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

[Melifeather]

8 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

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.

To expand on my suspicions regarding Maester Walys, lets examine how he may have been the leader of the plot to kidnap Lyanna. Maester Walys is Walys Flowers and bastard son of a Hightower girl and an Archmaester of the Citadel. Lady Barbery Ryswell implies that he instigated Lord Rickard’s “southron ambitions”. Being that Walys is the bastard son of an Archmaester, I think we can draw a connection to the Citadel. There is some additional evidence that seems to point in this direction with regard to the author’s choice of the name of the leader of the Kingswood Brotherhood: Simon Toyne. A google search revealed that Simon Toyne is a British author whose best selling trio of books are titled: Sanctus, The Key, and The Tower. GRRM has been known to insert little "nods" to other authors in his books and I believe Simon Toyne is a clue that we should suspect a conspiracy that includes the Citadel.

A short summary from the back cover of Sanctus:

In the oldest inhabited place on earth, atop a mountain known as the Citadel, a Vatican-like city-state towers above the city of Ruin in modern-day Turkey. The eyes of the world are on a group that has prized its secrets above all things. For the Sancti - the monks living inside the Citadel - this could mean the end of everything they have built and protected for millennia…and they will stop at nothing to keep what is theirs.

 

 

[Melifeather]

Again, regarding Simon Toyne I also found this in the wiki under the Tourney of Storm’s End:

Contradictions
Lord Steffon Baratheon was sent on a mission to Essos in 278 AC, but he died during the return voyage. The tourney he hosted thus must have occurred by 278 AC at the latest. Barristan states that Rhaegar defeated Simon Toyne during the tourney, but Barristan's White Book entry lists the tourney as occurring after the defeat of the Kingswood Brotherhood (during which Barristan killed Simon) and before the Battle of the Trident. In the White Book entry, written by Ser Gerold Hightower (as he was the Lord Commander), the tourney is called "Lord Steffon's Tourney". The chronology of the entry would place the tourney years after Steffon's death, which is suggested as well by naming Robert Baratheon by the title of "Lord", as Robert became the Lord of Storm's End after Steffon's death, and possibly the fact that Jon Connington was described as "Lord" as well, while it is known that Connington, exiled during the Rebellion, ruled Griffin’s Roost as Lord only for a few short years.

When the discrepancy was brought to his attention, George R.R. Martin stated that Barristan's recollection of Simon's participation is incorrect and that the aged knight is confusing multiple historical tourneys. It seems therefore likely that Barristan mixed up multiple tourney's at Storm's End in his mind, one hosted by Lord Steffon before his death, and one hosted by Robert after Steffon's death.

[kimim]

7 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

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.”

The problem isn't the inversion but that Robert, acting under Tywin's direction as Lyanna's captor is not in the text. This is when we get the inversion: Lyanna's spots are an inversion of the maid's fake spots, etc. It doesn't add to the theory, and it's not necessary: We already know that someone took Lyanna, who disappeared, with or without spots. Even per the theory the maester doesn't need to put fake spots on Lyanna; he can sedate her and deliver her to Robert, who doesn't need to be wearing Rhaegar's armor. None of this is in the text. What the inversions do, though, is create the appearance that this theory is based on the text. Meanwhile, Ned's dream and his post-dream remembrance of what went down at the toj, what everyone keeps saying about Rhaegar and Lyanna, must be discarded as unreliable as those don't fit the theory. 

So Tywin becomes the mastermind of the Rebellion. That means Ned and Tywin's versions of what happened in the Rebellion must go as lies and misdirection. Tywin's decision to wait until after the Trident to attack KL must also be be made to fit, which means Tywin must believe that Robert is guaranteed a win, which in turn means Rhaegar must be defanged. Hence the assertion that Rhaegar was led to believe that reports of battles were "misunderstandings," and kept believing this, even as he was at the Red Keep, even as he gathered an army. This, needless to say, is not in the text, nor is it a reasonable thing to expect of Rhaegar, but it supports the theory, so there it is.

As for the Citadel, we're past the text altogether, into Simon Toyne's novel which involves a "Citadel," in Anatolia. Meanwhile, the fact that the Citadel, supposedly invested in destroying the Targs, allows Dany and Viserys to live...that doesn't matter.

