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

[wolfmaid7]

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Wolfmaid, you are wilfully ignoring the evidence to make the story fit your interpretation. Ned is talking about Wylla in that passage, the same woman whom he claims is Jon's mother -  Robert asks about his bastard's mother, and Ned does not contradict him, he says her name was Wylla. The passage is clearly about Jon's mother, and the fact that he fathered her after his marriage to Cat.

I already provided the quotes showing that Cat has the same impression, and never doubts it in her POVs.

Your interpretation is suggesting that  Ned banged a girl during the war for pleasure, which is completely out of character for him. Look at what Robert says - "A rare wench who could make Lord Eddard forget his honour" and "You were never the boy you were." Even Robert is surprised at how Ned gave up his precious honor for a night, when he fathered Jon.

See post above to SFDanny......LSN this isn't about making my story fit better,this is about context,perception and motive.Of the characters,the readers etc.So no it has nothing to do with fitting anything but going with the text,and critically thinking about it.We know the woman is Wylla that Ned is talking about,but he never says or not say Wylla is Jon's mom.He did what he always did...Went along with what someone thought.But LS its clear what's going on in that conversation.If anything,Ned is achknowleding a "one-time" with Wylla.

The only reason Ned could have had sex with a girl during the war was pleasure? Really LSN that's the only reason? Not for comfort during a difficult time,only pleasure.

But just to  add my thoughts i'm not saying Ned had a one-time with Wylla........He never forgot her name.

 

[Kingmonkey]

1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

But only given as a reward because Bael is in the process of tricking him. The rose is chosen as a reward by Bael. The Stark gives it freely after telling Bael: "name your reward." The Stark doesn't know he's being set up. That he's been invaded by an enemy. But the whole thing is still Bael setting up an enemy for a smackdown.

Sure, but the initial gift of blue roses is not intended by the giver as an insult, quite the opposite. Not every time that blue roses are given is the intent of the giver to set up the receiver. 

The story of Bael and Rhaegar's gift of the crown are not exact mirrors. Rhaegar was not an old  enemy of House Stark, nor was he visiting Winterfell in disguise, nor was he given the blue roses by Lord stark and then returned them, nor did he hide in the crypts with Lyanna for a year. We have to be selective in deciding what parts are relevant. Is the insult what's relevant, or is it the symbolic exchange of blue roses for a maiden's virginity, which is also thematically present in the Bael and Blue Bard parallels? 

We can believe either. Or both. Hence my point that it's not that clear cut.  

 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

22 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

A rather wise man once said 'love is the death of duty' no?

"The bane of honor, the death of duty," yes.  Suggestive.  It doesn't sound quite right to me, actually. But then, who am I to contradict a hundred year old maester and high officer of the Night's Watch... right?  (See below.)

9 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

You may have missed the context from the previous thread here. The claim was put forwards that if Lyanna's objection to Robert is an issue for the Robert+Lyanna parenthood theory, it must also necessarily be a problem for the Rhaegar + Lyanna theory, because Rhaegar was married to Elia.

... <<snip>> ...

Thus the notion that it must be a problem for RLJ if it's a problem for Robert is disproven. 

I hope that clarifies matters.

Ah.  No... that's more or less what I thought the discussion was about. And still, I disagree with you. Not saying Lyanna's statement is a problem for RLJ necessarily... but to the extent it applies to Robert, then yes - it would also apply to Rhaegar. 

That said... arguably, we have enough evidence already on both Robert and Rhaegar to recognize that, for these two men, sexual relationships are not contingent on matters of love.  For Robert, sex is driven by lust. For Rhaegar, in contrast, sex appears to have been a matter of duty.  

Of course, the question of parenthood doesn't necessarily overlap with the question of love. Which, at the most basic level, was the point of Lyanna's comment to begin with. Still - what's always seemed most ridiculous about the entire Robert vs Rhaegar debacle is how little we know of Lyanna's own opinions on the matter.  (ETA) And that statement of hers does suggest that she'd prefer a man for whom love and sex go together.  

Quote

I don't believe there is anything that remotely implies it is part of Rhaegar's nature to leave his wife. In other words, that leaving his wife is something that Rhaegar would be prone to do without some external stimulus.  This seems to be in accord with what you are saying above.

I do think we agree on that point, for the most part. The distinction I'd make is that while "a single act does not a nature make," it may be the case that "a single act does a nature unmake."

Quote

I rather like @WSmith84's succinct "Love is... the death of duty" reply. Perhaps a rather pointed quotation, given who said it and to whom it was said.

Pointed, perhaps, in its own context. Not sure it necessarily works the same way in this discussion.  For one thing, Aemon's understanding of marriage and the fathering of children may be quite different from either Robert's or Rhaegar's. Or Lyanna's, for that matter.

5 hours ago, Voice said:

Whoa there...

So it was Rhaegar's duty to the realm to abandon his wife, incite civil war, and sequester his cousin's betrothed? A girl of four and ten.

<< snip >>

That does not sound like a dutiful man to me. I think we can rule out duty as a motive if Rhaegar ever bedded Lyanna.

Lol. Come now, that's quite a lot of questions Voice - no need to pile on!  

Lest we forget... despite his relative youth and his fine reputation, Rhaegar, too, was a Targ. And "every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness."  His father's insanity did not become obvious until the later years, but as Selmy points out, that doesn't mean it wasn't there from the beginning. Perhaps Rhaegar, too, successfully concealed his madness as a youth... but in the process was driven to dangerous, nonsensical behaviors and an early death. 

[JNR]

52 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

For Robert, sex is driven by lust. For Rhaegar, in contrast, sex appears to have been a matter of duty.  

That's an interesting and insightful way to put it.  I would just qualify that it would only apply to the instances of sex that we know apply to Rhaegar... meaning, sex with Elia, about whom he was "fond." 

