Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 4

[wolfmaid7]

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Nope. The war after Lyanna was kidnapped lasted a year. Robert never saw her again after she was kidnapped, unless he found her, impregnated her, then abandoned her after she was kidnapped. Feel free to provide some support for Robert impregnating her after she was kidnapped. It would be quite a revelation.

First off are you sure Lyanna was kidnapped or even missing for that matter. The kidnapping  and rape story we have from Bran.

Robert only says "how many times do you think he raped your sister,how many hundreds of times" or some crap like that.That is not him saying that Rhaegar actually raped her.There's no way Robert could know that.This is only what Robert feels.

[Wrl6199]

Just now, Kingmonkey said:

As I pointed out in the message you're replying to, and three other people also pointed out, they do not say they were far away from the toj, they say they were far away from King's Landing. The toj IS far away from King's Landing. This isn't a matter of interpretation this time, the meaning is explicit.

"Far away... or Aerys would yet sit on the Iron Throne". In other words "Had we not been far away, Aerys would yet sit on the Iron Throne". Obviously being at the toj would not allow them to protect Aerys, so reading "far away" as meaning "far away from here (toj)" makes no sense at all. 

Also "either she was travelling or she was there the for the entirety of her disappearance" is a false dichotomy. Why not neither? 

Int the tower of joy in drone. so yeah that is pretty far from kings landing. I think people just forget what the actual quote from the book was and dint check it.

[LynnS]

15 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Nope, not even the show supports such a baseless idea. You'll have to blame some other baseless source. The war after Lyanna was kidnapped lasted a year. Robert never saw her again after she was kidnapped, unless he found her, impregnated her, then abandoned her after she was kidnapped. Feel free to provide some support for Robert impregnating her after she was kidnapped. It would be quite a revelation.

If RLJ is the answer and everyone knows it; why hasn't Martin come out and said outright without any ambiguity that this is the answer?  Why does he always avoid the question? From what I understand, not even his wife knows the answer.  What is the point of not answering the question?  There are several on the table that have merit.  Until Martin comes out and says that RLJ is the answer; as far as I'm concerned it's one possible answer.

[Bael's Bastard]

59 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

First off are you sure Lyanna was kidnapped or even missing for that matter. The kidnapping  and rape story we have from Bran.

Robert only says "how many times do you think he raped your sister,how many hundreds of times" or some crap like that.That is not him saying that Rhaegar actually raped her.There's no way Robert could know that.This is only what Robert feels.

Bran says Rhaegar carried Lyanna off and raped her. Daenerys says that Rhaegar stole Lyanna away from her betrothed, and later that he carried his northern girl off at swordpoint. The World Book says Rhaegar fell upon her and carried her off. Perhaps there are more such statements, perhaps not. But all the information we have says she was kidnapped before the war and missing during the war, until Ned found her. What Robert feels is irrelevant.

[Bael's Bastard]

43 minutes ago, LynnS said:

If RLJ is the answer and everyone knows it; why hasn't Martin come out and said outright without any ambiguity that this is the answer?  Why does he always avoid the question? From what I understand, not even his wife knows the answer.  What is the point of not answering the question?  There are several on the table that have merit.  Until Martin comes out and says that RLJ is the answer; as far as I'm concerned it's one possible answer.

Why would GRRM explicitly spoil outside of the books something he has built up within the booms for twenty years, and is yet to explicitly reveal within the books? It's insane to expect that. Regardless, it is what GRRM has established within the books that makes Jon being the son of Robert and Lyanna impossible. Jon was conceived and born during the war. Unless Robert found her during the war, he could not have impregnated her. It is not a possibility.

[J. Stargaryen]

A couple of quick notes. I know I owe @Sly Wren a reply, which I'll get to... eventually.  

Nice to the see the political implications of the events surrounding the rebellion being discussed. Many moons ago I suggested that Rhaegar may have been playing at politics when he kidnapped Lyanna, and @Rippounet had the same idea sometime later. One of the common objections was the abduction was motivated by prophecy. But the two aren't mutually exclusive. Rhaegar might have realized that he needed more political authority in order to fulfill the prophecy. Especially if he felt that fulfilling the prophecy involved his son Aegon becoming king, for example.

I'll have more to add later, whenever that is.

[Noel E Mahc]

6 hours ago, LynnS said:

Until Martin comes out and says that RLJ is the answer; as far as I'm concerned it's one possible answer.

Exactly.

[SFDanny]

On 10/29/2016 at 2:51 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Why Viserys? Would Aegon not make more sense? Or Rhaegar? That would allow for them to keep the Dornish on their side as well. The more Kingdoms join them, the stronger they are, so why risk the anger of the Dornish (who are not at all likely with placing Viserys on the throne over one of their own (Aegon))? If they can get Dorne on their side, that would make it six regions versus two (the Reach and the Iron Islands), instead of five versus three. Better odds, I'd say. Especially considering the enormous strenght of the Reach, and the fact that, even if the Great Houses commit to a rebellion, it is by no means an assurance that all of their bannermen will follow them in battle (as seen during Robert's Rebellion in the stormlands, riverlands, and Vale).

