Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

[Hangover of the Morning]

32 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Of course, another explanation is that Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearance had nothing to do with love. But during their time together, love developed and both found themselves engaging in actions that they had condemned in others. That's incredibly common.

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate, please? Do you think that Aerys was trying to harm Lyanna and Rhaegar intervened? If so, why would he not return her to her father/brother or at least let them know that she was safe? If the Prince though that it was too dangerous to send a raven, he could have left Lyanna at a safe location with his best men and return to KL or Dragonstone after few days and try to find a diplomatic solution. Helping Lyanna is all good but by making himself into scapegoat, has far more damaging consequences, something that Rhaegar would surely be aware, especially when if in this scenario, he wasn't blinded by raging hormones. What were people supposed to think? It looked like Rhaegar either kept Lyanna as a prisoner against her will or that he has already murdered her and has been hiding ever since, possibly even in the Red Keep, under the protection of the King. 

[wolfmaid7]

12 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Add in the roses which Martin has repeatedly, symbolically told us were an insult from the start, the idea that Lyanna ran off for love, or that she would have forgotten the assessment she gave Ned when caught up with men faithful to the king who killed her father and brother is. . . very hard to fathom.

Yeah this! Ned and Brandon's reaction to "Rhaegar's honor" can't be ignored....The likelihood that Lyanna saw it the same  way as her brothers is just as high coming from the same family.

This isn't a parallel so much as a family being insulted by something that was used to bring their family shame.Even if it was a myth,its out there.No one else needed to get it,the fact that they took it a certain way 

Either way,its hard to say Lyanna ran away with Rhaegar because he had certain attributes while that very act and all subsequent events that came out of it shot those attributes out of the air.

My take and i think and evidence supports this;Rhaegar had nothing to do with this and was simply set up to take the fall for something that would serve to cover what happened to Lyanna.

Insighting Brandon with a lie was all that was needed..Lyanna was probably safe in the Vale when Bradon got this "message" and the idot didn't think "i should find out first if she's ok before i act"

[WSmith84]

4 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But if love won't keep Robert loyal, it won't keep Rhaegar loyal, either. "Love cannot change a man's nature"--Lyanna's extrapolating that idea to all men.

It won't keep Robert loyal, because loyalty isn't in his nature. He isn't capable of it. But perhaps Rhaegar was capable. And love was the pre-requisite.

For example, if I'm incapable of happiness, then love won't change that. But if I am capable, but simply not happy, perhaps I will be happy if I'm in love.

5 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

She didn't know him though.....Plus she has no knowledge about what state his marriage may or may not be in to make that call that he'd be faithful if in love.

That cast Lyanna as some starry eyed waif who like Cersie when hearing him play a song thinks to herself that she could make his pain go away.

That doesn't come off like Lyanna.

Whereas her objecting to Robert's nature and then sleeping with him later is like Lyanna? Her objection is that loyalty isn't in Robert's nature, so nothing, not even love, will make him loyal. Your reasoning is that, therefore, Lyanna would sleep with Robert because if Robert had access to regular sex he wouldn't go elsewhere. Which is directly contradicted by her complaint; nothing will keep Robert loyal (change his nature). So why would she bother to sleep with him if she thinks the effort is futile?

[Sly Wren]

6 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yeah this! Ned and Brandon's reaction to "Rhaegar's honor" can't be ignored....The likelihood that Lyanna saw it the same  way as her brothers is just as high coming from the same family.

This isn't a parallel so much as a family being insulted by something that was used to bring their family shame.Even if it was a myth,its out there.No one else needed to get it,the fact that they took it a certain way 

True--but given that both the Bael Tale and the Blue Bard Scenario make it clear that the offense was specific and intended--really seems like Rhaegar intended to insult/smack the Starks.

Maybe he was tricked, but Rhaegar had plenty of motive to put the upstarts back in their place: he was trying to run things to get Aerys off of the throne himself.

As you say, others may not have understood. The World Book writer is clearly befuddled. But It was intended as an insult and a smack from the start.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

37 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Its about infidelity!!!! Not love. Her whole point to Ned was that she believed Robert regardless of love would cheat.This is her belief though subject to change pending them spending time with each other.

I see that you're still leaving out Lyanna's word "never" from her assessment of Robert's fidelity, though. She did say that Robert will "never keep to one bed".

I'm not advocating that her belief is not "subject to change"; however, if her belief did change through them spending time with each other, then I would like to see hints from the texts that this happened. So far in the books there have been no indications that her assessment of Robert on this score was changed at all.