That Rhaegar to the best of our extensive knowledge never once had a girlfriend, never a lover, never so much as a crush... never any known form of romantic or sexual association with any women prior to his arranged marriage to Elia... makes it difficult to assess his sexual history very confidently.

Also, consider this idea:

"I don't believe there is anything that remotely implies it is part of Robert's nature to have sex with women. In other words, that having sex with women is something that Robert would be prone to do without some external stimulus, such as a woman."

Heh.  It seems to me that in discussing a man's nature in dealing with a stimulus, we must presume the presence of that stimulus.   

The same is certainly true of Rhaegar.  In the instant of suggesting to a girl that he betray his wife and children for her, Rhaegar would be, conclusively and irrefutably, demonstrating that betraying his wife and children for a girl was in his nature.  Else he would not have proposed it. 

All of R+L=J -- all possible variations of the theory -- presume that keeping to his wife's bed was not Rhaegar's nature.  Had it been Rhaegar's nature, then according to R+L=J, Jon Snow would not exist.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

28 minutes ago, JNR said:

I would just qualify that it would only apply to the instances of sex that we know apply to Rhaegar... meaning, sex with Elia, about whom he was "fond." 

Correct. I wasn't explicit about that... but yes, this was exactly what I had in mind. And we can make this same qualification with respect to Robert and the lust motivation.  In other words, just as all of Rhaegar's known sexual relationships are associated with duty, all of Robert's known sexual relationships are associated with lust.  Whoever either of them may have loved... that particular devotion of the self did not govern the sexual habits of these men. 

And in fact, we do not have a single text-based example, for either man, of a sexual encounter (or relationship) with a person he was known to have loved.  

 

[nanother]

@Sly Wren and @Voice: OK, so the flower thing wasn't the best example - that something people tend to do regardless of the deceased person's fondness for flowers (actually, do they in Westeros? anyway, it's hard to forget about IRL customs in this scenario). The point I was trying to make is that, just because there was that one scene which can kind of fit the 'fond of flowers' description, it's not exactly the first thing one would come up when trying to describe Arya's character. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it'd be very far down the list, if I'd think of phrasing it that way at all. I think in your quest to strip Lyanna from any romantic feelings, you might be somewhat overstating the importance of this scene. That song Arya half-heard is a nice catch, though. But even then I don't see Lyanna turning out to have the exact same personality as Arya.

@Sly Wren, I find it particularly puzzling that while you're proposing that Lyanna's storyline is echoed in both Arya and Sansa, at the same time you insist that her personality only appears in Arya. Not that it isn't possible, it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

I agree. It's one of the reason why I think the rape scenario works better for Rhaegar as father, both symbolically and from the psychology of Lyanna perspective.

It's just hard to make work on the psychological side for Rhaegar and for Ned.

Agreed on that. I think the non-rape scenario is still more plausible psychologically, even though I agree that Lyanna's comment about Robert is evidence against it (just not nearly as strong as some make it out to be, let alone conclusive). Plus there's that little conflict between Rhaegar's father and Lyanna's father and brother, also not too helpful for a budding romance. So, despite @Kingmonkey's protestations, I don't think it's irrelevant to RLJ. No, it doesn't have to be love, but it does have to be one of love or rape (or some combination thereof). So if Martin casts doubt on both possibilities (which he does, IMO), that casts doubt on the whole theory as well.

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Though I would also point out that in the Cersei scenario, it's a false accusation. The Bard got framed. The Bard and the Bael-like plotter are different people. And in the Sansa scenario, even though Marillion wanted her and is no angel, he, too, is framed by the master plotter--the "singer" and the "plotter" are different people in these current scenarios. Vs. what they are in the Bael Tale.

Yeah, but they both desire Sansa

Interesting about the framing, though. That's not in the original tale, or am I missing something? In any case, I'm not sure I'd make much of the 'split role' aspect in terms of the Rhaegar-Lyanna scenario: not every plotter can be also a bard, so splitting makes sense for smaller echoes; but Rhaegar is confirmed to be both, so there's no reason he couldn't be a Bael echo on his own (that's not to say the role can't be split if Martin chooses so).

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

The otherworldly stealing the woman--ties into the idea of the women who lie with the Others in Nan's tales. 

But it also seems to point out that if Bael wasn't supernatural, the story as he presents it seems implausible at best.

Well, I can imagine it being a fairy tale (of the older, darker sort) originally, that Bael adopted, or tried to emulate (just like Mance tried to emulate Bael). I agree that it's unlikely to be what actually happened (if anything happened at all).

I was trying to see if there's an 'otherworldly' connection in these echoes (in terms of actual in-world magic). Interestingly, for Cersei Margaery is the 'younger, more beautiful Queen' she fears from the Maggy prophecy (at least she thinks so). This is another slight difference from the Bael tale, as Marg is not the daughter of the enemy, but THE enemy (arch-nemesis, even). But it also adds a vague otherworldly aspect, through the prophecy (and it must be quite an otherworldly experience both for the Bard and for Marge). For the Bealish/Sansa thing, dunno - the 'snowflake communion' comes to mind as otherworldy experience, and Rhaegar - well, he was very much connected to prophecies and rituals. Hmmm, this might be getting too far off-topic. Maybe I should move this to your Bael-thread...

[Voice]

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Or just shell-shocked into trying to survive by staying put--like Sansa. And trying to deceive herself into believing that the now ugly Joff will not be so bad. Arya, no matter what, yells out that people are liars. If she'd been in Sansa's position, she'd have ended up in a hole, locked up--no way they could have kept her quiet.

Yup. Big difference between the daughter Ned compared with Lyanna, and the one he did not.

But even the one he did fled rather than bed the prince once her family was executed and their houses were at war.

History repeats itself.

 

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Yup--it takes a while for Sansa to see Joff as he is. And then, in Storm, to be disenchanted by singers--to see them for who they are and not just their songs.

