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

[Melifeather]

55 minutes ago, LynnS said:

It's where we place Wylla; if she is the same Wylla.  But you're right there is no way to know that at this point. 

I do like the idea of Lyanna becoming Wylla...basically "no one", while Ned's dream of "Lyanna" is actually of Ashara.

In The Queenmaker chapter Myrcella describes how she and her handmaiden, Rosamund traded places on the voyage to Dorne as a safety precaution. They dyed Myrcella's hair brown, much like Sansa dyed hers. Of course Ashara was Elia's handmaiden and could have either swapped places with Lyanna or was the woman Ned found instead of Lyanna dying in a bed of blood. The pleading words addressing him as Lord Eddard would make sense then instead of Lyanna's "dearest Ned".

Edited to add: this is also why I believe both Arya and Sansa show parallels to Lyanna. They represent the two identities. One prior and one after she traded places with Ashara.

[WSmith84]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

 

Plenty of text was referenced for support. I think you just didn't like the theory so you choose to dismiss it. That's fine by me. I'm fully prepared to stand by my theories win or lose. We shall have to hope that GRRM finishes his story. I think it would make a fabulous xmas gift if he would only just comply!

Most of the evidence was very much 'ehhhh, could be evidence I suppose' kind of evidence. There's so much in that theory that has no evidence at all: all that stuff about Waelys, Robert in Rhaegar's armour, Lyanna with redspots, Lyanna on the road for weeks and no one notices that she's missing, Rickard not being at Winterfell etc. etc. It relies on so much given information being completely untrue and so much information to be later revealed by some source.

As for the argument that it's because I just don't like the theory: that's nonsense. I find that an incredibly weak argument. I would love R+L=J not to be true. I'd love for Ned to be Jon's father and Ashara Dayne to be the mother. But I don't find the evidence for that compelling, while the evidence for R+L is compelling. My personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

[LynnS]

Well, it's back to the drawing board.  I came across this quote when Ned is confronting Cersei in the Godswood about her children.  He also asks her about Bran.  Do you notice anything odd about it?

Quote

"My son Bran ..."

To her credit, Cersei did not look away.  "He saw us.  You love your children, do you not?"

Robert had asked him the very same question, the morning of the melee.  He gave the same answer.  "With all my heart."

"No less do I love mine."

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do?  Even more so, what would Catelyn do, If it were Jon's life against the children of her body? He did not know and prayed he never would.

Ned doesn't mention Jon as a child of his body!  Now why does Ned suppose that Catelyn would be threatened by Jon if he was in Bran's position.  If Ned is not Jon's father and Lyanna is the Stark Blood; why would that create a problem for Catelyn.  Unless, Jon is Brandon's bastard son and a potential threat to Robb's inheritance?  When asked; Martin said that Brandon didn't have any legitimate children but he may have left a few "Snows" around the place.  

 

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

How, where, and when do you suppose Ned and Lyanna met when Lyanna shared her fears about Robert? They were together at Winterfell somehow after Robert had fathered his first bastard when she said, "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature." They were together that night and possibly when he left the Eyrie to call his banners if the fisherman's daughter is actually Lyanna.

I suppose the meeting takes place in Winterfell, as we are told, some time between Mya Stone's birth in 279-280 and before the Harrenhal tourney in 281 during which we are told Robert and Lyanna are betrothed. The other story takes place in 282 when Ned is going North to gather his banners and after Lyanna has disappeared in the kidnapping. Regardless, both dates are much too early to make a incestuous liaison between Ned and Lyanna result in Jon. You are not even in the same ballpark. The first is likely years off, and the second - again after Lyanna is kidnapped - is likely up to six months too early. The last is one of the main problems of the Fisherman's daughter tale and one of the reason it is likely a cover story. But if Ned did hook up with the FD then it is at least possible she followed him to camp as his army fought in the riverlands. A guarded Lyanna, either guarded to keep her hostage or as a measure to prevent others from harming her, is not likely to be wandering across battle lines. Nothing is impossible in fiction, but this is close.

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The inversions are certainly open to interpretation, but the people should be mirrored reflections of each other, thus since Jon is a Lord Commander his inversion would most likely be a type of commander, just not necessarily of the Nights Watch. 

I am open to Mance being Rhaegar, but for the sake of the inversion he is not. They are inversions of each other simply by what they are. Mance is King Beyond the Wall, and Rhaegar was the presumed king if he overthrew his father.

Craster and Rickard mirror each other as lords of their respective homes with Craster a suspected relation to the Starks. Craster married his daughters, while Rickard did not. 

Gilly and Wylla are inversions of each other in the baby swap. Both giving up their own children to care for a child with king's blood. Gilly's trueborn child is a product of incest, while Wylla's bastard child is also a product of incest.

Ned and Sam are inversions since they were both involved in the baby swap. Sam is not the father to either of the babies, while Ned is the father of Lyanna's/Wylla's child.

In the baby swap Jon really is Rhaegar's son, but Ned and "Wylla's" child was the Pisswater Prince and killed when his head was bashed against the wall. It could explain Ned's horror when the bodies of Rhaegar's "children" were laid at Robert's feet. Rhaegar's son ends up on the Wall, while Mance's son ends up in the south at the Tarly home. That being said I find it hard to believe that Jon would be Rhaegar's son without any Stark blood due to his looks. He's supposed to have more of the north in him, so to have no Stark blood at all would not account for that particular description, although I find it ironic that the actor that plays Jon Snow is very dark like the Dornish.

I don't claim to know for a surety how to decipher the inversions. I just know that they are there and up to the reader to puzzle out. 

It seems to me, these inversions are, how should I say this, inexact. Why would a title Lord Commander be important? How do you know Wylla gives up her child? On and on these don't work or are meaningless. Unfortunately, that is how I see this so far. I hope for better when the essay is done.

