R+L=J v.165

[Lord Varys]

@corbon

You can interpret the old fever dream as long as you want, that doesn't really matter to the topic at hand (although I daresay it is rather presumptuous of you to assume you can decipher it without actually knowing what happened - can you do the same for Dunk's dream in TSS without first checking what awake Dunk tells us about the adventures they had after THK? I don't think so.)

We are talking about actual facts within the story, not meanings and symbols and interpretations derived from dreams in the story.

If you cut the heart of the matter then facts count, not interpretations of what you try to spin or believe to be facts.

We actually do know now from many an example that Kingsguard don't feel a need to search out or crown kings (in the middle of nowhere after there is not one but two new kings already), etc. Those are facts in this world, not images in a fevered mind.

We can answer the question why those men were at the tower now without ever concerning ourselves with dream interpretation.

Insisting we have to go with reaching interpretations whose real word bases have been crumbling since, basically, ADwD came out (where the idea was made clear that even bastards and mistresses were and can be protected by KGs) when we actually have good evidence without going down that route.

We can see the obvious resemblances between the situation of Willis Fell (and Rickard Thorne) and the knights at the tower. We do know what kingship is in this world and that kings are not born but made. We know that from Prince Aegon. From Aegon the Uncrowned and Maegor and Viserys I and Aegon II we do know that Kingsguard usually do not gravitate to or care about who 'the rightful heir/king' is. They are not a litmus test for that kind of thing.

In fact, it is utterly silly to assume that the narrator gives a crap about who *the king* is. Kingship is a mundane, legal concept, nothing holy or magical enough that figures who have been twisted from mortal men into larger-than-life figures by those people worshiping them (the POV fan boys of Arthur Dayne, basically) can somehow determine for us what *the truth* is.

The entire concept of there being a fixed and clear line of succession and all was finally - and justifiably! - flushed down the toilet by George. There is no such thing. There is no certainty who is going to be the next king when the old monarch closes the eye - especially not when the eldest son actually has predeceased the king. Whoever tries to insist that such things do exist is actually ascribes concepts to the series that aren't really there. This is not a fairy-tale, not even LotR.

It might still be fun to interpret the dream, but there is no outside basis for an interpretation that the behavior in the dream - assuming it actually reflects real world dialogue that took place - actually points to *Jon Snow* being *a/the king*.

That is wishful thinking, and in my opinion a rather stupid wish consider how damaging something like that would be to Jon's arc if he had been king from the start. That would make Ned the evil uncle, the knights his *loyal Kingsguard* who were murdered by said uncle, and his entire life a joke where circumstances kept him from being who he was destined to be from birth.

That would just be silly - especially if he actually were to become king.

[JNR]

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The entire concept of there being a fixed and clear line of succession and all was finally - and justifiably! - flushed down the toilet by George. There is no such thing.

And that was true as of 1999.

Quote

the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

What GRRM said in the Shaw interview on this topic ("if Prince Rhaegar gave the KG an order...") was, technically, phrased as a hypothetical. 

But as few tidbits as we ever directly get from GRRM on this topic, I think that one will turn out to be solid.  The order Rhaegar gave them (whatever it was), and the vow they swore (as they interpret the vow) will turn out not to be in conflict, but instead, intertwined and mutually reinforcing.

[Frey family reunion]

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Because there are elements in the dream, especially at the beginning and the end, that are not literal. Ned's companions had faces. The sky was not streaked with blood. There was no storm of rose petals. I very much doubt Lyanna screamed his name (though its possible), etc.
You'll note that in the SSM you quoted, the questioner stated outright that Lyanna was in the tower with Jon. In terms of this dream (as opposed to Ned's other memories) this is inferred by her screaming Ned's name after the exchange.
This is too much giveaway for GRRM. So he points out that its a fever dream (which its is, but its also an old dream) and not everything in dreams is literal (our dreams are not always literal).
The 'memory' part of the dream doesn't actually connect Lyanna to the tower. Only the part where Ned's subconscious is messing with the memory in the dream state.

I can’t tell if we are agreeing or disagreeing.  Yes, the memory part of the dream does not connect Lyanna to the tower.  Which may very well mean that Lyanna was not in the tower.  Instead for some reason Ned’s subconscious is linking the two memories together.

The point I’m making is that we have numerous theories being built on the chronology and geography of a fever dream.  And while it may be an old dream GRRM makes it clear that it’s also a fever dream and we should be cautious about taking it too literally.

I think too many readers have taken it as a fact that Lyanna was in the tower, and it may be leading many a theory down a primrose path.  Now granted it’s a primrose path of GRRM’s own making, but if he truly wants to surprise the reader at the end we shouldnt’ be too surprised if there is a misdirect along the way. 

[corbon]

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I can’t tell if we are agreeing or disagreeing.  Yes, the memory part of the dream does not connect Lyanna to the tower.  Which may very well mean that Lyanna was not in the tower.  Instead for some reason Ned’s subconscious is linking the two memories together.

Heh, I had reread yours and was writing a clarification when your new post popped up.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you that this particular dream does not directly place Lyanna at the tower where the fight is, though I would argue the fact that Ned's subconscious allowed her voice to backpack Vayon Poole's in that situation is an indication his subconscious places her there, even if the 'dream reality' doesn't directly place her there in this dream. 
Her there at this tower or not rests on more than this dream.