Anyway, the problem is not the details, but that the basic bones of the theory are not in the text.

[Melifeather]

11 minutes ago, kimim said:

The problem isn't the inversion but that Robert, acting under Tywin's direction as Lyanna's captor is not in the text. This is when we get the inversion: Lyanna's spots are an inversion of the maid's fake spots, etc. It doesn't add to the theory, and it's not necessary: We already know that someone took Lyanna, who disappeared, with or without spots. Even per the theory the maester doesn't need to put fake spots on Lyanna; he can sedate her and deliver her to Robert, who doesn't need to be wearing Rhaegar's armor. None of this is in the text. What the inversions do, though, is create the appearance that this theory is based on the text. Meanwhile, Ned's dream and his post-dream remembrance of what went down at the toj, what everyone keeps saying about Rhaegar and Lyanna, must be discarded as unreliable as those don't fit the theory. 

So Tywin becomes the mastermind of the Rebellion. That means Ned and Tywin's versions of what happened in the Rebellion must go as lies and misdirection. Tywin's decision to wait until after the Trident to attack KL must also be be made to fit, which means Tywin must believe that Robert is guaranteed a win, which in turn means Rhaegar must be defanged. Hence the assertion that Rhaegar was led to believe that reports of battles were "misunderstandings," and kept believing this, even as he was at the Red Keep, even as he gathered an army. This, needless to say, is not in the text, nor is it a reasonable thing to expect of Rhaegar, but it supports the theory, so there it is.

As for the Citadel, we're past the text altogether, into Simon Toyne's novel which involves a "Citadel," in Anatolia. Meanwhile, the fact that the Citadel, supposedly invested in destroying the Targs, allows Dany and Viserys to live...that doesn't matter.

Anyway, the problem is not the details, but that the basic bones of the theory are not in the text.

The use of the "spots" is meant to get your attention, or at least the attention of the subconscious to connect all the females with spots: Rosamund, Sylva, Melaria, Wenda. The end result will equal "dead girl". Of the four listed above only one is confirmed dead (Melaria) and one is missing (Wenda), but I suspect we can expect the other two to die at the hands of other people very soon.

To get more into the reasoning for why I think Robert took part you will have to read my thoughts in The Soiled Knight.

Ned's internal thoughts reveal more than once that he is keeping lies...lies held for 14 years, so yes he and Tywin have been keeping the truths of the rebellion secret. Jaime and Cersei know some of it, Howland Reed will too, and Sam will likely meet maesters at the Citadel who know as well.

I don't think the Citadel "allows" Dany and Viserys to live. I think they've been trying to hunt them down under edict of King Robert, and after Robert on their own.

I don't expect many people to believe me about my inversion theory, but I am fairly certain much or similar aspects of my theory will prove true in the next book.

[Kingmonkey]

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

 A google search revealed that Simon Toyne is a British author whose best selling trio of books are titled: Sanctus, The Key, and The Tower. GRRM has been known to insert little "nods" to other authors in his books and I believe Simon Toyne is a clue that we should suspect a conspiracy that includes the Citadel.

Sorry FC, but this doesn't work. Sanctus was published 11 years after ASoS. 

 

[Melifeather]

36 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

Sorry FC, but this doesn't work. Sanctus was published 11 years after ASoS. 

 

Well this is quite embarrassing. But how ironic to have seemed to fit so beautifully!

it doesn't change my opinion on my theory regarding Simon Toyne and my suspicion that Maester Walys was the leader of a conspiracy. 

On a separate but related note LynnS is working on a theory based on tears of blood and the smell of roses. Both things are symbolically connected to the Catholic faith. I will ask her if she's ready to share what she's found...

[kimim]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The use of the "spots" is meant to get your attention, or at least the attention of the subconscious to connect all the females with spots: Rosamund, Sylva, Melaria, Wenda. The end result will equal "dead girl". Of the four listed above only one is confirmed dead (Melaria) and one is missing (Wenda), but I suspect we can expect the other two to die at the hands of other people very soon.

First, nowhere in the text are we told that Lyanna had "spots." No place. Nada. Zilch.

