Not Confirmed

[Shortspear Rick]

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

 

Because of Dawn and the Sword of the Morning.

The first fight against the White Walkers was to end The Long Night. The Battle for the Dawn.

The Sword of the Morning wielding the sword Dawn--that really sounds like a key player in the upcoming Battle for the Dawn.

In the World Book, the Daynes are as old if not older than the Starks, have been in Westeros even longer. Their sword and the title of Sword of the Morning go back millennia. And there's a strong case to be made that the title originates with the Battle for the Dawn. 

And Dawn, according to the World Book, can only be wielded by a Dayne who is deemed "worthy" by House Dayne to wield it. Otherwise, according to an SSM from Martin, "Dawn remains at Starfall until another Sword of the Morning shall arise." 

Which really makes it sound like another Sword of the Morning will rise in this story. If Jon's a Dayne--he's our boy.

And the gut punch, the horror that Ned killed Arthur in a way that sickens Bran--the man that Jon idealizes and loves as his father actually killed his real father--that sounds like an emotional misery Martin would LOVE to put his characters and his readers through.

Please tell me anything that would actually link Arthur Dayne to bedding Lyanna and being Jon's father. I'll save you the time. There is zero evidence for it other than the mindless "shipping" of contrarian fans. Everything you just posted leads to a conclusion that the sword Dawn should play a role against battling the White Walkers. Nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to connect to Jon Snow aside from the fact you desperately want him to be a Dayne and refuse to accept Rhaegar as his father. Get over it and look at the facts instead of merely ignoring facts and going on what you think would be cool to see. 2+2=4 and R+L=J. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean your fan fiction has any bearing in reality. 

[Asvpxkvng]

2 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Wasn't it Howland Reed that stabbed Dayne from behind? I only watched the scene once but thought it was Reed who got up after being injured that stuck Dayne in the back.

Also, all the legend surrounding Dawn is great and all, but it's all book stuff. I don't recall much if any backstory or foreshadowing regarding Dawn's importance in the show, especially when compared to all the hints and inferences concerning Rhaegar.

^This. All I'm saying in a nutshell. Makes no sense for it to be Arthur. In the show anyway.

[J. Stargaryen]

19 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

In the second episode, Robert says he will kill every Targaryen he can get his hands on because of what Rhaegar did to the woman he loved.  Very similar scene in the books. He may use politics as an excuse, but Robert wants Targs dead not for smart politics, but for vengeance, rage, grief and loss. 

But that's not quite what he says. Ned says the murder of Daenerys would be unspeakable. Then Robert says that what Aerys did to Rickard and Brandon was unspeakable, and what Rhaegar did to Lyanna was unspeakable, and then says he'll kill every Targaryen he can get his hands on.

I'm sure we all agree the main reason Robert hates the Targaryens is because of what he thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna. But you can't ignore what Aerys did leading up to the rebellion. Even if you could convince him that Arthur was every bit the monster he believed Rhaegar was, it was still Aerys who had Rickard and Brandon executed, as well as everyone else that was with them. And it was still Aerys who demanded his head. He has legitimate reasons for hating the Targaryens. In fact, personally, I find Ned's attitude towards the Targaryens to be the more curious of the two. (Maybe it's because he's been raising one. shh. )

The point being, this isn't just about what Robert thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna, even if it's mostly about that. Some of that anger stems from what Aerys did. So Robert's hatred of Targaryens is not just something that can be fully transferred to Arthur and his house. Because even if Rhaegar wasn't guilty, Aerys was.

[Sly Wren]

19 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Wasn't it Howland Reed that stabbed Dayne from behind? I only watched the scene once but thought it was Reed who got up after being injured that stuck Dayne in the back.

Yup. But then Ned picks up Arthur's sword and strikes the killing blow, while Bran looks on sickened and horrified.

19 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Also, all the legend surrounding Dawn is great and all, but it's all book stuff. I don't recall much if any backstory or foreshadowing regarding Dawn's importance in the show, especially when compared to all the hints and inferences concerning Rhaegar.