[kimim]

Quote

Tywin was a master at strategic planning, but every strategist has their conspirators. It was Tywin’s plan all along to anhilate all Targaryens, even Rhaegar. Oh, there was some inkling that he favored Rhaegar with that whole Duskendale business, but having a puppet on the throne could never satiate this lion’s appetite for power. Tywin viewed his lioness cub, Cersei as his most prized playing piece that was going to eliminate the dragon from the Cyvasse board. No woman has ever ruled the Seven Kingdoms so his queen would need a king, and even better if that king had some Targaryen blood. 

ok...

Quote

The “official story” of Robert and Cersei’s marriage alliance is that it happened after Robert was already upon the throne. Poor sad Robert was still mourning Lyanna’s loss, and honorable father-figure Jon Arryn had to convince him that it was to his advantage to marry Cersei. Did you really believe that crap?

Why yes, I did believe that crap and will believe it until I'm shown evidence to the contrary, which I can not find in your essay. 

Quote

Here is how the plan was carried out. Robert goes to Winterfell to collect Lyanna after Rickard and Brandon left for Riverrun for the marriage to Catelyn Tully. He doesn’t raise any suspicions as he’s a known friend of the Starks, and he’s got Maester Walys’s help on the inside. Lyanna was sick with red spots at the time, so she was isolated from the rest of the household and under Walys’s care. (This mirrors how Arianne and Arys got Myrcella out of Sunspear.) She would have been weak from her illness and unaware that it was Robert under Rhaegar’s armor. They ride towards Aerys’s detachment. Maester Walys has Lyanna sedated so she really isn’t in any state to resist nor realize what is happening. The detachment was camped out for the night when Robert dressed as Rhaegar shows up with Maester Walys and Lyanna in tow. Ever the gallant knight, Ser Arthur rescues Lyanna, but he dare not kill his friend and prince, but where does he go? Where should he take her?

Evidence?

• Where is the evidence that Robert goes to Winterfell to collect Lyanna? "He doesn't raise any suspicions," means that you're trying to explain away the inconvenient fact that there is nothing in the text that even hints at that.
• Where is the evidence that Lyanna was ill when she was taken?
• Where is the evidence that Lyanna was sedated?
• Where is the evidence that Robert's detachment was camped out for the night?
• Where is the evidence that Robert wore Rhaegar's armor?
• Where is the evidence that Arthur rescued Lyanna?

It also does not explain why Tywin stays out of the Trident, gambling on Rhaegar's defeat.

It does not explain how Rhaegar could reach the Trident still believing that reports of battles were "misunderstandings," after he's done "gathering an army," and after he's told Jaime that "When this battle is done, I mean to call a council."

It does not explain why Tywin does not go after Dany and Viserys.

Still looking for evidence here.

[Kingmonkey]

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

What reliable source? You think Ned or Cat would be having this conversation with their kids,with Bran.

Look how Cat speaks about Bran:

Nahh i don't see this being something they'd talk to their children about.From the cooks and kennel masters yes.With all the secret hidey hole Bran knows about ,he heard some crap for sure.

Ned's reply to Cat is: "I was eight when my father sent me to foster at the Eyrie". Yes, Cat is protective of Bran. Ned on the other hand? Yeah, I think a man who wants to take his son to witness him executing a prisoner would be perfectly prepared to relate war stories to that son. 

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

But as i said a few times if X doesn't show up in places it should be at the times it should be then the likely hood of X is slim.

(snip)

In this one internal monologue below for instance my take away is

there exist a frame for Brandon's death in Ned's internal monologue.He died at age 20 basically in the custody of King Aerys.There exist no frame in Ned's account for Lyanna.

Yes, if X doesn't show up in places it should -- the problem here is that it has to be shown that it should have shown up. Let's take that internal monologue you give -- where's the time frame for Rickard's death? Look at the paragraph immediately before you start quoting: 

"(Rickard Stark) sat with quiet dignity, stone fingers holding tight to the sword across his lap, but in life all swords had failed him."

As far as I recall, Ned does not once think about how Rickard died. Is that reason to doubt that story too?

So, what reason would there be for Ned to be thinking about Lyanna's abduction? He already knows about it, he doesn't have to remind himself. When he thinks of Rhaegar, there's no need to monologue about what Rhaegar did, because that's already there. He knows.

On the other hand, what about the various times he talks as if Lyanna had indeed been abducted? Robert certainly seems to think she was. If he's covering the truth when Robert talks about getting Lyanna back, and Ned is lying when he talks about Robert avenging himself on Rhaegar, why doesn't that crop up in his thoughts, there and then when it's relevant? Your "If X doesn't show up..." principle should surely apply there.

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Then there's the conversation with Lord Borrel where we get the whole Aerys wanted their heads tidbit,and about if the rebels would win.How Rhaegar would defeat Robert whom Borrel's Maester at this time labeled a rebel.There's no talk about fighting to get back a sister whom Rhaegar took.No talk from anyone "during" the rebellion of a missing girl.This whole thing about Lyanna being kidnapped or running off was seems a cover for what really happened.

Lord Borrel wasn't in the know, so he'd only have the generally received story -- that's true whether it's a cover story or not, right? So even if Lyanna wasn't really abducted, Lord Borrel would have the story of the abduction, which is the established narrative. As you say, he doesn't talk about this. What that shows is that even WITH the belief that Lyanna was abducted, people wouldn't necessarily talk about it.

This idea is clearly shown in just about every time any character talks about the realities of war -- that it's really only a few people at the top who care about the issues. The vast majority of people in the rebellion were not fighting to get Lyanna back, or to revenge Rickard and Brandon, or to get the Targs off the throne -- they were fighting because their lords told them to. 

