Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread

[LynnS]

4 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Rhaegar in Dorne inviting knights and ladies to see his tower of joy. All those supposed nights alone in Summerhal, sure...

He has a terribly long lance.  What's a lady to do? LOL

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Except that so far, GRRM hasn't provided any other reason that might have given Rhaegar joy. The woman whose name he whispered with his last breath was there, guarded by his best pal. Even if he never stepped in there personally, then he knew, or himself sent, Lyanna there.

He didn't provide any reason that Lyanna was the reason for his joy.The man's wife was from Dorne,the man had two kids and you don't think the man had any joy in his life?There's no evidence that the woman's name Rhaegar whisphered if he did was Lyanna.There's no evidence that he sent Lyanna there.No evidence that they had a conversation. There's no connection beyond the notion that he ran off with Robert's bethrothed.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

It isn't stated anywhere that Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't get to know each other, before or after the supposed abduction, so leave out the bolded.

BTW, joy was out of character for Rhaegar, inspired jousting was out of character for Rhaegar, acting irresponsibly and not doing his duty was out of character for Rhaegar - and guess what all those situations have in common? Lyanna.

Ygrain there can be evidence,without the text actuall saying something verbatum.Evidence,in what characters see,know,think they know,heard.We don't get a blow by blow account of Cat and Brandon's time together if they had anytime at all together beyond Brandon telling Cat we'll get married when i get back. But we know through her emotions,what she said the way that she contrasted Ned and Brandon that theymust have spent time getting to know each other.

There's nowhere that says Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't know each other before or after true but there's no emotional evidence,nothing said by him of her,her of him anyone saying or seeing anything that links him to Lyanna at all.

Joy had something to do with Lyanna,him entering the list had something to do with Lyanna,him acting irresponsible had to do with Lyanna.Really?She was the reason,you know she WAS the reason?

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The underlined part is an utter nonsense. It doesn't indicate anything about the period of time for which the name was used by Rhaegar, nor does it say that anyone else called it that, and above all, that the name ceased bearing any significance to Rhaegar. Some people knew about it, sure. The narrative is in the past tense, so "it was said". The naming took place earlier than the main  narrative line, hence the past perfect. Just like Ned's account of the fight and its outcome. 

I answered this and it holds.....Do you know the connotative meaning behind phrases like "It was said" in that context?Not everything is about grammer Ygrain,some things are about common phrases in a particular context.This is one of them.

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The two are not incompatible; quite the reverse; it started off with an invitation to surrender andended in a fight to the dead.

I'm open to options, but the point is that in both cases its a pre-arranged meeting, not the defence of the Alamo

Well, we both agree it's not the defense of the Alamo. Could you give anything in the text that hints this was a pre-arranged meeting? Just how would that take place? And why just Ned? Surely, they don't give a damn about Ned's companions. You don't believe this was an ambush of Howland Reed, do you? One would think that if the three Kingsguard are able to get Ned to meet them in the middle of nowhere, why not try Robert? I'm assuming here this is a suicide pact on the part of Dayne, Hightower, and Whent because they don't seem to get to limit the size of Ned's party to better the odds.

[Ygrain]

 

Quote

That's a good question.  Why did GRRM include information about a form of trial by combat called the Trial of Seven; or include information that Ned showed up in a group of 7 at the ToJ,

The encounter with the KG is indeed ritualized but the trial of seven requires seven on each side, so the ToJ situation doesn't quite fit.

Quote

or that this fight took place in Dorne where trial by combat is a legal and binding outcome

And it is not a legal and binding outcome elsewhere in Westeros? I don't see your point here.

Quote

or that Dorne was amassing an army under Viserys Targaryen's banner;

We have been shown Dorne's support of the Targ cause repeatedly, so again, what is your point?

Quote

or that the Kingsguard still uphold their vows to the Targs even after Aerys death. 

That is a significant one and it points to the reason of the fight and what was in the tower.

Quote

Does this have anything to do with Rhaegar loves Lyanna, now that Rhaegar is dead and Robert is sitting on the throne?