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The point I’m making is that we have numerous theories being built on the chronology and geography of a fever dream.  And while it may be an old dream GRRM makes it clear that it’s also a fever dream and we should be cautious about taking it too literally.

I think too many readers have taken it as a fact that Lyanna was in the tower, and it may be leading many a theory down a primrose path.  Now granted it’s a primrose path of GRRM’s own making, but if he truly wants to surprise the reader at the end we shouldnt’ be too surprised if there is a misdirect along the way. 

Yep, thats a whole other kettle of fish.
I think there are other indications that Lyanna was at this particular tower, and its an accumulation of evidence that leads to those theories, not definitive evidence from this dream.

[The Twinslayer]

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Actually, I've raised it before. So maybe we both have faulty memories? Or we both haven't read everything on the site?

And I recall a lot of people acknowledging that delegation of responsibilities to others outside the Kingsguard is possible in certain circumstances, but overall there needs to be a member of the Kingsguard responsible for guarding of the king. Do you disagree with that?

We can debate whether or not each situation in which there is not a Kingsguard brother with the king is a violation of their oath, but I think the overwhelming majority of cases we know about do not. The real question is not that it can't happen, but rather does the particular circumstances Hightower, Dayne, and Whent find themselves in demand that one of them go to Viserys. I think it does. I think it makes an attentive reader wonder why, just as Ned wonders why in his dream, that the three are there and more than willing to fight Ned and his party to prevent them from taking Lyanna. Ned knows the oaths and responsibilities of the Kingsguard, and he is more than a little puzzled why they stand before him instead of doing what he thinks they should have been doing.

Again, I will leave it up to @corbon for him to respond if he is interested. He too is more than capable of doing so. 

Which reminds me, corbon, I've not forgotten your post. I will respond in depth as soon as I'm able to do so. Right now, I'm running between places.

I remember your bringing up the point about KG knights needing to sleep, relieve themselves, etc. before.  I just don't recall any poster disputing that point.  My understanding of the "one KG must always be with the king" theory has always been that they were arguing that one KG had to be in close proximity to the king in order to supervise his defense.  Some of those folks were extreme, but I don't recall seeing any of them argue that Jaime never slept between the time Rhaegar left for the Trident and the day he slew Aerys.  If they did, then either I missed it or I have forgotten. 

Their real argument, as I always understood it, was that there is an absolute rule that wherever the king went, there had to be at least one KG knight on hand (nearby, or in the same room) to follow the "first duty," which is to protect the king.  That meant that the KGs could never allow a situation where the person in charge of the king's safety was someone not of the KG.  So if Viserys actually were Aerys' heir, then when Hightower, Whent and Dayne realized that Viserys' personal safety was being overseen by Ser Willem Darry, at least one of them would be required to drop whatever else he was doing and go to Viserys' side.  The fact that all three stayed at the toj meant that Viserys could not be the heir to Aerys; the only possible explanation was that there was someone at the toj with a stronger claim.  Otherwise, one or two of them would have hightailed it to Dragonstone, leaving the remaining one (or two) to fulfill whatever duty had them at the toj before they heard the news of Aerys' death.  Because those posters believed that R+L = J and that Jon was the only relative of Aerys present at the toj, that meant that Jon must have been born a king, and that Rhaegar and Lyanna must have entered into an unquestionably legitimate polygamous marriage.  

Some very thoughtful posters with good reputations like Ygraine and Corbon adopted this theory.  Some other prolific (but less thoughtful) posters also adopted it.  And as a consequence, there were a lot of casual posters who concluded that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and that Jon was born a king based on that theory, and they responded negatively to any contrary suggestion.

Anyway, I had two problems with that theory.  First, it is just wrong (or, as you suggested, "absurd.").  For example, in the quote I posted from Corbon, he based the theory on Barristan Selmy's thoughts in ADWD.  But while Barristan was having those thoughts, his queen -- Dany -- was lost.  And he was her only KG knight.  If Barristan really thought she could not be without KG protection, he would have gone looking for her.  Instead, he sent someone else to look for her while he took over her kingdom and arrested her husband.  And there are lots of other reasons the theory does not work.  For example, long before FAB was published, I was arguing that it was absurd to think that no Targaryen king had ever traveled on dragon back without one of his KGs coming along for the ride.

Second, and far more importantly, that theory stifled what could have been an interesting discussion about the question at hand:  what were the three KGs doing at the toj?  I readily acknowledge that they may have believed they were guarding a Targaryen heir.  I am also open to the possibility -- and in fact believe -- that they were there for an entirely different reason.  But we were never able to have a civilized discussion about that because half the people responding took the position that the only possible reason for the KGs to be at the toj was to protect the king because there is an iron-clad rule that one KG must always be with the king.  And a significant number of them were really obnoxious about it.  A few of them even coined the deeply offensive term "R+L=J deniers," as though anyone who disagreed with their "absurd" theory was tantamount to a Holocaust denier.   

It is only after everyone (or at least a majority) acknowledges that it is possible that the 3 KGs believed that Viserys was the next Targaryen heir but that they nevertheless kept their vow by staying at the toj that the real debate over the reasons they were at the toj can begin.  That is a discussion I would enjoy.  

