doubt. But the only indication of Bael-like intent? Aerys.

Is this "proof?" Of course not. But in using the Bael story as support for Jon's paternity, seems like we should look for what fits--and what doesn't. And keep an eye out for where the clues might go next.

I have to disagree that a similar intent is necessary for the parallel. It is possible that the intent was similar, sure, but absolutely not necessary. You mention Arya defending Mycah as an echo for Lyanna defending Howland.. But there are such clear differences between these two situations.. Both in how the situation begins, how it transpires, and what happens afterwards.

But the intent was the driving force for the whole thing in Bael. The potential love story? A side note. So, skipping over it--why? Why should we not take notice that the key reason for why Bael does the whole thing is currently missing in the Rhaegar story? Could it be supplied in future? Of course. But right now, the only King in the area "wroth" over an insult is the King, not the bard prince.

Yes, there are differences in the Arya-Mycah mess. But very key similarities as well. And a big red circle around Lady's death. Jory's stunned when Ned insists on taking the wolf all the way back to Winterfell. The wolf of the Stark maid who is specifically pointed out as picking up where Lyanna was supposed to and marry the Baratheon heir. Sansa, before we are halfway through Game, has hit on Lyanna's very key plot points. With Arya's help, she's echoed the defense of Howland.

But she and Arya echo this together. And in this iteration, they get dragged before the king--and mad queen. And Sansa's wolf dies.

So why does Lady actually die? Spite. A future mad queen striking a blow. That's what gets the wolf-maid dead. Given Cersei's later echoes of Aerys--seems like we should pay attention to the intent that got the Lyanna echo dead.

Nothing in the text implies that whatever happened to Harrenhal made Aerys want to deliver a political blow.. Rhaegar, however, was intent to deliver a political blow, if rumours can be believed, by being intent on 'dealing with Aerys', in whatever way he wanted to do so. But the Stark maid does not seem to be involved in that..

I agree: Rhaegar does not seem likely to have used the Stark maid against his father. The intent against the Stark maid and her family for those roses is not given.

But the basic Bael story tells us those roses are part of a statement of spite and political one-upmanship against an enemy. Rhaegar does not seem to have such spite against his father. Let alone against the Starks. The King is the one wroth against a perceived enemy--though he doesn't yet know who it is..

So, is that it? Or do we just not have the rest of the story? One way or another, we don't have the rest of the story. We have a HUGE gap. Which can be filled multiple ways. But if we are using Bael as evidence--seems like we should pay attention to what's missing. 

[Sly Wren]

Slywren, it's evidence, not proof. Nothing short of a paternity test or eyewitness account we can rely on is "proof." We are all talking about evidence here. The Bael story is very strong evidence of Rhaegar as the father, but it's not proof. When you combine Bael to all the other evidence and lines of inquiry, though, the evidence does start piling up pretty high. I personally don't think we "need more data" - I think King Monkey has shown that all the info we need is in the first book. All the rest of this stuff is icing on the cake - Ned's inner monologues are very strongly indicative on their own. And what is there to suggest anything else? That's the whole point of this project, I realize. But that's the bar to clear - is there any other parentage theory which has evidence to support it? 

But if the rest of the books tell us different things about how the Bael story shows up--are we to ignore the evidence and stop reading? Why ignore the data, especially when we have so little?

I agree that book one proves a lot--it really supports the idea that Jon is Lyanna's son. But on the father? That relies on (among other things) what the roses mean. So--when Martin keeps giving us variants on the roses and the bards, why shouldn't we look at the variations and ask what this tells us?

As for the project: yes, I believe it's to examine which, if any, theories have evidence to support their idea re: Jon's paternity. But then that should apply to Rhaegar, too. How well does the evidence actually support this? And, if we ignore how the bards and roses are used in later books, can we really say how well the evidence has supported the theory if we are ignoring evidence?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

 

I agree--the story ends before we ever find out whether or not Aerys figured out that a weirwood might not be a Casterly Rock reference, etc. We have a MASSIVE gap between the false spring of Harrenhal, and the return of the winter with Aerys lighting fires in King's Landing to magically drive away the winter while the World Book only tells us where Rhaegar isn't.

But we do know Aerys could stew over slights. And we have no evidence that Rhaegar was angry over the Harrenhal incident. We have no idea what he did or did not feel about it at all. In the Knight of the Laughing Tree tale, the bard part of Bael is Rhaegar, no doubt. But the only indication of Bael-like intent? Aerys.

