Was Lyanna Stark the Knight of the Laughing Tree?

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

given by several who knew of the incident and offered to help

Not implausible, but we cannot rule out that those mismatching bits were, eh, procured without the knowledge of their owners.

Or, to tie it to the question "who painted the shield", perhaps just one other person was involved - an armorer.

 

6 hours ago, NorthernXY said:

Loras was a squire and guessing by his brothers, he probably started the youngest of the three.  More than likely he was very used to riding in plate armor that was made for him and not piecemealed together.

The point is that Loras is about a year older than Lyanna was at HH and of physique which doesn't exactly scream "joustig champion". We don't know when he started training, we don't know when Lyanna started her training at the rings. We don't even know if Lyanna did get to wearing some armour or not. We do know, though, that Lyanna was a physically active girl, in activities which demand a good deal of physical fitness. So, no, the jousting is not as highly unlikely as you claim for her to be.

6 hours ago, NorthernXY said:

I still think the tournament was set up so Rheagar could meet Lyanna.  Blue Winter Roses were there, why would they be there to crown someone when Northerners really don't participate?  Were BWR there just in case Brandon and maybe the other couple of Northerners participating won?  Possibly, but I don't think likely because the writing made it sound like THE crown of love and beauty and not A crown of love and beauty.  The shock would have come when he picked up the BWR and not picking up Dornish flowers.

I have a theory that Lyanna took the fall for Ned.

Given how rare and expensive the blue roses are, it is quite possible that they were meant merely as a show off of Lord Whent's wealth. 

Besides, Rhaegar couldn't have picked Dornish flowers because the crowning took place immediately after the last tilt, the crown had to be ready-made.

[Macgregor of the North]

11 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

So who do we think painted the shield with the image of the laughing weirwood?

sorry one of those silly nagging questions I have, I mean the mismatched armor could be collected from wherever, but someone had to make the heraldry

Spread over that many days with that much people, and that much entertainment shows, I'm sure there must have been a painter there. Think something like Tanselle. I could actually picture Lyanna along with Benjen possibly getting a painter to do the laughing Weirwood for a few slivers maybe.

I wonder if it's a detail of the story GRRM himself even has a definitive answer for.

[JNR]

The more interesting question on this topic is "If you knew for a fact that R+L≠J, and that Rhaegar never unmasked Lyanna, and that he died without knowing who the Knight was... would you still believe Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree?"

[kimim]

Story sets up Lyanna as a fighter. She is a parallel to Arya, who is a fighter. She is wolf-blooded. Ned says that she would have walked around wearing a sword, had their father allowed it. She is a superb horsewoman, a "centaur." She defeats one of her brothers in Bran's vision. In order to rescue Howland, she beats three young squires. From fighter to the Knight is not a big stretch.

The Knight is a slight person who appears early in the tournament, before the big names have appeared in the lists. His/her capabilities remain firmly in reality; s/he defeats three "ok" contenders, not Barristan Selmy. Opponents all belong to the houses who bullied Reed, houses whose squires Lyanna already humiliated. At the end, the Knight booms "Teach your squires honor" at them. This is consistent with Lyanna as the Knight. She humiliated the squires privately earlier, and now she is publicly humiliating them. 

The "Knight of the Laughing Tree," is playful and mocking, and these fit Lyanna. She is often laughing. She mocks the brother she defeats in Bran's vision. She pours wine down Benjen's head. As a girl who likes "unfeminine" things like fighting, she is used to hiding what she's into. Again in Bran's vision, she's concerned that Nan will find out what she's up to.

Other options are weaker. Howland has motive and prays for the defeat of his tormentors, but he is no fighter. A boy who is unable to fight three young squires is not going to put on armor and defeat three knights. As the Reed heir, he has no reason to hide his identity. After what goes down with the squires, Starks half expect him to fight and offer to get a set of armor for him; there's no question of his needing to appear incognito.