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, corbon said:

not definitive evidence from this dream.

From the dream itself, no. Its description does put the tower, the KG and Lyanna together. And since the dream doesn't show any other location, then the tower is the only location where Lyanna can be present.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, JNR said:

And that was true as of 1999.

Indeed. Although George made other comments implying that there was a certainty about the succession, like that after the Dance of the Dragons it was determined no woman should sit the throne (unless there were no men) which also turned out to be wrong when TWoIaF came out (because Princess Aelora was the heir of Aerys I after her brother-husband Aelor died).

Before we got to TWoIaF people had a rather fixed view how the various 'lines of succession' went, treating this more like video game world with fixed rules that are followed rather than a world based on medieval uncertainty. It is not that rules are sometimes - or rather often - ignored, it is also that the rules that exist are not necessarily clear or free of contradictions.

The idea that the children of the eldest son always come before a younger son when the eldest son predeceases the father is just something people assumed without good reason. But this is not the case.

And, in fact, this is not only relevant for the Iron Throne. This might happen rather often in relation to lordly successions as well.

9 hours ago, JNR said:

What GRRM said in the Shaw interview on this topic ("if Prince Rhaegar gave the KG an order...") was, technically, phrased as a hypothetical. 

But as few tidbits as we ever directly get from GRRM on this topic, I think that one will turn out to be solid.  The order Rhaegar gave them (whatever it was), and the vow they swore (as they interpret the vow) will turn out not to be in conflict, but instead, intertwined and mutually reinforcing.

If there had been a conflict there it would have come up when the decision was made that three Kingsguard were now protecting a woman in the middle of nowhere, a woman who may not even have known, at the time, that she was pregnant by Prince Rhaegar (although I assume they knew that at this point).

This is why this 'a Kingsguard always has to be with the king' stuff was so important for the people immunizing themselves against criticism/other views - because it was their means to deflect the question as to why Hightower, Whent, and Dayne agreed to care for Lyanna at a place far away from court when the king himself and Prince Rhaegar were/would be in considerable danger further down the road.

Here the point always was that there were KG in KL and that's why those men could 'afford' to take on another mission.

But that changed immediately when Aerys II died because then Viserys III would have *magically* become king, and that would have caused them to *magically* come to the conclusion that at least one of their number would have to join him as soon as possible.

And there is just not the slightest shred of evidence for any of that.

In fact, the explanation as to why the guys at the tower were with Lyanna rather than Aerys II is likely going to lie in the madness of the Mad King. Those men were all great guys in the eyes of most of the people who think or remember them - which means none of those men would have liked hanging out with or protecting a king who got off on burning people and liked to rape his sister-wife afterwards. Protecting Lyanna gave Rhaegar's buddies - and even Gerold Hightower - a good enough pretext and excuse not to be with Aerys II while still fulfilling their duty as Kingsguard.

There is, very likely, nothing more to this than that. Just as, you know, Arys Oakheart was very glad when Tyrion assigned him to Myrcella because that allowed him to leave Joffrey and he no longer had to beat Sansa Stark.

8 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Their real argument, as I always understood it, was that there is an absolute rule that wherever the king went, there had to be at least one KG knight on hand (nearby, or in the same room) to follow the "first duty," which is to protect the king.  That meant that the KGs could never allow a situation where the person in charge of the king's safety was someone not of the KG.  So if Viserys actually were Aerys' heir, then when Hightower, Whent and Dayne realized that Viserys' personal safety was being overseen by Ser Willem Darry, at least one of them would be required to drop whatever else he was doing and go to Viserys' side.  The fact that all three stayed at the toj meant that Viserys could not be the heir to Aerys; the only possible explanation was that there was someone at the toj with a stronger claim.  Otherwise, one or two of them would have hightailed it to Dragonstone, leaving the remaining one (or two) to fulfill whatever duty had them at the toj before they heard the news of Aerys' death.  Because those posters believed that R+L = J and that Jon was the only relative of Aerys present at the toj, that meant that Jon must have been born a king, and that Rhaegar and Lyanna must have entered into an unquestionably legitimate polygamous marriage.

Yes, exactly that was the prevalent argument on this matter once upon a time, and even then there was really no internal reason to assume that 'a Kingsguard always has to be with the king'. That was just an presupposition made to immunize the theory against criticism.

8 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Anyway, I had two problems with that theory.  First, it is just wrong (or, as you suggested, "absurd.").  For example, in the quote I posted from Corbon, he based the theory on Barristan Selmy's thoughts in ADWD.  But while Barristan was having those thoughts, his queen -- Dany -- was lost.  And he was her only KG knight.  If Barristan really thought she could not be without KG protection, he would have gone looking for her.  Instead, he sent someone else to look for her while he took over her kingdom and arrested her husband.  And there are lots of other reasons the theory does not work.  For example, long before FAB was published, I was arguing that it was absurd to think that no Targaryen king had ever traveled on dragon back without one of his KGs coming along for the ride.