And if the STAB alliance wants to put an end to the Targaryen rule, why had there been no idea whatsoever as to who to place on the throne? It took months and months of war before that decision was ever made. Yet, that sounds like something you'd discuss early on while forming the alliance.

The main reason why not Aegon is for the vast majority of the time the ties of the alliance are being formed he isn't born yet. If we are discussing what are the aims of the alliance, and we accept they are trying to get rid of Aerys - as I think Yandel's quote indicates - then it's just not possible that they anticipate Aegon's birth as the guiding light of their plans.

I pointed out earlier why I don't think the alliance is formed to put Rhaegar on the throne. The reaction at Harrenhal tells us, I think, this is not the case. If you have painstakingly built an elaborate web of alliances in order to place Rhaegar on the throne, and he ends the tourney by crowning the principal architect of the alliance's daughter the Queen of Love and Beauty, then your reaction shouldn't be to try to kill him. That takes a special kind of stupid. I think.

I also think the alliance has no reason to think they can win Dorne, with their special relationship to the Targaryens - especially after Rhaegar's marriage to Elia - into the alliance. There is just a fundamental difference between the two blocs aims.

Now, the Reach is different. I think what we see with the proposed marriage of the Blackfish to a daughter of the Redwynes, and possibly the betrothal of Stannis to Selyse of House Florent is an attempt to build the alliance in the Reach. We don't know, I think, when the marriage of Stannis is agreed to, and it is possible that this is an agreement from before the rebellion. Knowing that the Tyrell's have no suitable marriage partners of the right age for the alliance to approach, this outreach into the powerful houses of the Reach just under the Tyrells in influence looks to be the alliance's plans to win support. The problem being the Blackfish upsets the plans, and, if I'm right, Stannis and Selyse cannot be arranged before the rebellion breaks out.

Nor do I think we know of all the attempts to build the alliance. If the STAB lords truly want to bring Tywin into the alliance, then they must have had a proposal for Cersei. Elbert, Ned, or Stannis make the most sense. We just never get there before Aerys decides to kill Rickard and Brandon.

I would add I'm persuaded by Stefan Stasse's idea that Elbert may have been fostered in the North. When Brandon rides to his doom, he does so with young men I take to be his close friends. That Elbert is part of the party tells me there is likely a long going relationship between the two men. No confirmation on this speculation, but it would be another fascinating bit of the back story if true.

But back to the discussion of what were the aims of the alliance. I think we get down to either Viserys or no one on the Iron Throne. We have no reason to think the STAB lords have any relationship to the very young and already unstable Viserys to spend years building an alliance that depends on his good will. It just makes no sense to do so. I think that leaves us with the Alliance being built around having no one replace Aerys on the throne. It makes sense. An Alliance of Great Houses, that ties them together by marriage and friendship, and equally benefits them if successful. The dragons are dead, and the only thing they have to fear is Aerys playing each against the others, or their own bannermen abandoning them. 

Not only does this answer make sense, but it seems to me to be the only thing that could entice lords as varied in outlook as Rickard Stark and Tywin Lannister to consider as cause to risk their families in rebellion.

[SFDanny]

7 hours ago, LynnS said:

If RLJ is the answer and everyone knows it; why hasn't Martin come out and said outright without any ambiguity that this is the answer?  Why does he always avoid the question? From what I understand, not even his wife knows the answer.  What is the point of not answering the question?  There are several on the table that have merit.  Until Martin comes out and says that RLJ is the answer; as far as I'm concerned it's one possible answer.

I agree with you here. My disagreement comes when we take this to mean all possibilities are equally possible. I think Martin has given us clues, or outright said in the text, that there are multiple possibilities for who is Jon's mother. The obvious answer to that question is not Lyanna. The obvious answer is Ashara, or Wylla, or the fisherman's daughter (if you think she is someone different than Wylla.) That's what is openly stated, and should not be disregarded without proof. I think there are also many hints by Martin that point to Lyanna, and a close reader of the story should consider her. Which opens up the question of who is Jon's father. Is it really Ned? Could it be Rhaegar? I just think most of these other scenarios lack serious support.

[LynnS]

7 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Why would GRRM explicitly spoil outside of the books something he has built up within the booms for twenty years, and is yet to explicitly reveal within the books? I

Yes,. why would he spoil the books?  Which is why I am dubious about the information in the App because that's one hell of a spoiler.  Why wouldn't he own it?  I'm not accepting this information without some degree of skepticism.  

[LynnS]

50 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I agree with you here. My disagreement comes when we take this to mean all possibilities are equally possible. I think Martin has given us clues, or outright said in the text, that there are multiple possibilities for who is Jon's mother. The obvious answer to that question is not Lyanna. The obvious answer is Ashara, or Wylla, or the fisherman's daughter (if you think she is someone different than Wylla.) That's what is openly stated, and should not be disregarded without proof. I think there are also many hints by Martin that point to Lyanna, and a close reader of the story should consider her. Which opens up the question of who is Jon's father. Is it really Ned? Could it be Rhaegar? I just think most of these other scenarios lack serious support.