But Arya's reaction to Tom's song to the Ghost of High Heart is not about Tom--just about missing her family. Sansa's on a learning curve. Arya's staked out ground and defends it.

Yup.

A sniffle does not a swooning polygamist make.

 

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Well, that is the whole context of Ygritte's story: we are all related. Doesn't matter how the north and south (depending on where you're standing) ended up related--they are. And thus fighting leads to kinslaying and curses. And the gods hate kinslayers, even when they kill unknowing--so, LEARN!

The land and people are one. 

And, in the case of Daynes and Starks, more "one" than most.

ETA: Which could explain some of the echoes of the "real" end in the Bael Tale to Ned's fight with Arthur and Ashara's tower suicide.

Sounds like people afflicted by miasma to me. Makes them do wacky things. 

 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

We don't know what Rhaegar's intent was, so obviously it is a possibility.

We know that Rhaegar took duty to the realm seriously. We know that he believed fulfilling a prophecy was extremely important. We know that he believed that a "song of ice and fire" was important to this prophecy. We know that the concept of unifying fire and ice by a union between Stark and Targaryen pre-existed. So yes, we certainly can't rule out the possibility that Rhaegar's primary (or at least initial) motive was a sense of duty to the realm.

But you are ruling out that at the same passage that provides your motive also provides the prince that was promised. It was Aegon. That's canon.

And Aegon the Dragon was flanked not by a sister and a brother, but by two sister-wives.

So if Rhaegar needed a +1 to complete a trifecta, you'd think it would be a daughter he needed. He already had his son. The realm already had its heir, at least until he was disinherited, but that is another conversation.

And I think that it is downright laughable to suggest that Rhaegar sought unification with House Stark.

Lords do that with marriage pacts, not the impregnation of otherwise-betrothed daughters.

 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

After proclaiming that "there must be one more", as well. 

Also after previously believing that he himself was the PtWP and changing his mind over that.

Yes.

And here, you prove my latter point regarding uteri disposal. But we'll come back to that.

We are never told that Rhaegar changed his mind about Aegon being the prince that was promised. And as stated above, one would think that what Rhaegar needed for his trifecta was another daughter, rather than another son to compete with his first. 

 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

Why would her having lost her brother and father change that?

It changed things for Joffrey.

It changed things for Sansa.

And considering that Lyanna was less like Sansa and more like Arya (who authors a kill-list following such an event), I think it is safe to say that if Rhaegar bedded Lyanna following the execution of Lyanna's father and brother, that it was an act of malice rather than an act of duty.

The guy did dub Gregor Clegane into knighthood though... so who knows?

My point (in addition to the need to include what we actually know about Lyanna in our theories) is that such musings paint a much different version of Rhaegar than the one that GRRM wrote. Rhaegar did write a dutiful version of Rhaegar. One that favored books over the practice yard. One that was fond of his wife, and did not frequent brothels. One that was loved by smallfolk.

Your version sounds more like Gregor Clegane mixed with David Koresh.

 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

Dude, I just told you that was a possibility. Remember how there must be one more?

Again you prove my latter point regarding uteri... but we'll get to that.

I would agree that Rhaegar felt it was his prophetic duty to sequester a fourteen year old, and sire a bastard on a betrothed high born child-woman, if Rhaegar were mad. And that remains a very viable possibility.

...Until we remember that Ned forgets about Rhaegar for years at a time and hates Jorah Mormont. Seemingly unrelated circumstances, I know. But consider this:

Ned hates Jorah Mormont because he dishonored the north. How did Jorah dishonor the north? By selling poachers to slavers instead of enslaving them in the Night's Watch.

If Rhaegar had done what you describe, Rhaegar would have dishonored the north in a far more deliberate and offensive manner than Jorah Mormont.

And Ned is a man who knows how to nurse a grudge.

Yet Ned has no grudge for Rhaegar.

 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

Wait, what? What makes you think he was "done with Lyanna's uterus"? What makes you think he "left her bed" with no intention to return to it? Are you seriously suggesting that a man is disloyal to a woman unless he literally never gets out of bed?

You said it yourself.

"There must be one more."

That is not the mantra of a loyal man, KM.

I am suggesting, quite seriously, that a man is disloyal to a woman when he literally tells her "there must be one more" as she lays in bed with his child, then goes to another woman's bed to sire another child.

That is not loyalty.

And I know you like to tout the idea that Rhaegar was a serial monogamist rather than a polygamist, but that isn't the tale that's been written in the books.

Elia is literally abed with Rhaegar's first born son, and Rhaegar is already talking about wanting another child. (He seems to be looking at Dany/Ashara Dayne in the doorway when saying this, rather than Lyanna, but that is another conversation.)

Now, I think Rhaegar is talking about having another child with Elia, or at least, a having another child with a consenting adult, rather than abducting a 14 year old betrothed to his cousin. But that's just me.

 

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

If he did it out of duty, which is a possibility, then that would make him a dutiful man. So no, unless we can rule out the possibility that Rhaegar's actions were motivated by a feeling that he had a duty to fulfil that prophecy via Lyanna, which we certainly cannot rule out, we equally cannot rule out duty as a motive.

Tis a matter of perspective I suppose. 

From my perspective, many things are ambiguous, but certain things are not, like tptwp. Quote:

Viserys, was her first thought the next time she paused, but a second glance told her otherwise. The man had her brother's hair, but he was taller, and his eyes were a dark indigo rather than lilac. "Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"

"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked.

"He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads." He went to the window seat, picked up a harp, and ran his fingers lightly over its silvery strings. Sweet sadness filled the room as man and wife and babe faded like the morning mist, only the music lingering behind to speed her on her way.  /quote

 

More questions:

Can tptwp be a Stark bastard?

If so, how did Rhaegar ever mistake his trueborn heir as tptwp?