Is this "proof?" Of course not. But in using the Bael story as support for Jon's paternity, seems like we should look for what fits--and what doesn't. And keep an eye out for where the clues might go next.

 

But the intent was the driving force for the whole thing in Bael. The potential love story? A side note. So, skipping over it--why? Why should we not take notice that the key reason for why Bael does the whole thing is currently missing in the Rhaegar story? Could it be supplied in future? Of course. But right now, the only King in the area "wroth" over an insult is the King, not the bard prince.

Yes there are differences in the Arya Mycah mess. But very key similarities as well. And a big red circle around Lady's death. Jory's stunned when Ned insists on taking the wolf all the way back to Winterfell. The wolf of the Stark maid who is specifically pointed out as picking up where Lyanna was supposed to and marry the Baratheon heir. Sansa, before we are halfway through Game, has hit on Lyanna's very key plot points. With Arya's help, she's done the defense of Howland. And her wolf dies.

So why does Lady actually die? Spite. A future mad queen striking a blow. That's what gets the wolf-maid dead. Given Cersei's later echoes of Aerys--seems like we should pay attention to the intent that got the Lyanna echo dead.

I agree: Rhaegar does not seem likely to have used the Stark maid against his father. The intent against the Stark maid and her family for those roses is not given.

But the basic Bael story tells us those roses are part of a statement of spite and political one-upmanship against an enemy. Rhaegar does not seem to have such spite against his father. Let alone against the Starks. The King is the one wroth against a perceived enemy--though he doesn't yet know who it is..

So, is that it? Or do we just not have the rest of the story? One way or another, we don't have the rest of the story. We have a HUGE gap. Which can be filled multiple ways. But if we are using Bael as evidence--seems like we should pay attention to what's missing. 

Was it? Bael went to Winterfell, with the intent of stealing a Stark maiden. Does it matter why he wanted to steal the Stark maiden? For his own story, but for a parallel? Perhaps not that much. The thing that matters, is that the Stark maiden was stolen, and indeed, that is exactly what Rhaegar did, and in all likeliness, for completely different reasons than that Bael stole his own Stark maiden many years before.

The importance, first and foremost, is in what Bael did, not in why he did it. That's secondary, and while it might be important for Bael's own story, we cannot and should not assume that it must have been a similar intent that played a role in Lyanna's disappearance.

After all, all of the echo's you've pointed out, are similar only in their rough lines, not in the details. Bael's intent (taking revenge) is such a detail. Why assume that this parallel has to be a perfect one while the other ones clearly aren't, when we look at detail? 

Bael's story wasn't a love story, and I personally still believe that Rhaegar's story with Lyanna didn't start out as a love story either. In fact, we learn that, while the Stark girl came to love Bael (or perhaps she had already fallen in love with him before he 'stole' her, we're not told), and did still thirty years later, Bael's feelings regarding the girl are left unspoken. And while Rhaegar apparently did find joy in some way with Lyanna (hence him naming the tower), it is yet to be determined whether it was because he fell in love for the first time, or whether he believed he was about to fullfill a prophecy (by having Lyanna become pregnant), or perhaps even another reason.

[Sly Wren]

Was it? Bael went to Winterfell, with the intent of stealing a Stark maiden. Does it matter why he wanted to steal the Stark maiden? For his own story, but for a parallel? Perhaps not that much. The thing that matters, is that the Stark maiden was stolen, and indeed, that is exactly what Rhaegar did, and in all likeliness, for completely different reasons than that Bael stole his own Stark maiden many years before.

The importance, first and foremost, is in what Bael did, not in why he did it. That's secondary, and while it might be important for Bael's own story, we cannot and should not assume that it must have been a similar intent that played a role in Lyanna's disappearance.

But it really seems like the intent is the point; the maid-napping is secondary:

QUOTE: "The Stark in Winterfell wanted Bael's head, but never could take him, and the taste o' failure galled him. One day in his bitterness he called Bael a craven who preyed only on the weak. When word o' that got back, Bael vowed to teach the lord a lesson. So he scaled the Wall, skipped down the kingsroad, and walked into Winterfell one winter's night with harp in hand, naming himself Sygerrik of Skagos. Sygerrik means 'deceiver' in the Old Tongue, that the First Men spoke, and the giants still speak." Clash, Jon VI.