I'm on board with Lyanna as Jon's mother and agree that the case for some ideas are stronger than others.  I don't want to dismiss Robert because it is the one idea that everyone dismisses and I think it has merit .  I'm not sure that Martin hasn't outsmarted everybody and that we know the answer right now.  I think Martin has some surprises left up his sleeve at this point.  I think the discussion about the STAB alliance is getting closer to the heart of the matter.  Martin continually brings up the War of the Roses as a comparison.    I'm dubious about what seems to be obvious.   it will be the thing that isn't obvious that will kick us in the butt.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

10 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I missed this.Where in the books was it stated that Robert was the one that initiated the bethrothal? 

 

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Really? I seemed to have missed that quote. So Robert went and asked Rickard for Lyanna's hand?

 

“Robert will never keep to one bed,” Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm’s End. “I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale.”

Rickard promises Lyanna to Robert (who isn't even there, as he apparently never visited the North before AGOT). If Rickard had been the one to suggest the betrothal, it would have been up to Robert to accept or decline the match. But according to Ned's POV, that choice was Rickard's.. At least, that's how I interpret it.

It does leave the possibility for someone else to have inspired Robert to suggest the betrothal to Rickard, to be sure. But it does seem that Robert had asked Ned to ask Rickard for Lyanna's hand in his name when he went to Winterfell.

 

10 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Consider the word spoken!  What are you thinking along these lines?

We don't know when Elia came to King's Landing.. It could have been as early as early 279 AC, when she was officially betrothed. However, what I said earlier concerning Hightower and him not joining the campaign after his hand has healed, as well as the fact that Aerys could not ignore an attack on the LC of his own KG, nor an attack on the wife of his heir, implies that the attack occurred shortly before the campaign began, which would basically rule out that the campaign began during the year of Elia's betrothal (as it would have lasted more than a year, in that case).

Which brings us to Elia's marriage to Rhaegar, in really realy early 280 AC. We know that the royal couple moved to Dragonstone early in their marriage, yet Elia would have been on the mainland when the attack occurred. So when did that occur?

We know that Rhaegar left Dragonstone in early 282 AC, when Aegon had already been born, which suggests that Rhaenys's pregnancy (9 months) and Elia's subsequent bedrest (~6 months) were followed rather closely with her becoming pregnant with Aegon (another 9 months), bringing the total to some 24 months, two full years (hence why the marriage must have occurred really early in 280 AC).

That Elia and Rhaegar moved to Dragonstone early in their marriage, and the rumors that followed, might be a suggestion that they did not travel to the mainland before Rhaenys's birth. Following Rhaenys's birth, Elia went on bedrest for six months, and was not likely to travel to KL at the time. Rhaegar went to KL to present Rhaenys, and I wonder how quickly after her birth this occurred. They would have had to travel by ship, and the only precedent I can think of is that of Baela and Rhaena Velaryon, who travelled from Pentos to KL by ship when they were half a year old to be presented to the court. We also know that Jaime and Cersei were ordered to be brought to court "when they were old enough to travel". Their births occurred in 266 AC, but no visit to KL has been mentioned, suggesting it might not have happened, the reason being that, before the twins were considered to be old enough to travel, Tytos had died and court went to Casterly Rock instead. The twins had been less than a year old, IIRC.

So, as per the examples above, it seems likely that Rhaegar waited some time before presenting his daughter to court, which might have been as long as half a year, in order for Rhaenys to be old enough for a journey across the sea. Even if Rhaegar and Rhaenys did went together, without Elia, Elia might have followed them after she had regained enough of her strength (i.e. after her half a year of bedrest had ended).

Which places them in KL ~at the start of the fourth month of the year. Aegon's conception cannot be that far away anymore, in order for him to have been born when he is said to have already been born. And, if Rhaegar and Elia are in KL, the comet seen above KL the night of Aegon's conception makes more sense as well... If Rhaegar and Elia had been on Dragonstone when their son was conceived, why would it have mattered that the comet had been seen above KL? KL and Dragonstone are rather close.. Had the comet not been visible on Dragonstone that night? The fact that KL has been described for the sighting of the comet had made me wonder whether Rhaegar and Elia had been in KL during that time, and considering the time constriction for the conception, and the need to present Rhaenys to the court, those events might all have coincide.

The campaign cannot have taken too long, but had concluded some time before the tourney at Harrenhal. We don't know how much time passed between the end of the campaign and Jaime's arrival in KL, but a month after his visit to KL, he receives the raven that he has been accepted to join the KG, which occures at the tourney an unknown amount of time, but presumably a short amount of time, later.

 

Which is all a really long way of saying that I suspect that Elia might have been in the first few months of her second pregnancy when her encounter with the Brotherhood happened. Did the court already know she was pregnant? No idea. But if it was known, Tywin was likely to have known as well. So was she pregnant while encoutering the Brotherhood? I think the possibility certainly is there, which means that the encouter might have endangered Rhaegar's unborn heir as well.