Then: "spots=dead girl" does not prove that Robert kidnapped Lyanna instead of Rhaegar. Lyanna is as captured/dead in the "Rhaegar kidnapped her and she died" scenario as she is in "Robert kidnapped her and she died." You could include "spots" in Rhaegar's capture as easily as you can in Robert's: Lyanna comes down with the spotty, contagious illness on her way to Riverrun. It isn't terribly serious, but she is isolated, anyway--people are going to a wedding, they want to celebrate, don't want spots. So she gets off her horse and rides on a separate wagon and someone gives her a sedative to keep her from scratching her spots, which makes it easy for Rhaegar to kidnap her. It didn't happen that way, but honestly, it is as likely as the Robert scenario you come up with.

...and lest we forget: NOWHERE IN THE TEXT ARE WE TOLD THAT LYANNA HAD SPOTS.

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I don't think the Citadel "allows" Dany and Viserys to live. I think they've been trying to hunt them down under edict of King Robert, and after Robert on their own.

This is almost impossible to believe. After Darry's death, the siblings are going from home to home, begging for help, selling their jewels. They don't have bodyguards; even if they got some, they couldn't afford the best, and they couldn't afford long-term protection. Their approximate location is known--they're in the Free Cities. Yet Viserys manages to elude Robert, Tywin, and the Citadel's assassins for years? Can you see Viserys managing something like that?

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

On a separate but related note LynnS is working on a theory based on tears of blood and the smell of roses. Both things are symbolically connected to the Catholic faith. I will ask her if she's ready to share what she's found...

Well, I wouldn't really call it a theory; more like spit balling and thinking out loud, bouncing ideas.  The thing is that Ned dreams of the statue of Lyanna weeping tears of blood.  This is a christian reference to statues of the virgin Mary weeping blood; something that the church has declared a hoax. There is an association with a garland of roses or the scent of roses.  The garland of roses is a rosary and these are associated with promises.  So here's the quote:

Quote

"Promise me, Ned," Lyanna's statue whispered. She wore a garland of pale blue roses, and her eyes wept blood.

Here's an entry from wikipedia:

A weeping statue is a statue which has been claimed to be shedding tears or weeping by supernatural means. Statues weeping tears of a substance which appears to be blood, oil, and scented liquids have all been reported. Other claimed phenomena are sometimes associated with weeping statues such as miraculous healing, the formation of figures in the tear lines, and the scent of roses. These events are generally reported by some Christians, and initially attract some pilgrims, but are in most cases disallowed by the upper levels of the Church or proven as hoaxes. wikipedia

The word hoax stands out - a trick to decieve someone into believing something that is untrue is true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_statue  

Quote

He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smealled of blood and roses. Eddard I

Promise me, Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood. She had loved the scent of winter roses. Eddard XV

  The immaculate conception doesn't imply that Mary conceived by miraculous methods but that she was free of original sin.  However, the Church holds that Mary was also sinless personally, "free from all sin, original or personal" - wikipedia

The virgin Mary is described as a being of surpassing holiness.  Ned describes Lyanna:

Quote

Lyanna had only been sixteen, a child-woman of surpassing loveliness. Ned had loved her with all his heart. Robert had loved her even more. She was to have been his bride.

I'm not sure that the virgin Mary would run off with Rhaegar if Martin is making this connection for some reason.

I think Ned's dream of the ToJ crosses over to Lyanna because the ToJ represents the First Keep at Winterfell.  The lichyard is at the base of the tower and the doors to the crypts are beside the tower.  So building cairns at the base of the ToJ and burying Lyanna, Rickard and Brandon in the crypts  becomes the dream association. 

Martin has used 'weeping blood' four times in the book Twice with Sam who sees two different weirwoods weeping blood one of which has Stark facial features.  Jon dreams of Gilly weeping blood in relation to the baby swap and Ned dreams of Lyanna's statue weeping blood. So what does this mean?