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

If Lyanna didn't reciprocate,if she like Cersie was cold to him, Robert wouldn't have loved her  and he wouldn't have cared for long after she died.. 

I offer you the counter-example of Jorah and Lynesse. Despite her treatment of him, Jorah remained obsessed with her long after she'd left him.

Your argument can be simplified thus: "There is no such thing as unrequited love". Of course there is.

If your only evidence for Lyanna loving Robert is that Robert loved Lyanna, then you have no evidence for Lyanna loving Robert. 

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Kingmonkey that's not true as it is not what Cersie did. Cersie forbade him.She sought to command him.She didn't ask him not to fight to different things.

A point Ned clarified with Ned,Ned said Cersie "asked" him not to fight.Varys corrected him....She forbade him

I don't know why you're complicating this. That happened well after Ned's comment to Robert. Look:

Quote

 

Your sister would never have shamed me like that."
 
"You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert," Ned told him. "You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee."

AGoT ch.30

 

 

Robert makes a statement indicating his belief about what Lyanna would have done.

Ned corrects him.

Robert got it wrong. Robert was wrong about what Lyanna would have done. How can Robert being wrong about what Lyanna would have done indicate that Robert knew Lyanna well? It can't. You're using black to prove white.

If Robert knew Lyanna so well, how is it that he never saw the "iron beneath"? This is pretty much the single overriding characteristic detail we have any time we hear about Lyanna.

Robert doesn't know this basic fact about Lyanna.

Robert doesn't know Lyanna. 

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

You are right Ned knew Rhaegar's kids were dead,but what would be the point of telling his dying sister pretty messed up knew like that.Its kind of the same when Robert died and Ned not telling him Joff is not his son.The best thing would be to have them go in peace not on a crappy note like that.

We don't know how long they had together. Could have been a long conversation. The death of Rhaegar's children was a massive issue at the time, driving a wedge between Ned and Robert. It would be hard to update Lyanna on what was going on without telling her.

So yeah, it's perfectly feasible that Ned told her, even if she hadn't heard previously. Remember, perfectly feasible is all that's required -- you can't exclude something that's perfectly feasible just because it's not 100% certain.

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

What would make Lyanna think that Robert would be the type to murder innocent babes?

Being told that he was responsible. Or at least that he condoned it.

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Yeah but being a womanizer is a far cry from killing babies.

Of course it is, but if she believes that Ned is blind to his beloved BFF's womanizing, why wouldn't she think that he would tend to overlook other things about him as well?

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

I don't think the conclusion is wrong,what i'm showing is Ned's general protectiveness covers pretty much anything and any theory.However, my issue is the notion that Ned didn't tell Robert because he would kill Jon when in Cat 2 he says:

"Ned shook his head, refusing to believe. “Robert would never harm me or any of mine. We were closer than brothers. He loves me."

I think it's pretty much universal in RLJ theories that Ned didn't tell Robert because he promised Lyanna. It doesn't matter if HE thinks that Robert wouldn't kill Jon, it only matters if Lyanna thought it possible.

 

On 28/11/2016 at 0:11 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Ned believes that by their absence at court Cersie is the reason none of Roberts bastards are there.Which is important in of itself but it also indicates that Ned has been making a note of that. Possibly over the years.From this its safe to say that if he had seen or known of Robert's bastards being their it would have meant they were accepted at court by Robert's wife.It would have been a place where Jon would of had siblings to grow up with.

We have Ned's thoughts on this as well:

Quote

 

Ned Stark grimaced. Ugly tales like that were told of every great lord in the realm. He could believe it of Cersei Lannister readily enough . . . but would the king stand by and let it happen? The Robert he had known would not have, but the Robert he had known had never been so practiced at shutting his eyes to things he did not wish to see. 

AGoT 35

 

"The Robert he had known"... in other words the Robert of the time he would have been making this decision about Jon. That Robert, Ned believes, would not "stand by and let it happen". 

[Kingmonkey]

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

To get this to work one has to explain how Lyanna and Benjen or Ned can meet up and conceive a child during this time and then go back to their respective areas of control.

We've had a suggestion that Ashara might have secretly gone to meet with Ned during the rebellion. Why shouldn't it have been the other way around? We don't have Ned's exact movements. It's possible.

Not very likely though, which is why I significantly favour Benjen. We know where Benjen was at the end of the Rebellion, but we don't know where he was at the beginning. That he was the "Stark in Winterfell" at the time Jon was conceived about 9 months before the end of the war is purely guesswork, there's no textual support for it.  

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The best @Kingmonkey could do was the idea that Ned's "leap" to accuse Jaime and Cersei of the crime was because he could have had some familiarity with the crime himself. With all do respect to Kingmonkey, this is a very, very weak foundation for the theory.

Hold your horses! That was by no stretch the foundation for the theory, it was merely one datapoint. The foundation is the pattern of the three "bastards and broken things" exemplars of their houses. Jon, Dany and Tyrion have a number of unusual things in common. It's rather suggestive then that two of them would have an unusual thing in common (Tyrion being the son of two Lannisters, Dany being the daughter of two Targs) that happens to be an unknown in the third case.

As foundations go, I think that's pretty decent. That's a major thematic element running through the novels that is only complete in a Starkcest case. Building on that foundation is however pretty hard. There's not a lot to go on, but there are a few things that do fit nicely with it. Ned's leap isn't evidence for the case, but it's a datapoint that the Starkcest story provides an explanation for that leap that is very much lacking without that convenient explanation. Otherwise we're left with Ned concluding that twins must be having sex with each other if they spend lots of time together, or that a Lannister could only give birth to blonde kids if the father was a Lannister, or that the Lannisters would only try to kill a child who found out about the Queen shagging her brother rather than say anyone else. 