 

We cannot rule out that the attack occurred earlier, but considering that Rhaegar and Elia had moved to Dragonstone, and tensions between father and son were high at the time, I have trouble imagining them making a visit to Aerys's court "just because they can".

 

10 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

And I had not thought of Hightower's not returning to the campaign. You're right--that makes it sound like it didn't take long--which makes sense given what Jaime tells us about Arthur's strategy to redirect trust from the outlaws back to the throne. As well as the final battle. 

Many, many questions. I suppose there's an outside chance that Ulmer says "Dornish princess" because Elia hadn't married Rhaegar yet. But I think it's more likely that this happened after their marriage.

A very, very small chance, imo. Elia is constantly described as "Elia of Dorne"... That's how she was known. She was a Dornish princess, and her marriage didn't change that. 

 

10 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

And you mentioned the kidnap and ransom. Which is a version of what the Darklyns did with Aerys--holding him to get their demands met. Might be a reason why the Brotherhood would try to take Elia. Because simply robbing her sounds like begging for trouble. Holding her for ransom is, too. But at least then you have leverage.

And, if Elia's killed in the rescue attempt, well, the onus would be on the KWBrotherhood. With Tywin looking as innocent and fluffy as a lamb.

Which brings me back to the Darklyns and Aerys--we've got no evidence that Tywin influenced the Darklyns somehow. Though I would not put it past him at all. But the World Book suggests that Aerys went to Duskendale to prove in part that he, not Tywin, was running things. That sounds like something Aerys might have been goaded into.

It didn't work out for Tywin--Barristan pulled off a sheer miracle. And I'm thinking there's a chance of similar bad-Tywin-luck with Elia--her other guards were just too good. 

Aerys only went after Tywin had told him he should refuse the offer Lord Denys had made.. That Aerys did the opposite from what Tywin advised him to do had been a pattern for a while, by then

Lord Denys, seeing that Aerys's erratic behavior had begun to strain his relations with Lord Tywin, refused to pay the taxes expected of him and instead invited the king to come to Duskendale and hear his petition. It seems most unlikely that King Aerys would ever have considered accepting this invitation...until Lord Tywin advised him to refuse in the strongest possible terms, whereupon the king decided to accept, informing Grand Maester Pycelle and the small council that he meant to settle this matter himself and bring the defiant Darklyn to heel.

Nor do I think that it is necessary for Tywin to have orchestrated the Defiance. Only for him to take advantage when it did happen. And Lord Denys did swear to kill Aerys if Tywin stormed his walls. Yet storming the walls was exactly what Tywin was planning to do, after waiting a sufficiently amount of time had passed to try and resolve the situation another way. If Tywin indeed had hoped for Aerys's death to be a result from the Defiance, Barristans offer was simply bad luck for him, and Barristan's success in his attempt as well.

 

Back to the Brotherhood.. If their plan had been to kidnap Elia as they had done with other highborns, why did that plan fail? If Tywin had been involved, he would likely have known exactly how strong Elia's escort would be, right?

 

10 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Many, many questions.

So many

 

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I agree. Robert doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would want the throne by himself. I'm pretty sure he was made to take it.

This scenario introduces another possibility - Rhaegar doesn't know what the STAB alliance is planning, but organises the tourney at HH for the purpose of speaking to the heads of the Great Houses to support him at a council over his father. However, at HH, he gets wind of the STAB alliance, and gives the QOLAB crown to Lyanna, which happens to be a covert signal to the Starks that he would make Lyanna his second queen if they made him king and not Viserys or Aegon.

It is interesting to see how the Starks are somewhat of the center of the friendship between these Great Houses, after the betrothall for Jaime and Lysa falls through. The Tully's have no connection to the Arryns or the Baratheons. The House Arryn is connected to House Baratheon through fostering Robert, but the bond between the Baratheons and Starks is stronger, thanks to the betrothal.

And Steffon's friendship with Aerys should not be forgotten. He was Aerys's cousin, and a good friend of Aerys in his youth. Nothing suggests that they had a falling out. So why would Steffon want to form an alliance against his cousin and old friend?

 

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That was an excellent explanation as usual, thank you RT  With this information, we can say that the Brynden Tully - Bethany Redwyne alliance was supposed to happen approximately around 270 AC, a couple of years before Ned and Robert were sent to the Vale for fostering. I think that was the first "move" of the rebel alliance which would later become STAB. Which shows that the alliance was very much supposed to include the Reach as well, at some point (basically, the whole of Westeros v/s the Targs and Martells.) It kind of fits with the behavior of the Reach during the rebellion as well.

I think it is likely, yes. Not confirmed or the only possibility, but very likely. While we do not know exactly when Robert went to the Vale, having been around the age of 8 is indeed likely, and Robert would turn 8 in late 270 AC, Eddard in somewhat early 271 AC.