Agreed--the books are much more layered and nuanced. The show did a lot fast and dirty in that scene. But they also told us, fast and dirty, that Arthur's death matters--just like Hodor's being able to talk ended up being gut-wrenchingly important.

So far, they haven't told us why Arthur's death matters.

[Sly Wren]

18 hours ago, Shortspear Rick said:

Please tell me anything that would actually link Arthur Dayne to bedding Lyanna and being Jon's father.

In the show? Sure: when Ned comes into the tower, the camera focuses on the sword he's carrying--Arthur's sword with that silly insignia--as Ned goes through the door. The sword is at the center of the shot. Clear and obvious.

Then, Ned goes to Lyanna, but not before the camera focuses on his putting Arthur's bloody sword at the foot of Lyanna's bloody bed. The sword's insignia is in focus with Lyanna, all bloody, out of focus in the back ground. Clear and obvious.

Loud, obvious, and Freudian: Arthur's bloody "sword" is directly tied to Lyanna's bloody bed and childbirth.

A more nuanced dick joke than the showrunners normally do, but still: loud, obvious, Freudian--just the way the showrunners like their symbolism. 

As for Rhaegar's tie to Lyanna in the show--we get statements from Robert and Ned, from Cersei about Robert, from Bran about the kidnapping in season one. Then from Oberyn in season 4.

But in season 5, back in the crypts, they have Baelish roll his eyes VERY obviously (they do like obvious) when Sansa recites the standard story of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Telling us, very obviously, that something is off with the tale.

What's off with the tale? So far, all they've flat out shown us are the tower flashbacks. They haven't fully explained why those discrepancies matter, but they drew big red circles around Arthur's death, Arthur's sword, and the bloody bed with Arthur's sword at its foot. 

[Sly Wren]

3 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

But that's not quite what he says. Ned says the murder of Daenerys would be unspeakable. Then Robert says that what Aerys did to Rickard and Brandon was unspeakable, and what Rhaegar did to Lyanna was unspeakable, and then says he'll kill every Targaryen he can get his hands on.

HA! All true. But in this scene, he's trying to get Ned on his side. 

Still, his true rage comes out only after he brings up Lyanna.

And, since we're parsing scenes, in the first scene in the crypt, after he says he kills Rhaegar every night, Ned says "the Targaryens are gone." But Robert responds, "not all of them." And the show then cuts to Dany.

The clear implication being: Robert is mourning Lyanna (no other deaths are mentioned) and that drives his willingness to kill other Targs.

3 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The point being, this isn't just about what Robert thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna, even if it's mostly about that. Some of that anger stems from what Aerys did. So Robert's hatred of Targaryens is not just something that can be fully transferred to Arthur and his house. Because even if Rhaegar wasn't guilty, Aerys was.

I agree--Aerys is a contributing factor. Especially in Robert's attempts to persuade Ned.

But the scene in the crypts, Robert's devotion to Lyanna: hating Rhaegar and all Targs for taking Lyanna from him--that hatred could absolutely be transferred to any other man. That scene's angst could work for any man Lyanna loved.

[Shortspear Rick]

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

In the show? Sure: when Ned comes into the tower, the camera focuses on the sword he's carrying--Arthur's sword with that silly insignia--as Ned goes through the door. The sword is at the center of the shot. Clear and obvious.

Then, Ned goes to Lyanna, but not before the camera focuses on his putting Arthur's bloody sword at the foot of Lyanna's bloody bed. The sword's insignia is in focus with Lyanna, all bloody, out of focus in the back ground. Clear and obvious.

Loud, obvious, and Freudian: Arthur's bloody "sword" is directly tied to Lyanna's bloody bed and childbirth.

A more nuanced dick joke than the showrunners normally do, but still: loud, obvious, Freudian--just the way the showrunners like their symbolism. 

As for Rhaegar's tie to Lyanna in the show--we get statements from Robert and Ned, from Cersei about Robert, from Bran about the kidnapping in season one. Then from Oberyn in season 4.

But in season 5, back in the crypts, they have Baelish roll his eyes VERY obviously (they do like obvious) when Sansa recites the standard story of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Telling us, very obviously, that something is off with the tale.