 

 

[Ygrain]

9 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I do like the idea of Lyanna becoming Wylla...basically "no one", while Ned's dream of "Lyanna" is actually of Ashara.

Someone is conveniently ignoring the description of the dream, i.e. the narrator-Ned voice, which is not part of the dream, saying that that dream was about Lyanna.

9 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

In The Queenmaker chapter Myrcella describes how she and her handmaiden, Rosamund traded places on the voyage to Dorne as a safety precaution. They dyed Myrcella's hair brown, much like Sansa dyed hers. Of course Ashara was Elia's handmaiden and could have either swapped places with Lyanna or was the woman Ned found instead of Lyanna dying in a bed of blood.

Ah. So when Ned in his first PoV remembers the moment of Lyanna's death - a real, waking-time memory - he somehow failed to notice that the woman whose hand was holding was Ashara and not Lyanna?

You're so obsessed with tearing down the significance of the dream that you completely forget about the non-dream parts of the book.

9 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The pleading words addressing him as Lord Eddard would make sense then instead of Lyanna's "dearest Ned".

Except that the memory of Lyanna's death has "promise me, Ned".

9 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Edited to add: this is also why I believe both Arya and Sansa show parallels to Lyanna. They represent the two identities. One prior and one after she traded places with Ashara.

Ah. So the trading places must have had a rehearsal at HH when Ashara in Lyanna's place cried over Rhaegar's song, and neither Benjen, nor any of the dudes dancing with Ashara noticed. Wow.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

We've had a suggestion that Ashara might have secretly gone to meet with Ned during the rebellion. Why shouldn't it have been the other way around? We don't have Ned's exact movements. It's possible.

Using my own ideas against me! I actually think we might get evidence that such a meeting took place in the next book. Not that I think Jon is Ned and Ashara's child, but Martin has gone to great lengths to keep the other three possibilities (Ned and Ashara, Ned and Wylla, and the new Ned and the fisherman's daughter) viable for the reader and I'd expect he continues to support these other possibilities for a while longer.

To your suggestion that it is possible for Ned to have traveled to where Lyanna is hidden for a little incest. Yes, it is possible. Is it the same likelihood as Ashara going to Ned's camp? NO. Ned is one of the main rebel generals. The idea he is slipping out on his own behind rebel lines and is able to get to Lyanna, passed her guards, and back to the rebels is very, very slim. A teleportation spell would change that, but Martin doesn't like that Magic heavy type world. Perhaps we could have Ned play the role of Pete in "Pete's Dragon" and the sleeping dragon beneath Winterfell could fly him to the the rendezvous? As you say below, not very likely.

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Not very likely though, which is why I significantly favour Benjen. We know where Benjen was at the end of the Rebellion, but we don't know where he was at the beginning. That he was the "Stark in Winterfell" at the time Jon was conceived about 9 months before the end of the war is purely guesswork, there's no textual support for it.

There is this SSM:

Quote

6) When, specifically, did Benjen join the NW? Was it a couple of years after Ned returned, or immediately?

It was within a few months of Ned's returning. The reason being that there always was a Stark at Winterfell, so he had to stay there until Ned returned. GRRM refused to say the reason why Benjen had to join the NW. (bold emphasis added)

The need for a Stark to always be in Winterfell didn't diminish at the start of the war and grow as it ended. So is it guess work that Benjen didn't get to Winterfell late after spending time having sex with his older sister? Yes, but pretty good guess work as opposed to nothing to support that Benjen did anything of the sort.

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Hold your horses! That was by no stretch the foundation for the theory, it was merely one datapoint. The foundation is the pattern of the three "bastards and broken things" exemplars of their houses. Jon, Dany and Tyrion have a number of unusual things in common. It's rather suggestive then that two of them would have an unusual thing in common (Tyrion being the son of two Lannisters, Dany being the daughter of two Targs) that happens to be an unknown in the third case.

As foundations go, I think that's pretty decent. That's a major thematic element running through the novels that is only complete in a Starkcest case. Building on that foundation is however pretty hard. There's not a lot to go on, but there are a few things that do fit nicely with it. Ned's leap isn't evidence for the case, but it's a datapoint that the Starkcest story provides an explanation for that leap that is very much lacking without that convenient explanation. Otherwise we're left with Ned concluding that twins must be having sex with each other if they spend lots of time together, or that a Lannister could only give birth to blonde kids if the father was a Lannister, or that the Lannisters would only try to kill a child who found out about the Queen shagging her brother rather than say anyone else. 

My horses are duly held, ser. Shall I hobble them next? An apple or two won't get in the way, will it?

I'm sorry if I didn't get all the particulars of the theory right, but I was working from memory here! As I think I responded to you the first time I read this idea, the attempt to draw a parallel between all three characters relationship to their parents is, imo, looking for something that is not there. It's forcing a parallel where none exists. This just isn't two Targaryen parents, two Lannister parents, and so there must be two Stark parents. No, the significance of the idea is incest, and that is where it falls apart. Tywin and Joanna are cousins and cousin marriage isn't considered incest anywhere in Westeros that we know of. Aerys and Rhaella is not considered incest because the Targaryens write their own rules, and so the similarity is already blown apart before we even consider who are Jon's parents. The search for the last two in the "2-2-2" formula gets in the way of understanding these relationships rather than illuminating them.

Lastly, as datapoints go, I like all the other three you list, at least one of which I know I raised with you, over the Starcest possibility. There is actual evidence to support all three, with none to support the incest.

 

 

[Melifeather]

16 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Most of the evidence was very much 'ehhhh, could be evidence I suppose' kind of evidence. There's so much in that theory that has no evidence at all: all that stuff about Waelys, Robert in Rhaegar's armour, Lyanna with redspots, Lyanna on the road for weeks and no one notices that she's missing, Rickard not being at Winterfell etc. etc. It relies on so much given information being completely untrue and so much information to be later revealed by some source.