Sounds like the "teach the lord a lesson" is the plan that drives him. In direct response to the insult. And, when it's all done, Bael leaves the maid with the babe. The vengeance/lesson is taking the daughter and returning her. Taking the Stark in Winterfell's daughter against the will of the Stark and sending her back "defiled" and with a baby.

Not just taking the girl.

Really seems like the impetus is the intent to stick it to an enemy. And the taking of the Stark maid is merely the methodology.

After all, all of the echo's you've pointed out, are similar only in their rough lines, not in the details. Bael's intent (taking revenge) is such a detail. Why assume that this parallel has to be a perfect one while the other ones clearly aren't, when we look at detail? 

In relation to Lyanna, to the dead wolf maid, I think intent matters because we're shown the echo of Lyanna's death and return to Winterfell in Lady. Martin makes a big fuss of it. And makes sure we note that taking Lady back to Winterfell is a very strange thing to do. And, in this case, the death of the wolf-maid is due to spite. To sticking it to an enemy, and those the mad queen despises.

So, seems like given the motive in the Bael story really is the driving force, and given that echo in Game has the wolf-maid dying innocently of spite--seems like paying attention to the motive matters. Especially since the text has not given us Rhaegar's motive for crowning Lyanna yet.

Bael's story wasn't a love story, and I personally still believe that Rhaegar's story with Lyanna didn't start out as a love story either. In fact, we learn that, while the Stark girl came to love Bael (or perhaps she had already fallen in love with him before he 'stole' her, we're not told), and did still thirty years later, Bael's feelings regarding the girl are left unspoken. And while Rhaegar apparently did find joy in some way with Lyanna (hence him naming the tower), it is yet to be determined whether it was because he fell in love for the first time, or whether he believed he was about to fullfill a prophecy (by having Lyanna become pregnant), or perhaps even another reason.

Very possible that Lyanna could have fallen in love with Rhaegar. 

But, as you say, the feelings of Bael are undefined. His intent and his leaving are clear. So, if we're going to use Bael as part of the evidence for Jon's paternity and the roses, seems like we need to at least keep that intent in mind. And, as for Rhaegar's intent, we only have potentials. The ones you list would be a departure from Bael, too. Though we don't have all the data yet.

On the love story: will repeat a point I made over on the Arthur thread: while Arya's often seen as like Lyanna, and she echoes Lyanna in the defense of Mycah, so far it really seems like it's Sansa who's echoing some of Lyanna's major plot points and imagery. Seems like we should pay attention to Sansa when looking for hints re: what happened between Harrenhal and death.

And so far, Sansa's no longer interested in a prince. And has been accosted by the bard that called her a rose--only saved by a knight.

[J. Stargaryen]

 

Its all "straightforward" that part of the problem for a mystery slated to be one only astute readers can pick up.First if you thinking my use of the word reaching was to offensive i meant no disrespect by that.Only that from where i sit you added 1+1 and came up with 4.I think the quality of my arguements are spot on and if you want to ignore it by using insults that's fine.So let's get down to what you raised shall we.

You've had at least two arguments refuted in these threads. If you're happy with those results, good for you.

A couple of points you raised with Rhaegar's lance re: Maypole i'm going to talk about first.

Believe me i've wanted to use this in my essay but i can't in all good concious use it.I've said this before and i'll say it again until i'm told a specific difference that's what i will hold to. There is a way GRRM writes imo that makes his voice very identifiable.That bit of info in the WB about Rhaegar having the Queen's laurel at the end of his lance is one bit of info that is contradictory to the main text and i believe that bit of addition is courtesy of the Elio and Linda.That is a huge bit of info that Ned's recollection of that day doesn't give us and it comes off as out of place and just added on.I know GRRM had some input in that he wrote some things,said somethings are ok which doesn't change his clues anyway but that bit of information next to the main text doesn't ring as cohesive. I could be wrong as i said it doesn't change the meaning so no skin off my back.That being said....

You're mistaken. Elio stated that the False Spring section was all GRRM. In fact, I believe he posted this in one of the Heresy threads.

A bit of info about the Maypole and what that symbolizes ,you can take this from someone in the tradition and have been for 20yrs or not. Pole penis,circlet vagina so far so good .The maypole and the circlet together symbolizes the sacred marriage having taken place.That is the meaning.In other words sex between the maiden goddess and the young horned god has happened.It goes way beyond saying oh a lance that means penis,oh a circlet of flowers that means vagina.