Ned doesn't fit at all. He doesn't have motive; there is no hint that he and Howland are friends at this point. Like Howland he has no need to hide his identity. Appearing as the "Knight of the Laughing Tree" is a flamboyant, playful gesture which is unlike him, as is the hidden nature of the knight. Ned is neither playful nor flamboyant, nor does he take pleasure in hiding his activity. This, btw, kills him in Game.

This is far-fetched, but Lyanna as the knight could also explain Rhaegar's uncharacteristically great showing at the joust. He finds the Knight, he is impressed with the knight, he is in love with the knight...and men in love to strange things. Jorah to Dany:

On 9/29/2016 at 1:48 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

@Sly Wren@Kienn

 

"I fight as well as any man, Khaleesi, but I have never been a tourney knight. Yet with Lynesse's favor knotted round my arm, I was a different man. I won joust after joust. Lord Jason Mallister fell before me, and Bronze Yohn Royce. Ser Ryman Frey, his brother Ser Hosteen, Lord Whent, Strongboar, even Ser Boros Blount of the Kingsguard, I unhorsed them all. In the last match, I broke nine lances against Jaime Lannister to no result, and King Robert gave me the champion's laurel."

What Jorah can do while overcome with love for the wrong woman, Rhaegar can.

 

[maudisdottir]

I agree that the "gathered" armour doesn't necessarily mean there were others involved.  "Gathered" could be a nice way of saying "pilfered".

I always assumed the reason it was mismatched was because as a young woman, Lyanna wouldn't fit into a standard suit of armour, even a small one.  She would need different sized pieces than a young man her age would.

[sweetsunray]

18 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Not implausible, but we cannot rule out that those mismatching bits were, eh, procured without the knowledge of their owners.

Or, to tie it to the question "who painted the shield", perhaps just one other person was involved - an armorer.

 

2 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

I agree that the "gathered" armour doesn't necessarily mean there were others involved.  "Gathered" could be a nice way of saying "pilfered".

Agreed. There is no evidence it was given. But I find the way Meera mentions HR's prayer builds up to something big, something unifying. And I fully admit it's just a personal sense I have, but I find just one person (Lyanna or Ned) standing up against false knights and false squires as KotLT slightly underwhelming. Lyanna already beat those squires on her own, publically, and yet HR still prays for revenge. So, the picture of a disguised Lyanna (or Ned) beating the bosses of those squires, is just the same thing. And for some reason I find it not enough to quelch HR's desire for revenge. The grandest way, imho, for HR to feel avenged, is not because of the success of one person standing up for him, but the North somehow taking a stand and messaging HR that they regard him as one of theirs compatriots. Just the sworn swords willingly contributing to the creation of the KotLT (the armor, the shield, the tree, the horse) makes the knight more than Lyanna (and her love story) or Ned. It's only in this way that imo HR's prayer is fully answered.

And as I said, it would indeed make a very nice reverse parallel with Brienne's Highgarden story. Brienne felt awkward, unaccepted all of ehr life. Then Renly shows her courtesy, gallantry at his visit to Tarth, and others follow his example. She felt accepted for the first time, which is why she was in love with him and wished to be one of his rainbow guard. So, she arrives at Highgarden, expecting scorn and mockery, but the knights are attentive, courteous and court her, and one of them even sparred with her. It was like a dream coming true. It wasn't just that she felt proud to be accepted by Renly, but by all his men. Unfortunately, Brienne's dream was a dillusion, and Tarly shattered it cruelly in the manner he revealed the bet to her.

But HR's dream was not shattered. His prayer was answered. Hence, I suspect it was a united effort by several Northerners, where a Stark set the example and the other Northerners genuinely followed suit. I otherwise see no need for Meera to even mention the sigils of the sworn swords present at the feast.