The fact that Selmy effectively abandons his queen in ADwD is a thing I, too, brought up back then, but this whole thing was at times really some sort of closed system resisting new information. Very few people bothered to actually include stuff from newly published material at that time. I vividly remember how it was when TWoIaF revealed on how bad terms Rhaegar and Aerys II actually were, and that there was a prince's party and a king's party. A lot of people didn't want to hear that, because it made it very unlikely that the men at the tower - Ser Gerold included - where die-hard Aerys loyalists, never mind what the dream talk implies. This is where George has complete freedom now. The dream scene is a dream. He is not beholden to confirm it as a real memory should he ever decide to revisit Ned's confrontation with the knights in another detailed scene further down the line.

I'm rather confident that an objective vision of Bran's of the dream confrontation is going to have (much) different dialogue.

And, yes, if the KG ever operated the way people assumed back then then Selmy could not have possibly have arrested Hizdahr or presumed to take over Dany's government without becoming a traitor. Instead he should have either sworn fealty to Hizdahr zo Loraq as Dany's presumptive heir - if he assumed she was dead (the man is the king consort and as such the obvious successor of a childless queen) - or he should have gone out into the Dothraki Sea to go look for her. But he did neither. Despite the fact that once he actually tried to find his 'true king'. Apparently that's not some kind of general rule.

[Frey family reunion]

13 hours ago, corbon said:

Yep, thats a whole other kettle of fish.
I think there are other indications that Lyanna was at this particular tower, and its an accumulation of evidence that leads to those theories, not definitive evidence from this dream.

If we look at it objectively based solely on Ned’s own memories of the event, I’d argue that we should doubt that the tower would have been suitable for habitation.

Quote

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

For Ned to have pulled it down himself, makes me doubt that it was really suitable for habitation at least for the long term.  Let’s take the Queen’s Crown tower as an example.  Do you think based on it’s description Ned would have been able to single handedly have torn that tower down?

This in turn makes me doubt that there would have been a bed inside the tower.  My sense is that the tower itself was more a ruin than a full structure.

I don’t think there really is any evidence based on Ned’s memories at least that Lyanna was in the tower.  I think many assume she was in the tower to justify Ned and company arriving at the tower.  Yet I can think of several reasons, albeit darker, which would have taken Ned to the tower.  

And if the narration between Ned and the Kingsguards in the dream has any basis of reality, I think it appears that Ned was personally looking for these three Kingsguards starting at the time of the Battle of the Trident.  

[Megorova]

16 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So why shouldn’t we take Ned’s fever dream account literally?

After all the bit about fighting the three kingsguards is confirmed by Ned’s memory. And Lyanna extracting a promise from Ned on her death bed is confirmed in Ned’s memory.

So why does GRRM bother to remind the fan that dreams are not always literal?  

The one thing that Ned’s memory does not corroborate with the dream is chronology and geography linking the two parts of the dream.  The fan assumes that the second scene of the dream takes place at the same location and immediately after the first scene of the dream and thus puts Lyanna in the tower.

That's a very interesting observation

If Lyanna wasn't at the Tower of Joy, at the time of her death, then it's possible, that she gave birth to Jon in some different place, and when Ned was taking Jon away from there, that's when he was intercepted by Kingsguards. So could be, that Jon was born at Starfall, and also that's the place where Rhaegar brought Lyanna after he kidnapped her. This also explains possibility why Wylla from Starfall became Jon's wet nurse. Because at the time of his birth, she was there.

Starfall, being the place of Jon's birth, fits perfectly with the prophecy about Azor Ahai. So after Jon's birth, Ned traveled with him and Wylla, and possibly other people, thru Prince's Pass, and when they have reached the Tower of Joy, for some reason Ned was attacked by KG. Could be, that KG were also escorting little Jon, and, maybe, they were planning to reveal Jon's identity to citizens of 7K. Though Ned had promised to Lyanna, that he will protect her baby. And the easiest way to do that, was to claim, that the boy is his bastard. While an attempt to make him King, most likely, would have resulted in his death. Thus Ned had to kill those KG.

16 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

From the Ballad of Jon Barleycorn:

Maybe those KG were there not to protect Jon, but to kill him. They were KG, and it's their duty to serve to the King, whoever that King is. So Robert became King, and ordered something to Gerold Hightower, Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent. Either to find and bring Lyanna to him, or to return to King's Landing from whereever they were hiding. So after their return, Robert would have found out about Jon. That is, if those 3KG were with Lyanna thru most part of Rebellion. So to prevent them from returning to King's Landing, and revealing where they were, and what they were doing, Ned had to kill them. Or something like that. So when those three said, that they swore a vow, it wasn't about protecting Jon/King, it was about serving to another King - Robert.

 

[JNR]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, in fact, this is not only relevant for the Iron Throne. This might happen rather often in relation to lordly successions as well.

I not only agree, but I would scratch out "might," write in "does," and cite Robb's attitude re naming Jon his heir in ASOS, and the conflicts with that premise as directly expressed by Catelyn in the same chapter.   "What?!? A bastard?  You can't be serious..."

Succession and inheritance as a topic in this world is often fuzzier and more awkward than it seems.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Protecting Lyanna gave Rhaegar's buddies - and even Gerold Hightower - a good enough pretext and excuse not to be with Aerys II while still fulfilling their duty as Kingsguard

We shall see, but I would guess they were truer to Aerys than that.

