Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 2

[Sly Wren]

18 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I offer an alternate interpretation: Jon is the Ice dragon, Arya - Shadowcat , Sansa the Moonmaid and Bran the Sword of the Morning.

The Sword of the Morning doesn't have to be the literal wielder of Dawn - it could be the guy who actually brings back dawn (his wolf is named Summer, after all). Plus most of the Sword of the Morning/Arthur Dayne references have dropped in Bran's arc as compared to Jon's, because Dayne was his hero, and the guy Bran aspired to be.

Perhaps. But so far, Jon and only Jon has the epiphany of the Sword of the Morning over the Wall. In the same stars where the night before he was asking the stars "who am I?" Comes out in the morning and all of the other options are gone--only the Sword of the Morning remains. Like an answer to "who am I" that he was asking so much the night before.

And Bran dreams of other knights fighting with swords like starfire. He doesn't see himself as such a knight.

18 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

In fact, it's very curious that the chapter where the Reeds arrive in Winterfell, Bran randomly - without much reason -  remembers his dad telling him of Arthur Dayne, the finest knight he knew, who would have killed him if not for Howland. This could tie into what @Sly Wren has been saying about the "kinslaying" part of the Bael story -  it's not Ned who killed Arthur, it's actually Howland. If Howland + Ashara is true (not that I think it is, but it's not impossible) then this could be support of that theory, as Howland and Arthur would be very close to kin.

Possible--though we don't know if Howland killed Arthur, enabled Ned to kill Arthur, or is they killed him together. 

Though I do rather like Howland and Ashara theories, so far, we only know there's a rumor Ashara had a daughter. And that Dany looks like she could be Ashara's.

18 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Whereas most of the "Ice dragon" references in the book have dropped in Jon's arc. In fact, all the references to an actual ice dragon (not the Constellation) are in his arc, in ADWD.

Agreed. I think the ice dragon is the Others. Martin's way of telling us that dragons and Others are equally dangerous. The Ice Dragon is cold, blue star eyed, and closely associated with the Wall. I think Jon's associated with them because he's going to end them.

[Sly Wren]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

With all respect, Sly Wren, where? Where is any of this groundwork? Omitting Lyanna's kidnapping from Lord Borrell's tale to Davos isn't groundwork. It's not bringing up something that's not under discussion. Brandon's call for Rhaegar to come out and die isn't a clue he knows Lyanna is elsewhere. This is just making up alternatives that have no support. 

First up, by "groundwork" I don't mean "proof." My apologies if I made it sound that way.

I mean "laid out evidence that other things were going on." And "laid out clear echoes and precedents." Martin's done a lot of work on that score. Most of it I've written out here. 

1. Baelish's framing of Cersei and Jaime: Ned believes the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. He's trying to find proof and motive. But the right question was never "why and how did the Lannisters do it?" The right question was "who actually did it and why did they frame the Lannisters?" 

2. Baelish's framing of Tyrion for Bran's fall. Same basic problem.

3. Baelish did both of them to stir up trouble to get a war. And he has his own ends in sight over this.

4. Baelish wasn't in play during Robert's Rebellion. But Martin makes it VERY clear that Tywin was. And Tywin and Aerys LOATHED each other. And Aerys had just taken Jaime from Tywin after refusing to marry Rhaegar and Cersei.

5. In the World Book, we have the whole story of the Defiance of Duskendale. The takeaway? Tywin happily used other people's rebellions to try to get rid of his political enemies. And Tywin still wanted Aerys dead. This is before Aerys had taken Jaime. So, why on earth tell this whole story and even bring it into the novels unless it's relevant? 

6. In Storm, we learn that: the Knight of the Laughing Tree defeated three knights from families that do dirty work for Tywin. Frey and Haigh end up doing the Red Wedding. And then Tywin reinstates Boros Blount for absolutely no discernible reason. If anything, Tywin should have killed Boros. He killed Masha Heddle for a similar offense.

7. So, we know that Tywin has ties to the three defeated knights who will do dirty work for him. And that he has motive in spades to take out Aerys. And that he has previously used another's rebellion to try to take out Aerys. And that he sits out this war until the opportune moment.

That's what I mean by groundwork: Martin's given us another person with a TON of motive to start a war. But to use other people to do it so he can hide his own actions. And with a track record of doing it. 

Quote

Robert thinks Rhaegar held Lyanna against her will long enough to rape her hundreds of time. His rage against Rhaegar is such he still dreams of killing him every night. Do you think Robert is making this up? Or do you believe he is being tricked by others into believing Rhaegar took Lyanna?

I think Robert completely believes this. And I think Ned lets him believe this--whether Rhaegar took Lyanna, or Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar, or other options. And I think, one way or another, Robert is being misled by Ned.

Quote

Is Ned in on the secret that Rhaegar is not guilty of taking Lyanna, but is holding out information that would exonerate the Crown Prince? And if so, why would he do so?

Well, one way or another, Ned is absolutely lying about Jon's origins and not talking about what happened with Lyanna. As for why: to protect Jon (and possibly Dany). And, in my "Arthur" scenario--to protect the Daynes.

Quote

If he is, does that mean Ned fools everyone else including Hoster Tully, and Jon Arryn?

Yes.

Quote

This means Ned has hidden Lyanna's death from Robert and from everyone else since the first days of the rebellion, and he lies to Robert and everyone else when he finally tells them of her death about where, when, and how she dies, and continues to do so for the next fifteen plus years. The  proposed excuse for this is what? He wanted to spare Robert from the grief while the war was being waged? Why then doesn't he tell him the truth after the war is won? There is no reason for Ned to hold this secret from Robert, and absolutely no way Lyanna's death can occur without Ned being there.

On this--I do think Lyanna ended up with Rhaegar and/or his kingsguard at some point. The association between the fight and her death, plus the echoes of the tower KG that show up in the Brotherhood when they have Arya--no, I'd be stunned if Lyanna didn't end up with the KG and probably Rhaegar at some point. But I think it was most likely an accident--like Arya, she ran from trouble. And ended up with sworn brothers.