 

[WSmith84]

8 minutes ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate, please? Do you think that Aerys was trying to harm Lyanna and Rhaegar intervened? If so, why would he not return her to her father/brother or at least let them know that she was safe? If the Prince though that it was too dangerous to send a raven, he could have left Lyanna at a safe location with his best men and return to KL or Dragonstone after few days and try to find a diplomatic solution. Helping Lyanna is all good but by making himself into scapegoat, has far more damaging consequences, something that Rhaegar would surely be aware, especially when if in this scenario, he wasn't blinded by raging hormones. What were people supposed to think? It looked like Rhaegar either kept Lyanna as a prisoner against her will or that he has already murdered her and has been hiding ever since, possibly even in the Red Keep, under the protection of the King. 

A parallel might be Jon and Alys Karstark; Jon helps her flee from an unwanted marriage. Perhaps Rhaegar was trying to help Lyanna flee her unwanted marriage to Robert. Obviously, he couldn't take her to her family; they'd have probably sent her to Robert regardless. We don't know where they went afterwards (when the shit hit the fan, basically) so after that it's all guesswork.

[Sly Wren]

2 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

It won't keep Robert loyal, because loyalty isn't in his nature. He isn't capable of it. But perhaps Rhaegar was capable. And love was the pre-requisite.

For example, if I'm incapable of happiness, then love won't change that. But if I am capable, but simply not happy, perhaps I will be happy if I'm in love.

But if Rhaegar is wiling to leave his wife and children, how is his nature loyal? Especially if Lyanna's point is that no matter how much a man loves you--not just says he loves you, but really loves you--he will do what he has done before.

Lyanna never denies that Robert loves her and will adore her. She denies that love is enough to make him change. And that what he has done before he will do again. And that ALL men are the same.

According to Lyanna's reasoning: If Rhaegar is a man who will leave a wife and children for love, he'd leave the next wife and children for love. "Love cannot change a man's nature."

[Hangover of the Morning]

1 minute ago, WSmith84 said:

A parallel might be Jon and Alys Karstark; Jon helps her flee from an unwanted marriage. Perhaps Rhaegar was trying to help Lyanna flee her unwanted marriage to Robert. Obviously, he couldn't take her to her family; they'd have probably sent her to Robert regardless. We don't know where they went afterwards (when the shit hit the fan, basically) so after that it's all guesswork.

That's definitely possible but I'm still a bit doubtful. Firstly, Rickard is no Tywin and Robert is no Ramsay. Lyanna was adored by all of her brother as well as her betrothed. Robert is not marrying her for her army but because he genuinely thought that he was in love with her. He probably pissed of quite a few of his own loyal bannermen in the process, who were hoping to marry him to their own daughters. She has no reason to suspect that he would mistreat her, aside for being unfaithful to her. 

Running away, burning bridges, shaming her family and causing rift between The North and the Stormlands is a pretty drastic course of action for not wanting to marry a nice guy, who is a Lord Paramount and who loved her. Why wouldn't Lyanna try at first talk to her father, brothers and Robert and persuade them to cancel or postpone the engagement? I know that women had no say in this and it probably wouldn't work but we have no reason to suspect that she even tried, aside for that little conversation with Ned.

I can get behind Rhaegar wanting to help her but why would he chose to implicate himself in the process? That's the worst course of action imaginable and almost guaranteed to lead to a major conflict. He could have arranged for her to be taken to safety by someone he trusted. The events would never escalated as much if Lyanna was kidnaped by a Kingsguard knight or an unknown person, basically anyone but the Prince or the King. If L+R were madly in love or besotted with prophecy, that at least gives them tiny bit of leeway because they weren't right in their heads and thinking clearly but they'd be just extremely selfish, idiotic and cruel under the scenario you propose. 

 

 

 

[WSmith84]

2 minutes ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

That's definitely possible but I'm still a bit doubtful. Firstly, Rickard is no Tywin and Robert is no Ramsay. Lyanna was adored by all of her brother as well as her betrothed. Robert is not marrying her for her army but because he genuinely thought that he was in love with her. He probably pissed of quite a few of his own loyal bannermen in the process, who were hoping to marry him to their own daughters. She has no reason to suspect that he would mistreat her, aside for being unfaithful to her.