[wolfmaid7]

On 9/29/2016 at 6:23 PM, Prince of the North said:

My point always was and remains that we simply don't know for sure.  And that's why I find the idea that because we never got absolute confirmation that Lyanna got "formal" weapons/jousting training it absolutely means she couldn't have had any training... unconvincing of anything, really

And, yes, for the record I will continue to believe that it's most likely Lyanna was the KotLT until Martin gives me more info to work with 

Yeah i agree we don't know for sure but we would be shorting ourselves not looking at canidates that are also viable.We never get anything that indicates Lyanna had any training beyond what she did while hiding.I'm not concerned about getting "absolute confirmation" I'm just interested in highlighting the issues that makes it questionable that she was TKOTLT.

1.Characters in the story have said a few times that being an expert rider is the most important skill when it comes to riding

 a.We have heard Lyanna was an amazing rider. But does that stand out more because Lyanna was female.Remember this:

"You ride like a northman,milady Harwin said when he'd drawn them up to a halt.Your aunt was the same.Lady Lyanna."

So northerners/northman ride very well.So right there we know the exceptionality is because they are female.In addition to Lyanna and Brandon was Benjen a good rider? Was Ned?  I would say yes.

2.We don't know Lyanna's training capabilities.She could have been trained in secret by Brandon at Jousting

But Brandon certainly and ,Ned probably did have training in this regard. 

3.While Lyanna defended him:

“The wolf maid saw them too, and pointed them out to her brothers. ‘I could find you a horse, and some armor that might fit,’ [Benjen] offered. The little crannogman thanked him, but gave no answer. His heart was torn. Crannogmen are smaller than most, but just as proud. The lad was no knight, no more than any of his people. We sit a boat more often than a horse, and our hands are made for oars, not lances. Much as he wished to have his vengeance, he feared he would only make a fool of himself and shame his people.The quiet wolf [Ned] had offered the little crannogman a place in his tent that night, but before he slept he knelt on the lakeshore, looking across the water to where the Isle of Faces would be, and said a prayer to the old gods of north and Neck . . .”

Howland couldn't sit a horse and he didn't know how to handle a lance,but he did pray to the Old gods.But Alas,alas.Ned invited him to sleep in 'his" tent.Its very likely Ned heard his prayer.

On 9/29/2016 at 5:29 PM, sweetsunray said:

Arguing against an assertion that cannot be proven, because of absence of evidence, is always devil's advocate debate. It simply suffices to point out the window of opportunity that could prove such an assertion as false one day. I have nothing against making a case to support Ned Stark as KotLT, but when people begin to argue against another theory using possibly false assertions, then yeah, I will point it out. There is a gigantic difference between arguing against supporters of Lyanna "there is no evidence that she trained at jousting and I am unwilling to suspend my disbelief that she could have done this if she had no training" versus "Lyanna was not trained and I am unwilling to suspend my disbelief that she could have done this without training." The reason for that is that some people, like myself, are pretty much on the fence, and am interested in genuine positive arguments as well as genuine counter arguments. But when one side of the discussion distorts lack of evidence as evidence for their own case it gives me a sense of misinforming the fence-sitters.

I don't think the assertion is false because the assertion is wrong Sweets,i think its prudent to question her ability to Joust and beat 3 dudes that have trained at this for possibly years.I can't see how this could be misinforming anyone when the alternatives are "ifs" compared to Ned.

Now that's not to say she wasn't TKOTLT and we certainly don't want anyone to suspend belief just to entertain other prospects for the purpose of conversation.I mean how does one argue "against" ifs.'That' can't be done.So stalemate,or just enjoy throwng things against the wall.

 

[sweetsunray]

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

i think its prudent to question her ability to Joust and beat 3 dudes that have trained at this for possibly years.I can't see how this could be misinforming anyone when the alternatives are "ifs" compared to Ned.

 I never argued it's wrong to question her training. I argued it was wrong to claim "she was never trained". When I pointed that out, you reasserted that you could make such a claim, and tried to reframe my hypothetical case that leaves a possibility as me making a claim (which I never explicitly made). I think you have to let go of this one, because your posts on this display lack fundamental debate logic.