I'll add that I do not and have never believed the app's account, in which the three KG, as well as Lyanna Stark (fiancee of Robert, sister of Eddard), twiddle their thumbs in the TOJ for months during the war as Aerys never leverages any of them to achieve any goal or improve his odds of beating Robert and retaining the throne. 

Somehow, according to  the app, Aerys is sane enough to take Elia hostage and thus control the Dornish, but it never occurs to him at the exact same  time to take Lyanna hostage or notify Robert and Ned he has.

[Bael's Bastard]

In the possession of Aerys's son and heir, and half of his Kingsguard, Lyanna is for all intents and purposes a hostage, and from the accounts of Robert and Bran, we have reason to believe that this is how the rebels saw it, whether or not Aerys had the capability to order them to harm her or bring her to him.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, JNR said:

I not only agree, but I would scratch out "might," write in "does," and cite Robb's attitude re naming Jon his heir in ASOS, and the conflicts with that premise as directly expressed by Catelyn in the same chapter.   "What?!? A bastard?  You can't be serious..."

That one also falls on the kingly level, so there seems to be more leeway there. But if we assume that Robb's kingdom has lasted until he had finally gotten an heir of his body - does anybody believe Jeyne's infant son would have been preferred over Rickon Stark, assuming he had been restored to Robb before his death? I don't think so. A baby king is not as worse as a child king. The cripple would have never been accepted as king or lord in any case. Not in the North where men follow strength and not boys who cannot get to the privy on their own.

1 hour ago, JNR said:

Succession and inheritance as a topic in this world is often fuzzier and more awkward than it seems.

The only guideline that seems to be widely accepted is that in the Andal kingdoms the eldest son inherits, and in Dorne the eldest child. That's about it. And even that can be questioned if this official heir person is a weakling or lackwit or otherwise unsuited to rule.

1 hour ago, JNR said:

We shall see, but I would guess they were truer to Aerys than that.

I don't buy a hostage scenario, but Lyanna certainly could have been Rhaegar's prisoner. He may have wanted to prevent her from interfering with his plans for Robert and Ned and the other rebels.

But those three guys still sucked as Kingsguard and failed their king and prince because thanks to whatever task they chose to do allowed Robert to slay Rhaegar and Jaime to murder Aerys II. If they had cared they could have just returned to court months ago, either with Lyanna or after dumping her at some castle where other people took care of her.

That they did not do this but rather something that was neither particularly helpful to their king nor particularly important in the middle of civil war is itself confirmation that they failed as Kingsguard if one were to assess Kingsguard quality on the basis of them actually protecting and saving their king.

In that sense, they failed spectacularly. And not exactly because they could not possibly have returned/gone to Aerys. Far to the contrary, actually.

They were as happy with being Lyanna's watchdogs as Arys Oakheart was with being Myrcella's sworn shield.

And nobody singles those three guys out as great KG, anyway. Jaime idolizes them for the way they lived, for their deeds they did when and before he joined the KG, he does not idolize them for their deaths.

And the claim that Ned's esteem for Ser Arthur Dayne has anything to do with him praising him as a Kingsguard and a knight is obviously a twisting of what he actually says. And when he talks about the Kingsguard as a shining example, he does not single out those three guys at all, he just reveals that he has bought the Kingsguard propaganda. We now know that Jaime and the thugs of Robert's and Joffrey's and Tommen's KG are no new developed. Such men also wore the white cloak during the reign of Aenys and Maegor, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Aegon II, and Aegon III. The Kingsguard usually are great warriors, but they are not necessarily good knights or even good people.

The idea that Ned likes those three guys specifically, because they supposedly 'died for their king' at the tower is laughingly hilarious. He only holds Arthur Dayne in high regard, and he never gives any indication that he thinks the Kingsguard were a shining example because they were dying for their king - much less for an infant and his mother whom they were 'protecting' from his/her own uncle/brother.

[corbon]

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

If we look at it objectively based solely on Ned’s own memories of the event, I’d argue that we should doubt that the tower would have been suitable for habitation.

For Ned to have pulled it down himself, makes me doubt that it was really suitable for habitation at least for the long term.  Let’s take the Queen’s Crown tower as an example.  Do you think based on it’s description Ned would have been able to single handedly have torn that tower down?

Ned is not single handed. He has at very least Howland Reed and many horses.
He is also doubtless a trained and experienced military engineer, as a war leader and also as a high noblemen expected to be skilled in the building and casting down of castles and fortifications.

I don't think this line of argument has any real foundation.

Quote

I don’t think there really is any evidence based on Ned’s memories at least that Lyanna was in the tower.  I think many assume she was in the tower to justify Ned and company arriving at the tower.  Yet I can think of several reasons, albeit darker, which would have taken Ned to the tower.  

His description of the (old) dream is that its about 3 white knights, a tower long fallen and lyanna in her bed of blood.

Quote

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood

Although the dream is interrupted by Vayon Poole, and we only see the three white knights before the tower (still standing), we get confirmation from his memories that he pulled down the tower from the dream, the one where his friends and the three KG died, and only he and Howland Reed survived.
Although we never see Lyanna in her bed of blood, thats what Ned thinks this old dream is about. Its the third descriptive element, and the most important, the most visceral, the most personal.
Thats enough to place Lyanna's bed of blood at the tower. We have three elements, we see the first, we find that the second is directly relevant to the first, and therefore so is the third. Its one dream, not three dreams.
We get further evidence that Howland Reed was one of those who found him with Lyanna dead in his arms, the only other survivor from the 7vs3 at the tower.
We get further evidence from his subconscious placing Lyanna screaming his name at the tower, even though thats probably not part of the 'memory' and not real. But it indicates his subconscious places her at the tower.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that there is no evidence placing Lyanna at the tower.