The last point does, as Rhaegar loving Lyanna wouldn't want to dishonour his lady by impregnating her with his bastard, and Rhaegar's legitimate son would have a lot to do with the loyal KG.

But you didn't answer - why do you think GRRM depicted a melancholic prince, yet had him name a place "tower of joy"?

2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

He didn't include "information" about the toj Ygrain, he had Ned make a comment about a place whose name totally contradict what had gone down there and the feelings it evoked for Ned.

A  place called tower of joy was a place of bitterness.That's as far as it went.

Wolfmaid, the word doesn't mean what you think it does. Information is, among others, basically a fact about something. Ned's comment contained such a fact. 

 

Quote

We have no information beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ned and some very close friends fought 3 members of the kgs there.All his friends save one and all 3 members of the KGs present lost their lives.

Huh? The information is in Ned's own PoV, in waking lucid memory.

Quote

Your already going back into that circular thinking that it has to be important ,it had to have been included because Lyanna was there with baby Jon awaiting Rhaegar's return.

Ah, nonsense. No author includes a bit of information which contradicts a character's depiction without a reason. And if it's not Lyanna, then what is it? In all the infodump about Rhaegar that we have been receiving, nothing else is given. 

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

Yes you're right.  It could be just a road sign.  Something like a  marker for a state line or even better "Las Vegas, next exit". 

I have a hard time imagining Rhaegar naming landmarks, but perhaps there was one near Summerhal going by "the ruins of angst".

Quote

It's also possible that Lyanna was present at the trial by combat and clearly visible.

The condition for the trial of seven were not fulfilled, though.

Quote

It's also possible that she was a war time hostage and that Aerys is responsible for her 'kidnappiing'; someone he can use as leverage against Robert and Ned. 

If Aerys was the one behind her kidnapping, then he somehow lost control of her very early, or else he would have used her. He didn't.

Quote

  He's the one calling the shots else why would Rhaegar return to KL when Gerold Hightower takes his place? 

He is? Rhaegar leads the army, Rhaegar distributes the KG and his response to Jaime's request suggests that he could take Jaime to the Trident but doesn't wish to unhinge Aerys even more. Also wants to "make changes" - doesn't sound like one not in control of situation. 

In other words: Aerys needed Rhaegar, and thus Rhaegar was in a position to make demands in exchange for his return.

Quote

It's even possible that she threw herself into the battle screaming out Ned's name when he was in peril;

It is quite possible that she never screamed during the fight at all. The dream sequence here is mixing in Poole's adressation - in Ned's memories, Lyanna calls him Ned, not Eddard.

Quote

resulting in her own injuries and bed of blood. If Jon is her son; she gave birth to him long before the ToJ.

No. No person throughout the whole series who is bleeding due to an injury is described as in "bed of blood" or "bloody bed", those are used solely with childbirth, and with Lyanna.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

He didn't provide any reason that Lyanna was the reason for his joy.The man's wife was from Dorne,the man had two kids and you don't think the man had any joy in his life?

Curiously, that's exactly what GRRM tells us. As well as that he was "fond" of his wife.

Quote

There's no evidence that the woman's name Rhaegar whisphered if he did was Lyanna.

GRRM said that, Ran had it from a reliable source.

Quote

There's no evidence that he sent Lyanna there.

Whether he sent Lyanna there, rode along or whatever, is not really significant.

Quote

No evidence that they had a conversation.

Honestly, we don't have a single piece of evidence that Robert had a conversation with Lyanna, either, because the only time the two are mentioned together, he is busy drinking himself while she is sniffing over another man's song. 

Out of the list your other potential candidate, Howland is the only one who ever had any interaction with Lyanna, but it doesn't prevent people from suggesting Arthur, Mance or Spaghetti Flying Monster. I don't see why Rhaegar should be held to different standards,

Quote

There's no connection beyond the notion that he ran off with Robert's bethrothed.