Why does Rhaegar seem to look at Dany (a girl) when claiming there must be one more, and why would Aegon need a brother if the Targaryens typically marry siblings (as Aegon's namesake did)?

If sired out of duty, why does Ned associate Jon's siring with lust?

 

It's sounding like

Dutiful Lust + Swooning Polygamist = Prophecy Jon

...but what's written in the books is that Rhaegar was not prone to siring bastards at brothels, Lyanna was not a swooning polygamist, and, that rather than being sired for prophecy, Jon was sired out of lust.

Hence my dilemma.

 

59 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Lol. Come now, that's quite a lot of questions Voice - no need to pile on!  

What can I say? I have a lot of questions about these theories. You'll recall that I was a longtime fence sitter. I still have splinters.

First and foremost, for me, is that Rhaegar presents the same problem as Robert as a theoretical bedmate for Lyanna. People get caught up in Lyanna's (crown of) beauty, and fail to see the iron underneath.

And I am admittedly a stickler for canon. She was sequestered from her family at 14. She was dead in a bed of blood at 16.

If "duty" was the cause of that, it was certainly a misogynistic brand of duty, no?

 

59 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Lest we forget... despite his relative youth and his fine reputation, Rhaegar, too, was a Targ. And "every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness."  His father's insanity did not become obvious until the later years, but as Selmy points out, that doesn't mean it wasn't there from the beginning. Perhaps Rhaegar, too, successfully concealed his madness as a youth... but in the process was driven to dangerous, nonsensical behaviors and an early death. 

Precisely my point with all those rhetorical questions.

 

And it is a feasible scenario... if we neglect Ned's nonchalant forgetfulness regarding Rhaegar and his hatred for Jorah for "some trifling affront" that dishonored the North.

So while it remains completely possible, this scenario is only plausible if Jorah's act of selling poachers into foreign servitude (rather than donating them into domestic servitude) was a greater dishonor upon the north in Ned's mind than the removal of his foster-brother's betrothed (his own 13-14 year old sister), and the (forced/dutiful/lustful and/or loving) bedding of her by a married man-grown, that left his Arya-like Lyanna dead in a bed of blood before her time...

...after losing his father and brother so that the forced/dutiful/lustful/loving "union" could take place. At a certain point, we have to wonder who was crazier - Rhaegar or Ned?

[Voice]

32 minutes ago, nanother said:

@Sly Wren and @Voice: OK, so the flower thing wasn't the best example - that something people tend to do regardless of the deceased person's fondness for flowers (actually, do they in Westeros? anyway, it's hard to forget about IRL customs in this scenario). The point I was trying to make is that, just because there was that one scene which can kind of fit the 'fond of flowers' description, it's not exactly the first thing one would come up when trying to describe Arya's character. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it'd be very far down the list, if I'd think of phrasing it that way at all.

But of course that would be far down your list.

You are looking at Arya from the perspective of an omniscient observer. And, well, Arya kept on living after picking those flowers. 

Lyanna's life ended before her time, and Ned grew up at the Vale. Ned's memories of Lyanna would be understandably limited by those two circumstances.

Our own understanding of Arya is not limited in that manner, thankfully. But if we remember Arya from Sansa's POV-only (who, it just so happens, is being raised as the Lord's Ward at the Vale ), our memories of Arya are similarly limited.

Sansa believes Arya is dead (before her time - a wildness within her), and she remembers Arya being fond of flowers.

If Sansa returned to Winterfell, and had a stone mason carve an Arya for the crypts, don't you think she might bring her bittersweet flowers?

[nanother]

38 minutes ago, Voice said:

But of course that would be far down your list.

You are looking at Arya from the perspective of an omniscient observer. And, well, Arya kept on living after picking those flowers. 

Lyanna's life ended before her time, and Ned grew up at the Vale. Ned's memories of Lyanna would be understandably limited by those two circumstances.

You realise that's pure speculation, right? And we know Ned visited Winterfell at least every now and then. There's a SSM about that IIRC.

Quote

Our own understanding of Arya is not limited in that manner, thankfully. But if we remember Arya from Sansa's POV-only (who, it just so happens, is being raised as the Lord's Ward at the Vale ), our memories of Arya are similarly limited.

Sansa believes Arya is dead (before her time - a wildness within her), and she remembers Arya being fond of flowers.

Does she? I actually searched for 'Arya' in Sansa's chapters and all I found was snow balls (as far as memories go). Or do you mean it as a thought experiment? Even then, I don't think so. That flower story was something that greatly annoyed her at the time, but I doubt she even remembered it later on.

Quote

If Sansa returned to Winterfell, and had a stone mason carve an Arya for the crypts, don't you think she might bring her bittersweet flowers?

Nah, I don't think it' likely. Mind you, I can't see her wanting to have a statue for Arya either. Distance might have improved their 'relationship' (they both think more fondly of the other than they did before), but not that much.

[nanother]

1 hour ago, Voice said:

So while it remains completely possible, this scenario is only plausible if Jorah's act of selling poachers into foreign servitude (rather than donating them into domestic servitude) was a greater dishonor upon the north in Ned's mind than the removal of his foster-brother's betrothed (his own 13-14 year old sister), and the (forced/dutiful/lustful and/or loving) bedding of her by a married man-grown, that left his Arya-like Lyanna dead in a bed of blood before her time...

...after losing his father and brother so that the forced/dutiful/lustful/loving "union" could take place. At a certain point, we have to wonder who was crazier - Rhaegar or Ned?

Not that I entirely disagree, but IIRC Ned's main problem with Jorah was that he escaped justice. Also note that Ned absolutely fails to display similar hatred towards Cersei during their meeting in the godswood, even though she just admitted betraying his best friend, and he already believes that she murdered his 'second father' and attempted to murder his 7-year old son. Yet, he's actually empathetic (what would Cat have done in a similar situation) towards her. So, yeah, Ned's grudges (or lack thereof) might not be much of an indication of the seriousness of one's crime

[Voice]

22 minutes ago, nanother said:

You realise that's pure speculation, right? And we know Ned visited Winterfell at least every now and then. There's a SSM about that IIRC.