Quote

 It means, however, the whole rebel side has been tricked into believing Rhaegar took Lyanna, and this "erroneous" belief is thought as basic history of the time by the victorious rebels.

Exactly. The history was written by the victorious rebels who believed Rhaegar was a kidnapper. But as Martin has shown us many times, that does not mean that Rhaegar did it. Any more than the Lannisters killed Arryn. Or Tyrion and Sansa killed Joff.

Quote

Dany clearly has been told, almost certainly by Viserys, that Rhaegar was responsible for carrying off Lyanna.

True--but that doesn't mean the story is right. Any more than the Stark kids' believing that Jon is their brother actually makes him their biological brother.

Quote

Of particular interest is that Arstan, or Ser Barristan as we later find out, does not correct Daenerys about Rhaegar stealing away Lyanna.

I've no doubt Barristan believes that Rhaegar took Lyanna.

Quote

Ser Barristan is of interest here for a number of reasons. He was with Rhaegar at the Trident, and he helped to bring the loyalist forces scattered after the Battle of the Bells. Presumably, when they are together in the months leading up to the Trident Rhaegar has the opportunity to set the record straight and claim his innocence in the kidnapping. Ser Barristan does not believe such a claim however.

Possible. But we also have Barristan say that Rhaegar was not close to him. And we have no evidence Rhaegar confided in him. We could get such evidence, but we don't have it yet.

Quote

So neither side accepts, or even knows of, the idea that Rhaegar was not guilty of running off with Lyanna. And no one in story makes this claim. Even if they think Rhaegar is motivated by love.

Right--and everyone in the seven kingdoms (far as we know) and even in Braavos (far as we know) thinks Sansa and Tyrion killed Joff. To that event, there were even witnesses. And a trial. And plenty of motive.

But Sansa and Tyrion didn't do it. They were framed.

Quote

This kind of argument without support, and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, defines "crackpot." Which is fine as a exploratory exercise, but as a serious argument it fails from the outset.

And if Martin hadn't spent so much time on Tywin's history with Aerys, and his track record with the Defiance of Duskendale, and the precedent of Baelish's framings, and Sansa and Tyrion's being framed and all the rest of it--if Martin hadn't done all of that, I'd be right there with you.

But he did all of that. He keeps telling us that plotters started Robb's Rebellion. And that plotters were around with TONS of motive before Robert's Rebellion. He's set up an alternative motive and plotter for starting Robert's Rebellion. And given us multiple examples of how everyone can believe the wrong thing. And even famous and well known people can be framed. 

Seems like he's done all of this for a reason.

Does this prove Rhaegar didn't do it? Of course not. Not even I am that mad. But it's hard to see why Martin gave all that context on Tywin's history with Aerys, let alone the example of the Defiance and the three defeated knights, if it wasn't relevant.

And that context with Tywin provides a very credible person who could have stirred up rebellion and framed Rhaegar for it.

[wolfmaid7]

46 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

First up, by "groundwork" I don't mean "proof." My apologies if I made it sound that way.

I mean "laid out evidence that other things were going on." And "laid out clear echoes and precedents." Martin's done a lot of work on that score. Most of it I've written out here. 

1. Baelish's framing of Cersei and Jaime: Ned believes the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. He's trying to find proof and motive. But the right question was never "why and how did the Lannisters do it?" The right question was "who actually did it and why did they frame the Lannisters?" 

2. Baelish's framing of Tyrion for Bran's fall. Same basic problem.

3. Baelish did both of them to stir up trouble to get a war. And he has his own ends in sight over this.

4. Baelish wasn't in play during Robert's Rebellion. But Martin makes it VERY clear that Tywin was. And Tywin and Aerys LOATHED each other. And Aerys had just taken Jaime from Tywin after refusing to marry Rhaegar and Cersei.

5. In the World Book, we have the whole story of the Defiance of Duskendale. The takeaway? Tywin happily used other people's rebellions to try to get rid of his political enemies. And Tywin still wanted Aerys dead. This is before Aerys had taken Jaime. So, why on earth tell this whole story and even bring it into the novels unless it's relevant? 

6. In Storm, we learn that: the Knight of the Laughing Tree defeated three knights from families that do dirty work for Tywin. Frey and Haigh end up doing the Red Wedding. And then Tywin reinstates Boros Blount for absolutely no discernible reason. If anything, Tywin should have killed Boros. He killed Masha Heddle for a similar offense.

7. So, we know that Tywin has ties to the three defeated knights who will do dirty work for him. And that he has motive in spades to take out Aerys. And that he has previously used another's rebellion to try to take out Aerys. And that he sits out this war until the opportune moment.

That's what I mean by groundwork: Martin's given us another person with a TON of motive to start a war. But to use other people to do it so he can hide his own actions. And with a track record of doing it. 

I think Robert completely believes this. And I think Ned lets him believe this--whether Rhaegar took Lyanna, or Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar, or other options. And I think, one way or another, Robert is being misled by Ned.

Well, one way or another, Ned is absolutely lying about Jon's origins and not talking about what happened with Lyanna. As for why: to protect Jon (and possibly Dany). And, in my "Arthur" scenario--to protect the Daynes.

Yes.

On this--I do think Lyanna ended up with Rhaegar and/or his kingsguard at some point. The association between the fight and her death, plus the echoes of the tower KG that show up in the Brotherhood when they have Arya--no, I'd be stunned if Lyanna didn't end up with the KG and probably Rhaegar at some point. But I think it was most likely an accident--like Arya, she ran from trouble. And ended up with sworn brothers.

Exactly. The history was written by the victorious rebels who believed Rhaegar was a kidnapper. But as Martin has shown us many times, that does not mean that Rhaegar did it. Any more than the Lannisters killed Arryn. Or Tyrion and Sansa killed Joff.

True--but that doesn't mean the story is right. Any more than the Stark kids' believing that Jon is their brother actually makes him their biological brother.

I've no doubt Barristan believes that Rhaegar took Lyanna.

Possible. But we also have Barristan say that Rhaegar was not close to him. And we have no evidence Rhaegar confided in him. We could get such evidence, but we don't have it yet.