ROFLMAO, I would say that two people making away together is one hell of a connection. Way more than any other candidate.

Quote

Ygrain there can be evidence,without the text actuall saying something verbatum.

Agreed. Only whenever I show something like that to you, you claim there's nothing.

Quote

Evidence,in what characters see,know,think they know,heard.We don't get a blow by blow account of Cat and Brandon's time together if they had anytime at all together beyond Brandon telling Cat we'll get married when i get back. But we know through her emotions,what she said the way that she contrasted Ned and Brandon that theymust have spent time getting to know each other.

Indeed. So please, judge Rhaegar according to the same standards. People who would have had direct contact with Rhaegar, or reliable info from those, believed he loved Lyanna, so this shouldn't be discounted. Compare this with people speculating who Ned's mistress might have been - one says Ashara, another Wylla, another fisherman's daughter, another doesn't know what to believe... no unifying factor, and a burden of a dangerous secret in Ned's thoughts.

Quote

There's nowhere that says Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't know each other before or after true but there's no emotional evidence,nothing said by him of her,her of him anyone saying or seeing anything that links him to Lyanna at all.

Pardon me? Your ASOIAF copy must be lacking quite a couple of lines, or it must be one of those things that you cannot, or will not, see (I've started the writing, you know, but we're already covering some parts here and you are dismissing them)

Quote

Joy had something to do with Lyanna,

Joy resided in the same place as Lyanna

Quote

him entering the list had something to do with Lyanna,

Not entering the lists. Winning in such a sweeping manner and crowning her. Remember how Barristan couldn't provide Dany with a list of Rhaegar's dashing victories, except HH?

Quote

him acting irresponsible had to do with Lyanna.

Wait, are you telling me that Rhaegar making off with Lyanna had nothing to do with Lyanna?

Quote

Really?She was the reason,you know she WAS the reason?

If one person affects another person's behaviour, I'd say that she is the reason. What else would you call it?

Quote

I answered this and it holds.....Do you know the connotative meaning behind phrases like "It was said" in that context?Not everything is about grammer Ygrain,some things are about common phrases in a particular context.This is one of them.

Wolfmaid, there is no specific contextual meaning for "it was said", or "he had named". Regardless of the grammar, the context of the paragraph conveys nothing of the bolded underlined part of your post. That is pure fabrication.

[LynnS]

9 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I'm assuming here this is a suicide pact on the part of Dayne, Hightower, and Whent because they don't seem to get to limit the size of Ned's party to better the odds.

Why would they even need 7 Kingsguard to oppose Ned?  Ned nearly lost even with his numbers advantage. They were clearly outmatched by the Kingsguard without the extra 4.   So why then did Ned only show up with 7 instead of 10 or 20.  Why the constraint? Could it have something to do with the rules of engagement for a trial of seven?  Why are you so opposed to the possibility that was an action to have the Dornish army stand down?   The final act of the war to yield and make peace.

This makes far more sense to me than Ned showing up for no apparent reason other than somehow getting wind of Lyanna's location and three kingsguard keeping her prisoner just after giving birth.        

[LynnS]

3 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

The condition for the trial of seven were not fulfilled, though.

This is the problem with taking things so literally.  The conditions were fulfilled whether the kingsguard chose to fight with 7 or 3.  Ned was restricted to 7 and that's all he brought.  This is not an argument that this wasn't a trial by combat.  The KG fought and nearly defeated Ned's party.  They had to fight with what they had or lose by default.

[SFDanny]

28 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Why would they even need 7 Kingsguard to oppose Ned?  Ned nearly lost even with his numbers advantage. They were clearly outmatched by the Kingsguard without the extra 4.   So why then did Ned only show up with 7 instead of 10 or 20.  Why the constraint? Could it have something to do with the rules of engagement for a trial of seven?        

Oh, I think Ned knows how many he might face, and he brings enough swords to give him the advantage. He's barely right. And no, I don't think it has anything to do with a trial of seven which should mean seven against seven.