If this was indeed Hoster's attempt at a start of an alliance, does that mean that he's the one who orchestrated it? Then why does he not immediately join the Rebellion when the war begins?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The main reason why not Aegon is for the vast majority of the time the ties of the alliance are being formed he isn't born yet. If we are discussing what are the aims of the alliance, and we accept they are trying to get rid of Aerys - as I think Yandel's quote indicates - then it's just not possible that they anticipate Aegon's birth as the guiding light of their plans.

If fostering Eddard and Robert in the Vale was the start of the formation of the alliance, and if indeed Hoster's proposition of a marriage between Brynden and Bethany was part of it, the alliance was already being formed long before Viserys was ever born. 

 

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I pointed out earlier why I don't think the alliance is formed to put Rhaegar on the throne. The reaction at Harrenhal tells us, I think, this is not the case. If you have painstakingly built an elaborate web of alliances in order to place Rhaegar on the throne, and he ends the tourney by crowning the principal architect of the alliance's daughter the Queen of Love and Beauty, then your reaction shouldn't be to try to kill him. That takes a special kind of stupid. I think.

I also think the alliance has no reason to think they can win Dorne, with their special relationship to the Targaryens - especially after Rhaegar's marriage to Elia - into the alliance. There is just a fundamental difference between the two blocs aims.

That begs the question, why do the lords think it is necessary, as early as the early 270ties, to form a power block as to remove the Targaryens from the throne?

 

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Now, the Reach is different. I think what we see with the proposed marriage of the Blackfish to a daughter of the Redwynes, and possibly the betrothal of Stannis to Selyse of House Florent is an attempt to build the alliance in the Reach. We don't know, I think, when the marriage of Stannis is agreed to, and it is possible that this is an agreement from before the rebellion. Knowing that the Tyrell's have no suitable marriage partners of the right age for the alliance to approach, this outreach into the powerful houses of the Reach just under the Tyrells in influence looks to be the alliance's plans to win support. The problem being the Blackfish upsets the plans, and, if I'm right, Stannis and Selyse cannot be arranged before the rebellion breaks out.

As I explained in an earlier post, I think that it is likely that Hosters proposal for a marriage between Brynden and Bethany is likely to have occurred around 270 AC, though we cannot pinpoint it in any precise way. I strongly doubt, however, that Stannis's eventual marriage to Selyse was part of it. They married in either 286 or 287 AC, and I think that this was more a way to keep the Tyrells and Redwyne's in check, who had played leading roles during the Siege of Storm's End. The Florents have an older and more distinguished descent from House Gardener and therefore, as they argue, have a superior claim to Highgarden. The marriage of Stannis to Selyse enabled Robert to strip the Tyrells of their rule from the Reach and grant it to Stannis, should the Tyrells ever prove troublesome. If this is indeed the reason why the marriage was agreed upon, it is hardly the only thing that was done to keep the Tyrells from ever rebelling again. Loras was send to Storm's End to serve as a page and squire, where he basically would have been a hostage to House Baratheon.

 

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Nor do I think we know of all the attempts to build the alliance. If the STAB lords truly want to bring Tywin into the alliance, then they must have had a proposal for Cersei. Elbert, Ned, or Stannis make the most sense. We just never get there before Aerys decides to kill Rickard and Brandon.

Would it? Tywin is clear about the fact that he wishes some great match for Cersei. During all her years at court, he refuses every offer that he gets. Elbert was the heir to the Vale, so I can see Tywin considering such a match, but Ned and Stannis are second sons, who are not likely to inherit any grand seat. That would make such a match much less valueble in Tywin's eyes, I think.

 

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I would add I'm persuaded by Stefan Stasse's idea that Elbert may have been fostered in the North. When Brandon rides to his doom, he does so with young men I take to be his close friends. That Elbert is part of the party tells me there is likely a long going relationship between the two men. No confirmation on this speculation, but it would be another fascinating bit of the back story if true.

An interesting suggestion. I hadn't heard of that theory before.

 

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

But back to the discussion of what were the aims of the alliance. I think we get down to either Viserys or no one on the Iron Throne. We have no reason to think the STAB lords have any relationship to the very young and already unstable Viserys to spend years building an alliance that depends on his good will. It just makes no sense to do so. I think that leaves us with the Alliance being built around having no one replace Aerys on the throne. It makes sense. An Alliance of Great Houses, that ties them together by marriage and friendship, and equally benefits them if successful. The dragons are dead, and the only thing they have to fear is Aerys playing each against the others, or their own bannermen abandoning them. 

Not only does this answer make sense, but it seems to me to be the only thing that could entice lords as varied in outlook as Rickard Stark and Tywin Lannister to consider as cause to risk their families in rebellion.

So, if I understand you correctly, you think their goal was to create independent kingdoms, as had been the case before the dragons came to Westeros?

[Sly Wren]

14 hours ago, LynnS said:

Ninja'd by Sly Wren.  I was just about to post that very quote.   I've wondered about Robert's reaction to this and his rage over that whore Dany.  I keep thinking this has something to do with Lyanna and the story making the rounds at the time that she eloped with Rhaegar.  Someting that still causes him to fly into a rage when he learns that Dany is pregnant and wants her and the unborn child killed. 