As for the argument that it's because I just don't like the theory: that's nonsense. I find that an incredibly weak argument. I would love R+L=J not to be true. I'd love for Ned to be Jon's father and Ashara Dayne to be the mother. But I don't find the evidence for that compelling, while the evidence for R+L is compelling. My personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

The details regarding Waelys, Robert in Rhaegar's armor, Lyanna with redspots, etc are drawn from the inversions in The Queenmaker chapter. Myrcella drew redspots on her handmaiden and had her stay in bed pretending to be Myrcella. The Dornish maester had no immunity to redspots, so he stayed away. Ser Arys got one of the Lannister men to dress in his armor and posted him at the door. All this to sneak her out of Sunspear to meet Arianne. If my theory regarding inversions proves true, then a mirrored reversal happened a generation ago with Cersei, Lyanna, and Robert. Or the Soiled Knight could have easily have been Jaime Lannister rather than Robert, or they could have both played certain roles.

16 hours ago, LynnS said:

Well, it's back to the drawing board.  I came across this quote when Ned is confronting Cersei in the Godswood about her children.  He also asks her about Bran.  Do you notice anything odd about it?

Ned doesn't mention Jon as a child of his body!  Now why does Ned suppose that Catelyn would be threatened by Jon if he was in Bran's position.  If Ned is not Jon's father and Lyanna is the Stark Blood; why would that create a problem for Catelyn.  Unless, Jon is Brandon's bastard son and a potential threat to Robb's inheritance?  When asked; Martin said that Brandon didn't have any legitimate children but he may have left a few "Snows" around the place.  

 

If there was a baby swap, then Jon isn't Ned's child. Gilly and Sam are raising Mance and Dalla's child, so Ned could have raised Rhaegar's and Ashara's child. Gilly and Craster's baby was left at the Wall, so if "Wylla" and Ned had a child it was left down south, either killed as the Pisswater Prince, or left at Starfall. 

16 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I suppose the meeting takes place in Winterfell, as we are told, some time between Mya Stone's birth in 279-280 and before the Harrenhal tourney in 281 during which we are told Robert and Lyanna are betrothed. The other story takes place in 282 when Ned is going North to gather his banners and after Lyanna has disappeared in the kidnapping. Regardless, both dates are much too early to make a incestuous liaison between Ned and Lyanna result in Jon. You are not even in the same ballpark. The first is likely years off, and the second - again after Lyanna is kidnapped - is likely up to six months too early. The last is one of the main problems of the Fisherman's daughter tale and one of the reason it is likely a cover story. But if Ned did hook up with the FD then it is at least possible she followed him to camp as his army fought in the riverlands. A guarded Lyanna, either guarded to keep her hostage or as a measure to prevent others from harming her, is not likely to be wandering across battle lines. Nothing is impossible in fiction, but this is close.

It seems to me, these inversions are, how should I say this, inexact. Why would a title Lord Commander be important? How do you know Wylla gives up her child? On and on these don't work or are meaningless. Unfortunately, that is how I see this so far. I hope for better when the essay is done.

The inversions, if they exist, would be mirrored inversions. Just a quick aside about the inversion theory...it's based upon an assumption that there is a wheel of time at play in Westeros, that houses have been repeating what their ancestors did generation after generation. This is more apparent with the Targaryen history, and it seems that they were aware of it. Rhaegar read something and then proclaimed that it seemed he was supposed to be a warrior, and his study of the Prince that was Promised is also based on this wheel of time. But, somehow this wheel has gotten flipped sometime either right before or right after Robert's Rebellion as the result of a blood magic ritual, and now fates have been flipped. The Greyjoys now have the Targaryen's place on the wheel, and the Martells have the Lannisters. I'm identifying people based on parallels, like how Arianne and Cersei both are their father's eldest child and should be heirs, but while they repeat certain actions they get opposite results. Geographically the mirrored reflection of Arys Oakheart's home is on the other side of Westeros: Storm's End. That is why I believe Robert is Cersei's "Arys".

Keeping the above in mind then...

Jon was Lord Commander when he made the baby swap, so I expect a mirrored reflection of Jon. Bloodraven was a Lord Commander before becoming a greenseer, so he could have influenced events to cause the baby swap. I also look at Tywin Lannister as a type of lord commander and the real leader of the rebellion. Maybe there really was a Wylla that birthed a Stark baby and Lyanna may not have had any child of all? I'm not married to any one theory and am willing to explore many possibilities. 

15 hours ago, kimim said:

ok...

Why yes, I did believe that crap and will believe it until I'm shown evidence to the contrary, which I can not find in your essay. 

Evidence?

• Where is the evidence that Robert goes to Winterfell to collect Lyanna? "He doesn't raise any suspicions," means that you're trying to explain away the inconvenient fact that there is nothing in the text that even hints at that.
• Where is the evidence that Lyanna was ill when she was taken?
• Where is the evidence that Lyanna was sedated?
• Where is the evidence that Robert's detachment was camped out for the night?
• Where is the evidence that Robert wore Rhaegar's armor?
• Where is the evidence that Arthur rescued Lyanna?

It also does not explain why Tywin stays out of the Trident, gambling on Rhaegar's defeat.

It does not explain how Rhaegar could reach the Trident still believing that reports of battles were "misunderstandings," after he's done "gathering an army," and after he's told Jaime that "When this battle is done, I mean to call a council."

It does not explain why Tywin does not go after Dany and Viserys.

Still looking for evidence here.