If you can simply admit that at this point we have no canon-evidence of her being trained, and just say "I personally don't believe she was trained" then I won't have any issue with your statements. Just don't reframe your opinions, your beliefs as a fact. It's fundamentally and intellectually wrong to do so. And calling yourself a "wall" certainly does not help your case either.

 

[wolfmaid7]

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

 I never argued it's wrong to question her training. I argued it was wrong to claim "she was never trained". When I pointed that out, you reasserted that you could make such a claim, and tried to reframe my hypothetical case that leaves a possibility as me making a claim (which I never explicitly made). I think you have to let go of this one, because your posts on this display lack fundamental debate logic.

If you can simply admit that at this point we have no canon-evidence of her being trained, and just say "I personally don't believe she was trained" then I won't have any issue with your statements. Just don't reframe your opinions, your beliefs as a fact. It's fundamentally and intellectually wrong to do so. And calling yourself a "wall" certainly does not help your case either.

 

Its not wrong to claim she wasn't trained in Jousting...I'm making that claim based on the evidence that's there.And i never tried to reframe anything you stated,that's how it came across....and you clarified it so that's a non issue at this point.

To the bolded really??? This right there is usually how all these arguements end up with digs such as this.Makes these debates really shitty.What is the points to these conversation when the go to responses are always cheap digs that are untrue.

"what ifs" is how you come to me with regard to Lyanna and what if's aren't facts.Is there evidence in the overt or the subtle that Lyanna trained at Jousting?

"What ifs" are Hampster wheels to an arguement.And in noway am i "calling myself" a wall.....I stated (and this goes to my "what if" analogy as a Hampster wheel) These arguements will be stalemates of "what ifs"  thrown  against a wall to see what may stick,which was a question.So please don't accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when i am simply pointing what happens with "what if arguements." 

And to make my case, what you want me to do to make this all so "correct" for your sensibilities (it seems you are trying to now tell me what i should say and how to say it so its not an issue for you) is to admit to something that connotatively per your statement will be fortcoming because that is what i'm getting from your statement......"Its not evidence yet, at this point,but its coming"

 

[Ygrain]

10 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Is there evidence in the overt or the subtle that Lyanna trained at Jousting?

You have the app stating black on white that she trained with the rings. That's jousting training.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

.I'm making that claim based on the evidence that's there.

That's the problem: you can't prove a negative in the first place. You would have to know several years of her life, and not just one mere glimpse, to be able to say that she never trained.

 

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

To the bolded really??? This right there is usually how all these arguements end up with digs such as this.

Yes, really. Your posts regarding this matter lack fundamental debate logic. This is not meant as a dig. It's a pure observation in the manner you state your beliefs, your opinions as a fact. And then I'm being generous enough so far to have shrugged at your "sweets" and "stalemate" and "enjoy throwing things against the wall".

 

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

"what ifs" is how you come to me with regard to Lyanna and what if's aren't facts.

Totally agree that what ifs and possibilities aren't facts. They're possibilities. Never said otherwise. Since you only know one 5 min fragment of her life at Arya's age and nothing else, and we know for a fact that she wasn't locked up at WF either, the possibility is there. It's not a fact, but the possibility rules out, for now, the claim that "she never trained". You don't know. BUt it's pointless to repeat this, because we've been over this for several pages now and none of your posts regarding this have shown comprehension on it.

 

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

.Is there evidence in the overt or the subtle that Lyanna trained at Jousting?

There is semi-canon evidence: the app states she trained at rings, which is jousting training.

 

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

And to make my case, what you want me to do to make this all so "correct" for your sensibilities (it seems you are trying to now tell me what i should say and how to say it so its not an issue for you)

This has nothing to do with my sensibilities. But I will point out fallacies and false claims when I can, especially when the false claim is used to debunk a competing theory/proposal.