"Pure speculation" seems a bit harsh. It's a logical inference. Ned may have visited Lyanna (I don't recall that SSM), but it isn't speculative to say his memories of her would have been limited by his upbringing at the Vale.

He remembers Lyanna being fond of flowers, and Sansa has a finite number of memories of Arya.

 

22 minutes ago, nanother said:

Does she? I actually searched for 'Arya' in Sansa's chapters and all I found was snow balls (as far as memories go). Or do you mean it as a thought experiment? Even then, I don't think so. That flower story was something that greatly annoyed her at the time, but I doubt she even remembered it later on.

The flower story does not happen in realtime. It is already a memory that Sansa is recalling.

Thus, that part of my point is proven.

The rest is a matter of opinion of course. Bear in mind that Sansa does not only reflect upon Arya's rash, she recalls that Arya was, well, fond of flowers, and excited to find new varieties away from their homeland.

GRRM has written of other north-women fond of flowers. He has also written of another Lyanna, who was consumed by plants.

But back to ASOIAF, yes, Sansa was annoyed by Arya at the time. She, like Ned remembering Lyanna, saw Arya's wildness as a dangerous quality. The rash proves the validity of that, at times.

Sansa may delete that memory of her sister, but it doesn't seem likely to me now that she has so few. Time will tell.

 

22 minutes ago, nanother said:

Nah, I don't think it' likely. Mind you, I can't see her wanting to have a statue for Arya either. Distance might have improved their 'relationship' (they both think more fondly of the other than they did before), but not that much.

Hmm. Really?

(book)Sansa has really begun to realize the error of her ways. I think she's a completely different lady-wolf now. She even views Jon bittersweetly.

[Sly Wren]

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Sure, but the initial gift of blue roses is not intended by the giver as an insult, quite the opposite. Not every time that blue roses are given is the intent of the giver to set up the receiver.

Agreed. But in instances where a maid ends up impugned/stolen, the roses get used as a weapon.

I think they have further meaning--especially for Ned. But for a plotter like Bael, and for others who use roses and maids against their enemies, really seems like the roses end up being treacherous. Or at least a sign of treachery.

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

The story of Bael and Rhaegar's gift of the crown are not exact mirrors. Rhaegar was not an old  enemy of House Stark, nor was he visiting Winterfell in disguise, nor was he given the blue roses by Lord stark and then returned them, nor did he hide in the crypts with Lyanna for a year. We have to be selective in deciding what parts are relevant. Is the insult what's relevant, or is it the symbolic exchange of blue roses for a maiden's virginity, which is also thematically present in the Bael and Blue Bard parallels?

I agree that the parallel isn't straight. Any more than it's straight for Cersei's use of the blue bard against Marg and the Tyrells. And I agree we have to take care how we draw the parallels. Though I do think the phrase "exchange for virginity" is an extremely diplomatic phrasing of what's happening in the Bael Tale and the Blue Bard scenario.

In both of those case, the treachery is innately tied to it.

Plus, with Cersei--I can't think of any evidence of a longtime feud with the Tyrells. Marg is now a thorn in her side, but nothing like what we hear of Bael. Still, she uses the Rose-scented dude (poor boy--should have stayed in the Reach) in a clearly treacherous manner.

So, Rhaegar could see the Starks and their alliance as a new threat--as Marg is a pretty new threat to Cersei--and still use the roses against the Starks via Lyanna.

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

We can believe either. Or both. Hence my point that it's not that clear cut.  

Agreed--nothing is clear cut until the Bearded One sings his final novel. But Martin keeps coming back to the "rose as weapon/insult" theme. And the Blue Bard scenario really feels like his picking up a mallet and saying, "Oy! Pay attention!"

Either that, or I just have an unnatural fear of blue people.

[Voice]

49 minutes ago, nanother said:

Not that I entirely disagree, but IIRC Ned's main problem with Jorah was that he escaped justice.

The escape irks him, yes. But that is not what made Ned bring Ice to Bear Island. Quote:

"Would that I might forget him," Ned said bluntly. The Mormonts of Bear Island were an old house, proud and honorable, but their lands were cold and distant and poor. Ser Jorah had tried to swell the family coffers by selling some poachers to a Tyroshi slaver. As the Mormonts were bannermen to the Starks, his crime had dishonored the north. Ned had made the long journey west to Bear Island, only to find when he arrived that Jorah had taken ship beyond the reach of Ice and the king's justice. Five years had passed since then.

/quote

So Ned decided to behead a man because he dishonored the north. Northmen do not sell poachers to Tyroshi slavers...

But Northwomen can be used as broodmares by Targaryen princes so long as they are betrothed to Baratheons, without besmirching the honor of the North?

 

Quote

Also note that Ned absolutely fails to display similar hatred towards Cersei during their meeting in the godswood, even though she just admitted betraying his best friend, and he already believes that she murdered his 'second father' and attempted to murder his 7-year old son. Yet, he's actually empathetic (what would Cat have done in a similar situation) towards her. So, yeah, Ned's grudges (or lack thereof) might not be much of an indication of the seriousness of one's crime

Now this is a good counterargument.

Cersei admitted to Bran's defenestration as well, actually.

But I would argue that at this point, Ned treats with Cersei in exactly the same way he treated with Gared. Cersei is an oathbreaker, and Ned (rightly) assumes she will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile. Cersei denies none of Ned's charges, and, like Gared, is ready for the consequences.

And, just as he did for Jorah Mormont, Ned will rue the day Cersei escaped the king's justice. While her acts were vile, and the tossing of children from windows is cowardly, Bran was not entirely innocent. He had been admonished, repeatedly, for climbing. Just as he was told he would, he eventually fell and was shattered like a boy made of pottery.