Maybe--but I've been reading this for a while as Robert's hatred of Rhaegar because he took Lyanna form him. That anger is what lets him condone the murders of Rhaegar's kids despite Ned's rage and fury. He nearly loses Ned's friendship--but he's still going to condone it. Not because "It was politically necessary" but because "they are dragonspawn." It's horrifying and nasty and vile on Robert's part. And it seems to be driven by Robert's hatred of Rhaegar. I think that's what drives Robert's loathing for Dany--irrational and angry and not Robert-at-his-best.

14 hours ago, LynnS said:

I'm also a little suspicious of the manner in which he questions Ned about Jon.  Ned returns to KL at some point after Starfall and tells Robert that Lyanna is dead.  And he has his 'own bastard' to explain.  The way Robert questions him reminds me of tactics that police use in questioning someone when they know the answer.  But are checking to see if they get the same answer.  Ned gets a little angry about it.   Robert is basically saying that Ned's story is a little hard to believe when he says that Wylla must have been some woman to make Ned forget his honor for one night.

I'm struggling to see the "police tactics"--I'm mostly seeing, "Whoa, dude! Back with my best bud! Why are you being such a downer with all this talk of duty? Let's talk about our glory days!"

He's trying to get Ned off of talking about how they can't behave like boys any more because now they have duties. Trying to get Ned to loosen up and not remind him that he's supposed to be an adult now.

Is there something specific you are thinking of re: the "fact checking?"

14 hours ago, LynnS said:

Of course, I am making the assumption that Robert is Jon's father.  It puts a different spin on some of their interactions in that light.   Especially their private conversation at Robert's deathbed. 

All fair. I have Dawn-colored glasses on re: Ned's dream and the fact that only Arthur gets emotion from Ned. And yes, who one thinks Jon's father is changes how scenes look a bit.

[Sly Wren]

13 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I don't want to veer too far off topic here, but I think we should consider the death of Rhaegar's wife & children. This wasn't something that Tywin had to do, but it's something he prioritised despite the obvious downsides. I suggest that the STAB alliance saw him as being in the Rhaegar faction, or at least suspected it, and he had to demonstrate that he was severing all ties with Rhaegar. 

I give @wolfmaid7 full permission to yell at me if necessary, but it seems to me that the politics around Robert's Rebellion are directly tied to figuring out Jon's paternity. If others had motive to start wars, that has bearing on who took Lyanna and why. Let alone who likely got her pregnant.

And I completely agree--Tywin's killing the kids and Elia not only demonstrated his "loyalty" at the last minute, it also limited the Dornish faction's ability to assert a claim to the throne. And both moves put Tywin in the position to have Cersei marry the new king, even if they weren't sure who would be king at that point. 

One way or another, I think Tywin was determined to make Cersei queen. All of which gives Tywin a lot of motive to stir up trouble with the Rebellion and then sit back and wait to see who won.

A move Baelish adopts and adapts to create Robb's Rebellion and the War of 5 Kings.

Quote

Indeed. Jaime certainly seems to have believed that Tywin was waiting for the opportunity to marry Cersei into the Targ dynasty.

Yup!

[Sly Wren]

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

A couple of quick notes. I know I owe @Sly Wren a reply, which I'll get to... eventually.  

HA! No worries. I'm still way behind both here and at TLH.

ETA: Accidentally skipped this part.

Quote

Nice to the see the political implications of the events surrounding the rebellion being discussed. Many moons ago I suggested that Rhaegar may have been playing at politics when he kidnapped Lyanna, and @Rippounet had the same idea sometime later. One of the common objections was the abduction was motivated by prophecy. But the two aren't mutually exclusive. Rhaegar might have realized that he needed more political authority in order to fulfill the prophecy. Especially if he felt that fulfilling the prophecy involved his son Aegon becoming king, for example.

YUP! We've seen Rhaegar willing to take risks to get the throne and consolidate power. He wants the throne and power to act. The idea that he feels he needs it to fulfill his prophecy-stuff has to be on the table.

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Which is all a really long way of saying that I suspect that Elia might have been in the first few months of her second pregnancy when her encounter with the Brotherhood happened. Did the court already know she was pregnant? No idea. But if it was known, Tywin was likely to have known as well. So was she pregnant while encoutering the Brotherhood? I think the possibility certainly is there, which means that the encouter might have endangered Rhaegar's unborn heir as well.

This is my thinking, too. Elia's proven she can give Rhaegar an heir--though Rhaenys is a girl. So, the idea that Tywin might want her gone before she can produce the male heir. . . it's horrifying. But we know Tywin has a long record of horror.

Plus he moves against Robb re: gaining an heir in a much more subtle way. So, who knows? Maybe with Robb he learned his lesson that he should prevent pregnancy earlier if possible. But with Elia, Tywin was more . . . blunt.

Quote

We cannot rule out that the attack occurred earlier, but considering that Rhaegar and Elia had moved to Dragonstone, and tensions between father and son were high at the time, I have trouble imagining them making a visit to Aerys's court "just because they can".