We know very little about Rickard or Brandon. They might not have been Tywin, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't expect her to marry Robert despite her objections, just as most highborns are expected to do. Perhaps Lyanna was as naive as Sansa once was. Rhaegar's the one who has the most explaining to do; he's an adult, married with kids and the Crown Prince. He should know better.

[Hangover of the Morning]

13 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

We know very little about Rickard or Brandon. They might not have been Tywin, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't expect her to marry Robert despite her objections, just as most highborns are expected to do. Perhaps Lyanna was as naive as Sansa once was. Rhaegar's the one who has the most explaining to do; he's an adult, married with kids and the Crown Prince. He should know better.

Hence, why I said that talking to Rickard and persuading all her brother's to take her side or even talking to Robert would probably still not work, however, as far as we know, Lyanna hasn't even tried. It's difficult to paint Lyanna's actions as nothing but selfish, if understandable, but the baffling part is why would the Prince think that the only way he can help Lyanna out of her marriage is if he plays the role of a kidnapper (or perceived rapist or even a murderer), knowing very well that it is bound to have unpredictable and likely catastrophic consequences. Even if he was so naive, wouldn't Arthur Dayne knock some sense into him?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Right--but the point is, no matter how much a man claims to love you, his nature won't change.

...So, if Rhaegar is willing to leave his wife and kids or set them aside for love, he's thus a man who is willing to do that.

And would be willing to do again later if he loved another after Lyanna--love would not change his "wife-leaving" nature, either.

Yep.  Well said, @Sly Wren.

It's like that old saying... "What's good for the gander (i.e., Robert), is good for the goose (i.e., Rhaegar)."

Or something like that.

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I see that you're still leaving out Lyanna's word "never" from her assessment of Robert's fidelity, though. She did say that Robert will "never keep to one bed".

I'm not advocating that her belief is not "subject to change"; however, if her belief did change through them spending time with each other, then I would like to see hints from the texts that this happened. So far in the books there have been no indications that her assessment of Robert on this score was changed at all.

 

Her saying "never" is insignificant its just an exclamtion on what she believes,nor does it indicate Lyanna was right.Ned was saying in a nutshell that love would change Robert.She was saying that love wouldn't.

Fast forward Cersie....She didn't love him he had no reason to change for her.Review Lyanna and Robert and this is a point we will go back and forth until GRRM proves wrong or right.

Hints:

Robert's behavior,visual depiction through the eyes of others( i.e.Ned and Cersie)  when it comes to Lyanna indicates that they were intimately involved.We have this in spades.

And it wasn't just a man yearning for what he could have had but lost.

He had it ,Lyanna was his he,experianced it and lost it.The man was in a state of prolonged grief.

 

[wolfmaid7]

                                      

25 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Yep.  Well said, @Sly Wren.

It's like that old saying... "What's good for the gander (i.e., Robert), is good for the goose (i.e., Rhaegar)."

Or something like that.

I second this.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

A parallel might be Jon and Alys Karstark; Jon helps her flee from an unwanted marriage. Perhaps Rhaegar was trying to help Lyanna flee her unwanted marriage to Robert. Obviously, he couldn't take her to her family; they'd have probably sent her to Robert regardless. We don't know where they went afterwards (when the shit hit the fan, basically) so after that it's all guesswork.

Let's not forget that Alys Karstark was fleeing from a man she thought would kill her once she bore him a child and suspected him of killing his two previous wives. 

[Hangover of the Morning]

13 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Let's not forget that Alys Karstark was fleeing from a man she thought would kill her once she bore him a child and suspected him of killing his two previous wives. 

Yes, and Jon only acted as the mediator, he didn't break his vows or sacrificed the Night's Watch to protect Alys. 

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

Whereas her objecting to Robert's nature and then sleeping with him later is like Lyanna? Her objection is that loyalty isn't in Robert's nature, so nothing, not even love, will make him loyal. Your reasoning is that, therefore, Lyanna would sleep with Robert because if Robert had access to regular sex he wouldn't go elsewhere. Which is directly contradicted by her complaint; nothing will keep Robert loyal (change his nature). So why would she bother to sleep with him if she thinks the effort is futile?

The object in you statement  is "later" which is what i'm speaking of.As Robert's bethothed it would be customary for her to and Robert to get to know each other seeing and this is even more likely seeing as they had a long bethrothal.

Just to be clear,I'm not saying that if Robert had access to regular sex he wouldn't go anywhere. That's not it at all and definitely not what i'm proposing.Cersie was cold,she witheld sex and she didn't like spending time with Robert when he asked her to.She herself said Ribert tried hard at the begining of their relationship,but she wanted to be with her brother.