Right--and everyone in the seven kingdoms (far as we know) and even in Braavos (far as we know) thinks Sansa and Tyrion killed Joff. To that event, there were even witnesses. And a trial. And plenty of motive.

But Sansa and Tyrion didn't do it. They were framed.

And if Martin hadn't spent so much time on Tywin's history with Aerys, and his track record with the Defiance of Duskendale, and the precedent of Baelish's framings, and Sansa and Tyrion's being framed and all the rest of it--if Martin hadn't done all of that, I'd be right there with you.

But he did all of that. He keeps telling us that plotters started Robb's Rebellion. And that plotters were around with TONS of motive before Robert's Rebellion. He's set up an alternative motive and plotter for starting Robert's Rebellion. And given us multiple examples of how everyone can believe the wrong thing. And even famous and well known people can be framed. 

Seems like he's done all of this for a reason.

Does this prove Rhaegar didn't do it? Of course not. Not even I am that mad. But it's hard to see why Martin gave all that context on Tywin's history with Aerys, let alone the example of the Defiance and the three defeated knights, if it wasn't relevant.

And that context with Tywin provides a very credible person who could have stirred up rebellion and framed Rhaegar for it.

Slywren why are you apologizing?That is evidence.If this was one person making this exclusion that would be no problem.Its everyone including Lyanna's brother and betrothed and the guy that supposedly was responsible for her disappearence.

There is no dialogue inkling that Lyanna was missing until after the rebellion when it became the reason.

The rape angle i actually 100% is an invention of Roberts mind because wouldn't believe that of Lyanna...That in itself is a clue.

I believe 100% believe most of westeros thought they ran away together because crap it was Rhaegar every girl wanted him so why not Lyanna.

Again perception void of eyewitness testimony be it emotionally supporting Rhaegar's feeling or otherwise.

[wolfmaid7]

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I am not contesting that Robert loved Lyanna. Where I am disagreeing is that Lyanna showed any inclination towards him. 

It does matter when they bed, Wolfmaid, because it was expected that highborn women should come to their beds a virgin, and premarital sex was a taboo for noble women.

Take the case of Brandon Stark and Catelyn. They had been betrothed since she was 12, and from her own recollections (and other evidence) we can infer that they met and interacted quite a bit before their actual wedding. In their case, she actually showed an affection for him as well. Yet there is no indication that he ever made a move on her or that she slept with him, and we know (much like Robert) that he wasn't a man who was "shy about taking what he wanted". 

The only thing Ned gives us from Lyanna's side about Robert is a scene expressing her disillusionment with the guy sleeping around. In fact, he directly compares Rhaegar and Robert in his mind on this very same parameter. 

We can see this even from the account of the HH tourney feast (from Howland, who was with the wolves at their table). Robert and Lyanna are not mentioned to be sitting together or talking or interacting even in the slightest. That's not the behavior of a couple in "love" at a feast (essentially a party), you would think they should have been dancing together, at the very minimum. GRRM gives us nothing, just he gives us nothing in Ned's thoughts about any interactions of theirs.

 

For Robert to use the term " mine again" not just "mine" indicates a level of intimacy akin to Ygritte telling Jon "she is his as he is hers.

One can know what kind of relationship two people had just by paying attention to the behavior ,declaration of one party AND individuals that knew them both which is where Ned comes in.What does he say,observe etc.

Ned envoking Robert's love to save Sansa's wolf means nothing if feelings weren't mutual.

Ned qualifying of Robert's love to him as a brother who was sn intimate sibling means nothing if Lyanna didnt reciprocate.

I 100 percent agree with you that there is a social expectation.I disagree with you that this has stopped anyone in Westeros from engaging in premarital relations.If social laws dictated morality then Winterfell wouldn't have a history of bastards.Brandon would be a saint,Barbery,Cersie,the Florent girl and many others wouldn't have been delflowered.

There is an expectation yes but Lyanna's convo with Ned puts no start date on when keeping to one bed may begin.

It happens.No i don't think GRRM needed to show actual interaction with Lyanna and Robert....That is what you call a secret.He only needed to show via banta,behavior and affirmation through the eyes of insiders to piece together what form of relationship they had.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

For Robert to use the term " mine again" not just "mine" indicates a level of intimacy akin to Ygritte telling Jon "she is his as he is hers.

Now who is being too literal? 

In Robert Baratheon's mind, Lyanna became his, in the sense of "his property" the moment the betrothal became official. He owned her, in his mind. That's what he meant by "mine again".

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

One can know what kind of relationship two people had just by paying attention to the behavior ,declaration of one party AND individuals that knew them both which is where Ned comes in.What does he say,observe etc.

Only "one party"? Also, "individuals that knew them both" - in other words, people not in the relationship - have a clearer picture of the relationship than the two actual participants in said relationship? Really?

One can also know the kind of relationship two people had by paying attention to the behavior and statements of the OTHER PARTY in the relationship. I mean, both people are important in a relationship between the two of them, yes? It's abundantly clear that the relationship between the two was one thing in Robert's mind, but a completely different thing in Lyanna's mind. She was, at best, dubious about him as a long-term partner.

After expressing her doubt to Ned, Ned was left with nothing much to say except to lamely hope that Robert will change and be more grown-up at some future point, but Ned sure seems to be less than 100% in his assurance there.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Ned envoking Robert's love to save Sansa's wolf means nothing if feelings weren't mutual.

Ned qualifying of Robert's love to him as a brother who was sn intimate sibling means nothing if Lyanna didnt reciprocate.

Nonsense. Robert had no way of knowing that Lyanna didn't reciprocate his feelings; in the first place, there is no indication that he ever paid any attention to her at all and he wouldn't have concerned himself with her opinion even if he had. She's a mere woman, she's only supposed to obey the men in her life and that's that.

Besides, it's just not true that Ned's appeal means nothing. Ned's trying to appeal to the better side of Robert by evoking a time when he was a better person than he became later; when he actually felt love for another person (Ned as well as Lyanna) instead of the bitter, loveless, nasty, uncaring man he had turned into. Lyanna's feelings - or lack thereof - don't enter into it. Ned's only trying to move Robert.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I 100 percent agree with you that there is a social expectation.I disagree with you that this has stopped anyone in Westeros from engaging in premarital relations.If social laws dictated morality then Winterfell wouldn't have a history of bastards.Brandon would be a saint,Barbery,Cersie,the Florent girl and many others wouldn't have been delflowered.