I'm going off the inversion theory. I expect a mirrored reversal of events. If Myrcella's handmaiden had fake redspots painted on her face, then the reversal would be to have real redspots on either Lyanna or Ashara. (Ashara being the handmaiden) There are other references to spots in The Queenmaker chapter. Arianne's friend, Sylva Santagar, is known as Spotted Sylva and as “the Lyseni”. Sylva suggests the reason why the Golden Company broke their contract was because the Lyseni bought them off. “Clever Lyseni,” Drey says, “Clever, craven Lyseni.”

Sylva Santagar is the heir of Ser Symon Santagar, the Knight of the Spottswood. Her nickname “Spotted” is from her freckles and also because she’s heir to Spottswood. After the conspiracy plot is foiled, she is first captured then betrothed to the aged Lord Eldon of Estermont and sent to Greenstone to marry. Since old Lord Estermont was one of the insulting matches Prince Doran proposed to Arianne, we need to find a "spotted" friend connected to Cersei who I believe is Arianne's inversion. 

Melara Hetherspoon was Cersei’s eleven year old childhood friend. She was slender and pretty, though she had freckles. Cersei remembers her as “healthy as a little horse”, which could be a reference to Lyanna, and that she was bold, bolder than Jeyne Farman who fled when the three went to hear their futures from Maggy the Frog. Jeyne was terrified when Maggy opened her eyes to greet the visitors, and running away likely saved her life. Maggy told Melara that her death was close. Many years later, Cersei told Taena of Myr that Maggy’s prophecy was true, because Melara drowned in a well. Melara Hetherspoon is a metaphor for Cersei’s plans to get rid of Lyanna.

Lastly there's Wenda the White Fawn. Fawn's have spots, and some readers suspect that Wenda was actually Lyanna. Merrett Frey was branded on his butt by Wenda, and he referred to her as "that poxy bitch". All these references to "spots" are symbolic clues to make connections to Lyanna or the handmaiden Ashara.

I will have to come back later for the rest. I need to cut this short and get ready for work.

 

[WSmith84]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The details regarding Waelys, Robert in Rhaegar's armor, Lyanna with redspots, etc are drawn from the inversions in The Queenmaker chapter. Myrcella drew redspots on her handmaiden and had her stay in bed pretending to be Myrcella. The Dornish maester had no immunity to redspots, so he stayed away. Ser Arys got one of the Lannister men to dress in his armor and posted him at the door. All this to sneak her out of Sunspear to meet Arianne. If my theory regarding inversions proves true, then a mirrored reversal happened a generation ago with Cersei, Lyanna, and Robert. Or the Soiled Knight could have easily have been Jaime Lannister rather than Robert, or they could have both played certain roles.

I know where the theory comes from; I just don't find 'it's an inversion' particularly compelling evidence. So much of these things have no evidence beyond that and just because we cannot technically disprove them doesn't mean that they happened. Where does Robert get Rhaegar's armour? Why does Rhaegar's armour fit Robert (when we know George does not do a one-size-fits-all approach to armour)? How on Earth did Waelys take Lyanna across miles and miles of countryside? How did nobody notice that Lyanna and the maester were missing? Why has no one commented on Robert's visit to Winterfell shortly before Lyanna's diappearance? What evidence is there that Rickard wasn't in Winterfell prior to Brandon's marriage (we know 200 northerners went south with him and never returned, so that would actually put him in the North)? Those are just off the top of my head.

[Melifeather]

36 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

I know where the theory comes from; I just don't find 'it's an inversion' particularly compelling evidence. So much of these things have no evidence beyond that and just because we cannot technically disprove them doesn't mean that they happened. Where does Robert get Rhaegar's armour? Why does Rhaegar's armour fit Robert (when we know George does not do a one-size-fits-all approach to armour)? How on Earth did Waelys take Lyanna across miles and miles of countryside? How did nobody notice that Lyanna and the maester were missing? Why has no one commented on Robert's visit to Winterfell shortly before Lyanna's diappearance? What evidence is there that Rickard wasn't in Winterfell prior to Brandon's marriage (we know 200 northerners went south with him and never returned, so that would actually put him in the North)? Those are just off the top of my head.

IMO Tywin planned these details far in advance and had a suit of armor made to match Rhaegar's, therefore there would be no need to use Rhaegar's actual armor. 

Maester Waelys is suspiciously absent in the current story and nothing was offered in an explanation as to where he went. I actually believe he assumed the identity of Simon Toyne who was said to be the leader of the Kingswood Brotherhood. I suspect that the Kingswood Brotherhood was just a cover name to blame various hold-ups that occurred during the time before the rebellion, and the names of the members were actually well-known people connected to the Lannisters. 

Waelys could have done any number of things to get Lyanna to leave Winterfell while her father and brother Brandon were gone to Riverrun. He could have told the household that she was sick with redspots or she really could have been sick and that is why she didn't go with to Brandon's wedding. He could have drugged her, or told her that Robert was there to see her and walk her outside. Once out of the castle it was against her will.

 

[Kingmonkey]

 

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

To your suggestion that it is possible for Ned to have traveled to where Lyanna is hidden for a little incest. Yes, it is possible. Is it the same likelihood as Ashara going to Ned's camp? NO. Ned is one of the main rebel generals. The idea he is slipping out on his own behind rebel lines and is able to get to Lyanna, passed her guards, and back to the rebels is very, very slim. A teleportation spell would change that, but Martin doesn't like that Magic heavy type world. Perhaps we could have Ned play the role of Pete in "Pete's Dragon" and the sleeping dragon beneath Winterfell could fly him to the the rendezvous? As you say below, not very likely.

Getting Ned to Lyanna is hard, but not as hard as you make out. Remember that with the Fisherman's Daughter story we already have one data-point about Ned's movements during the Rebellion that does not come from Ned and is not attested to elsewhere. There are, simply, a lot of gaps in our knowledge.