Ned thinks Robert would love and be true to Lyanna,Lyana thinks love won't change him.But we are given a direct quote from Cersie that discredits that.

"A half smile flickered across the queen’s face. "Robert's trueborn son and heir. Though Joff would cry whenever Robert picked him up. His Grace did not like that. His bastards had always gurgled at him happily, and sucked his finger when he put it in their little baseborn mouths. Robert wanted smiles and cheers, always, so he went where he found them, to his friends and his whores. Robert wanted to be loved."

M brother Tyrion has the same disease. Do you want to be loved Sansa?

Robert was loyal alright and he went to where he felt loved....It just wasn't Cersie because love didn't dwell there.

[J. Stargaryen]

On 9/15/2016 at 1:45 PM, Voice said:

No I agree, and that is an accurate summation.

It is entirely possible that Lyanna was a hypocrite. Why the author would feel the need to make Ned's dead sister into a hypocrite is another question. It is a stretch imo.

Channeling my best GRRM: Because people are complicated. The only thing worth writing about is the heart in conflict with itself.

On 9/15/2016 at 1:45 PM, Voice said:

Rather than doubt the sincerity of Lyanna's convictions, I'd rather formulate a theory that accounts for them. But that's just me.

Agreed, and I think @Kingmonkey has already done that. I think the "Lyanna is a hypocrite" argument is inferior to KM's, but it seems possible.

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Lyanna doesn't just judge Robert in that speech. She generalizes to "men" in general. And her assessment? Past is prologue, regardless of how much he loves you.

So, the idea that we've been given that specific take and then are supposed to ignore it seems. . . odd.

I never said to ignore it. In fact, it seems to me like it absolutely must be taken into account if one wants to argue that Lyanna is a hypocrite. Wouldn't you agree? That said, I'm really not looking to make that argument beyond pointing out that it's possible.

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Really seems like he's telling us the rose-giving was not romantic

Why does it have to be either romantic or insulting? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Starks could have been insulted by the prince making a romantic gesture toward their betrothed sister.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

56 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Her saying "never" is insignificant its just an exclamtion on what she believes,nor does it indicate Lyanna was right.Ned was saying in a nutshell that love would change Robert.She was saying that love wouldn't.

No, I disagree. I think when Lyanna says "never" that's not hyperbole or exaggeration; that's exactly what she means. And of course, she had no way of empirically knowing that she was right about that, but the later history of Robert Baratheon indicates that she was completely correct in her assessment.

Robert was said to have fucked an entire brothel in the middle of the Rebellion and he most likely fathered Gendry around the same time that Ned fathered Robb. These all happened while Lyanna was still alive.

And, of course, he was chronically unfaithful to Cersei. However understandable his reasons for that may be, it still proves that Lyanna's assessment was absolutely spot-on.

 

57 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Hints:

Robert's behavior,visual depiction through the eyes of others( i.e.Ned and Cersie)  when it comes to Lyanna indicates that they were intimately involved.We have this in spades.

And it wasn't just a man yearning for what he could have had but lost.

He had it ,Lyanna was his he,experianced it and lost it.The man was in a state of prolonged grief.

Robert's behavior and depiction by Ned are of a man who developed into someone drastically different that what he used to be and how Ned remembered him. The constant in Ned's ruminations about Robert is the extreme contrast between how he was as a young, powerful, energetic man and the sad, pathetic, overweight and irresponsible person he turned into. 

Ned only couples Robert with Lyanna in his mind when he remembers what she said to him on the night of her betrothal, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of Robert. And Ned, in fact, acknowledged the truth of Lyanna's words when he remembered how Robert would swear undying love to someone and then forget them by evening.

And I disagree that "we have this in spades". What we actually have in spades are constant assertions by you that this is the case, with zero supporting data that holds up to even the mildest scrutiny.

Cersei's story of Robert uttering Lyanna's name on their wedding night is hardly proof that Robert and Lyanna were physically intimate. It could quite reasonably mean that Robert didn't much like Cersei.

Neither does prolonged grief equate to physical intimacy. It's a common thing for a person to mourn "the one who got away", in life as well as in literature. In fact, Robert's long regret quite potently points to him and Lyanna having not engaged in physical intimacy; otherwise, he likely would have forgotten her by evenfall - because that was Robert's M.O.