Continuing my search on 'weeping blood'; I came across the following:

 

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Eddard X
"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.
"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.
"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

From a treatise on Zeus weeping blood from the Illiad:

Not so easily disposed of is the fact that he wept tears of blood. This is the only occasion in the Iliad in which Zeus, or any other god, is said to do such a thing. There is a partial parallel in Book 11, but notice just how different it is:

And the son of Kronos
drove down the evil turmoil upon them, and from aloft cast
down dews dripping blood from the sky, since he was minded
to hurl down a multitude of strong heads to the house of Hades. (11.52-5)

In this passage, Zeus prepares to set in motion a play of human carnage: The blood is a sign of coming destruction from his pitiless hand. In the former, however, while the context of death is the same, Zeus’s emotional attachment is exactly the opposite: He is filled with grief for the coming death of his son. Even more striking is the fact that the Homeric gods do not have blood. They have ichor. Blood belongs to mortals. Zeus’s bloody tears, then, may be a pictorial representation of solidarity with his human son but they can never be more than merely symbolic.

Quote

A very odd thing happens in Book 16 of the Iliad when Zeus decides that Sarpedon must die. Sarpedon was one of the greatest of the Trojan warriors. He also happened to be the son of Zeus—though this does not render him immortal. As Sarpedon and Patroklos are about to fight, Zeus laments to Hera:

Ah me, that it is destined that the dearest of men, Sarpedon,
must go down under the hands of Menoitios’ son Patroklos.
The heart in my breast is balanced between two ways as I ponder,
whether I should snatch him out of the sorrowful battle
and set him down still alive in the rich country of Lykia,
or beat him under at the hands of the son of Menoitios. (16.433-8, tr. R. Lattimore)

This is a passage that has provoked much debate regarding the relationship between the will of Zeus and fate. On the one hand, Zeus says that Sarpedon is “destined” to die; on the other, he considers rescuing him. Is fate subject to Zeus? Is Zeus subject to fate? Can Zeus change fate? If so, what would happen? These are all important questions for determining the view of freedom and necessity, the power of the gods, and so on in the world of the Iliad, but it is not my purpose to enter into them here.

I would only note in passing that Hera seems to indicate in her response that such alteration is possible for Zeus, but that what would follow afterward would be unpredictable—perhaps a chaotic return to pre-Zeus divine disorder in the cosmos. In any event, she persuades him against saving his son. Sarpedon, then, will die.

Homer describes Zeus’s reaction in this way:

She spoke, nor did the father of gods and men disobey her;
yet he wept tears of blood that fell to the ground, for the sake
of his beloved son, whom now Patroklos was presently
to kill, by generous Troy and far from the land of his fathers.

What can it possibly mean for Zeus to weep tears of blood? Questions abound. Can the gods weep? That one is easy. In the Homeric world, yes, they can, and it is not at all surprising for them to do so. There has been some consternation over whether these drops should be taken as referring to “tears” or “raindrops,” but that distinction admits of a simple and elegant solution. The Homeric gods are anthropomorphized, and thus share many of the characteristics of men. They have bodies, houses, horses, desires, griefs, and so on. When they are sad, they cry.

Quote

Indeed, the fact that the expression is so rare demands the reader’s attention to the futility in the world of the Iliad of any attempt to render a man immortal. Even the son of the father of gods and men is subject to the day of doom. The blood of Zeus’s tears is a premonition of violence; the blood of his tears is a sign that that violence causes him anguish, but that it is a violence in which he will nevertheless acquiesce, though he would prefer to save his child.

Sarpedon will meet his destiny, and his destiny is to suffer. One is reminded here of a passage in W.H. Auden’s stunning “Shield of Achilles”:

The mass and majesty of this world, all
That carries weight and always weighs the same,
Lay in the hands of others; they were small
And could not hope for help, and no help came;
What their foes liked to do was done; their shame
Was all the worst could wish: they lost their pride
And died as men before their bodies died.

Ned's dream of Lyanna and the blood streaked sky, the storm of rose petals blue as the eyes of death' seems to me a green dream or a premonition rather than an actual event.  His dream of Lyanna changes in some way each time he has the dream.  These are current dreams, not old dreams.  Something was set in motion at the ToJ as Arthur says "Now it begins."

If the Zeus weeping tears in the tale of Sarpedon is so rare; what does Martin intend with it's use?  Robert as the Storm Lord would seem to support the idea that Robert is Zeus (or Thor) and Jon's father.  But make of it what you will.  I still don't know.