Agreed.

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

A very, very small chance, imo. Elia is constantly described as "Elia of Dorne"... That's how she was known. She was a Dornish princess, and her marriage didn't change that. 

Agreed.

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Nor do I think that it is necessary for Tywin to have orchestrated the Defiance. Only for him to take advantage when it did happen. And Lord Denys did swear to kill Aerys if Tywin stormed his walls. Yet storming the walls was exactly what Tywin was planning to do, after waiting a sufficiently amount of time had passed to try and resolve the situation another way. If Tywin indeed had hoped for Aerys's death to be a result from the Defiance, Barristans offer was simply bad luck for him, and Barristan's success in his attempt as well.

This is my thinking, too. We see the same in Baelish--keep an eye out for trouble, then turn it to his advantage. The whole "Lannisters killed Jon Arryn" plot only works if there's reason for tension between the Lannisters and Arryn.

And on Barristan--I don't think the offer was bad luck. I think the fact that his insane plan actually succeeded was the bad luck. That plan should absolutely have failed. If it did, it would be very good luck for Tywin. Tywin would have risked fewer of his own resources to get Aerys dead. No one could say he was trying to kill Aerys if he went for a rescue mission. Barristan would be ballad sung as a hero--and Rhaegar would have been king. It's perfect. Until Barristan actually succeeded.

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Back to the Brotherhood.. If their plan had been to kidnap Elia as they had done with other highborns, why did that plan fail? If Tywin had been involved, he would likely have known exactly how strong Elia's escort would be, right?

If this hypothetical is right and Tywin had some hand in the attack on Elia, it might have been the same problem as he had in Barristan. Dumb luck. Her escort was just too good or lucky for it to work.

It sounds like they probably got some hostages--Lady Jeyne Swann and her septa had to be "rescued," though we need more info on that. But they missed Elia. Just a mistake due to circumstances. And we know Tywin isn't perfect, any more than Baelish is. Just ruthless and willing to try almost anything to get his way.

@Little Scribe of Naath:

Quote

I don't know if Tywin exchanged any "letters" with the Darklyns, but indirectly he was responsible for the Defiance of Duskendale, I guess. His tax policies led to them. He lowered import tariffs at the three richest ports - KL, Oldtown and Lannisport. That would obviously direct most trade towards these three places, leading to a decline in income for smaller ports such as Duskendale (which was that too located right next to KL, so it's a given that people trading with them would prefer to go to KL.) 

It's straight out mentioned in the text IIRC that as KL grew, Duskendale declined. This was over a period of many years, but Tywin's policies served to accelerate that. I'm pretty sure it  must have come to a point where they may not have been able to afford paying the regular taxes they paid the crown. From TWOIAF:

I completely forgot this--thank you. And I agree. And it's a bit of serendipity that the policies that helped keep Lannisport rich ended up giving Tywin the opportunity to take out his enemy. 

If only Tywin had been able to capitalize on it, it would have been pure serendipity.

As Barristan thinks, if he'd just failed Aerys, there might not have been the Rebellion.

Quote

But no. That was not fair. He did his duty. Some nights, Ser Barristan wondered if he had not done that duty too well. He had sworn his vows before the eyes of gods and men, he could not in honor go against them … but the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys's reign. He had seen things that it pained him to recall, and more than once he wondered how much of the blood was on his own hands. If he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm. Duskendale had been his finest hour, yet the memory tasted bitter on his tongue. Dance, The Queensguard.

Can't blame Barristan for trying, but there's no way around the idea that he is likely right.

And no way around the idea that the failure to kill Aerys at Duskendale could very well have driven Tywin to more extreme measures to get rid of Aerys and crown Rhaegar (or another king).

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

Is there something specific you are thinking of re: the "fact checking?"

Robert is not only prickly; I think he's slippery as well.  Yes the scene as you describe does sound like Robert wanting to relive  the 'glory' days of their youth.  Which is how I read it initially.  I question whether or not Robert and Ned also had a falling out over the story that Lyanna ran off with Rheager.  If he believed it; she might also qualify as a 'whore' in his mind and any child between then qualifying as 'dragonspawn'.  Sometthing that Lyanna's death would have put to an end.   This might be the whole point of the Rhaegar kidnapping story to begin with.

And very inconveniently, Ned also shows up with news that Lyanna is dead and  bastard which he claims to be his own.  Robert might be rather suspicious of that claim but what difference does it make now with Rhaegar dead and Robert poised to succeed to the thrown.  So as Robert later states, Ned can choke on his bastard.

I think it's possible that Robert didn't forget what Ned told him about it the first time.  But he sidled up to Ned and asked him to tell him again, to see if he would get the same answer.  Ned is angered about the questioning and Robert brushes it off; essentially by saying that it's hard to believe given his knowledge of Ned's character and Ned's attachment to honor.

That friendly kind of questioning is a police investigative method;  when you have the facts or one version of something and test to see if you get the same answer.  'What was her name again?  Becca?  I'm just saying that this scene reminds me of this tactic.