34 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Why are you so opposed to the possibility that was an action to have the Dornish army stand down?   The final act of the war to yield and make peace.       

Because this would be an incredibly stupid idea on Ned's part to risk peace with Dorne on the outcome of a duel. The rebels have just won the Iron Throne and some in Dorne are talking about carrying on the fight. What should the rebels do? Have a battle with three Kingsguard who for all we know have nothing to do with the counsels of Prince Doran, or, perhaps, they should do as they did and send the new Hand to Sunspear to speak to the Prince and see if a settlement can be reached? I think the latter makes sense. The Dornish army stood down because of those negotiations that continued long after Ned's encounter at the Tower. If it was a duel for Dornish peace. The Dornish side lied and continued the preparation for war until Arryn's negotiation.

But, ok, let's assume it is what you say, then why not have seven against seven? Why isn't Prince Oberyn in this duel? Why not the four best swords of Dorne alongside the Kingsguard? Because Dorne has nothing to do with this confrontation.

[Ygrain]

35 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Why would they even need 7 Kingsguard to oppose Ned?  Ned nearly lost even with his numbers advantage. They were clearly outmatched by the Kingsguard without the extra 4.   So why then did Ned only show up with 7 instead of 10 or 20.  Why the constraint? Could it have something to do with the rules of engagement for a trial of seven?  Why are you so opposed to the possibility that was an action to have the Dornish army stand down?   The final act of the war to yield and make peace.

Why 7 Kingsguard? According to you, there was a Dornish army standing by, surely there would be 4 more fighters to make this indeed the trial of the seven.

And when you mention constraint - why does Ned never mention that he had to fight the trial to make the Dornish army stand down? BTW, wasn't it mentioned above that it took quite some negotiations to make Dorne agree to peace? Why would such negotiations be necessary if everyone abided by the outcome of the trial?

35 minutes ago, LynnS said:

This makes far more sense to me than Ned showing up for no apparent reason other than somehow getting wind of Lyanna's location

A guy whose sister had been missing for about a year appearing at the place where she is currently staying - does this really need further explaining?

35 minutes ago, LynnS said:

and three kingsguard keeping her prisoner just after giving birth.        

And where does it say that they were keeping her prisoner?

27 minutes ago, LynnS said:

This is the problem with taking things so literally.  The conditions were fulfilled whether the kingsguard chose to fight with 7 or 3.  Ned was restricted to 7 and that's all he brought.  This is not an argument that this wasn't a trial by combat.  The KG fought and nearly defeated Ned's party.  They had to fight with what they had or lose by default.

 

Sorry but if something is defined by numbers, then approximations won't do. The trial of the seven is 7 against 7. Ned's magnificent 7 certainly allude to that, as well as the 3 KG allude to the Targaryen 3-headed dragon, but this doesn't constitute the trial by combat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LynnS]

2 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Oh, I think Ned knows how many he might face, and he brings enough swords to give him the advantage. He's barely right. And no, I don't think it has anything to do with a trial of seven which should mean seven against seven.

Because this would be an incredibly stupid idea on Ned's part to risk peace with Dorne on the outcome of a duel. The rebels have just won the Iron Throne and some in Dorne are talking about carrying on the fight. What should the rebels do? Have a battle with three Kingsguard who for all we know have nothing to do with the counsels of Prince Doran, or, perhaps, they should do as they did and send the new Hand to Sunspear to speak to the Prince and see if a settlement can be reached? I think the latter makes sense. The Dornish army stood down because of those negotiations that continued long after Ned's encounter at the Tower. If it was a duel for Dornish peace. The Dornish side lied and continued the preparation for war until Arryn's negotiation.

But, ok, let's assume it is what you say, then why not have seven against seven? Why isn't Prince Oberyn in this duel? Why not the four best swords of Dorne alongside the Kingsguard? Because Dorne has nothing to do with this confrontation.

It means seven against seven if you have that many.  If you have less, you lose by default unless you fight and the Kingsguard are not about to back away from a fight.  They are still following orders.