What's off with the tale? So far, all they've flat out shown us are the tower flashbacks. They haven't fully explained why those discrepancies matter, but they drew big red circles around Arthur's death, Arthur's sword, and the bloody bed with Arthur's sword at its foot. 

Ok, so, you're using the shots of the sword as your evidence? You mean the same sword about which you only know anything due to details in the books? The same sword that anyone unfamiliar with would have no frame of reference for and instead be paying attention to Ned and Lyanna? Whatever makes you sleep at night. Have you ever heard of an easter egg? You know, something that a filmmaker will slip in as a clever wink to fans... If the Dawn of the show is such an important and pivotal piece then why did Arthur Dayne respec as a fury warrior and go dual-wield? 

And the Littlefinger glance in the crypts? You seriously believe that "Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna but Arthur was the one who was banging her" is more likely than "Rhaegar didn't kidnap and rape her, they eloped"? Sure, lets all just forget about every single other scrap of evidence including how they made it a point of nearly half the kingsguard including the lord commander be at the TOJ for some apparently random reason. Go ahead and keep living in a fantasy world where you can ignore everything but details that serve the purpose of your fan fiction. Anyone with any capability for rational thought will tell you that the kid is Rhaegar's. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck but you saw a random chicken feather on the ground next to it I guess it must be a chicken. That's your logic. It is silly and ignorant.

[J. Stargaryen]

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

HA! All true. But in this scene, he's trying to get Ned on his side.

My point was that the scene is not quite as you presented it.

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Still, his true rage comes out only after he brings up Lyanna.

And, since we're parsing scenes, in the first scene in the crypt, after he says he kills Rhaegar every night, Ned says "the Targaryens are gone." But Robert responds, "not all of them." And the show then cuts to Dany.

The clear implication being: Robert is mourning Lyanna (no other deaths are mentioned) and that drives his willingness to kill other Targs.

I think the clearest implications were that the show was setting up a future story line, and introducing a character.

And again, I'm sure we all agree -- I know I do -- that Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was primarily driven by what he thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna.

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

I agree--Aerys is a contributing factor. Especially in Robert's attempts to persuade Ned.

But the scene in the crypts, Robert's devotion to Lyanna: hating Rhaegar and all Targs for taking Lyanna from him--that hatred could absolutely be transferred to any other man. That scene's angst could work for any man Lyanna loved.

Perhaps. But that hatred is based on what he believes Rhaegard did to Lyanna. Namely, raping her hundreds of times. It's a believable-enough story, especially when you look at the Targaryen reputation for doing as they pleased and getting away with it. Robert thinks Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. Partially because he needs to, but also partially because it's the sort of thing you might expect from a family who fought a holy war over the right to marry their sisters. Nor would it have helped the Targaryen image that the current monarch was rightly known as the Mad King. The point being, would Robert have believed that the chivalrous Arthur Dayne could repeatedly rape his beloved Lyanna, like he believes Rhaegar did? I can't rule it out, of course, but it seems a lot less likely to me.

[CrypticWeirwood]

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Yup. But then Ned picks up Arthur's sword and strikes the killing blow, while Bran looks on sickened and horrified.

That's arguable. Dayne was mortally wounded and helpless. Instead of letting him cruelly suffer, Lord Stark dispatched Ser Arthur with the gift of mercy. Horrible though this may initially appear, it was the honorable thing to do at the this point; consider the contrary proposition.

[Rory Snow]

14 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

In the show? Sure: when Ned comes into the tower, the camera focuses on the sword he's carrying--Arthur's sword with that silly insignia--as Ned goes through the door. The sword is at the center of the shot. Clear and obvious.

Then, Ned goes to Lyanna, but not before the camera focuses on his putting Arthur's bloody sword at the foot of Lyanna's bloody bed. The sword's insignia is in focus with Lyanna, all bloody, out of focus in the back ground. Clear and obvious.

Loud, obvious, and Freudian: Arthur's bloody "sword" is directly tied to Lyanna's bloody bed and childbirth.