While horrific, one could say Bran's wolf-blood led him astray. And this brings me to my point. Rather than associate Rhaegar with Lyanna's death in any way, Ned blamed Lyanna's wolf blood. In Ned's mind, Rhaegar is a forgettable man who likely did not frequent brothels.

Rather than have Rhaegar's face burn brightly fifteen years later as a man who dishonored the north, or lusted for his sister, or as a man who got the justice he deserved, Ned simply characterizes him as dutiful.

Ned is Ned, and the Neddard is not fond of the mistreatment of children. It makes sense that he would give Cersei a chance to flee with hers (it is also one of Ned's wiser political moves, as it would undermine House Lannister's influence, rather than infuriate and consolidate them, ala Stannis and Catelyn).

What would not make sense, is for Ned to have no emotion for the man who was responsible for his little sister's bed of blood. That lack of emotion burns even more brightly if Lyanna is Jon's mother.

[Sly Wren]

2 hours ago, nanother said:

he point I was trying to make is that, just because there was that one scene which can kind of fit the 'fond of flowers' description, it's not exactly the first thing one would come up when trying to describe Arya's character. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it'd be very far down the list, if I'd think of phrasing it that way at all.

Agreed--everyone's definition of "fondness" is going to be different. Which is why I think Martin gives us clear examples

He has Ned say "Lyanna was . . . . fond of flowers"--no elaboration. And no explanation of the ellipsis

Then, in Sansa's first POV, we get Arya's "fondness for flowers" well elaborated on. Including Ned's warm, loving response to Arya's fondness for flowers.

Then, in Sansa's second POV, we get Sansa' "fondness for flowers" when she's at the tourney and gets the rose--we get her context for liking flowers.

Seems like he's taken some time to define it for us. Which is helpful. And so isn't forcing us to guess what Ned might mean.

Quote

I think in your quest to strip Lyanna from any romantic feelings, you might be somewhat overstating the importance of this scene.

But why? If Lyanna's love for flowers is like Arya's, how is that stripping Lyanna of romantic feelings? It just means that her love of flowers wasn't romanticized into fantasyland like Sansa's. Doesn't mean Lyanna would be innately unromantic. Plus, Lyanna does seem to have an unromantic take on the power of love--her take on Robert and men in general. So, she, like Arya, may be very, very loving and affectionate. But not romantic in a courtly sense.

Quote

That song Arya half-heard is a nice catch, though.

Quote

But even then I don't see Lyanna turning out to have the exact same personality as Arya.

@Sly Wren, I find it particularly puzzling that while you're proposing that Lyanna's storyline is echoed in both Arya and Sansa, at the same time you insist that her personality only appears in Arya. Not that it isn't possible, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, I'm thinking this because in Ned's first POV, Robert says flat out that Sansa will do what Lyanna should have done--marry the "Baratheon" heir. And go south. So, from the start, we're told Sansa's going to echo some of Lyanna's plot.

But, also early on, we're told Arya is like Lyanna. And Ned's assessment is confirmed in Meera's tale (Lyanna attacks those who attack her friends, as Arya does with Mycah; and dumps water on Benjen's head--another very Arya-like move. Not Sansa-ish at all). And then it's further confirmed in Bran's vision of Lyanna and Benjen practicing at swords. So, seems like Martin's been building up this idea for a while.

As for Arya's plotline--that's more subtle. But that scene with the Brotherhood where they are going on about how they serve their king, even though he's dead--that seems like it's echoing the three KG at the tower. And we have Arya's defense of Mycah being somewhat like Lyanna's defense of Howland--less obvious plot points than with Sansa's "doing as Lyanna would," but still there.

ETA: So, Lyanna and Arya might not have been exactly the same. But it's one of the only way Martin's actually given us to gauge what she might have done/felt. Given how little else he's given us, I'm not yet willing to let go of this one solid comparison. 

Quote

 So, despite @Kingmonkey's protestations, I don't think it's irrelevant to RLJ. No, it doesn't have to be love, but it does have to be one of love or rape (or some combination thereof). So if Martin casts doubt on both possibilities (which he does, IMO), that casts doubt on the whole theory as well.

Amen.

Quote

Interesting about the framing, though. That's not in the original tale, or am I missing something?

Nope--Bael is both plotter and bard.

Quote

In any case, I'm not sure I'd make much of the 'split role' aspect in terms of the Rhaegar-Lyanna scenario: not every plotter can be also a bard, so splitting makes sense for smaller echoes; but Rhaegar is confirmed to be both, so there's no reason he couldn't be a Bael echo on his own (that's not to say the role can't be split if Martin chooses so).

Agreed. It's an interesting idea. And I do think Tywin's a plotter working behind Rhaegar that Rhaegar might think is an ally. But No reason I can see that Rhaegar isn't also a plotter himself.

Quote

Well, I can imagine it being a fairy tale (of the older, darker sort) originally, that Bael adopted, or tried to emulate (just like Mance tried to emulate Bael). I agree that it's unlikely to be what actually happened (if anything happened at all).

Agreed.

Quote

I was trying to see if there's an 'otherworldly' connection in these echoes (in terms of actual in-world magic). Interestingly, for Cersei Margaery is the 'younger, more beautiful Queen' she fears from the Maggy prophecy (at least she thinks so). This is another slight difference from the Bael tale, as Marg is not the daughter of the enemy, but THE enemy (arch-nemesis, even). But it also adds a vague otherworldly aspect, through the prophecy (and it must be quite an otherworldly experience both for the Bard and for Marge). For the Bealish/Sansa thing, dunno - the 'snowflake communion' comes to mind as otherworldy experience, and Rhaegar - well, he was very much connected to prophecies and rituals. Hmmm, this might be getting too far off-topic. Maybe I should move this to your Bael-thread...

I like this! And am now wondering if it might tie to some of Dany's otherworldly experiences.