Of course the societal expectation stopped some people in Westeros from engaging premarital relations. Of course it did. Just because there were some people who didn't abide the societal norms, doesn't mean that nobody did.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

There is an expectation yes but Lyanna's convo with Ned puts no start date on when keeping to one bed may begin.

It doesn't put any start date on Robert keeping to one bed because Lyanna was pretty certain such a "start date" didn't exist. Remember, she said Robert would NEVER keep to one bed and that love can't change a man's nature. It's interesting to me how you continually gloss over the word "never" in your interpretation of that conversation. It's a pretty uncompromising word; it sure subtracts a whole bunch of credence from your thesis.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

It happens.No i don't think GRRM needed to show actual interaction with Lyanna and Robert....That is what you call a secret.He only needed to show via banta,behavior and affirmation through the eyes of insiders to piece together what form of relationship they had.

GRRM can also show NO interaction as an indication of the actual relationship between Lyanna and Robert - in the sense that they really didn't have an actual relationship with each other. Robert ignored her and she was dubious about him before running off with another man. That was their relationship.

There's really no secret there. Robert talks about Lyanna, but demonstrates zero knowledge of her personality or her character; he talks about her mainly in the context of how disappointing Cersei is to him. When he had the opportunity to spend some quality time with her at the Tourney, he decided to hang with his bros and drink his brains out instead.

Lyanna in flashback is dubious and has extreme reservations about marriage to him. Likewise, when she had the chance for some quality time with him at the Tourney, she instead decided to spend her time mooning over the crown prince and playing at knight. 

And readers are perfectly able to piece together the form of their relationship; it's right there on the page, written in English. Those words do not indicate the relationship that you say they do; they say the opposite, in fact. There was no there there. That is the nature of their "relationship"; that's how GRRM wrote it.

The fact is, is that not once have you been able to account for the complete contradiction between what you maintain and what GRRM actually wrote into his books.

[maudisdottir]

2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

For Robert to use the term " mine again" not just "mine" indicates a level of intimacy akin to Ygritte telling Jon "she is his as he is hers.

No it absolutely does not indicate anything about Lyanna's involvement in their intimacy.  Robert loved her and was betrothed to her.  She was "taken" and he wishes he could get her back. There is nothing in "mine again" to even suggest that he had laid claim to Lyanna in any way other than as her intended spouse.

He idealised her, and still does fifteen years later.  He's speaking from the viewpoint of a man obsessed with a woman he didn't really understand, and who he lost before she was truly his.

[WSmith84]

Yeah, I don't really see how one can interpret Lyanna's comment of 'Robert will NEVER keep to one bed' to mean that Lyanna slept with him. Because, surely, if Robert will never keep to one bed then it doesn't matter if Lyanna puts out or not. If she puts out, Robert will stray. If she doesn't, Robert will stray. Because Robert will never keep to one bed. So why would she bother sleeping with him?

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

First up, by "groundwork" I don't mean "proof." My apologies if I made it sound that way.

I mean "laid out evidence that other things were going on." And "laid out clear echoes and precedents." Martin's done a lot of work on that score. Most of it I've written out here. 

No apologies necessary, Sly Wren. There are parts of your essay which I absolutely agree with, particularly noting Tywin's hatred of Aerys's and how that is a motive for him to strike back at Aerys. But we aren't talking here about motives against Aerys or Rhaegar that could make others want to do them harm. If we are, then most of Westeros falls into the category of people who have motive against Aerys. Others have a reason to strike against Rhaegar.

For instance, the so-called Lickspittle Lords of the small council. They would love to place Viserys next in line to the throne and separate Rhaegar and Aerys. The Starks, Baratheons, Arryns, and Tullys all are part of a web that looks to be aimed squarely at Targaryen rule. Could it be a false flag operation if we are just looking at motives? The maester's conspiracy seems highly motivated against everything the Targaryens stand for (magic, dragons, prophecy, etc.) could they have done the deed? How about someone left who is still loyal to the Darklyns? On and on one can go if motive is the only criteria.

What I want is some evidence either Rhaegar didn't do it, or someone else might have.That's what's sorely lacking here. Especially when we have no reason to doubt the universal consensus that Rhaegar was the one who ran off with Lyanna. Show me a hint someone else did it. Not that Tywin may have had a relationship with Ser Boros Blunt before he was in the Kingsguard. Show me a hint anyone around Rhaegar denied he took Lyanna, and then we have a mystery. Right now we have motives galore, and nothing that suggests anyone other than Rhaegar and his companions took Lyanna.

Let me point out a few problems with this idea. First, while we have universal agreement that Rhaegar was personally involved, your proposal relies on him being elsewhere and others mistaking his party for the people who took Lyanna. Do you have a source that speaks of the Prince not being there? You don't because there is none as of yet.

We would also expect Lyanna to travel with Winterfell escorts. That would be the normal expectation of a highborn lady like the daughter of Winterfell. It is highly likely that is who tells Brandon about Lyanna's kidnapping. If it is not, then why would Brandon trust the word of Ser Boros, or any stranger? He certainly would not trust the word of Petyr Baelish. I'm glad you rule this last one out.

Now it could be there is no Rhaegar, and Lyanna is never really on the road or taken. She just dies of some unknown cause back in Winterfell, and Brandon for some reason believes his sister is on the road and taken by Rhaegar. I'm assuming Ned doesn't know anything about this until he stumbles on her on his way back north. This of course has the double problem of the brothers not only not knowing where their sister really is, but Rickard, Benjen and the people of Winterfell not knowing where she is either.

Next we have Brandon trying to kill Rhaegar for absolutely no reason other than a rumor he hears from an unknown source on the road that he has no reason to believe is true, and Ned and Robert, and the rest of Westeros never thinking to ask how she got on that road to be kidnapped.