Obvious? Sorry, not so much. It may be somewhat obvious to someone with prior book knowledge of the sword and who is looking for anything Dawn related. But for a show watcher, the sword holds little importance, and what little it has is whitewashed away the moment Arthur Dayne draws a second blade. Given that the scene was split over 2 episodes and 2 months of real time, it's actually quite easy to lose track of the fact that Ned grabbed Dawn at all, which makes the placement of Dawn inside the ToJ even less obvious.

You make an impassioned argument I'll grant you that, but your lack of objectivity makes it less convincing. It's akin to going to a trial but only listening to the defense lawyer while being told the prosecution doesn't even exist.

[Cron]

Regarding the possibility that Jon is the son of Arthur Dayne:

I don't want to seem like I'm taking sides in a biased way (cuz I'm not), BUT...

...it seems extremely unlikely to me.

(a)  We have strong evidence, over multiple books and dozens of shows, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in a mutually consensual relationship.  Among many other things, Oberyn Martell was openly talking in Season 4 about how Rhaegar left Elia for another woman, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of information that makes many here (including me) believe Lyanna and Rhaegar were in love, and Lyanna was NOT kidnapped, but rather, went with him willingly.  The idea that somehow she was impregnated by Arthur Dayne while this was going on seems extremely unlikely to me.

(b)  Perhaps the most compelling evidence of all:   Arthur Dayne and the others were at the Tower of Joy to protect Lyanna based on Rhaegar's orders. In fact, Dayne and the others missed the battle at the Trident because of it  That is heavy, heavy stuff, and I don't think Rhaegar would have (or did) order them to do that to protect Arthur Dayne's mistress and illegitimate child.  No, I think the only reason Rhaegar would have done that is b/c the people at the TOJ were more important to Rhaegar than his own life, and that's gotta mean Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love, and Jon is Rhaegar's son.

[ShadowKitteh]

21 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

But that's not quite what he says. Ned says the murder of Daenerys would be unspeakable. Then Robert says that what Aerys did to Rickard and Brandon was unspeakable, and what Rhaegar did to Lyanna was unspeakable, and then says he'll kill every Targaryen he can get his hands on.

I'm sure we all agree the main reason Robert hates the Targaryens is because of what he thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna. But you can't ignore what Aerys did leading up to the rebellion. Even if you could convince him that Arthur was every bit the monster he believed Rhaegar was, it was still Aerys who had Rickard and Brandon executed, as well as everyone else that was with them. And it was still Aerys who demanded his head. He has legitimate reasons for hating the Targaryens. In fact, personally, I find Ned's attitude towards the Targaryens to be the more curious of the two. (Maybe it's because he's been raising one. shh. )

The point being, this isn't just about what Robert thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna, even if it's mostly about that. Some of that anger stems from what Aerys did. So Robert's hatred of Targaryens is not just something that can be fully transferred to Arthur and his house. Because even if Rhaegar wasn't guilty, Aerys was.

I think the biggest reason Robert hated Rhaegar was because hew knew, deep down, that Lyanna loved him. That a Targaryen stole the heart of the woman he loved, and of course, it was all about his own ego.

How dare Lyanna love anyone but him. How dare she not love him. What Rhaegar did was rape Robert's ego, hence the giant overreaction about killing all the Targaryens everywhere. Because "what Rhaegar did to [Lyanna] was unspeakable." Especially to someone as borderline NPD as Robert Baratheon ended up being.

[ShadowKitteh]

14 hours ago, Shortspear Rick said:

 If the Dawn of the show is such an important and pivotal piece then why did Arthur Dayne respec as a fury warrior and go dual-wield? 

 

  

I just hope BM Hunters aren't as broken as I hear they are..... and I hope Tuesday doesn't kill my computer.

And totally agree with the rest of your post.

[Sly Wren]

On July 16, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Shortspear Rick said:

Ok, so, you're using the shots of the sword as your evidence?

Since the thread is about whether or not RLJ was confirmed in the show, I assumed you meant you wanted evidence from the show. The direct was clearly told to highlight the sword and focus the fight on Arthur. The narration alone tells us that, let alone the camera angles.