[SFDanny]

6 hours ago, kimim said:

...and lest we forget: NOWHERE IN THE TEXT ARE WE TOLD THAT LYANNA HAD SPOTS.

Thank you. You made me laugh. Your patience is a virtue. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

14 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Again, regarding Simon Toyne I also found this in the wiki under the Tourney of Storm’s End:

Contradictions
Lord Steffon Baratheon was sent on a mission to Essos in 278 AC, but he died during the return voyage. The tourney he hosted thus must have occurred by 278 AC at the latest. Barristan states that Rhaegar defeated Simon Toyne during the tourney, but Barristan's White Book entry lists the tourney as occurring after the defeat of the Kingswood Brotherhood (during which Barristan killed Simon) and before the Battle of the Trident. In the White Book entry, written by Ser Gerold Hightower (as he was the Lord Commander), the tourney is called "Lord Steffon's Tourney". The chronology of the entry would place the tourney years after Steffon's death, which is suggested as well by naming Robert Baratheon by the title of "Lord", as Robert became the Lord of Storm's End after Steffon's death, and possibly the fact that Jon Connington was described as "Lord" as well, while it is known that Connington, exiled during the Rebellion, ruled Griffin’s Roost as Lord only for a few short years.

When the discrepancy was brought to his attention, George R.R. Martin stated that Barristan's recollection of Simon's participation is incorrect and that the aged knight is confusing multiple historical tourneys. It seems therefore likely that Barristan mixed up multiple tourney's at Storm's End in his mind, one hosted by Lord Steffon before his death, and one hosted by Robert after Steffon's death.

The tourney dates, and during which tourney Barristan jousted against Simon Toyne, are mixed up. Simon Toyne's date of death is made quite clear in the SSM linked in that piece of text. As stated in the White Book, he was killed during the campaign against the Kingswood Brotherhood, in 281 AC.

[SFDanny]

13 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

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.

I don't think it is too much harder than my bare bones sketch of what has to occur shows. Of course, you're right that there is much we don't know, but what we do know puts Ned in charge of troops and not wandering off on his own. Could it have happened? Very unlikely. He is much more like a real commander than a certain unnamable starship captain who goes down on every away mission and leaves his ship for others to command. No, Ned is much more real than a James Tiberius what's his name. Damn it bones, this is fantasy, not some silly sci-fi novel!

Ahem ... back to the point.

The difference is that the Fisherman's Daughter story is told in a period before Ned takes command of his troops and marches south. This fundamentally changes both his responsibilities and the possibilities of his actions during the course of the rebellion. It is much, much harder to envision a scenario where Ned is traveling behind enemy lines. First, and foremost, because if we assume Ned is doing so during the time of Jon's conception, he is traveling, at best in your scenario under the protection of an agreement to talk with Rhaegar. Rhaegar who at this time commands no troops or territory, but is hidden from his father as well as the rebels. Any agreement with Rhaegar is worthless in commanding safe passage through any loyalist territory, until after the Battle of the Bells when he comes north and takes commands of rebuilding the loyalist army. Even then, it is a huge stretch to believe he can do so without Aerys's knowledge and approval.

It also suggest an approval by not only Ned sneaking off to see his sister, but of all the rebel commanders. This at a time when it is clearly a fight to the death between rebel and Targaryen. Just how does one negotiate a peace between the two sides whilst Aerys's sits the throne, and the rebels still command troops in the field? I can't imagine a way to get those negotiations even started. Does the hidden Rhaegar promise to set aside his father if the rebels agree to dismiss their banners and go home? What power does Rhaegar have to enforce his side of the bargain? None.

Lastly, you imagine that Ned and Lyanna take this precious opportunity to have sex with each other, right under the noses of the Kingsguard? It does get stranger and stranger as one goes down the dark path, doesn't it?

14 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

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.