The kicker for me, however, is the idea than Ned finds his sister dying and tells no one that it was all a lie for the rest of his life. This supposition is without any merit or support. There is no reason for Ned to lie to his king or to lie to his allies about any of this.

more later.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Perhaps. But so far, Jon and only Jon has the epiphany of the Sword of the Morning over the Wall. In the same stars where the night before he was asking the stars "who am I?" Comes out in the morning and all of the other options are gone--only the Sword of the Morning remains. Like an answer to "who am I" that he was asking so much the night before.

And Bran dreams of other knights fighting with swords like starfire. He doesn't see himself as such a knight.

I would disagree. The SOTM mention in that chapter doesn't give him any kind of epiphany - his self-doubting continues well into the chapter after that, culminating at Queenscrown.

I'm assuming it's this you are talking about:

Quote

Ghost was gone when the wildings led their horses from the cave. Did he understand about Castle Black? Jon took a breath of the crisp morning air and allowed himself to hope. The eastern sky was pink near the horizon and pale grey higher up. The Sword of the Morning still hung in the south, the bright white star in its hilt blazing like a diamond in the dawn, but the blacks and greys of the darkling forest were turning once again to greens and golds, reds and russets. And above the soldier pines and oaks and ash and sentinels stood the Wall, the ice pale and glimmering beneath the dust and dirt that pocked its surface.

Jon IV, ASOS, opens the chapter.

From the same chapter, just a few paragraphs down:

Quote

And where do I stand? Jon did not know. To stay with Ygritte, he would need to become a wildling heart and soul. If he abandoned her to return to his duty, the Magnar might cut her heart out. And if he took her with him . . . assuming she would go, which was far from certain . . . well, he could scarcely bring her back to Castle Black to live among the brothers. A deserter and a wildling could expect no welcome anywhere in the Seven Kingdoms. We could go look for Gendel's children, I suppose. Though they'd be more like to eat us than to take us in.

The SOTM mention in this chapter is much more likely to be a mundane one, indicating it was dawn (it was the last constellation visible before dawn.)

 

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

And Bran dreams of other knights fighting with swords like starfire. He doesn't see himself as such a knight.

Not true. Bran wants more than anything else to be a knight.

Quote

Bran was going to be a knight himself someday, one of the Kingsguard. Old Nan said they were the finest swords in all the realm. There were only seven of them, and they wore white armor and had no wives or children, but lived only to serve the king. Bran knew all the stories. Their names were like music to him. Serwyn of the Mirror Shield. Ser Ryam Redwyne. Prince Aemon the Dragonknight. The twins Ser Erryk and Ser Arryk, who had died on one another's swords hundreds of years ago, when brother fought sister in the war the singers called the Dance of the Dragons. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. Barristan the Bold.

Quote

Broken, Bran thought bitterly as he clutched his knife. Is that what he was now? Bran the Broken? "I don't want to be broken," he whispered fiercely to Maester Luwin, who'd been seated to his right. "I want to be a knight."

"There are some who call my order the knights of the mind," Luwin replied. "You are a surpassing clever boy when you work at it, Bran.

Quote

"There was a knight once who couldn't see," Bran said stubbornly, as Ser Rodrik went on below. "Old Nan told me about him. He had a long staff with blades at both ends and he could spin it in his hands and chop two men at once."

"Symeon Star-Eyes," Luwin said as he marked numbers in a book. "When he lost his eyes, he put star sapphires in the empty sockets, or so the singers claim. Bran, that is only a story, like the tales of Florian the Fool. A fable from the Age of Heroes." The maester tsked. "You must put these dreams aside, they will only break your heart."

Quote

I want to be a knight. Bran took another sip of the spiced honey wine from his father's goblet, grateful for something to clutch. The lifelike head of a snarling direwolf was raised on the side of the cup. He felt the silver muzzle pressing against his palm, and remembered the last time he had seen his lord father drink from this goblet.

Quote

"The wolf dreams are no true dreams. You have your eye closed tight whenever you're awake, but as you drift off it flutters open and your soul seeks out its other half. The power is strong in you."

"I don't want it. I want to be a knight."

Quote

Bran shook his head. The day was growing old by then, and long shadows were creeping down the mountainsides to send black fingers through the pines. If the little crannogman could visit the Isle of Faces, maybe I could too. All the tales agreed that the green men had strange magic powers. Maybe they could help him walk again, even turn him into a knight. They turned the little crannogman into a knight, even if it was only for a day, he thought. A day would be enough.

Quote

What was he now? Only Bran the broken boy, Brandon of House Stark, prince of a lost kingdom, lord of a burned castle, heir to ruins. He had thought the three-eyed crow would be a sorcerer, a wise old wizard who could fix his legs, but that was some stupid child's dream, he realized now. I am too old for such fancies, he told himself. A thousand eyes, a hundred skins, wisdom deep as the roots of ancient trees. That was as good as being a knight. Almost as good, anyway.

Knight imagery, the desire to be one, the struggle to be a true knight (and correspondingly Arthur Dayne/SOTM mentions) is the maximum in Jaime's arc, then Brienne, Bran, one could make a case even for Sandor Clegane. I struggle to see Jon as the Warrior or the Knight candidate in this story - he's much more of a leader, and it seems like what GRRM is building him up to be. 

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Possible--though we don't know if Howland killed Arthur, enabled Ned to kill Arthur, or is they killed him together. 

Sly Wren, we are told that Ned would have been killed if not for Howland. The most likely implication is that Howland killed him - either way, Howland is the decisive factor here in the death of Arthur, not Ned. GRRM didn't really need to highlight Howland's role in AD's death if it was not important.

 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

By "rest of his behavior," I'm assuming you mean "entering the lists?"

We do have precedent for men trying to impress women this way--Jorah, obviously.

But we also have the Knight of the Laughing Tree--also at Harrenhal. Who entered the lists for the express purpose of putting upstarts in their place. To teach people a lesson.