Quote

 If the Dawn of the show is such an important and pivotal piece then why did Arthur Dayne respec as a fury warrior and go dual-wield? 

If it didn't matter, why on earth did the director keep putting that sun sigil in the middle of the frame? He was having his actors specifically use it. Place it so that when Ned's talking to Arthur and the Unnamed Disposable Guy, that sun sigil is almost dead center. Multiple times.

And Ned didn't take both swords, despite the dual wielding. He only took Dawn into the tower. And he put it at the foot of the bed, where the director had the camera focus on the sword--Lyanna's in that shot, too. The sister Ned came for in the first place. But in that shot, she plays second fiddle to the sword--she's out of focus and Dawn's up close and centered.

That's all really deliberate actor placement and camera work. In two scenes in separate episodes. A hell of a lot of work and camera time for an Easter Egg.

On July 16, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Shortspear Rick said:

And the Littlefinger glance in the crypts? You seriously believe that "Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna but Arthur was the one who was banging her" is more likely than "Rhaegar didn't kidnap and rape her, they eloped"?

I doubt Rhaegar kidnapped her--both from the books and the show. And I doubt the Rhaegar in the books or show would elope with anyone, either.

On July 16, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Shortspear Rick said:

Sure, lets all just forget about every single other scrap of evidence including how they made it a point of nearly half the kingsguard including the lord commander be at the TOJ for some apparently random reason.

Errm. .  they didn't have the Lord Commander there. "Hightower" was clearly NOT the one in charge. And clearly NOT the Old Bull of the books. They made it ALL about Arthur. Especially with how they had Bran and Bloodraven do the narration. Hell, they even made Bloodraven just an old man instead of a Targaryen.

If they wanted to make the point about the Kingsguard guarding an heir, they didn't even need to give the names of the Kingsguard. Just have them fight and die nobly. And then have Bran and Bloodraven have a dialogue about "why are they fighting? There's no point!" To which Bloodraven could cryptically answer, "Isn't there?"

But I do not think the Kingsguard are at the tower for no reason. Jon could very well be Rhaegar's child. Or they could be ordered there for another reason--a fact Martin has made clear vis SSM is very possible. Or other things--more based on the books.

[Sly Wren]

20 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

That's arguable. Dayne was mortally wounded and helpless. Instead of letting him cruelly suffer, Lord Stark dispatched Ser Arthur with the gift of mercy. Horrible though this may initially appear, it was the honorable thing to do at the this point; consider the contrary proposition.

True--it would be kinder to kill him more quickly.

But the look on Ned's face when he strikes that blow is NOT mercy. It's hatred and vengeance. 

And the look on Bran's face as he watches Ned do it is disgust and horror. He does not see his father as administering "honor" or "mercy."

23 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I think the clearest implications were that the show was setting up a future story line, and introducing a character.

And again, I'm sure we all agree -- I know I do -- that Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was primarily driven by what he thinks Rhaegar did to Lyanna.

On the character--definitely an intro. But also an intro of Robert's mindset, no?

On the bolded--amen.

23 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Perhaps. But that hatred is based on what he believes Rhaegard did to Lyanna. Namely, raping her hundreds of times. It's a believable-enough story, especially when you look at the Targaryen reputation for doing as they pleased and getting away with it. Robert thinks Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. Partially because he needs to, but also partially because it's the sort of thing you might expect from a family who fought a holy war over the right to marry their sisters. Nor would it have helped the Targaryen image that the current monarch was rightly known as the Mad King. The point being, would Robert have believed that the chivalrous Arthur Dayne could repeatedly rape his beloved Lyanna, like he believes Rhaegar did? I can't rule it out, of course, but it seems a lot less likely to me.

A very fair point. And Arthur's reputation should have preceded him. Though so did Rhaegar's, based on those who knew of him. But Ned could have sworn up and down that Lyanna loved Rhaegar, and I don't think it would have mattered.

Arthur was Rhaegar's bestie. Helped Rhaegar "hold" Lyanna and keep her from Robert. I could easily see Robert's refusal to believe Ned's insistence that Arthur and Lyanna loved each other.