Sneaking past Lyanna's guards of course doesn't make sense. Unless he was invited by Rhaegar and was on a secret mission to negotiate some middle ground. It's a possibility. The best I can come up with for actual evidence is the mutual sadness between Arthur and Ned at the ToJ. There's something going on there -- personally I think it more likely that this stems from a prior relationship between Ned and Ashara, but it could also stem from a feeling of mutual respect and sadness that they were on that previous occasion unable to come to an agreement that would have saved Westeros much tragedy.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

There is this SSM:

The need for a Stark to always be in Winterfell didn't diminish at the start of the war and grow as it ended. So is it guess work that Benjen didn't get to Winterfell late after spending time having sex with his older sister? Yes, but pretty good guess work as opposed to nothing to support that Benjen did anything of the sort.

There's nothing to support either guess. Look again at that SSM you quote. GRRM was asked when Benjen left Winterfell. The Stark In Winterfell requirement demands that Benjen not leave until he is no longer the only Stark in Winterfell. However that only applies when he is actually AT Winterfell. What's missing is any information as to when he became the Stark in Winterfell, and therefore had to stay there.

Consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1 - Benjen returned to Winterfell shortly after Harrenhal, and did not leave again until he went to the wall.

Scenario 2 - Benjen was elsewhere at the start of the Rebellion and was unable to get to Winterfell to take up his role as the Stark in Winterfell until perhaps 6 months before Ned returned.

Read that SMM again with those two scenarios in mind -- it works just as well for either.

Two other things to consider:

If Benjen was not the Stark in Winterfell at the start, then there was no Stark in Winterfell -- which is supposedly a bad thing for the Starks. This would have happened at the time when Rickard and Brandon were killed, which was certainly a bad thing for the Starks.

GRRMs wording in that SSM indicates that Benjen "had to stay there until Ned returned" before he could go to the Wall. If there had been a Stark in Winterfell other than Benjen then, it's fair to say he would have gone earlier. What's the rush? That fits quite nicely with Benjen being sent to the wall for something he did.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

My horses are duly held, ser. Shall I hobble them next? An apple or two won't get in the way, will it?

Hobbling not necessary, apples are acceptable!

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

 No, the significance of the idea is incest, and that is where it falls apart. Tywin and Joanna are cousins and cousin marriage isn't considered incest anywhere in Westeros that we know of. Aerys and Rhaella is not considered incest because the Targaryens write their own rules, and so the similarity is already blown apart before we even consider who are Jon's parents. The search for the last two in the "2-2-2" formula gets in the way of understanding these relationships rather than illuminating them.

Aerys and Rhaella is certainly considered incest. Just because it's common for the Targs to do it doesn't change that. If anything that strengthens the point. The Targ tendency for incest is about retaining those unique Targ characteristics, to avoid diluting the magic in Targ blood. To make a child that is MORE Targ than non-incest children.

The Tywin/Joanna issue I readily admit is more of a problem for the pattern, and I did discuss that in the essay. I suggest that Tyrion's unique characteristic -- being the "half man"-- could relate to this. He's just not as incesty as the other two, so he's only half the family exemplar that the other two are.

I speculate that in terms of this magical pattern, the Lannisters just went slightly wrong. The Lannister exemplar, following the pattern, really ought to be Joff. He, not Tyrion, is of the Dany/Jon generation, and he certainly was a child of two siblings, like Dany and (if Starkcest) Jon. However his mother didn't die during his birth. These key characteristics in the Lannister case seem to be split between two people.

Special pleading? Perhaps. Had Tyrion's parents been a brother and sister, I'd be a lot more convinced by this theory. However it's quite easy to see the possibility that it is the Targ family and the Stark family, Fire and Ice, that are the two main foci and that the Lannisters are essentially nearly-runs who almost supplanted the Stark destiny (as Cersei supplanted Lyanna as Robert's wife, and see my discussion of the Cersei/Lyanna parallels for this).

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Lastly, as datapoints go, I like all the other three you list, at least one of which I know I raised with you, over the Starcest possibility. There is actual evidence to support all three, with none to support the incest.

Blondness: Nope. Lannisters have been giving birth to blond kids for thousands of years. It's pretty much their major talent. Lannister blond is obviously a dominant expression -- with the telling exception of Lannister/Baratheon crosses. If Lannister blond was unlikely unless both parents were Lannisters, then the Lannisters would have lost their characteristic blondness thousands of years ago.

Spending time together=shagging: Nope. It's perfectly natural for twins to be close -- actually it's rare for twins NOT to be close. It's totally expected, even when incest does not occur. The idea that the closeness of a pair of twins implies they are shagging makes no sense. Jaime and Cersei have every reason to be spending lots of time together without bringing incest into it.

Pushing Bran out a window: nope. Ned can conclude that there was an attempt to kill Bran because he came into information which would have been dangerous to the Lannisters if it became known. He already knows that Cersei was being unfaithful to Robert. That on its own is entirely sufficient. Cersei has betrayed the king, and her children are not really his. You don't need to add incest on top of that for it to be something that the Lannisters would be willing to kill to keep secret. Why would Ned conclude that it was because Bran had seen Jaime and Cersei having sex, rather than that he had overhead Jaime and Cersei discussing Cersei's lover? It is vastly more common for twins to discuss their secrets than it is for twins to be having sex. The former is something that virtually all twins do, the latter is something that virtually no twins do. Why would Ned assume the extremely unlikely option rather than the extremely likely option? 

[WSmith84]

4 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Maester Waelys is suspiciously absent in the current story and nothing was offered in an explanation as to where he went. I actually believe he assumed the identity of Simon Toyne who was said to be the leader of the Kingswood Brotherhood. I suspect that the Kingswood Brotherhood was just a cover name to blame various hold-ups that occurred during the time before the rebellion, and the names of the members were actually well-known people connected to the Lannisters.