The bolded is partially right. Benjen has to stay until Ned returns, but it doesn't mean he was the Stark in Winterfell waiting for his brother's return from the beginning of the time he fulfills that role. He is very likely the Stark in Winterfell from the day his father travels south to attend the wedding at Riverrun of Brandon and Cat. Ned is almost certainly in the Vale at this time, along with Robert. Possibly also along with Lyanna. Then the kidnapping takes place as what looks like Lyanna going to Riverrun to attend the wedding, and Brandon and his party hear the news, stop at Riverrun and make a dash to King's Landing. All of this time Benjen is waiting in Winterfell for his father to return, not Ned. Once the summons comes to Rickard on the road and he travels to his death and Brandon's death, then and only then is Benjen waiting for Ned's return. What makes you think he had the leisure to dally about with Lyanna while all this went on? It is a huge stretch to believe Benjen was not needed in Winterfell from the moment his Father went south for the wedding - a central act in his southron ambitions. 

Could the young Benjen have defied his father and not shown up? Possibly. How likely do you think that is?

14 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

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.

Incest is a cultural taboo that varies from culture to culture. What is incest in one culture is not necessarily so in another. The Targaryens fought bloody battles to have their definition of incest established as the law of the land, and for most of the history of Targaryen rule it was not challenged. It was accepted as the rules by which the royal family operated, if not for any other. So, no, it was not considered incest when the Targaryens did it, because incest means it was forbidden. For whatever reason the Valyrian custom was established, the marriages are not incest except from an outsiders perspective, and the Targaryens carrying on the Valyrian customs in Westeros is not either as long as they rule and set the rules.

14 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

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).

You got Jon and Dany being of the same generation? She's his aunt, if you believe R+L=J, and if you don't he is still the son of the rebellion's generation while she is the sister of that same generation. Not a big deal, it depends on how one uses the word "generation."

What bothers me here is that one legitimate parallel is observed - Jon, Dany, and Tyrion's mothers may have all died during their births - but this, of course, assumes Lyanna is Jon's mother, and we then jump to the conclusion that other similarities must follow. Why? Why is one similarity predictive of any others? It seems to me, to be much more important to look at a parallel experience of the three main characters and to see if that experience made them in some way like each other, OR how it effected them differently. This looking for a magical predictive pattern that we must stretch and ignore little facts to achieve in order to support unsupported theories seems to miss the whole point - at least to me.

15 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

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? 

We are looking for what makes Ned decide that Jaime is likely the father of Cersei's children, right? I'm looking at things in the story that Ned would observe like we as readers do - minus our special view of Jaime and Cersei actually "shagging." We know Ned looks at the coloring of the children from Baratheon/Lannister marriages of the past and his viewing the contrast of Robert's bastards. We know he observes as we do their closeness, and we know he becomes convinced that the Lannister's tried to murder Bran in order to silence him. These are all things we know by many parts of the text. By contrast, there is nothing that hints at Lyanna having sex with any of her family. It's all looking back from an assumption of incest in the family helping Ned to understand the nature of the Jaime/Cersei relationship, not evidence to support eh assumption in the first place.

Anyway, my wandering thoughts on your interesting thought experiment. I like you R+L=J essay much more.

[Melifeather]

11 hours ago, kimim said:

First, nowhere in the text are we told that Lyanna had "spots." No place. Nada. Zilch.

Then: "spots=dead girl" does not prove that Robert kidnapped Lyanna instead of Rhaegar. Lyanna is as captured/dead in the "Rhaegar kidnapped her and she died" scenario as she is in "Robert kidnapped her and she died." You could include "spots" in Rhaegar's capture as easily as you can in Robert's: Lyanna comes down with the spotty, contagious illness on her way to Riverrun. It isn't terribly serious, but she is isolated, anyway--people are going to a wedding, they want to celebrate, don't want spots. So she gets off her horse and rides on a separate wagon and someone gives her a sedative to keep her from scratching her spots, which makes it easy for Rhaegar to kidnap her. It didn't happen that way, but honestly, it is as likely as the Robert scenario you come up with.

...and lest we forget: NOWHERE IN THE TEXT ARE WE TOLD THAT LYANNA HAD SPOTS.

This is almost impossible to believe. After Darry's death, the siblings are going from home to home, begging for help, selling their jewels. They don't have bodyguards; even if they got some, they couldn't afford the best, and they couldn't afford long-term protection. Their approximate location is known--they're in the Free Cities. Yet Viserys manages to elude Robert, Tywin, and the Citadel's assassins for years? Can you see Viserys managing something like that?