I don't dispute that this is an interpretation, but I think GRRM is playing with the Beltane symbolism rather than applying it in such a straightforward manner. By having Rhaegar win the tournament, then crown and later kidnap Lyanna, Rhaegar is replacing Robert as the man in this equation. Basically, I think the Beltane symbolism mirrors what we already think: it was supposed to be Robert and Lyanna, but Rhaegar stole her. GRRM is essentially inserting the 'dragon kidnaps the princess' trope into the Beltane symbolism.

[LmL]

If you have to fall back on impugning the integrity of TWOIAF, which is full canon, to make your arguments... you need a new argument. I simply won't have counter-factual slandering of TWOIAF going on without calling BS. George wrote almost all of it, and the only parts written by E & L are the parts which are simply summarizing from the books, and had been carefully reviewed by George. TWOIAF has George's authorial name on it, and has been declared canon, "one of the published books." Period, end of story. If your theory conflicts with TWOIAF, the problem is with your theory. 

[corbon]

If you have to fall back on impugning the integrity of TWOIAF, which is full canon, to make your arguments... you need a new argument. I simply won't have counter-factual slandering of TWOIAF going on without calling BS. George wrote almost all of it, and the only parts written by E & L are the parts which are simply summarizing from the books, and had been carefully reviewed by George. TWOIAF has George's authorial name on it, and has been declared canon, "one of the published books." Period, end of story. If your theory conflicts with TWOIAF, the problem is with your theory. 

Except that there is some clear evidence of maesterial bias inside TWoIaF...
In other words, its not entirely reliable just as we don't take reliable us being told clearly and explicitly that Joffrey is Robert's son. When things in TWoIaF contradict or are contradicted by the main text, we have to assess the sources, just as we do when we get contradictory (or in some cases even un-contradicted data, eg Barristan's belief in Ashara having stillborn baby girl).
Not claiming yay or nay in this particular case, just saying TWoIaF needs to be treated as a potentially suspect source just the same as any other. Maester Yandel comes with his own biases and need to shape the material for his audience, on top of the biases inherent in however he got the material.

[Melifeather]

I agree with what Corbon said above, and he phrased it very well.

The World of Ice and Fire is a history book written by a Maester Yandel for King Robert, so it needs to be viewed in that light and not as an encyclopedic companion book for the ASOIAF series. WeaselPie has written back and forth with GRRM regarding the World book and has a response from George that says, and I quote, "Semi-canon is good. The World book is pretty damn close to canon... but since it was written by maesters, errors and omissions have crept in."  (sorry, WeaselPie if I'm stealing your thunder)

 

[J. Stargaryen]

Except that there is some clear evidence of maesterial bias inside TWoIaF...In other words, its not entirely reliable just as we don't take reliable us being told clearly and explicitly that Joffrey is Robert's son. When things in TWoIaF contradict or are contradicted by the main text, we have to assess the sources, just as we do when we get contradictory (or in some cases even un-contradicted data, eg Barristan's belief in Ashara having stillborn baby girl).
Not claiming yay or nay in this particular case, just saying TWoIaF needs to be treated as a potentially suspect source just the same as any other. Maester Yandel comes with his own biases and need to shape the material for his audience, on top of the biases inherent in however he got the material.

LmL can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think he's saying TWoIaF contains objective truths. But rather, that people shouldn't be dismissive of it because it contradicts their ideas. Or possibly, that people shouldn't try to pass off the bits they don't like as stuff Elio and Linda wrote, as an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of that information.

[LmL]

Except that there is some clear evidence of maesterial bias inside TWoIaF...In other words, its not entirely reliable just as we don't take reliable us being told clearly and explicitly that Joffrey is Robert's son. When things in TWoIaF contradict or are contradicted by the main text, we have to assess the sources, just as we do when we get contradictory (or in some cases even un-contradicted data, eg Barristan's belief in Ashara having stillborn baby girl).
Not claiming yay or nay in this particular case, just saying TWoIaF needs to be treated as a potentially suspect source just the same as any other. Maester Yandel comes with his own biases and need to shape the material for his audience, on top of the biases inherent in however he got the material.

TWOIAF is subject to the same unreliable narrator that all the rest of the canon is. It's no different. 

[LmL]

LmL can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think he's saying TWoIaF contains objective truths. But rather, that people shouldn't be dismissive of it because it contradicts their ideas. Or possibly, that people shouldn't try to pass off the bits they don't like as stuff Elio and Linda wrote, as an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of that information.