Simon Toyne was killed when Jaime was still a squire. That requires Lyanna to disappear way, way before she actually did. Jaime was already a knight by the time of Harrenhal (hence his investiture into the Kingsguard). Unless you also think that Barry didn't kill Toyne, who was actually Waelys, and that Toyne then returned to Winterfell to play the role of Waelys even further.

59 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Waelys could have done any number of things to get Lyanna to leave Winterfell while her father and brother Brandon were gone to Riverrun. He could have told the household that she was sick with redspots or she really could have been sick and that is why she didn't go with to Brandon's wedding. He could have drugged her, or told her that Robert was there to see her and walk her outside. Once out of the castle it was against her will.

Again, what evidence is there that Rickard wasn't in Winterfell? He rode south with 200 northmen in response to Aerys' summons (and warriors, mind you, not just servants and the like): that strongly suggests he was North when he received the news of Brandon's arrest.

Let me lay out your suggested order of events here so I can see if I understand this correctly.

Brandon and Rickard are in the Riverlands, preparing to attend Brandon's wedding.

Lyanna is in Winterfell with redspots, isolated from everyone but Waelys.

Robert goes to Winterfell (or near Winterfell, I'm unsure) and, wearing armour that is forged to look just like Rhaegar's, kidnaps Lyanna (with Waelys' help) and hides her... where? Robert then returns to the Eyrie.

Brandon somehow hears about his sister's disappearance and rather than head for her last known location, the North, he goes to King's Landing.

Rickard, upon hearing of his son's arrest, returns North to collect 200 men, or he waits for 200 men to come south, or he happened to be travelling with 200 of his best men (for some reason). He then goes to King's Landing, where he and Brandon are killed.

Robert has since returned to the Eyrie and, using acting skills never hinted at in the text, manages to fool everyone into thinking he is shocked and outraged by Lyanna's disappearance.

Am I missing anything, or is that the general gist?

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Why has no one commented on Robert's visit to Winterfell shortly before Lyanna's diappearance?

Actually, it seems that Robert had never visited North prior AGOT.

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Again, what evidence is there that Rickard wasn't in Winterfell? He rode south with 200 northmen in response to Aerys' summons (and warriors, mind you, not just servants and the like): that strongly suggests he was North when he received the news of Brandon's arrest.

IIRC, it is stated somewhere (the app?) that Rickard was already on his way to the Riverrun.

[WSmith84]

2 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Actually, it seems that Robert had never visited North prior AGOT.

That was certainly my impression. His comments on the North indicate a real lack of any familiarity with the North, and I don't believe that Robert is a good enough actor to pretend that the North is completely alien to him to support a lie that is 15 years old and no one questions.

[WSmith84]

2 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

IIRC, it is stated somewhere (the app?) that Rickard was already on his way to the Riverrun.

Well, given that we're forced to basically ignore the app when it favours anything in support of R+L=J I feel it's only fair to do the same for other theories.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

Maester Waelys is suspiciously absent in the current story and nothing was offered in an explanation as to where he went. I actually believe he assumed the identity of Simon Toyne who was said to be the leader of the Kingswood Brotherhood.

If Maester Waelys is suspiciously absent and nothing was offered in an explanation as to where he went, why is there any reason to believe he assumed the identity of Simon Toyne? Why is there any reason to believe he's done anything at all? If nothing has been offered about him, it's just that - nothing. There is no there there.

[Melifeather]

15 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Simon Toyne was killed when Jaime was still a squire. That requires Lyanna to disappear way, way before she actually did. Jaime was already a knight by the time of Harrenhal (hence his investiture into the Kingsguard). Unless you also think that Barry didn't kill Toyne, who was actually Waelys, and that Toyne then returned to Winterfell to play the role of Waelys even further.

Again, what evidence is there that Rickard wasn't in Winterfell? He rode south with 200 northmen in response to Aerys' summons (and warriors, mind you, not just servants and the like): that strongly suggests he was North when he received the news of Brandon's arrest.

Let me lay out your suggested order of events here so I can see if I understand this correctly.

Brandon and Rickard are in the Riverlands, preparing to attend Brandon's wedding.

Lyanna is in Winterfell with redspots, isolated from everyone but Waelys.

Robert goes to Winterfell (or near Winterfell, I'm unsure) and, wearing armour that is forged to look just like Rhaegar's, kidnaps Lyanna (with Waelys' help) and hides her... where? Robert then returns to the Eyrie.

Brandon somehow hears about his sister's disappearance and rather than head for her last known location, the North, he goes to King's Landing.

Rickard, upon hearing of his son's arrest, returns North to collect 200 men, or he waits for 200 men to come south, or he happened to be travelling with 200 of his best men (for some reason). He then goes to King's Landing, where he and Brandon are killed.

Robert has since returned to the Eyrie and, using acting skills never hinted at in the text, manages to fool everyone into thinking he is shocked and outraged by Lyanna's disappearance.

Am I missing anything, or is that the general gist?

Rather than continue to derail this wrap up thread I will briefly answer some of this, but for more details you should read my full explanation of The Queenmaker chapter.

Recall how Ser Arys got Myrcella out of Sunspear, and how far they had traveled. Arianne wanted to get all the way to Hellholt, but were stopped by Areo Hotah at the Greenblood river. For Lyanna, someone had to play the part of Rhaegar so that there would be witnesses. Quite honestly there are hints (symbolism and parallels) that this part could have been played by either Robert or Jaime. The use of a well as a meeting place for Arianne, her friends, and Arys with Myrcella in tow is symbolic for leading someone to their death. Lyanna followed a similar albet mirrored path. After her abduction her captors brought her west. 

Now since we're at the end of this thread, we should try to redirect our attention to wrapping up the project.