Quote

to admit to something that connotatively per your statement will be fortcoming because that is what i'm getting from your statement......"Its not evidence yet, at this point,but its coming"

This is pure straw-man argument. You are "editing" my words and make false claims about what I mean, about what I post, as you have done before several times.

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

That's the problem: you can't prove a negative in the first place. You would have to know several years of her life, and not just one mere glimpse, to be able to say that she never trained.

Sweets( and i say that affectionality as a means to personalize my dialogue with you) Among  professional logicians,do you know how many of them believe "you can't prove a negative?" None of them.I've never met any and i've never read any material affirming this to be the case from any logicians.Usually i like to be laid back about these things and just speak with my hair down,but this fallacy has been taken way beyond what is raitionally acceptable.

Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Yes? No? Either way,this law states that a proposition cannot be both true and untrue. You can also actually prove this law,which can be derived from the empty set using provably defensible  rules of inference. The bolded is the key (and i will add the kind of thing that sparks thoughtful debate).But wait,it  just so happens that one of the laws of logic IS a provable negative. I.e. 'you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative. 

As i sated before  i love Carl Sagan but this well known statement by him and the basis of all this (hand wave)  a logical fallacy at that has been taken way to far.You can't point out a valid problem without "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"aka "You can't prove a negative" being the counter.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, really. Your posts regarding this matter lack fundamental debate logic. This is not meant as a dig. It's a pure observation in the manner you state your beliefs, your opinions as a fact. And then I'm being generous enough so far to have shrugged at your "sweets" and "stalemate" and "enjoy throwing things against the wall".

Just to reiterate,my belief IS Lyanna being TKOTLT i'm not a fence sitter. I also admit that my reasons for believing that is in truth illogical and a bit fangirlish as i like the idea of the damsel being in distress being a dude.I'm just saying that there are some things that are concrete that can be used instead of the old "Arguement from ignorance".Bring on GRRM continually saying that being a good horseman,and noting how great a rider Lyanna was.Even Arianne and her skills can fall under defensible use of inference.That can foster really good debate in my opnion."What ifs" end in "you can't prove a negative" arguements and that's really no fun for a lot of people. 

Lastly,you are totally misrepresenting the bolded.Its not said in a manner of disrespect i do this all the time and most get it as personalization. Its no different than me saying BC instead of Black Crow,or Voice instead of Voice of the First Men,Jstar instead of typing out his entire screen.Many just say Wolfy when they address me.Its not a big deal if it is i will type out your name so as not to offend.

Likewise me saying that these debates oft end in stalemates when they don't have to .Exactly why would that offend you?Same thing when it comes to throwing things at a wall to see if it sticks.It all comes round again to the Hampster wheel.

So i hope you get where i'm coming from, particularly being against the "you can't prove a negative' arguement.

Now to this app,look i don't know where the info came from when it comes to this app.Was the app written by GRRM or did he just more or less say "ok" when someone came to him with the idea? I'm seriously asking this?

I am not editing your words,nor is it a straw man.I am telling you what i am getting from what you wrote.If you are telling me this is not what you meant,or are implying its a communication issue.One that can be easily dropped with clarification.

 

[wolfmaid7]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You have the app stating black on white that she trained with the rings. That's jousting training.

Ygrain was the app written by GRRM?Or was it a case of someone did it ,showed it to him and he took a look at it and said ok you have my blessing to to do this.

I'm seriously asking who wrote it? I mean you probably bought it,i didn't sooooo.

Did the info come from GRRM? Again  i believe Lyanna was TKOTLT i'm not a fence sitter.I'm just raising questions that should be raised.

 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Ygrain was the app written by GRRM?Or was it a case of someone did it ,showed it to him and he took a look at it and said ok you have my blessing to to do this.

I'm seriously asking who wrote it? I mean you probably bought it,i didn't sooooo.