I like your example of the KOTLT entering the lists to teach people a lesson - it is possible Rhaegar took the idea from the original KOTLT to do such a thing. We also have a lot of "blue", "roses" and "flower" imagery around Loras in AGOT, and him handing roses to Sansa (who was completely infatuated) when he was not interested at all in her.  (Actually, IIRC, Baelish is always there in the background of the scenes when she's talking about Loras)

The Jorah story, however, is pretty interesting. The story of Jorah's first wife sounds a bit like Rhaegar to Elia, and the wife had trouble with childbirth. Then comes the story of his second wife Lynesse which seems to have a parallel to Lyanna - he saw her, fell in love, wore her favour and that gave him the impetus to enter the lists and win against all the contenders (despite not having done before) and crown her QOLAB. Very similar to Rhaegar on the day of the tourney - he was not known as such an exceptional jouster either. Quite a few parallels there.

So I'd say it was most likely love motivating him that day, but it's possible the intent was something else more political. Or it could be a combination of both - the 'Bael'ish of our story seems to have a twisted obsession with Sansa, while at the same time seeing her a useful pawn.

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Agreed. Though I think this is why Martin keeps bringing up the blue roses in later books--to tell us what they meant. The insertion of the Blue Bard as a blue rose scented man is entirely unnecessary otherwise. Any pawn would do. But Martin makes him blue rose scented and a bard. To make us pay attention to the context.

Completely agreed. The Blue Bard is also used as a pawn (poor thing).

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Though it still raises the question of why Ned would be so neutral about Rhaegar.

Most likely it's because Lyanna chose him in a way I guess - he tells Arya her "wolf blood" -  AKA rash decision-making - led her to her grave.

 

[Sly Wren]

6 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Slywren why are you apologizing?That is evidence.

HA! I apologized because I think I gave the wrong impression.

But yes--this is evidence. Definitive proof? We won't get that until we get the whole story. But it's definitely evidence.

6 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Again perception void of eyewitness testimony be it emotionally supporting Rhaegar's feeling or otherwise.

Yup!

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Yeah, I don't really see how one can interpret Lyanna's comment of 'Robert will NEVER keep to one bed' to mean that Lyanna slept with him. Because, surely, if Robert will never keep to one bed then it doesn't matter if Lyanna puts out or not. If she puts out, Robert will stray. If she doesn't, Robert will stray. Because Robert will never keep to one bed. So why would she bother sleeping with him?

Bingo. 

Not to mention that sleeping with a man due to some calculating logic is not something girls of fifteen normally do, unless they are Cersei.

[Sly Wren]

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No apologies necessary, Sly Wren. There are parts of your essay which I absolutely agree with, particularly noting Tywin's hatred of Aerys's and how that is a motive for him to strike back at Aerys. But we aren't talking here about motives against Aerys or Rhaegar that could make others want to do them harm. If we are, then most of Westeros falls into the category of people who have motive against Aerys. Others have a reason to strike against Rhaegar.

Agreed. Just like Robert has other enemies that want him off the throne via a rebellion. 

But Martin has given us not only Tywin's very specific feud with Aerys but also his track record of specifically commandeering another's rebellion to get his dirty work done. The specifics of Duskendale.

And then he shows us Tywin do it again with the Red Wedding--using the Freys' anger to take out Robb.

So, he isn't just saying "lots of people wanted Aerys dead." He's showing us a very specific motive and track record with one man.

Quote

For instance, the so-called Lickspittle Lords of the small council. They would love to place Viserys next in line to the throne and separate Rhaegar and Aerys. The Starks, Baratheons, Arryns, and Tullys all are part of a web that looks to be aimed squarely at Targaryen rule. Could it be a false flag operation if we are just looking at motives? The maester's conspiracy seems highly motivated against everything the Targaryens stand for (magic, dragons, prophecy, etc.) could they have done the deed? How about someone left who is still loyal to the Darklyns? On and on one can go if motive is the only criteria.

Agreed--but again: he's shown a specific track record with Tywin. Not just the Red Wedding, but taking the time in the World Book and in Feast to bring up the Defiance of Duskendale. The specifics of that whole thing seem like a very odd thing to spend time on--unless Martin's telling us it is relevant.

Quote

What I want is some evidence either Rhaegar didn't do it, or someone else might have.That's what's sorely lacking here.

Can't prove Rhaegar didn't do it until we get the actual story. Any more than we can prove he did do it until we get the actual story.

But Martin has shown us that Tywin ginned up others' rebellions to get rid of an enemy. Twice--once before and once after Robert's Rebellion. So, he's specifically shown us how Tywin could have done it. And that he was motivated.

As for proof though--the "proof" that Jaime and Cersei didn't kill Arryn was Lysa's confession. Up to that point, they were the most likely candidates.

The only "evidence" that Baelish and Lysa were involved lay in the fact that they had motive and means. But that was only potential options for the murder--not definitive proof one way or the other. And Jaime and Cersei looked much more guilty.

For now, Martin's shown us that Tywin had specific motive, means, and modus operandi. Just as he showed us with Baelish and Lysa. If anything, he's giving us a lot more detail and track record with Tywin than we got with Baelish and Lysa.

Until we get the actual story, we can't prove it was or wasn't Rhaegar. But we can show that Martin has clearly given us a specific potential alternative--Tywin. Potentially in cahoots with Rhaegar.

Quote

Especially when we have no reason to doubt the universal consensus that Rhaegar was the one who ran off with Lyanna. Show me a hint someone else did it.

Until we got Lysa and Baelish's confession, the only "hint" that they did it was that they had motive and means. 

That's what we have with Tywin. And, so far, no reason to give us the details of Duskendale or a connection to the defeated knights. At present, why Martin has established those things are unexplained.

Quote

Not that Tywin may have had a relationship with Ser Boros Blunt before he was in the Kingsguard. Show me a hint anyone around Rhaegar denied he took Lyanna, and then we have a mystery. Right now we have motives galore, and nothing that suggests anyone other than Rhaegar and his companions took Lyanna.

Cersei and Jaime didn't deny they killed Arryn to Ned. Nor did Ned ever doubt it. Seems like Tyrion didn't, either when he confronts Pycelle. The only hint was that Lysa and Baelish also had specific beefs and motive. The "proof" was Lysa's confession. Until then, there was no reason to doubt it was Cersei--except that it wasn't yet proven she did it.