I agree that nowhere does the text state that Lyanna had spots. I was using the collection of females with spots more symbolically as a way to help confirm the identity of a parallel inversion.

As for Dany and Viserys, are you saying that if anyone wanted them dead they would be dead? Weren't they protected and helped to avoid death? 

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I agree that nowhere does the text state that Lyanna had spots. I was using the collection of females with spots more symbolically as a way to help confirm the identity of a parallel inversion.

How does one "confirm" anything by making things up? Doesn't that just totally distort the data one is using to support an idea? I think it does.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

How does one "confirm" anything by making things up? Doesn't that just totally distort the data one is using to support an idea? I think it does.

Maybe "confirm" is too strict a choice of words. The existence of the inversions themselves are a theory I've been working on for several months. It would be best to start the explanation from the beginning and the opening essay is due to be posted today since Heresy reached 20 pages last night. I've been waiting for BC to post. I think if I can convince or at least engage your interest in the possibility of it's existence, perhaps what I've been trying to say will make more sense. 

[kimim]

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

...

As for Dany and Viserys, are you saying that if anyone wanted them dead they would be dead? Weren't they protected and helped to avoid death? 

Who was protecting them after Darry died? They were kicked out of the house with the red door, after which Viserys became known as the "beggar king," reduced to begging for shelter and selling the family jewels to survive. They were sitting ducks for years, until Illyrio and Varys decided to use them.

A smart, capable person might be able to elude assassins, but Viserys is neither smart nor capable. My sense is that had Tywin, Robert, and the Citadel wanted them dead, they would be dead.

 

 

[SFDanny]

30 minutes ago, kimim said:

Who was protecting them after Darry died? They were kicked out of the house with the red door, after which Viserys became known as the "beggar king," reduced to begging for shelter and selling the family jewels to survive. They were sitting ducks for years, until Illyrio and Varys decided to use them.

A smart, capable person might be able to elude assassins, but Viserys is neither smart nor capable. My sense is that had Tywin, Robert, and the Citadel wanted them dead, they would be dead.

I'm not so sure the Targaryens are as without support as Dany remembers. In fact, I'd argue the lemon tree in Braavos is a clue to Dornish support before we hear of Doran's plan to marry Arianne to Viserys. It will be interesting to see if the brother of the Archon of Tyrosh is representing Dornish interests when he shows up at Daenerys's wedding. And just because they are not living in luxury does not mean they are really begging for their meals or anything of the sort. The question is how well are they guarded during most of their lives, and it appears that they had some people doing so for them. How well they did, and what amount of expense they would be willing to put out remains to be discovered. Robert seems frustrated by the presence of eunuch guards at the very least.

Still, I don't doubt you are right in that a concerted effort by Robert to kill the Targaryens would have likely been successful. No one was prepared to go to war with Robert on their behalf, including Prince Doran. I'd bet what we are told is simply correct - Jon Arryn dissuades Robert from killing the Targaryen children because he convinces him they are no threat. That doesn't change Robert's hatred for them, however.

Into this we have to throw, this factor - the usefulness of having a crazy and incompetent king in exile as opposed to a united opposition to Robert's rule made up of former loyalists. Not many houses want to risk their lives and fortune on Viserys's return. If anything, until Dany weds Khal Drogo, having Viserys as the Targaryen claimant to the throne helps the prospects of Robert and his supposed heirs to hold onto the monarchy.

Anyway, some thoughts on the subject

[JNR]

On 11/28/2016 at 11:17 PM, Kingmonkey said:

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

That's true, but if your only evidence for Lyanna loving Rhaegar is that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, then you have no evidence for Lyanna loving Rhaegar.

On 11/29/2016 at 11:54 AM, Kingmonkey said:

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.

This is only a problem to solve if you know Lyanna and the Kingsguard were in the same place at the time Jon was conceived.

But you don't.  You don't know they were together at the same time at any point in the Rebellion at all -- not a single day. 

I've pointed this out so many times, but it never seems to sink in... a truly amazing thing. 