Happy to discuss it here or on the Bael Thread. . . Martin never runs his parallels straight, but the ways they all echo and vary off of each other is very interesting.

[Sly Wren]

2 hours ago, Voice said:

Sounds like people afflicted by miasma to me. Makes them do wacky things. 

HA! Maybe. But I'm thinking less miasma and more human nature in the face of the Game of Thrones: it's all fun and games until somebody you love dies. Or does something horrifying. 

Humanity and nature vs. politics.

[Voice]

Just now, Sly Wren said:

Humanity and nature vs. politics.

 

= Miasma

 

LOL (sorry, I'll stop now)

[nanother]

1 hour ago, Voice said:

The flower story does not happen in realtime. It is already a memory that Sansa is recalling.

Thus, that part of my point is proven.

Point taken.

1 hour ago, Voice said:

Hmm. Really?

(book)Sansa has really begun to realize the error of her ways. I think she's a completely different lady-wolf now. She even views Jon bittersweetly.

Yes, really. There's a difference between bittersweet memories and loving someone 'with all her heart'.

But fine, let's imagine that Sans's love for Arya is so strong that she has a statue carved for her. Then let's imagine that someone writes a novel featuring Sansa and her children 14 years later, and that Sansa utters the sentence "Arya was ... fond of flowers", and that several books later it turns out to refer to that memory. Frankly, I'd think that the author is deliberately obscuring Arya's character, rather than giving insight into it with that sentence. There are many things to take away from that memory that are relevant to Arya's character (besides her tomboyish nature), and 'fond of flowers', while happens to be proven true, is only a small aspect of it all.

It's good to be reminded that 'fondness for flowers' can mean many things, but when it's said about someone we barely know anything about, I'm hoping that it'll turn out to be referring to something more substantial. Kinda the same situation as Loras's roses - it nicely illustrates that roses do not necessarily imply romantic feelings, but whatever Rhaegar's motivation will turn out to be, I doubt it'll be 'just because'.

Also, while it's fun arguing about this, the most interesting part of that phrase is the '...' The fact that Ned pauses while saying that makes me wonder what he really wanted to say.

56 minutes ago, Voice said:

Cersei is an oathbreaker, and Ned (rightly) assumes she will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile.

He didn't think that one through properly, lol. He gave her time and opportunity to commit those crimes to his own (and Robert's) detriment. But yes, Ned's lack of anger towards Rhaegar is certainly remarkable.

43 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But why? If Lyanna's love for flowers is like Arya's, how is that stripping Lyanna of romantic feelings? It just means that her love of flowers wasn't romanticized into fantasyland like Sansa's. Doesn't mean Lyanna would be innately unromantic. Plus, Lyanna does seem to have an unromantic take on the power of love--her take on Robert and men in general. So, she, like Arya, may be very, very loving and affectionate. But not romantic in a courtly sense.

Well, the whole debate stemmed from Lyanna's 'steely' vs 'flowery' side, that is me making the assumption that 'love of flowers' points towards something soft in her character that perhaps makes her susceptible to romantic feelings, and less rational in general (I think it came from the blue rose=deception thing, whather she would allow herself to be deceived, or something like that). To which, I got the answer that 'nope, because Arya'. Which is a fair point (and obviously, it was expressed in a more elaborate way), but I still think that some degree of duality along these lines will be there when more is revealed about Lyanna (see my answer to Voice).

 

43 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But, also early on, we're told Arya is like Lyanna. And Ned's assessment is confirmed in Meera's tale (Lyanna attacks those who attack her friends, as Arya does with Mycah; and dumps water on Benjen's head--another very Arya-like move. Not Sansa-ish at all). And then it's further confirmed in Bran's vision of Lyanna and Benjen practicing at swords. So, seems like Martin's been building up this idea for a while.

Yes, that's a good point, I see where you're coming from. But there are also signs that there's more to her character than that. Actually, the 'more' could just be that she was several years older than Arya, dunno.

 

[Voice]

2 minutes ago, nanother said:

Yes, really. There's a difference between bittersweet memories and loving someone 'with all her heart'.

But fine, let's imagine that Sans's love for Arya is so strong that she has a statue carved for her. Then let's imagine that someone writes a novel featuring Sansa and her children 14 years later, and that Sansa utters the sentence "Arya was ... fond of flowers", and that several books later it turns out to refer to that memory. Frankly, I'd think that the author is deliberately obscuring Arya's character, rather than giving insight into it with that sentence. There are many things to take away from that memory that are relevant to Arya's character (besides her tomboyish nature), and 'fond of flowers', while happens to be proven true, is only a small aspect of it all.

GRRM = Obfuscation's King.

It is known.

What is Lyanna if not an enigmatic ghost? She is a child-woman upon which superficial men (Robert) might lay their idealized romances. But Ned knew her to be more that that.

Fond of flowers, but not a timid beauty. Fond of flowers, but had "iron underneath." Attended a tourney, was crowned qolab, but beat up some squires.

And, upon betrothal to a man muscled like a maiden's fantasy, did Lyanna giggle with her girlfriend about how handsome and gallant he was, and boast of giving him babies?

Not exactly.

It all screams Arya, does it not?

Sure, she was fond of flowers. And a girl. But not all girls swoon for married men who sing sad songs. Some have more mature convictions.

 

2 minutes ago, nanother said:

It's good to be reminded that 'fondness for flowers' can mean many things, but when it's said about someone we barely know anything about, I'm hoping that it'll turn out to be referring to something more substantial. Kinda the same situation as Loras's roses - it nicely illustrates that roses do not necessarily imply romantic feelings, but whatever Rhaegar's motivation will turn out to be, I doubt it'll be 'just because'.

Also, while it's fun arguing about this, the most interesting part of that phrase is the '...' The fact that Ned pauses while saying that makes me wonder what he really wanted to say.