And it is specifically not proven Rhaegar did it. the World Book is cheeky and annoying about refusing to given us that proof.

Quote

Let me point out a few problems with this idea. First, while we have universal agreement that Rhaegar was personally involved, your proposal relies on him being elsewhere and others mistaking his party for the people who took Lyanna. Do you have a source that speaks of the Prince not being there? You don't because there is none as of yet.

Nope. Nor can I prove that Cersei and Jaime weren't in Kings Landing to poison Arryn. They were. Definitely. And Tyrion and Sansa were right there when Joff was poisoned.

But they all still didn't to it.

ETA: As for the bolded, at present we have no evidence anyone still living witnessed Lyanna's kidnapping or disappearance. Not yet. Any more than we had a witness to Arryn's poisoning-- until Lysa confessed to doing it herself.

Quote

We would also expect Lyanna to travel with Winterfell escorts. That would be the normal expectation of a highborn lady like the daughter of Winterfell. It is highly likely that is who tells Brandon about Lyanna's kidnapping. If it is not, then why would Brandon trust the word of Ser Boros, or any stranger? He certainly would not trust the word of Petyr Baelish. I'm glad you rule this last one out.

Agreed on the escorts. Both Sansa and Arya are left undefended because their "escorts" are killed. Then Arya runs and only some time later eventually ends up with the Brotherhood and their echoes of the 3 Kingsguard. But Cersei lies and claims she has Arya for her own ends.

If Lyanna ran and was on her own, Tywin just has to find someone trusted by Brandon to send a message. Or a convincing enough enemy. Agreed that it likely wasn't Blount, though Blount could have been the attacker (like the Lannister men who come for Arya--and even for Sansa: Boros comes for her specifically). 

One way or another, we don't know who told Brandon. We do know Baelish found someone Cat and Ned would trust. And that the Pink Letter convinces Jon, even though it's from a declared enemy. So, Tywin just needed to find someone--friend or foe--that Brandon would believe.

But we know Brandon acted before Rickard. Which strongly suggests he got word first. Given Brandon's rep for hotheadedness and his reaction at Harrenhal, if you are trying to gin up a fight, telling Brandon first seems wise.

Quote

Now it could be there is no Rhaegar, and Lyanna is never really on the road or taken. She just dies of some unknown cause back in Winterfell, and Brandon for some reason believes his sister is on the road and taken by Rhaegar. I'm assuming Ned doesn't know anything about this until he stumbles on her on his way back north. This of course has the double problem of the brothers not only not knowing where their sister really is, but Rickard, Benjen and the people of Winterfell not knowing where she is either.

I guess this is possible--but given Ned's statement about "wolf blood" and the echoes of Lyanna in both Sansa and Arya--I really think Lyanna ended up with Rhaegar after running from trouble.

Quote

Next we have Brandon trying to kill Rhaegar for absolutely no reason other than a rumor he hears from an unknown source on the road that he has no reason to believe is true, and Ned and Robert, and the rest of Westeros never thinking to ask how she got on that road to be kidnapped.

Cat took and almost ended up killing Tyrion out of rage over a rumor, not thinking about the consequences or if she may have been manipulated.

Jon prepares to leave the Watch and run to Winterfell on the word of Ramsay Bolton, never thinking to question whether or not he's being lied to or manipulated. And he certainly doesn't ask any questions of Ramsay.

We know people in Martinlandia do this kind of irrational stuff. And we know Brandon was a hothead. It's clearly very possible in Martin's world.

Quote

The kicker for me, however, is the idea than Ned finds his sister dying and tells no one that it was all a lie for the rest of his life. This supposition is without any merit or support. There is no reason for Ned to lie to his king or to lie to his allies about any of this.

But one way or another, Ned is lying, no? To everyone. For the rest of his life. 

And there is reason to lie: if Jon is Arthur's, Robert's grief and wrath would still apply. I sincerely doubt Robert would believe the sex was consensual. And the Daynes would probably also be in danger.

Plus, if Rhaegar ended up with Lyanna after she ran from trouble, that still leaves Rhaegar open as a possible father for Lyanna's child. In fact, it's one of the only RLJ scenarios I can currently make work in my head.

But it also opens the possibility of others being Jon's father.

[teej6]

Sorry! wrong thread. 

[Sly Wren]

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I would disagree. The SOTM mention in that chapter doesn't give him any kind of epiphany - his self-doubting continues well into the chapter after that, culminating at Queenscrown.

Agreed--the moment with the Sword is ephemeral. But it's also very specific. His previous POV chapter is at night. Stars with him and Ghost on a hill, both looking at the stars, while Jon keeps asking "who am I." There are too many stars with too many names and he gets nowhere.

But when he comes out of the cave he "allowed himself to hope." Right then, looking at the stars again, there's no confusion. No multiple choice on "who am I." Only the Sword of the Morning.

Doubt takes him over again. But that moment, especially in context with his previous POV chapter--that's Jon's moment of seeing. He loses the moment. But he clearly had it.

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

The SOTM mention in this chapter is much more likely to be a mundane one, indicating it was dawn (it was the last constellation visible before dawn.)

But it's the moment when light and color come back into the world, the sword is "blazing like a diamond," and Jon is finally feeling hope after a horrible night of doubt.

It's really not mundane.

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Not true. Bran wants more than anything else to be a knight.

My apologies--I should have been more specific.

Yes--Bran wants to be a knight, as you have shown. But when he thinks of the story with Arthur: 

 

Quote

 

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

He went to sleep with his head full of knights in gleaming armor, fighting with swords that shone like starfire, but when the dream came he was in the godswood again. Clash, Bran III

 

 

Bran isn't dreaming of himself as the knight. He's thinking about other knights this time. 

Only Jon has spent his life dreaming of earning a greatsword by valor that will earn him a family name (like Dawn). Only Jon actually earns a family sword for valor. And only Jon sees the Sword of the Morning "shining like a diamond in the dawn" after asking the stars to tell him who he is.