Quote

And if the narration between Ned and the Kingsguards in the dream has any basis of reality, I think it appears that Ned was personally looking for these three Kingsguards starting at the time of the Battle of the Trident.  

Thats a possibility, yes. But there's no reason that isn't a by-product of general circumstances rather than a specific search. Three of the most important people on the other side, he's bound to have been expecting them to have been somewhere, doing something significant. Yet it appears the war is over and they've not been doing anything significant. They were not in any of the important battles? Where were they? What were they doing? Were they raising more armies that need to be fought? These are important questions for a general in Ned's position. Doesnt mean he needs to specifically search for them though.

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Ned is not single handed. He has at very least Howland Reed and many horses.
He is also doubtless a trained and experienced military engineer, as a war leader and also as a high noblemen expected to be skilled in the building and casting down of castles and fortifications.

I think we’re getting a little carried away here.  First I don’t know what evidence that we have that Ned was a trained and experienced military engineer.  Secondly, do you think Ned would have taken the time and effort to hook up eight horses to try and bring down a large tower?  So he could make eight grave markers?  

And the text says nothing about Howland helping him take the tower down.   The quote specifically says that Ned pulled down the tower, not Ned and Howland.  

It seems pretty clear that Ned pulled down the tower by himself.  And the tower was just enough to create eight burial cairns for the fallen soldiers.  And while Cairns can be fairly simple to fairly elaborate, a cairn to mark a grave is usually a fairly simple pyramid of loose stones.  And if Ned had other pressing matters at hand, it seems highly unlikely that this process would have been terribly time consuming.  Considering Ned and Howland were also the only ones around to have dug the graves for the soldiers.

And there may be one other hint that the tower was nothing more than a ruin at the time of the tower of joy fight:

Quote

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

Now while, the tower long fallen could be a reference to the fact that Ned pulled the tower down, the reference could also be to the fact that the tower was long fallen at the time of the battle.  In other words does the tower long fallen reference the tower as it was at the time Ned had the dream, or does the “tower long fallen” refer to the state the tower was in at the time of the event depicted in the dream?

So perhaps the question should be, if the tower was a ruin, why were the Kingsguards present at the tower?  Why does Ned specifically refer to the stones of the tower as bloody?  Is it because Lyanna died of childbirth therein?  Is it because eight good (?) men died outside of the tower?  Or perhaps did the tower have a more sinister purpose?

[Lord Varys]

Somebody should edit the original posting of this thread, or at least make sure it is not repeated in the next version. There are number of things that are clearly wrong and/or questionable:

On 12/13/2017 at 6:23 PM, Ygrain said:

Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had the Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin).

Nobody ever mentions olive skin for either Baelor Breakspear or his son Valarr, nor is there any hint or information how Prince Matarys looked like. No need or reason for us to assume he came after his father in any way.

One could add other unusual Targaryen looks we got from FaB.

Quote

How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf?

He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves.

While people may have brought up this question, it is silly to actually connect direwolves and noble blood in the answer. Skinchangers can and do control all sorts of animals, they don't have to have 'special blood' to do that. They just do. And they can steal the animals of other skinchangers as Varamyr tells us.

Quote

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

Jon is not and never was the heir to the throne. That's flat-out wrong and not in accordance with the political and legal framework of the series.

To be an heir of anything the child would have to be recognized or named as such by either his father (who was, we assume, already dead when he was born) or his royal grandfather. This never happened. Even if Aerys II had not made his son Viserys his new heir after Rhaegar's death Lyanna's child would have still not been the heir to the throne after Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenys and Aerys II had died.

There is a reason why Tyrion Lannister is not the heir to Casterly Rock - Tywin did not name/acknowledge him as such.

Quote

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.

This point here confuses royal polygamy - i.e. polygamy done by actual kings - and polygamy done by members of the royal family - who are subject to the king's will as is everybody else.

Comparison to Daenerys Targaryen - who sees herself as a queen in her own right - do not apply to speculations about Rhaegar Targaryen - who never was a king.

But one can add here much more than just that.

Quote

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.

Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

The speculation about royal 'taking precedence' in relation to KG duty is officially dead and such stuff should not be repeated. As an argument it is pretty much completely irrelevant when dealing with the question whether Lyanna was a hostage. In fact, this has nothing to do with anything, considering that a hostage who was raped could have gotten pregnant, too.

Quote

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

This subject has been settled now since we actually do know more now. Kingsguard obey. They do not make kings, and they certainly don't tell the guys who are actually in charge that they are doing some kingsguarding now, regardless whether their employers want them to do that or not.

How Kingsguard see themselves or like to be seen by the world in their propaganda has nothing to do with how they are used at court.

Quote

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens) and in hindsightby maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see the next answer.

This is just blatant nonsense and a desperate, biased approach against things we can treat as facts.