Instead, I could see Robert believing that Rhaegar passed Lyanna around. Or that Arthur was just as bad as Rhaegar and the Targs he served.

[Sly Wren]

14 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Obvious? Sorry, not so much. It may be somewhat obvious to someone with prior book knowledge of the sword and who is looking for anything Dawn related. But for a show watcher, the sword holds little importance, and what little it has is whitewashed away the moment Arthur Dayne draws a second blade. Given that the scene was split over 2 episodes and 2 months of real time, it's actually quite easy to lose track of the fact that Ned grabbed Dawn at all, which makes the placement of Dawn inside the ToJ even less obvious.

Hmmm.  Might be because I'm an actor, but all that stuff with the sword. . . you could practically hear the director calling for Dayne to plant the sword on X mark. And then the camera focus and shots--I've been in scenes where they highlight things--that's how it's just done.

The repeated focus, the specificity--just seems like really obvious camera work and direction and actor contrivance.

14 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

You make an impassioned argument I'll grant you that, but your lack of objectivity makes it less convincing. It's akin to going to a trial but only listening to the defense lawyer while being told the prosecution doesn't even exist.

But is anyone not biased on this subject? RLJ is EVERYWHERE. I once ran into it in the Wall Street Journal of all places. It's a blatantly obvious possibility in the books--readers can't miss it on a first read--halfway through Game, the possibility is clear as day when Ned talks of Lyanna in her "bed of blood." Martin is not very subtle on this one.

So, many, many fans have had their minds made up for years. Can any of us be objective on the subject? Aren't we all going into the trial somewhat mostly believing in only one side?

[J. Stargaryen]

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

On the character--definitely an intro. But also an intro of Robert's mindset, no?

What I mean is that the character intro and foreshadowing are basically indisputable, especially the former. Nice segue! And the same could be said about the intent to give us insight into Robert's mindset, too. But, your interpretation of the scene is not as certain. It might be a little too specific, for example. Or not. You could be right, of course. But still, it's clearer to me that the scene was meant to serve as an intro for Dany.

Quote

On the bolded--amen.

A very fair point. And Arthur's reputation should have preceded him. Though so did Rhaegar's, based on those who knew of him. But Ned could have sworn up and down that Lyanna loved Rhaegar, and I don't think it would have mattered.

Yeah, like when he crowned Lyanna the QoLaB. Robert already had reason to believe that Rhaegar was interested in her.

Quote

Arthur was Rhaegar's bestie. Helped Rhaegar "hold" Lyanna and keep her from Robert. I could easily see Robert's refusal to believe Ned's insistence that Arthur and Lyanna loved each other.

Based on Arthur's reputation, and the fact that the revelation would have come out of left field, I have my doubts that Robert would have been able to simply cut+paste his anger onto Arthur. The confusion alone would probably have been enough to make him question everything about Lyanna's disappearance.

Quote

Instead, I could see Robert believing that Rhaegar passed Lyanna around. Or that Arthur was just as bad as Rhaegar and the Targs he served.

I mean, I guess I can't rule out this speculation.

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

On 15/07/2016 at 4:49 PM, Sly Wren said:

 

Because of Dawn and the Sword of the Morning.

The first fight against the White Walkers was to end The Long Night. The Battle for the Dawn.

The Sword of the Morning wielding the sword Dawn--that really sounds like a key player in the upcoming Battle for the Dawn.

In the World Book, the Daynes are as old if not older than the Starks, have been in Westeros even longer. Their sword and the title of Sword of the Morning go back millennia. And there's a strong case to be made that the title originates with the Battle for the Dawn. 

And Dawn, according to the World Book, can only be wielded by a Dayne who is deemed "worthy" by House Dayne to wield it. Otherwise, according to an SSM from Martin, "Dawn remains at Starfall until another Sword of the Morning shall arise." 

Which really makes it sound like another Sword of the Morning will rise in this story. If Jon's a Dayne--he's our boy.

And the gut punch, the horror that Ned killed Arthur in a way that sickens Bran--the man that Jon idealizes and loves as his father actually killed his real father--that sounds like an emotional misery Martin would LOVE to put his characters and his readers through.