Invariably, people respond with something like "it's the most logical thing to assume."

Well, bullshit.  Why are they assuming things at all?

Suppose I tell you my cousin Jill went to visit her grandmother on Nov. 22, 1999.  Suppose I also tell you she came home from visiting her grandmother on Nov. 28, 2000.  Suppose you don't know one fact about the time in between.

Is it really the most logical thing to assume that she was with her grandmother the entire year?  Of course not; that would be insane.  Human beings do all sorts of things in a year's time.

If someone says "There's no textual evidence Jill was doing anything in that year but visiting her grandmother," our job is to laugh in that person's face, based on our knowledge of human reality.

I'll be referring to this post when TWOW is out. 

[kimim]

48 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I'm not so sure the Targaryens are as without support as Dany remembers.

The eunuch guards are after Illyrio and Varys take them in, though. ita that from that point, they are protected, but were they protected before?

There are too many confusing things about Dany and Viserys in the Free Cities. One's Varys. Did GRRM always plan on Aegon, or is he a retcon? If he was always a part of the story, what do Varys and Illyrio want with Dany? In Game, Arya overhears Varys complaining that:

• Ned is on the verge of discovering twincest and setting Lannister against Baratheon.
• LF is on the verge of setting Lannister against Stark.
• Drogo is taking too long to show up.

It sounds like Varys wants Dany and Drogo (or at least Drogo) to land while Westeros is united, which makes it sound like he wants Drogo to go down in defeat. That doesn't make him a fan of either Dany, Drogo, or Aegon. It does make him a fan of a united Westeros: Faced with a bunch of barbarians, Lannisters, Starks, Baratheons, on the verge of civil war, come together and fight. That fits what Varys later tells Ned, that he is concerned with the "realm," and that no one wanted Robert to survive more than he did. How that would affect any protection he might extend Dany and Viserys before they entered Illyrio's home, idk.

Then there are the Martells. The only thing we know is that there was a marriage contract between Viserys and Arianne, which is all Quentyn has to convince Dany to ally with Dorne. If the Martells were protecting the siblings all along, and if the house with the red door was in Dorne, why doesn't Quentyn mention it in his pov, and why doesn't he tell Dany? They're trying for a huge alliance with her, so you'd think they'd let her know that she is beholden to them for something other than a contract.  

 

It's weird. As you say, it's most likely as we're told: They were left alone, until Illyrio and Varys came up with the Dothraki alliance.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Into this we have to throw, this factor - the usefulness of having a crazy and incompetent king in exile as opposed to a united opposition to Robert's rule made up of former loyalists.

This I can buy. Viserys is hardly a threat. He is unpleasant enough to fuck up any number of pro-Targ uprisings.

[SFDanny]

3 minutes ago, kimim said:

If the Martells were protecting the siblings all along, and if the house with the red door was in Dorne, why doesn't Quentyn mention it in his pov, and why doesn't he tell Dany?

Please, oh please, don't confuse my thoughts with this nonsense. I was only pointing out the message sent to the Targaryens by planting a lemon tree from Dorne outside their Braavosi home. Very likely done on the same trip in which the Red Viper signs his name to the marriage pact along with Ser Willem and the Sealord of Braavos. There is NO evidence Dany has ever been to Dorne, nor that Prince Doran would take leave of his senses to bring the Targaryens there. Such an act would be a declaration of war with Robert if ever found out.

No, I was suggesting that Doran might well have moved in more subtle ways, and through other actors - like the Archon of Tyrosh - to give some support to the Targaryens.

[Melifeather]

Just a thought to explore...Jeor drank beer everyday with lemon in it. Jorah is described as looking like a hairy bear. Jeor's home on Bear Island is made with large timbers with carvings of animals. Dany recalls Darry as a great bear of a man and of a house with carvings in wooden beams, yes she also recalls a red door and a lemon tree, but what if we're surprised in a future passage that Jeor grew a lemon tree at home so that he could have lemon in his beer? Jorah sold "poachers" which brought Ned rushing up to Bear Island...

Thanks to somepig, weaselpie, and LynnS for their work on this. It's a very interesting possibility to explore.