That's how I see it and there is not one thing you have argued, all these long months, that have been sufficiently compelling to change my interpretation.

 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

5 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

To the contrary - one might argue that there is every reason to believe GRRM's statement in 1999 is more reliable. 

The World book is fun - I particularly enjoy the artwork. But assuming, as we must, that certain powers in Westeros have for years worked to obscure the fate and/or whereabouts of Rhaegar's son Aegon - it's entirely reasonable to second-guess Maester Yandel's account of the timing of his birth. An account that, frankly, is remarkably vague to begin with - considering, as you say, that Aegon's was a royal birth.  

In contrast - back in 1999, Martin was in the midst of his most productive period, writing this series. He was immersed in the story, churning out a new book every two and a half years or so, right in the thick of his narratives - weaving storylines, laying groundwork, etc. He still claimed, at that time, that he'd be wrapping up the series in another 2 books. 

Assuming (again, as we must) that Aegon's fate and  storyline is an integral part of this series, it's difficult to believe Martin hadn't already considered the kid's age and timeline in some detail when he made those remarks in 1999. And indeed, those remarks are significantly more precise than Maester Yandel's account in the World book. 

Well, don't we also have quite a few statements from Martin stating that his is a "gardener" style of writing, not an architect? The obvious implication of that statement is that he basically does not stick to a fixed, rigid template drawn up in 1996 -  he has a general idea of the major characters' journeys, but allows the story to grow organically, as it should. So we have no basis to assume that details such as Aegon's age when he died are exactly the same in 1999 as they are now - indeed, in my opinion, we should take his more recent work on the matter - which is the World Book.

Just recently after the Season 5 of the show, we had statements from him saying that he has come up with a twist for a character killed off on the show. So we know that the man is perfectly capable of changing his mind, especially on minor details like dates, travel times and such. 

But the question here is - how exactly would the logistics of keeping this secret work out? The World Book tells us that Elia's death may have been caused by Aerys, or herself. But we have quotes from book characters explicitly telling us what actually happened - indeed it's pretty well known that the Tywin's man, Gregor was the culprit. We don't have anything like that for Aegon's birth -  and as I laid out in the previous post, for this secret to be kept, we have to assume the whole household, maesters, garrison of DS and whoever saw Elia during her pregnancy have to keep quiet, Rhaegar and Elia themselves would not tell anyone when they had a son, so on. There are way too many variables in the equation for the secret to have been kept perfectly.

 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yandel would lie because his lie puts Rhaegar in a place that he wasn't. If GRRM's statement about Aegon's age is true and we take into consideration Dany's vision then Rhaegar was with Elia and Aegon wherever they were at around the time he's suppose to be on the road kidnapping Lyanna Stark.

Aegon's birth wouldn't be kept a secret there would only be the discrepency of when he was actually born.It was a royal birth on DS most likely there isn't going to be an announcement in Westerosi news that Prince Rhaegar and Elia had a son on sush an such day..

Please, think of the logistics of such a situation. This is not a peasant's son being born - this is the birth of Aegon VI Targaryen, son of Crown Prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Princess Elia Martell, which would obviously be news in Westeros. 

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Little Scribe Cat's belief is the problem what is it based on? That's what i'm trying to get across.Why does she believe the way she does. Ned didn't tell her Jon was born such and such a time to some girl. He hasn't told Cat anything except Jon is his blood. 

She decides when that was as best suits her purpose.

Ned re: Robert conversation,Robert said Ned had a "one time" he says to Ned " you know the one i'm talking about. Your Bastard's mother." That's it there. He thinks the girl who Ned has the moment with was Jon's mother. Ned never tells him that,Ned goes on to state that he disonored Cat she was carrying his child." All true,true that he had some affair after,not true that "he" named her Jon's mother.

The relevant quote:

Quote

Ned's mouth tightened in anger. "Nor will I. Leave it be, Robert, for the love you say you bear me. I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn, in the sight of gods and men."

"Gods have mercy, you scarcely knew Catelyn."

"I had taken her to wife. She was carrying my child."

Ned stating that he dishonored Cat by fathering Jon after the marriage. This is the farce Ned was carrying on throughout his marriage, and in  Cat's POVs she never doubts it.

Quote

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man's needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father's castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

She clearly believes that it was in the year they spent apart that Ned fathered Jon, not before their marriage.

Oh, and by the way, for the claim that Aegon's birth could be kept secret:

Quote

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers.