Hair parentage

[Damein Blackfyre true king]

5 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Hmmm. I'm going to Google all this and find out what's actually book, and what's show in what we're talking about.

I confess to confusing the two sources for our knowledge of ToJ sometimes and I'd like to be sure we're not discussing a show topic in a book-only thread.

 

Edited to add:

Here are the sources of information about the ToJ from the books:

A Game of Thrones - Eddard X

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Combat_at_the_tower_of_joy

 

And here's a mention of the KG's loyalty to Aerys

A Feast for Crows - Jaime I

That's all I could find and I'm staggered at how many theories have been spun with so very little information.

Unless there's more in the books that I'm missing!

 

@Prof. Cecily there is evidence Rhaegar was making moves to take over.  Rhaegar told Jamie to stay with the king.  He said he was going to call a great council once he returns after the trident.  If u analyze that statement.  He was going to call a council of lords to legitimize his coup d'etat.  By kings guard oath Jamie should have arrested the crowned prince for treason or at the very least told someone else.  So you can argue Jamie supported Rhaegar > Areys.  Yes Rhaegar died prior to the TOJ but he left instructions to all three kings guards who were present.  Their words said that they were not at the trident because of a vow.  They stated that Areys would still be king if they were at kings landing however they weren't there.  They swore a vow.  The most fundamental vow kings guardsmen have is to protect the king but they weren't there.  Let's look who were at the tower, Whent who threw the tourney that was suppose to be the initial meeting to sow the seeds of Rhaegar's ambition. Dayne who was Rhaegar's best friend and confidenant.  Hightower whose family have a history of king making as well as him being the lord commander of the KG.

Varys states that kings landing hasn't been this that divided since the dance of the dragon.  So there were vocal people in court who supported Rhaegar and his ascention to the iron throne.   My point is if the most hallow vow is to proctect the king above all, Hightower tells Jamie we are to protect the queen but not from Him,Areys. Why were they there and not with Areys, or Vicerys because they knew the future of the house was with Rhaegar and his line. The kings guard made a choice of which vow to follow.  

[Ygrain]

we have Ned's memories which correlate with the dream:

 

He dreamt an old dream,

He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.

 

of three knights in white cloaks,

Three men in white cloaks, he thought, remembering, and a strange chill went through him.

 

and a tower long fallen,

Ned had pulled the tower down afterward,

 

and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

“Lord Eddard,” Lyanna called again.

“I promise,” he whispered. “Lya, I promise …”

Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. 

Promise me, Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood.

 

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life.

 

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life.

Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns

They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed

 

[Prof. Cecily]

1 hour ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

@Prof. Cecily there is evidence Rhaegar was making moves to take over.  Rhaegar told Jamie to stay with the king.

Did you understand why he said that?

 He said he was going to call a great council once he returns after the trident.  If u analyze that statement.  He was going to call a council of lords to legitimize his coup d'etat.

What? Did you read what Rhaegar said?

 By kings guard oath Jamie should have arrested the crowned prince for treason or at the very least told someone else.

What treason are you talking about? This conversation took place in front of ser Jon Darry of the Kingsguard.

 So you can argue Jamie supported Rhaegar > Areys.

Of course you can argue that. But with nothing from the text to substantiate you.

 Yes Rhaegar died prior to the TOJ but he left instructions to all three kings guards who were present.

Where does it say this in the books?

 Their words said that they were not at the trident because of a vow.

You're aluding to the HBO production here. This is a book-only thread.

 They stated that Areys would still be king if they were at kings landing however they weren't there.  

Again, this is from the HBO production 

They swore a vow.  The most fundamental vow kings guardsmen have is to protect the king but they weren't there.  Let's look who were at the tower, Whent who threw the tourney that was suppose to be the initial meeting to sow the seeds of Rhaegar's ambition. Dayne who was Rhaegar's best friend and confidenant.  Hightower whose family have a history of king making as well as him being the lord commander of the KG.

Correct.

Varys states that kings landing hasn't been this that divided since the dance of the dragon.  So there were vocal people in court who supported Rhaegar and his ascention to the iron throne.

What's your source for this?

  My point is if the most hallow vow is to proctect the king above all, Hightower tells Jamie we are to protect the queen but not from Him,Areys. Why were they there and not with Areys, or Vicerys because they knew the future of the house was with Rhaegar and his line. The kings guard made a choice of which vow to follow.  

I have no idea why they were there. The books leave this incident most ambiguous and I'm really hoping this is cleared up in the up-coming books.

I've seen your explanation in several places and while it is ingenious, the mix of show sources and book sources doesn't convince me at all. In any case, this thread is a book-only discussion, as per the forum's rules.

 

[Prof. Cecily]

4 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Was he?

CMIIW, but I think we have only one source for that, and that source, when it comes to what went down in King's Landing after the Trident, is extremely unreliable.

"This time, Lord Tywin’s cause was that of the realm’s, and he was determined to bring an end to the reign that madness had brought low."

"those who ravished and murdered Princess Elia escaped justice. It is not known who murdered Princess Rhaenys in her bed, or smashed the infant Prince Aegon’s head against a wall. Some whisper it was done at Aerys’s own command when he learned that Lord Lannister had taken up Robert’s cause, while others suggest that Elia did it herself for fear of what would happen to her children in the hands of her dead husband’s enemies."

Yeah right.

And even if (which is a substantial if) Aerys had named Viserys his heir, it's possible the proclamation didn't reach anybody outside King's Landing. Notice that Viserys never mentioned that, and he never shut up about his precious claim and how important he was.

Are you quite sure you want to disallow the World of Ice and Fire as a source for what happened at ToJ?

[Ygrain]

50 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Are you quite sure you want to disallow the World of Ice and Fire as a source for what happened at ToJ?

Does the Worldbook say anything else than we already know from the series proper?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

3 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Are you quite sure you want to disallow the World of Ice and Fire as a source for what happened at ToJ?

I was rejecting TWOIAF as a credible source on what went down in King's Landing in the last days of Aerys II, as shown above. On the Tower of Joy, however, there's next to nothing there (one little sentence: "He [Ser Arthur Dayne] died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert’s Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat" - so, already known facts plus already known unsubstantiated gossip).

What, is there more?

[Damein Blackfyre true king]

3 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Are you quite sure you want to disallow the World of Ice and Fire as a source for what happened at ToJ?

Question for you? Why are you being dismissive? Nothing I mentioned was solely mentioned in the show. The point of all this speculation is there is little evidence from the book because we all have read it multple times by now.  I find it sad that people are intolerant of others theories that are based in the text.  I came here to discuss ideas because I love the complexity of ASOIF.   You may disagree but just about all of the examples came from worldbook and or the books.  I mentioned nothing strictly from the show and don't need you attempting to moderate my post. Thanks!

[mediterraneo]

On 3/6/2017 at 2:15 PM, Pacala said:

how come Jon being Rhaegar son still standing when we know George Martin use hair to authentificate parentage ?

Ehm.
Eddard wanted to use hair as parentage proof. Varys got him interested in Jon Arryn's readings and Pycelle was reticent enough about it to let Eddard suspect.

Martin instead is a 21th century man, knows about genetics, and set up a description of many previous crosses between a dominant gene (black hair) and a recessive one (blonde hair) to leave us totally in the dark about whether or not Jeoffrey can be son of Robert or not, as we cannot know if Robert carried both genes or not while manifesting the dominant one.

Cersei too wants to believe her children to be Jaime's. She psicologically need that, and strongly shouts about that.
But "kids, don't try this at home" about her birth control techniques. They don't guarantee anything, it is quite possible to get pregnant while acting Cersei's semen control protocols as she describes them.

Martin didn't ever affirm that this or that character is or isn't children of that other. He lets his characters speak, and see, and think, and then he lets his readers chose what to believe. That's the beauty in it's work.

Cheers.

[Prof. Cecily]

5 hours ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

Question for you? Why are you being dismissive? Nothing I mentioned was solely mentioned in the show. The point of all this speculation is there is little evidence from the book because we all have read it multple times by now.  I find it sad that people are intolerant of others theories that are based in the text.  I came here to discuss ideas because I love the complexity of ASOIF.   You may disagree but just about all of the examples came from worldbook and or the books.  I mentioned nothing strictly from the show and don't need you attempting to moderate my post. Thanks!

Woah!

I gave you the benefit of the doubt- that you hadn't realised this is a book-only thread.

Where is the intolerance?

 

And yes, @Damein Blackfyre true king you cited in at least three aspects of your post material which is only in the HBO production.

To refresh your memory:

9 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

 Yes Rhaegar died prior to the TOJ but he left instructions to all three kings guards who were present.

Where does it say this in the books?

 Their words said that they were not at the trident because of a vow.

You're aluding to the HBO production here. This is a book-only thread.

 They stated that Areys would still be king if they were at kings landing however they weren't there.  

Again, this is from the HBO production 

Can you show these statements are anything but derived from the HBO production?

I'm trying to find out what we actually know about the ToJ. It isn't easy!

[Prof. Cecily]

9 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Are you quite sure you want to disallow the World of Ice and Fire as a source for what happened at ToJ?

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Does the Worldbook say anything else than we already know from the series proper?

I don't think so, but I am more than capable of being wrong!

7 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

I was rejecting Damein Blackfyre true king as a credible source on what went down in King's Landing in the last days of Aerys II, as shown above. On the Tower of Joy, however, there's next to nothing there (one little sentence: "He [Ser Arthur Dayne] died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert’s Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat" - so, already known facts plus already known unsubstantiated gossip).

What, is there more?

Well, here's the problem.

Or you accept a source, or you don't.

For example, we don't accept The HBO production as source material.

If we accept TWOIAF only when it suits us, we'll never get anywhere in a discusssion, as one person or another can alway justifiably claim TWOIAF is an unreliable source of maester's gossip and propaganda.

In any discussion I have here, I'm constantly checking the wiki to see just where our information comes from. And a a distressingly high percentage of the time, it comes from TWOIAF.

Or worse yet, from theorisation on the part of fans. A theorisation taken as proof by many. 

Of course you are entitled not to accept TWOIAF on the subject of Aerys naming Viserys as his heir, but would it be rational to accept it then in other areas?

I think @Ygrain is in the right when she sees nothing wrong with using TWOIAF when it can be backed up by the texts themselves.

[Damein Blackfyre true king]

1 hour ago, Prof. Cecily said:

 

 

And yes, @Damein Blackfyre true king you cited in at least three aspects of your post material which is only in the HBO production.

To refresh your memory:

Can you show these statements are anything but derived from the HBO production?

I'm trying to find out what we actually know about the ToJ. It isn't easy!

Fever dream they weren't at kingslanding because of a vow and that Areys would sit the thrown if they were there:

“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

 where you were.”

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Examples of the vows:  we never got the official vows on either mediums.

Ser Gerold Hightower himself heard my vows . . . to ward the king with all my strength . . . to give my blood for his . . .

 Jaime has a dream where the dead KG and Rhaegar confront him

"He was your king," said Darry.

"You swore to keep him safe," said Whent.

"And the children, them as well," said Prince Lewyn.

...

"The king you had sworn to die for."

Nothing I meantioned was strictly from the show, the book implied things and then I made a theory on others from what I inferred from the book.

[Prof. Cecily]

8 hours ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

Fever dream they weren't at kingslanding because of a vow and that Areys would sit the thrown if they were there:

“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

 where you were.”

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Examples of the vows:  we never got the official vows on either mediums.

Ser Gerold Hightower himself heard my vows . . . to ward the king with all my strength . . . to give my blood for his . . .

 Jaime has a dream where the dead KG and Rhaegar confront him

"He was your king," said Darry.

"You swore to keep him safe," said Whent.

"And the children, them as well," said Prince Lewyn.

...

"The king you had sworn to die for."

Nothing I meantioned was strictly from the show, the book implied things and then I made a theory on others from what I inferred from the book.

I see your point @Damein Blackfyre true king.

You've taken images from dreams  which are used in the HBO production. It wouldn't occur to me to treat dreams in which ghosts speak as evidence for past events, but I see you find them convincing.

There's a most interesting thread on what we know and don't know about the ToJ.

It's from 2015, 21 pages long and archived, 

Here 's a quotation from an interview with GRRM that's included in the thread

Quote

I have a question which I'm sure you can (and will?) answer. It's about the Tower of Joy. The image we get from Ned's description is pretty powerful. But it doesn't make sense. The top three kingsguards, including the lord commander amd the best knight in ages, Ser Arthur Dayne are present there. Lyanna is in the tower, she asked Ned to promise him something. This, so says the general consensus us little Jon Snow, who is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's. No sense denying this

 

 

 

However, what are the Kingsguards doing fighting Eddard? Eddard would never hurt Lyanna, nor her child. The little one would be safe with Eddard as well, him being a close relative. So I ask you, was there someone else with Lyanna and Jon?

 

 

 

 

 

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

 

 

 

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

(Edited to add the the last question and answer)

 

Also, did the Kingsguards know what was in the Tower?

 

Certainly.

 

-

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/128779-lyanna-was-at-the-toj-not-canon/

 

l take that to be a warning that while dreams  are compelling and attractive, they are elusive, at best.

Anyway, we'll find out how this plays out in future books!

[Ygrain]

22 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

l take that to be a warning that while dreams  are compelling and attractive, they are elusive, at best.

That goes about threads, as well - they may be compelling and attractive but shouldn't be taken as a gospel, either. The ToJ sequence is not an actual dream, it is a purposefully created piece of text designed to convey (as well as veil) certain information. The best way to approach a piece of writing is to take a look at all the complementary information there is, how it fits with the story and what narrative purpose there might be. In the course of five books, we go from Rhaegar the rapist + Dany's rose-coloured glasses to "Rhaegar loved his lady Lyanna" spelled black on white, yet we should believe that the connection between Lyanna and the tower is solely the product of the milk of the poppy and that the location of her death is such an important secret that it couldn't be revealed just yet? Sorry if I find the logic deeply lacking.

[Prof. Cecily]

1 minute ago, Ygrain said:

That goes about threads, as well - they may be compelling and attractive but shouldn't be taken as a gospel, either. The ToJ sequence is not an actual dream, it is a purposefully created piece of text designed to convey (as well as veil) certain information. The best way to approach a piece of writing is to take a look at all the complementary information there is, how it fits with the story and what narrative purpose there might be. In the course of five books, we go from Rhaegar the rapist + Dany's rose-coloured glasses to "Rhaegar loved his lady Lyanna" spelled black on white, yet we should believe that the connection between Lyanna and the tower is solely the product of the milk of the poppy and that the location of her death is such an important secret that it couldn't be revealed just yet? Sorry if I find the logic deeply lacking.

I think you've pointed out the essence of the  matter

Quote

The best way to approach a piece of writing is to take a look at all the complementary information there is, how it fits with the story and what narrative purpose there might be.

We're talking about a piece of writing. Fiction.

Lyanna will have died  wherever GRRM's puposes are best served.

 

[Ygrain]

2 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

We're talking about a piece of writing. Fiction.

Lyanna will have died  wherever GRRM's puposes are best served.

And writing fiction has certain rules as well as methods, both general and individual, that can be observed and analysed. If GRRM says 'A', it cannot be unsaid and has to fit with the rest of the book.

[Prof. Cecily]

1 minute ago, Ygrain said:

And writing fiction has certain rules as well as methods, both general and individual, that can be observed and analysed. If GRRM says 'A', it cannot be unsaid and has to fit with the rest of the book.

And this is where things get interesting, since a thing told from a POV may enter in conflict 'with the rest of the book' and other POVs. 

I have the impression this is why some readers consider AWOIAF to be a semi-canonical source of information.

I so want the next books to be published.

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

10 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I don't think so, but I am more than capable of being wrong!

Well, here's the problem.

Or you accept a source, or you don't.

Nope. It's not binary. There's continuum of states between "confirmed fact" and "debunked bullshit". There are such things as "more credible" and "less credible".

And, when Yandel proved himself ill-informed and/or biased when it comes to all things Robert's Rebellion, I'll treat his account with skepticism unless corroborated by some other source.

[Prof. Cecily]

25 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Nope. It's not binary. There's continuum of states between "confirmed fact" and "debunked bullshit". There are such things as "more credible" and "less credible".

And, when Yandel proved himself ill-informed and/or biased when it comes to all things Robert's Rebellion, I'll treat his account with skepticism unless corroborated by some other source.

And who would be your authority for determining that continuum 

Quote

between "confirmed fact" and "debunked bullshit". There are such things as "more credible" and "less credible".

?

 

Does that bring  us back to "the novels only"?

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

53 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Nope. It's not binary. There's continuum of states between "confirmed fact" and "debunked bullshit". There are such things as "more credible" and "less credible".

 

24 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

And who would be your authority for determining that continuum ?

Does that bring  us back to "the novels only"?

How do you jump, immediately, from my declaration "it's not binary" to your categorically binary conclusion, is beyond me. I believe I explained myself clear enough, and the problem must be somewhere on your side.

[Prof. Cecily]

Here are some considerations from "Lyanna was at the ToJ"

 

7 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

 

How do you jump, immediately, from my declaration "it's not binary" to your categorically binary conclusion, is beyond me. I believe I explained myself clear enough, and the problem must be somewhere on your side.

I got there by asking a question, which you've ignored.

No worries!

My question was "And who would be your authority for determining that continuum ?"