Which undermines the substantive nature of the fondness, does it not?

In any case, I agree with the latter. Regarding the former, I must again point out that while Lyanna's fondness for flowers should not be discounted, what should be given more attention than Ned's hesitant choice of words is Lyanna's own character and opinions.

We are making the same point regarding how little we know of Lyanna. What I cannot understand is why Lyanna's fondness for flowers should be represented more strongly than her opposition to men who keep more than one bed.

Do we really accept that Lyanna's protest could have been fixed with a bouquet? Is that all it would have taken?

Perhaps this explains why Ned pities Robert so much if only Robert had given her some blue flowers, she would have forgiven his bed-hopping.

 

2 minutes ago, nanother said:

He didn't think that one through properly, lol. He gave her time and opportunity to commit those crimes to his own (and Robert's) detriment. But yes, Ned's lack of anger towards Rhaegar is certainly remarkable.

LOL! No, he definitely didn't! It is Ned after all.

I think he greatly underestimated Gared as well, but that is  another conversation.

[nanother]

@Voice, I think you're arguing against things I've never said. What I did say, and still maintain, is that there was likely a softer, less rational side of Lyanna that made her susceptible to deception (deceiving herself or letting herself be deceived, see blue flowers), despite the 'steel' we have been shown so far. That might also have conflicted with (or even overcome) her convictions - Martin does hold the belief that 'the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself' - but that's another matter.

Good point about the pause possibly undermining the substantive nature of the 'fondness'. In any case, it does not undermine the overall importance of that information. I very much doubt Ned was remembering an amusing adventure Lyanna had when he said that.

[Kingmonkey]

4 hours ago, Voice said:

But you are ruling out that at the same passage that provides your motive also provides the prince that was promised. It was Aegon. That's canon.

No, it was Rhaegar. That's canon.

Then Rhaegar changed his mind.

People can change their minds. Rhaegar changed his mind about the identity of tptwp when new information presented itself, and decided it was Aegon, not himself. We know that for a fact. So why should we rule out him changing his mind again?

4 hours ago, Voice said:

So if Rhaegar needed a +1 to complete a trifecta, you'd think it would be a daughter he needed. He already had his son.

Possibly Rhaegar did want a daughter rather than another son, but you do know they do come from the same place, right? Or you think Rhaegar would have insisted on Jon being aborted once they'd had the ultrasound?

4 hours ago, Voice said:

And I think that it is downright laughable to suggest that Rhaegar sought unification with House Stark.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the possibility that Rhaegar believed that tptwp's song was the song of ice and fire, and that he came to believe that meant a child born from both Stark and Targaryen bloodlines.

4 hours ago, Voice said:

It changed things for Joffrey.

It changed things for Sansa.

Sansa was betrothed to Joffrey, who had Sansa's dad killed. Of course she'd be pissed. How does that relate to the Rhaegar situation? It was Aerys, not Rhaegar, who killed Rickard. They are different people. Rhaegar was politically opposed to Aerys and does not seem to have approved of him at all. Yes, they were related. So?

Oberyn Martell doesn't blame Tyrion for Elia's death, does he?

 

4 hours ago, Voice said:

Your version sounds more like Gregor Clegane mixed with David Koresh.

I don't have a version. I've painted several options, all of which fulfil the criteria for making Lyanna's complaint about Robert irrelevant. How about the option where Rhaegar falls deeply in love, for the first time in his life, with Lyanna? Is that more Gregor Clegane or more David Koresh?

4 hours ago, Voice said:

Ned hates Jorah Mormont because he dishonored the north. How did Jorah dishonor the north? By selling poachers to slavers instead of enslaving them in the Night's Watch.

If Rhaegar had done what you describe, Rhaegar would have dishonored the north in a far more deliberate and offensive manner than Jorah Mormont.

You make the mistake of thinking that Rhaegar loving Lyanna and Rhaegar believing Lyanna's child to be tptwp are incompatible.

You make the mistake of thinking that someone doing evil for personal gain and someone doing what they believe to be a necessary evil to save the world are the same thing. 

You make the mistake of assuming that Ned must have had actual knowledge of Rhaegar's motivations, rather than working on the same basis of rumour and guesswork everyone else seems to have.

4 hours ago, Voice said:

Now, I think Rhaegar is talking about having another child with Elia, or at least, a having another child with a consenting adult, rather than abducting a 14 year old betrothed to his cousin. But that's just me.

I agree. However, then Rhaegar found out that Elia couldn't have any more children.

4 hours ago, Voice said:

Can tptwp be a Stark bastard?

If so, how did Rhaegar ever mistake his trueborn heir as tptwp?

Should a red comet be seen in the skies on the night  tptwp is conceived?

If so, how did Rhaeger ever mistake himself as tptwp?

4 hours ago, Voice said:

If sired out of duty, why does Ned associate Jon's siring with lust?

Who says Ned knew what was going on?

 

4 hours ago, Voice said:

First and foremost, for me, is that Rhaegar presents the same problem as Robert as a theoretical bedmate for Lyanna. People get caught up in Lyanna's (crown of) beauty, and fail to see the iron underneath.

Except he doesn't. Rhaegar is pretty much drawn as a diametrical opposite to Rhaegar. The thing that Lyanna complains about in Robert is specifically denied as a trait of Rhaegar's.

4 hours ago, Voice said:

And I am admittedly a stickler for canon. She was sequestered from her family at 14. She was dead in a bed of blood at 16.

If "duty" was the cause of that, it was certainly a misogynistic brand of duty, no?

No.

If Rhaegar did what he did out of a belief that he had to for the sake of the realm, then it's not misogynistic because it's not intended to hurt Lyanna.

If Rhaegar did what he did out of love for Lyanna, then it's not misogynistic because it's not intended to hurt Lyanna.

As far as I'm aware, nobody is proposing here that Rhaegar intended for Lyanna to die.