Why would Oberyn be involved?  This is about the Kingsguard preparing the Dornish army and not standing down.  They are the ones who will not kneel.  Doran Martell is not about to lose more lives in a fight with Robert if he can avoid it.  He plays the long game and he accepts the judgement of a trial by combat as we've seen with Oberyn and Sandor.

I still don't understand why you are opposed to this version of the ToJ.

[LynnS]

22 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but if something is defined by numbers, then approximations won't do. The trial of the seven is 7 against 7. Ned's magnificent 7 certainly allude to that, as well as the 3 KG allude to the Targaryen 3-headed dragon, but this doesn't constitute the trial by combat.

If you have less than 7 you lose by default.  This implies that if you choose not to fight, it's because you don't think you have the numbers to win.  The kingsguard do not about to back down from a fight and they don't kneel (to Robert).  They chose to fight rather than kneel or lose by default. 

The Andals believed that if seven champions fought on each side, the gods thus honored would be more likely to see justice done. If a man cannot find six others to stand with him, then he is obviously guilty  - Westeros

There is nothing in wiki that says the trial can't proceed if one side has less than 7.  Because we see that it does proceed in spite of the numbers.

Again, I don't understand why this interpretation is a problem.

[Ygrain]

34 minutes ago, LynnS said:

If you have less than 7 you lose by default.  This implies that if you choose not to fight, it's because you don't think you have the numbers to win. 

Sorry but this is where you are wrong. Look at this passage from Hedge Knight:

“Six,” said Dunk. “Ser Lyonel is knighting Raymun Fossoway. We will fight you six against seven.”
Men had won at far worse odds, he knew. But Lord Ashford shook his head. “That is not permitted, ser. If you cannot find another knight to take your side, you must be declared guilty of the crimes of which you stand accused.”

[Tucu]

4 hours ago, LynnS said:

He has a terribly long lance.  What's a lady to do? LOL

This paint a different picture for games like Come-into-my-castle and Hide-the-treasure. Naughty Rhaegar!

[LynnS]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but this is where you are wrong. Look at this passage from Hedge Knight:

“Six,” said Dunk. “Ser Lyonel is knighting Raymun Fossoway. We will fight you six against seven.”
Men had won at far worse odds, he knew. But Lord Ashford shook his head. “That is not permitted, ser. If you cannot find another knight to take your side, you must be declared guilty of the crimes of which you stand accused.”

I doubt the Kingsguard would have accepted that answer and they didn't.  They fought with worse odds whether it was permitted or not. They made it very clear, they do not bend the knee. Who is going to tell them otherwise? Lord Ashford? 

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

that was horse manure... ser lyonel by himself is worth 3 KG's

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, Tucu said:

This paint a different picture for games like Come-into-my-castle and Hide-the-treasure. Naughty Rhaegar!

Hide the treasure?  Hahahahah!

[J. Stargaryen]

@LynnS

Has it occurred to you that the issue with your interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense?

[LynnS]

8 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

@LynnS

Has it occurred to you that the issue with your interpretation is that it doesn't make any sense?

No, but it has occurred to me that RLJ is the most popular opinion isn't a proof of anything.  At one point the bible was more popular than evolution; so what does that prove?

[J. Stargaryen]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

No, but it has occurred to me that RLJ is the most popular opinion isn't a proof of anything.  At one point the bible was more popular than evolution; so what does that prove?

I'm not talking about popularity. You keep talking about a trial by seven that you, or someone else, made up out of thin air. SFDanny and Ygrain have pointed out why that idea doesn't work.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I'm not talking about popularity. You keep talking about a trial by seven that you, or someone else, made up out of thin air. SFDanny and Ygrain have pointed out why that idea doesn't work.

It does work.  It just doesn't work for you and all your made up stuff.

[J. Stargaryen]

7 minutes ago, LynnS said:

It does work.  It just doesn't work for you and all your made up stuff.

No, it doesn't work in GRRM's made up world, with his made up rules.