That is exactly my point. Everyone understands the maesterly bias. Everyone. Let's not conflate "canon" - which means the authentic works of the author - and the literary tool know as the "unreliable narrator" which George uses in every chapter of every book.

Any attempt to undermine the information contained because of Elio and Linda's involvement is totally off base. That's my point. I'm sick of seeing people say shit that is simply wrong, and can be easily verified. There's no excuse at this point for not understanding what the deal is with TWOIAF. Wolfmaid's attempt to discredit the rose crown on the Lance  by claiming E & L put it in erroneously  is total bullshit, and I'm calling her on it. Make your case without trying to change the text of the canonical works, thanks very much. 

[corbon]

TWOIAF is subject to the same unreliable narrator that all the rest of the canon is. It's no different. 

Agreed. Just trying to be extra clear here, because what you said could be construed as saying something slightly different. Mainly by those who want to mis-construe it of course, but still.

That is exactly my point. Everyone understands the maesterly bias. Everyone. Let's not conflate "canon" - which means the authentic works of the author - and the literary tool know as the "unreliable narrator" which George uses in every chapter of every book.

Well put.

Wolfmaid's attempt to discredit the rose crown on the Lance  by claiming E & L put it in erroneously  is total bullshit, and I'm calling her on it. Make your case without trying to change the text of the canonical works, thanks very much. 

I'm just as interested in her actual claim that its contradictory with the base text. I cant see how?

That bit of info in the WB about Rhaegar having the Queen's laurel at the end of his lance is one bit of info that is contradictory to the main text

 

How so?
Robert had been jesting with Jon and old Lord Hunter as the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion's crown. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty's laurel in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

Is there something other than this you are referring to?
The prince unhorses Ser Barristan in the final tilt. He then circles the field to claim the crown. He then urges his horse past Elia to lay the crown in Lyanna's lap.
Nothing there that says the crown is not on the end of his lance - indeed, thats about the only way a man on a horse can lay something in a seated woman's lap!

 

and i believe that bit of addition is courtesy of the Elio and Linda.That is a huge bit of info that Ned's recollection of that day doesn't give us and it comes off as out of place and just added on.

Information given does not contradict a gap in information.
Ned gave us almost nothing about that day.
And if you think that the crown being on the tip of Rhaegar's lance when he laid it in Lyanna's lap is 'out of place', then your feel for 'place' needs a massive overhaul.

[purple-eyes]

Nothing there that says the crown is not on the end of his lance - indeed, thats about the only way a man on a horse can lay something in a seated woman's lap!

 

To be accurate, it depends on where Lyanna was sitting. 

Imagine a football field. if she was on the first row, then Rhaegar does not need to use a long lance to place the garland. 

By the way, in my imagination, it is a quite dangerous thing to place a flower wreath on somebody's lap using a 14 feet lance while you are riding on a horse. Do they really do this in real middle ages? using a long lance's tip to put a flower on the lap?

Lyanna may be stabbed or heavily hit by the lance very easily. 

Any small movement of Rhaegar's hand would become a very big movement of the lance tip so that Lyanna's lap would be in big trouble. 

 

[corbon]

To be accurate, it depends on where Lyanna was sitting. 

Imagine a football field. if she was on the first row, then Rhaegar does not need to use a long lance to place the garland. 

Must have reeeally long arms then. That'll please the haters - Orangu-Rhaegar!

By the way, in my imagination, it is a quite dangerous thing to place a flower wreath on somebody's lap using a 14 feet lance while you are riding on a horse. Do they really do this in real middle ages? using a long lance's tip to put a flower on the lap?

Lyanna may be stabbed or heavily hit by the lance very easily. 

Any small movement of Rhaegar's hand would become a very big movement of the lance tip so that Lyanna's lap would be in big trouble. 

 

Its a blunted tourney lance and these guys are used to hitting small moving targets from horseback. The ability to hold the lance steady under much more difficult (and stressful) circumstance is one of their primary skills.
I'll back what the text says over your imagination...

[Lady Dyanna]

That is exactly my point. Everyone understands the maesterly bias. Everyone. Let's not conflate "canon" - which means the authentic works of the author - and the literary tool know as the "unreliable narrator" which George uses in every chapter of every book.