Heir apparent vs. heir presumptive has nothing to do with the situation between sons and grandsons - that would be primogeniture vs. proximity - and there is not the slightest bit of evidence anywhere in the books that grandsons of sons who predeceased their fathers come before younger sons. That's just something somebody made up! And even before FaB we knew this was nonsense.

And the idea that Yandel's 'Lannister bias' - there is pretty much no such bias in the book, Baratheon bias, yes, (it is Robert who gets a chapter titled 'The Glorious Reign' not Tywin, Cersei, Joffrey, or Tommen) and by extension also a slight Lannister bias, but no Lannister bias as such - somehow caused him to invent him that Aerys II made Viserys his new heir is just laughable. That's an ad hoc excuse to actually discredit unpleasant information.

[corbon]

6 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think we’re getting a little carried away here.  First I don’t know what evidence that we have that Ned was a trained and experienced military engineer.  Secondly, do you think Ned would have taken the time and effort to hook up eight horses to try and bring down a large tower?  So he could make eight grave markers?  

Really?

He's a lord. A serious and conscientious one, who's job it is is to be capable of being in charge of both raising castles, and other fortifications, and destroying them. 
It s like saying there's no evidence Tywin ever had any training in war. That the correct placement of camps, sentries, scouts, outriders and other precautions just came naturally and automatically to him, with no training at all.

Building a castle is part of Bran's education from Maester Luwin, and Arya talks about building castles as one of the jobs she'd like to do until Ned tells her she's going to be a wife instead. 

And Ned's just finished a year long war.

So I think you should re-examine your statements here.

6 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And the text says nothing about Howland helping him take the tower down.   The quote specifically says that Ned pulled down the tower, not Ned and Howland.  

It seems pretty clear that Ned pulled down the tower by himself.  And the tower was just enough to create eight burial cairns for the fallen soldiers.  And while Cairns can be fairly simple to fairly elaborate, a cairn to mark a grave is usually a fairly simple pyramid of loose stones.  And if Ned had other pressing matters at hand, it seems highly unlikely that this process would have been terribly time consuming.  Considering Ned and Howland were also the only ones around to have dug the graves for the soldiers.

Ahh, the quote doesn't say he pulled it down alone. Just that he (Ned) had pulled it down. Like Tywin sacked Kings Landing, or Robert breached and stormed Pyke, or any number of other things. You can't reasonably claim that the casual use of his name here exempts him from having help.

And we don't know who else was around.
Only that out of the combatants, 7v3, only two remained. We don't know how many other non-combatants, wetnurse, cook, stablehand or any others. Probably few or none, but we don't know that.

6 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And there may be one other hint that the tower was nothing more than a ruin at the time of the tower of joy fight:

Now while, the tower long fallen could be a reference to the fact that Ned pulled the tower down, the reference could also be to the fact that the tower was long fallen at the time of the battle.  In other words does the tower long fallen reference the tower as it was at the time Ned had the dream, or does the “tower long fallen” refer to the state the tower was in at the time of the event depicted in the dream?

So perhaps the question should be, if the tower was a ruin, why were the Kingsguards present at the tower?  Why does Ned specifically refer to the stones of the tower as bloody?  Is it because Lyanna died of childbirth therein?  Is it because eight good (?) men died outside of the tower?  Or perhaps did the tower have a more sinister purpose?

The tower was referenced in the dream as 'round'. It was not referenced as 'fallen'.

[The Twinslayer]

7 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned is not single handed. He has at very least Howland Reed and many horses.
He is also doubtless a trained and experienced military engineer, as a war leader and also as a high noblemen expected to be skilled in the building and casting down of castles and fortifications.

I don't think this line of argument has any real foundation.

His description of the (old) dream is that its about 3 white knights, a tower long fallen and lyanna in her bed of blood.

Although the dream is interrupted by Vayon Poole, and we only see the three white knights before the tower (still standing), we get confirmation from his memories that he pulled down the tower from the dream, the one where his friends and the three KG died, and only he and Howland Reed survived.
Although we never see Lyanna in her bed of blood, thats what Ned thinks this old dream is about. Its the third descriptive element, and the most important, the most visceral, the most personal.
Thats enough to place Lyanna's bed of blood at the tower. We have three elements, we see the first, we find that the second is directly relevant to the first, and therefore so is the third. Its one dream, not three dreams.
We get further evidence that Howland Reed was one of those who found him with Lyanna dead in his arms, the only other survivor from the 7vs3 at the tower.
We get further evidence from his subconscious placing Lyanna screaming his name at the tower, even though thats probably not part of the 'memory' and not real. But it indicates his subconscious places her at the tower.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that there is no evidence placing Lyanna at the tower.

Thats a possibility, yes. But there's no reason that isn't a by-product of general circumstances rather than a specific search. Three of the most important people on the other side, he's bound to have been expecting them to have been somewhere, doing something significant. Yet it appears the war is over and they've not been doing anything significant. They were not in any of the important battles? Where were they? What were they doing? Were they raising more armies that need to be fought? These are important questions for a general in Ned's position. Doesnt mean he needs to specifically search for them though.