Did the info come from GRRM? Again  i believe Lyanna was TKOTLT i'm not a fence sitter.I'm just raising questions that should be raised.

 

It is based on GRRM's notes.

[NorthernXY]

Just saw the app and now am 100% Lyanna was KotLT.  GRRM apparently didn't think he had enough foreshadowing.  But my question is why Rickard would let his daughter ride at rings and not practice with a sword?

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

It is based on GRRM's notes.

What does this mean its based "off his notes?" So GRRM's notes have a POV who can testify to Lyanna having trained at the rings? Does this app have a POV that gave this info? 

ETA: Question still not answered..Who wrote/created the app?

51 minutes ago, NorthernXY said:

Just saw the app and now am 100% Lyanna was KotLT.  GRRM apparently didn't think he had enough foreshadowing.  But my question is why Rickard would let his daughter ride at rings and not practice with a sword?

Northern what you asked is a very good question.Its the kind of contradiction in  character that reaffirms for me this  app is fanfic. Rickard who wouldn't let his daughter carry a sword(thus she had to work at it with her little brother in secret) allowed her to train at Jousting? Really? 

peThis makes no sense.It kind of defeats the purpose for having her not use swords.What did he hope she was going to use this skill for when she was done,picking Mangoes?

[J. Stargaryen]

25 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

What does this mean its based "off his notes?" So GRRM's notes have a POV who can testify to Lyanna having trained at the rings? Does this app have a POV that gave this info?

Why would GRRM need a POV to relay this info?

25 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Northern what you asked is a very good question.Its the kind of contradiction in  character that reaffirms for me this  app is fanfic. Rickard who wouldn't let his daughter carry a sword(thus she had to work at it with her little brother in secret) allowed her to train at Jousting? Really? 

peThis makes no sense.It kind of defeats the purpose for having her not use swords.What did he hope she was going to use this skill for when she was done,picking Mangoes?

Assuming Rickard knew, and gave his blessing. Perhaps he considered it a reasonable extension of her riding skills, and relatively harmless since she would never be able to actually joust. (HA!) And he might have considered it fundamentally different from sword play, since tilting at rings does not involving fighting with another person.

[NorthernXY]

58 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Why would GRRM need a POV to relay this info?

Why would he dump a spoiler in an obscure app?  Telling us Lyanna rode at rings tells us Lyanna was the KotLT.  Might as well have told people at a conference Lyanna was the KotLT and been done with it.  That way people don't have to spend money on something that is presented in a halfass encyclopedia to get what is most likely the only piece of new information in it.  Could have told us Jon's eyes are just really dark purple too in a certain light and save everyone the speculation if R+L=J.

He doesn't talk about the app like he talks about the books.  He should give interviews that include the app so people can be aware of its existence.

 

[J. Stargaryen]

22 minutes ago, NorthernXY said:

Why would he dump a spoiler in an obscure app?  Telling us Lyanna rode at rings tells us Lyanna was the KotLT.  Might as well have told people at a conference Lyanna was the KotLT and been done with it.  That way people don't have to spend money on something that is presented in a halfass encyclopedia to get what is most likely the only piece of new information in it.  Could have told us Jon's eyes are just really dark purple too in a certain light and save everyone the speculation if R+L=J.

He doesn't talk about the app like he talks about the books.  He should give interviews that include the app so people can be aware of its existence.

 

First, I'm not sure how obscure the app is. It's meant as a companion to TWoIaF. It's the official ASoIaF app. Second, I don't know why that was included. Maybe GRRM wanted people to know she practiced, so that the KotLT revelation won't seem too far fetched, but he didn't plan on writing about it in the books. Third, it wasn't the only piece of new info.

[Sly Wren]

On September 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

We know that some jousters train extensively. So there is a connection, but not necessarily a requirement. Whereas we are told that one must be a great horseman before they can be a great jouster. So there is both a link and a requirement between jousting and horsemanship. Further, we are told by Jaime Lannister that jousting is 3/4 horsemanship. Not some jousting, but jousting itself. All jousting. In addition to these points, we are repeatedly told that Lyanna was a very skilled rider.