Any attempt to undermine the information contained because of Elio and Linda's involvement is totally off base. That's my point. I'm sick of seeing people say shit that is simply wrong, and can be easily verified. There's no excuse at this point for not understanding what the deal is with TWOIAF. Wolfmaid's attempt to discredit the rose crown on the Lance  by claiming E & L put it in erroneously  is total bullshit, and I'm calling her on it. Make your case without trying to change the text of the canonical works, thanks very much. 

Just as an Fyi. There was a recent email correspondence with GRRM via his NAB in which GRRM, himself states that the World Book is not canon, even if it is very close.

[purple-eyes]

Must have reeeally long arms then. That'll please the haters - Orangu-Rhaegar!

Its a blunted tourney lance and these guys are used to hitting small moving targets from horseback. The ability to hold the lance steady under much more difficult (and stressful) circumstance is one of their primary skills.
I'll back what the text says over your imagination...

Honestly it is way much easier to hit something small in a really quick and hard manner (jousting) but it is much harder to keep something slow and steady (positioning a garland on a lance tip onto somebody's lap). That is decided by the physiological mechanism of human body. In other words, it is much easier for Rhaegar to hit Lyanna's lap using lance (he was trained to do this type of quick movement), than to put a flower by the tip of the lance onto her lap slowly and accurately. 

Which may be part of the reason even the world book did not paint Rhaegar place a garland on her lap, only in front of her. 

because it is not very likely to happen in the reality and it looks funny too. 

If you visit a dentist, you will know they always need a anchoring point somewhere to support their working hand. 

It is impossible for hand to keep very steady without anchorage. you can try to see if you can keep your hand very steady without any supporting point. It is impossible. Unfortunately, in rhaegar's case, he has no anchorage at all. 

And the lance is super long, so a small vibration of wrist (unavoidable) will be a big trouble for Lyanna. 

And if you imagine how rhaegar can make the garland fall to Lyanna's lap after he managed to send it to her, it is even more impossible. 

To have that small downward tilting of the lance, Rhaegar needs to lift his lance very tall. If Lyanna somehow sat at a higher position, that will be incredibly hard to do. 

I know this is a fantasy book, so Rhaegar can do whatever he wants to do, he can even blow that wreath to Lyanna's lap by his breath, 

but I do feel it is unlikely to happen physically that he used a 14 feet lance tip to place a garland on her lap. 

I do not have text supporting me, but I have science in the back. 

 

[LmL]

Just as an Fyi. There was a recent email correspondence with GRRM via his NAB in which GRRM, himself states that the World Book is not canon, even if it is very close.

DO you have a link to that?

People use "canon" in different ways sometimes. Technically, it means "the authentic works of the author." But sometimes it's used to mean "the things in the story we know for a fact." In the second sense, TWOIAF is not canon, just as when Lady Catelyn recalls the story of Durran Durrandon to us in AGOT, it's not canon. It's her memory of a folktale from thousands of years ago. That's the story she knows, we take it fwiw. It's the same with TWOIAF - it represents the masterly knowledge, with masterly bias, and I think it was a great idea to write it like that, and a lot of fun for us to think about how they might be shaping certain events or whatnot. I'd be curious to see the quote, to see in what sense he's using it. Because he's also said the canon is all the published works - meaning D & E and TWOIAF as well as the five novels. I know that wrote almost all of it, putting a lot of effort into it. It's not some extra bullshit coffee table thing he did. It represents George feeding us more information and in some cases clues about important events and people in the story. The fact that Elio and Linda assisted him - chiefly in compiling the information which was scattered about the novels, which is exactly what they are known for with the wiki - is simply not grounds to impugn the integrity of the information.  

When it comes to the rose laurel on the lance, that's a publicly witnessed event. There's no reason to suspect any sort of masterly revisionist history - this is a very memorable event, witnessed by hundreds if not a few thousand people. If it says the laurel was on the lance, it was on the lance. There's absolutely no grounds to say "i believe that bit of addition is courtesy of the Elio and Linda.That is a huge bit of info that Ned's recollection of that day doesn't give us and it comes off as out of place and just added on. No, not at all. We already knew he placed it in her lap, now we know exactly how. It's a very small detail, quite frankly. 

Bottom line, playing the "Elio and Linda wrote that and they are wrong" card is just suuuuuper weak. I can think of other words but I'll leave it at that. I mean... the places this anti-RLJ stuff will go, the backflips involved to make it not so... we need to see better than the above.