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Knight imagery, the desire to be one, the struggle to be a true knight (and correspondingly Arthur Dayne/SOTM mentions) is the maximum in Jaime's arc, then Brienne, Bran, one could make a case even for Sandor Clegane. I struggle to see Jon as the Warrior or the Knight candidate in this story - he's much more of a leader, and it seems like what GRRM is building him up to be. 

Agreed--all of them have qualities of true knights.

But so does Jon--trying so hard to be a good sworn brother. 

Plus, the Sword of the Morning is a title that long predates the idea of knighthood. A title tied directly to the end of the Long Night--which would take a leader, as you say.

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Sly Wren, we are told that Ned would have been killed if not for Howland. The most likely implication is that Howland killed him - either way, Howland is the decisive factor here in the death of Arthur, not Ned. GRRM didn't really need to highlight Howland's role in AD's death if it was not important.

Very possible. And I agree--Howland clearly has a role in his death. But Ned  also has one, too. 

My guess is that they killed him together. But we need the specifics before we'll know.

[Sly Wren]

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I like your example of the KOTLT entering the lists to teach people a lesson - it is possible Rhaegar took the idea from the original KOTLT to do such a thing. We also have a lot of "blue", "roses" and "flower" imagery around Loras in AGOT, and him handing roses to Sansa (who was completely infatuated) when he was not interested at all in her.  (Actually, IIRC, Baelish is always there in the background of the scenes when she's talking about Loras)

The Jorah story, however, is pretty interesting. The story of Jorah's first wife sounds a bit like Rhaegar to Elia, and the wife had trouble with childbirth. Then comes the story of his second wife Lynesse which seems to have a parallel to Lyanna - he saw her, fell in love, wore her favour and that gave him the impetus to enter the lists and win against all the contenders (despite not having done before) and crown her QOLAB. Very similar to Rhaegar on the day of the tourney - he was not known as such an exceptional jouster either. Quite a few parallels there.

Agreed re: Jorah. The problem, though, is still that Martin brings up Bael, Sansa will Marillion, and the Blue Bard. If Martin didn't give us those, I'd agree that the Jorah parallel made more sense.

But the roses--Martin keeps bringing us back to them. And the context is always treachery and attack. Not love. He's got no reason for things like the Blue Bard unless he's trying to tell us something about the roses' meaning.

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

So I'd say it was most likely love motivating him that day, but it's possible the intent was something else more political. Or it could be a combination of both - the 'Bael'ish of our story seems to have a twisted obsession with Sansa, while at the same time seeing her a useful pawn.

We know for certain Rhaegar had political intent at Harrenhal. Love--so far that's rumor and speculation. Possible, but unknown.

But one way or another, Martin's bringing up blue roses as treachery in successive novels for a reason.

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Most likely it's because Lyanna chose him in a way I guess - he tells Arya her "wolf blood" -  AKA rash decision-making - led her to her grave.

Possible--though if, like Arya, Lyanna got herself into trouble and ran, the would also put her in Rhaegar's way.

Plus, Lyanna's young recklessness--not sure that would make Ned less annoyed with an older married man with clear responsibilities.

If Rhaegar ended up with Lyanna by accident, I can get Ned's attitude to Rhaegar. But if he ignored his vows and responsibilities and ran off with her. . .. that's really hard to buy.

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

Agreed--the moment with the Sword is ephemeral. But it's also very specific. His previous POV chapter is at night. Stars with him and Ghost on a hill, both looking at the stars, while Jon keeps asking "who am I." There are too many stars with too many names and he gets nowhere.

But when he comes out of the cave he "allowed himself to hope." Right then, looking at the stars again, there's no confusion. No multiple choice on "who am I." Only the Sword of the Morning.

Doubt takes him over again. But that moment, especially in context with his previous POV chapter--that's Jon's moment of seeing. He loses the moment. But he clearly had it.

But it's the moment when light and color come back into the world, the sword is "blazing like a diamond," and Jon is finally feeling hope after a horrible night of doubt.

It's really not mundane.

 

 Yuup, I can definitely go with this argument

[J. Stargaryen]

@Sly Wren

I can't really agree with your analysis of the mystery of Jon Arryn's murder. That the only hints prior to the confession were motive and means. There were clues, too. One of the first indications that something was up with the mystery of Jon's mother is that we're offered up two different women as possibilities. This pattern also plays out in the Arryn murder mystery as well, since we were offered two different answers with Cersei & Jaime working together, and Tyrion by himself. So that's one indication in AGoT that something was amiss there. And Lysa changing her story is also a red flag. Then we learn during the TotH that LF had lied to Cat about the catspaw knife. Which raises its own big red flag right in the center of the Lannister-Stark enmity. I think there are a couple of other clues, too, but I can't recall just now.

 

[wolfmaid7]

Mattidor,Little Scribe and Sly Wren get back to you guys later.

But i'll leave with a contined stream of convo:

So this is Ned musings after he discovered Gendry and how he was no closer to discovering why Jon Arryn was killed.The phrasing is intriguing especially in light of what occured with Arya 3 chapters later.
 

"Lysa Arryn held her silence behind the high walls of the Eyrie. The squire was dead, and Jory was still searching the whorehouses. What did he have but Robert’s bastard? (Ned,agot.

"Father, they were talking about killing you! Not the monsters, the two men. They didn't see me, I was being still as stone and quiet as a shadow, but I heard them. They said you had a book and a bastard and if one Hand could die, why not a second? Is that the book? Jon's the bastard, I bet."
"Jon? Arya, what are you talking about? Who said this?"(Arya,agot).

The Ned was almost  crapped his pants with that one.Clue? I think so.

 

[LynnS]

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

For Robert to use the term " mine again" not just "mine" indicates a level of intimacy akin to Ygritte telling Jon "she is his as he is hers.

Ned does describe Robert in his youth as every maiden's fantasy: tall, dark and muscled all over.    It's not hard for me to imagine Lyanna responding to that kind of masculinity.  They were betrothed for some time and there's nothing to say they never had contact before the Tourney.  Teenage hormones and all that.  Robert's emotional pair bond with Lyanna could very well be a result of intimate relations..