[SFDanny]

9 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I think it's possible that Robert didn't forget what Ned told him about it the first time.  But he sidled up to Ned and asked him to tell him again, to see if he would get the same answer.  Ned is angered about the questioning and Robert brushes it off; essentially by saying that it's hard to believe given his knowledge of Ned's character and Ned's attachment to honor.

That friendly kind of questioning is a police investigative method;  when you have the facts or one version of something and test to see if you get the same answer.  'What was her name again?  Becca?  I'm just saying that this scene reminds me of this tactic.

I've suggested the same thing in the past, but in the very least Ned cannot risk telling another name to Robert. He likely doesn't know if someone has already investigated his first story. Something I think is likely 

[LynnS]

24 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I've suggested the same thing in the past, but in the very least Ned cannot risk telling another name to Robert. He likely doesn't know if someone has already investigated his first story. Something I think is likely 

That seems very likely to me.  There are spies everywhere in this story.  A reason for Ned to squash any discussion remotely related to Jon and to never speak of it.

[Sly Wren]

4 hours ago, LynnS said:

Robert is not only prickly; I think he's slippery as well.

This is the part I'm having trouble with. Robert's not shown a tendency to subtlety. As this convo starts, he's telling Ned he's so sick of the wheelhouse slowing down the pace of they convoy that he's got half a mind to burn it and make Cersei walk. He seems to take pretty simple views of things--can't see why Ned is uncomfortable giving Tywin too much power, etc.

Robert seems like the guy who thinks, "if there's a problem, hit it with a hammer." So, the "slippery"--I'm having trouble thinking of anything on those lines.

Quote

Yes the scene as you describe does sound like Robert wanting to relive  the 'glory' days of their youth.  Which is how I read it initially.  I question whether or not Robert and Ned also had a falling out over the story that Lyanna ran off with Rheager.

Any hints of this you can think of in the text? I'm drawing a blank. He's adamant that Rhaegar raped her and that a thousand deaths would be less than Rhaegar deserves. Ned doesn't try to calm him. But all of that fits perfectly with Robert's being certain that Rhaegar raped Lyanna. No hint I can see that Robert suspects anything about Lyanna's loyalty. Or that he and Ned fought over this--the fight was about the dead children.

Quote

If he believed it; she might also qualify as a 'whore' in his mind and any child between then qualifying as 'dragonspawn'.  Sometthing that Lyanna's death would have put to an end.   This might be the whole point of the Rhaegar kidnapping story to begin with.

I agree--that might be an issue if he believed it. But I'm struggling to see any hint that he ever doubted Lyanna's loyalty. Tires to say that Lyanna wouldn't have told him not to fight in the melee. And, even when Ned insists that Lyanna would have told him not to fight, Robert just drops it, annoyed, saying Ned's too sour. No fight over Lyanna at all. Can't see any tension there, even when Ned tells him he didn't know Lyanna very well.

Quote

And very inconveniently, Ned also shows up with news that Lyanna is dead and  bastard which he claims to be his own.  Robert might be rather suspicious of that claim but what difference does it make now with Rhaegar dead and Robert poised to succeed to the thrown.  So as Robert later states, Ned can choke on his bastard.

Robert might be, absolutely. But I can't find evidence that he was. At all.

Quote

I think it's possible that Robert didn't forget what Ned told him about it the first time.  But he sidled up to Ned and asked him to tell him again, to see if he would get the same answer.  Ned is angered about the questioning and Robert brushes it off; essentially by saying that it's hard to believe given his knowledge of Ned's character and Ned's attachment to honor.

Maybe--but that whole exchange starts out with Robert complaining of being hemmed in from riding as far and fast as he likes. Doesn't seem at all subtle. Which fits with his later convos with Ned--not at all subtle. 

Quote

That friendly kind of questioning is a police investigative method;  when you have the facts or one version of something and test to see if you get the same answer.  'What was her name again?  Becca?  I'm just saying that this scene reminds me of this tactic.

Agreed--but the set up and the rest of the context of the scene with Robert, not to mention all of Ned's other interactions with Robert--really think Robert's just trying to get Ned to joke around. Doesn't want Ned to keep telling him to be responsible--I assume Jon Arryn told him that frequently. Robert seems tired of hearing it.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I've suggested the same thing in the past, but in the very least Ned cannot risk telling another name to Robert. He likely doesn't know if someone has already investigated his first story. Something I think is likely 

I agree that Ned is cautious--no question. We see that in his response to Cat. Cutting off not only any chatter about Jon but about Ashara Dayne as well.

As for investigating--Ned's having a bastard is no news. Bringing it home is. So someone might have asked questions. Though they may have just chalked it up to Ned's honor and Northern oddities.

But the only one I could think would see it worth his while to look into it is Baelish. He'd have a vested interest in finding out who Ned cheated on Cat with--as potential info to use. And if it turns out that Ned isn't Jon's father, Baelish has a vested interest in not letting Cat find out.