Then why didn't they introduced the Dayne's way before? Just when Jamie read in the book 'Ser Arthur Dayne' and the second time 'TOJ'... That's it?! But they kept talking about Rhaegar? 

If Jon is a Dayne, I'm out... Because how can you troll people like that? So Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna who he thought was the most beautiful girl in all westoros to give her to Dayne? C'MON!! Ok! And Dayne is a King's guard..; He can father no children... It's not like the NW but ... I'm done... I know you will say "THAT'S THE REASON WHY NO ONE HAD TO KNOW THAT THE BABY WAS ARTHUR'S" I see that coming but yes! and no! Let's just wait until the next season... 

[Ashes Of Westeros]

Still we have two more books to confirm or shatter our speculations

Though R+L=J sounds more plausible to me, I like the idea about Dawn being used against the Others. And I guess more will be revealed about Daynes. This family is really shady.

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

13 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

If it didn't matter, why on earth did the director keep putting that sun sigil in the middle of the frame? He was having his actors specifically use it. Place it so that when Ned's talking to Arthur and the Unnamed Disposable Guy, that sun sigil is almost dead center. Multiple times.

And Ned didn't take both swords, despite the dual wielding. He only took Dawn into the tower. And he put it at the foot of the bed, where the director had the camera focus on the sword--Lyanna's in that shot, too. The sister Ned came for in the first place. But in that shot, she plays second fiddle to the sword--she's out of focus and Dawn's up close and centered.

It can also show that the SWORD might be important refering to the 'sun' and that the WW don't really appreciate the sun... But there is no link to Arthur there? Despite the fact that he held that Sword...

I haven't read the books... I'm actually in the first book...

So IN the show, the only sword that is IMPORTANT isss???..... JON'S sword... 'Longclaw'... He killed a WW with that Sword... And yet you still arguing over a Sword JUST because Ned put it next to Lyanna... Very interesting...  So maybe Jon will loose Longclaw and replace it by Sunny or Dawn or I don't know what...

14 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

On 16/07/2016 at 6:48 PM, Shortspear Rick said:

And the Littlefinger glance in the crypts? You seriously believe that "Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna but Arthur was the one who was banging her" is more likely than "Rhaegar didn't kidnap and rape her, they eloped"?

I doubt Rhaegar kidnapped her--both from the books and the show. And I doubt the Rhaegar in the books or show would elope with anyone, either

That scene could either mean that the story we are all aware of, is actually not that true... or that LF thinks that Sansa is a stupid Lady... like 'Don't tell me you believe that story?' Because only Robert and Sansa talked about 'kidnapping and raping'... Even Bran back to season one, told Osha "This is my aunte Lyanna... She was promised to king Robert but Rhaegar Targaryen kidnapped her... King Robert started a war to take her back but she died anyway..." No mention of a raping or whatever... Same with Oberyn.. He said she followed Rhaegar willingly... And we also had that Ser Barristan Selmy scene where he talks about Rhaegar with Khaleesi... he said great things about Rhaegar... That was before the crypt scene with LF... So it was just to signifie that Stories and Reality are two different things... And also that people believe in what they want! I see a semi filled cup of water, you see a semi empty cup of water... Same cup, same quantity, but different understanding of the situation... Just like Sansa and Robert... Oberyn and LF... 

13 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Errm. .  they didn't have the Lord Commander there. "Hightower" was clearly NOT the one in charge. And clearly NOT the Old Bull of the books. They made it ALL about Arthur. Especially with how they had Bran and Bloodraven do the narration. Hell, they even made Bloodraven just an old man instead of a Targaryen.

Really? YOU made it all about Arthur... In fact the Narration is awesome... Especially the part where Ned asks Arthur why he didn't protect his prince...? He says 'Our prince wanted us here... to protect my son....'

Ok... Jon is Arthur's son... Why does that matter? Does he need to be a Dayne to hold Dawn? Maybe he won't because Arthur's blood from the sword touched Lyanna's blood? And as Jon has Lyanna's blood... I mean we can all understand different things from the same single scene, you know?