Agreed. Would also add that so far in the novels, we've only seen jousters who are good who are also trained.

Quote

Since my arguments don't seem to be persuading you, I'm going to try using yours. You are fond of presenting data and then finishing up by saying something pretty reasonable like, It seems like GRRM is trying to tell us something, no? Or, It seems like maybe we shouldn't be ignoring this. How about we try applying your own standards, and/or reasoning, to the above evidence?

HA! Yes, I do have that annoying tick. And you and @sweetsunray are right in that there are pointers to Lyanna. 

But there are also pointers to the need for training--namely, so far everyone who's good is trained somewhat.

On September 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

No. I mean, maybe. But certainly not necessarily.

To be frank, I think you are using the Lyanna=Arya parallel as a crutch, and I fully agree with @sweetsunray that it makes for a weak argument when you present it this way.

All fair. But given that Martin has taken a fair amount of time showing us the Arqya-Lyanna connection, I can't discount her entirely. But as I said to @sweetsunray, it's by no means certain or dispositive if Arya didn't do it.

On September 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

But once we conclude that she might have, and I think we have enough to make that relatively small leap, then we can reasonably assume that she did. I'm not talking in absolute terms, but at least for the sake of discussion. In my experience, almost all theories make a leap of at least this size somewhere along the way.

True. And true that she might have. And that the books don't exclude it yet.

But they also only show her pursuing swords. And have not shown us she was trained. Only stated the opposite re: Rickard.

On September 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Following up on what I said above, odds don't really exist in fictional stories. Things either happened or they didn't. In fact, defying the (realistic) odds is one of the staples of storytelling, both in fiction and non-fiction. You might say that storytelling is where the unlikely goes to become commonplace.

Agreed. Though Martin has said he doesn't like some of the fantasy tropes. And seems to have gone to some lengths to make the fighting in the novels somewhat "realistic." 

Quote

I have a feeling that the reason you're quite attached to this likely/unlikely argument, is because you're plenty smart enough to realize that there's no good reason for Lyanna to have been a master horse rider, who also trained at jousting, unless she jousted at some point. And if she did joust at some point, it was as the KotLT.

We don't yet know she trained at jousting. And Arya, too, is wicked good at riding.

On September 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

His motive for revenge is huge. But Lyanna's motive to disguise her identity would be even bigger than Howland's. It was an absolute necessity for her to even compete in the lists.

True.

Though Mystery Knights who could absolutely compete otherwise are laid out in the same novel that Meera's tale is in. And given by Bran as she's telling the tale. Also by Jaime earlier.

So, lack of being able to compete is clearly not remotely required for a desire to hide.

On September 30, 2016 at 4:18 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

I wanted to address something about semi-canon sources. I find it somewhat strange that anyone would lend more credence to speculation based upon an uncertain premise, than the plainly written information of the app. For example, you have repeatedly argued that Lyanna probably didn't train at jousting because Arya doesn't appear to have been interested in jousting. Yet the app states for everyone to see that Lyanna trained at jousting. Why on earth should we consider the former more likely, and/or credible, than the latter?

Right--but unless I'm remembering wrong, wasn't there a thread for reporting things the app got wrong when compared to the books? It's alluded to here.

ETA: And the link to said thread is here.

 

If those mistakes got through into the original version of the app, what about mistakes/misconceptions that couldn't be corrected because they haven't been discussed in the books? We've no way of checking until it shows up in the books. 

Until something's confirmed in the books, it's not canon, according to both Martin and Ran.

Everyone's going to disagree on how much weight to give the app. But both Martin and Ran have said it's not canon until it's in the novels. 

So, until then, "Lyanna rode at rings" is semi-canon. And could end up being correct. Could also end up being incorrect. Like other mistakes that were in the app originally.