I pretty much agree with all of this, to the extent you are arguing that there is evidence in the books that places Lyanna at the toj at the time Ned fought the 3 KGs.  I'd add to your analysis the fact that in ADWD Barbry Dustin believes that Lord Dustin died and was buried at the toj and that she heavily implies that she believes Lyanna died at the same place. Personally, I am persuaded by this evidence.

That said, there are some suggestions that Lyanna died well before Rhaegar died and therefore prior to the deaths of the 3 KG.  For example, Ned tells Robert that he (Ned) was present when Lyanna died, meaning that Ned has told Robert about Lyanna's death.  Ned also says that Robert "avenged Lyanna at the Trident." 

You don't avenge someone who is still alive.  That is why we are also told that the Dornish "burn to avenge Elia and her children."  You avenge someone who is dead.  So when Ned tells Robert that he avenged Lyanna on the Trident, a reasonable reader could conclude that Lyanna died before Robert killed Rhaegar.  And because Ned told Robert that he was present at Lyanna's death, and we know that Ned was with Robert at the Trident, we can safely assume that (if Lyanna was dead prior to the Battle of the Trident), Robert knew that Lyanna was already dead when he slew Rhaegar.   

And since we know that Ned fought the 3KG at the toj after the Battle of the Trident, that would mean that Lyanna died quite some time before that fight.

Another factor is the fact that Ned arranged for Lyanna's bones to get back to Winterfell from wherever she died.  If she died in a castle, the Silent Sisters would have stripped her bones and they would have been sent back to Winterfell.  If, however, she was at the toj, Ned and Howland would have left her dead body lying around while they destroyed the tower, built cairns for 8 men, and transported the body from the toj to Starfell.  That would be rather smelly, not to mention unhealthy -- particularly if they were also transporting a newborn. 

And there are other facts that support an argument that Lyanna died prior to the Ned vs. KG fight. 

Notably, if that analysis is correct (which I don't personally believe), it does not destroy the R+L=J theory.  It just eliminates the actions of Hightower, Dayne and Whent from the analysis.  

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Somebody should edit the original posting of this thread, or at least make sure it is not repeated in the next version. There are number of things that are clearly wrong and/or questionable:

Nobody ever mentions olive skin for either Baelor Breakspear or his son Valarr, nor is there any hint or information how Prince Matarys looked like. No need or reason for us to assume he came after his father in any way.

One could add other unusual Targaryen looks we got from FaB.

While people may have brought up this question, it is silly to actually connect direwolves and noble blood in the answer. Skinchangers can and do control all sorts of animals, they don't have to have 'special blood' to do that. They just do. And they can steal the animals of other skinchangers as Varamyr tells us.

Jon is not and never was the heir to the throne. That's flat-out wrong and not in accordance with the political and legal framework of the series.

To be an heir of anything the child would have to be recognized or named as such by either his father (who was, we assume, already dead when he was born) or his royal grandfather. This never happened. Even if Aerys II had not made his son Viserys his new heir after Rhaegar's death Lyanna's child would have still not been the heir to the throne after Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenys and Aerys II had died.

There is a reason why Tyrion Lannister is not the heir to Casterly Rock - Tywin did not name/acknowledge him as such.

This point here confuses royal polygamy - i.e. polygamy done by actual kings - and polygamy done by members of the royal family - who are subject to the king's will as is everybody else.

Comparison to Daenerys Targaryen - who sees herself as a queen in her own right - do not apply to speculations about Rhaegar Targaryen - who never was a king.

But one can add here much more than just that.

The speculation about royal 'taking precedence' in relation to KG duty is officially dead and such stuff should not be repeated. As an argument it is pretty much completely irrelevant when dealing with the question whether Lyanna was a hostage. In fact, this has nothing to do with anything, considering that a hostage who was raped could have gotten pregnant, too.

This subject has been settled now since we actually do know more now. Kingsguard obey. They do not make kings, and they certainly don't tell the guys who are actually in charge that they are doing some kingsguarding now, regardless whether their employers want them to do that or not.

How Kingsguard see themselves or like to be seen by the world in their propaganda has nothing to do with how they are used at court.

This is just blatant nonsense and a desperate, biased approach against things we can treat as facts.

Heir apparent vs. heir presumptive has nothing to do with the situation between sons and grandsons - that would be primogeniture vs. proximity - and there is not the slightest bit of evidence anywhere in the books that grandsons of sons who predeceased their fathers come before younger sons. That's just something somebody made up! And even before FaB we knew this was nonsense.

And the idea that Yandel's 'Lannister bias' - there is pretty much no such bias in the book, Baratheon bias, yes, (it is Robert who gets a chapter titled 'The Glorious Reign' not Tywin, Cersei, Joffrey, or Tommen) and by extension also a slight Lannister bias, but no Lannister bias as such - somehow caused him to invent him that Aerys II made Viserys his new heir is just laughable. That's an ad hoc excuse to actually discredit unpleasant information.

I very much agree with this.  When the reference guide was first introduced, and again when it was edited after the world book came out, I did my best to eliminate some of these errors.  I believe @Rumham was heavily involved in those discussions (at least with respect to the post-world book edits), too.  But I definitely agree that it is time to revisit the "reference guide," both to eliminate historical errors and to incorporate new information from the post-world book publications.   

[SFDanny]

50 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

That said, there are some suggestions that Lyanna died well before Rhaegar died and therefore prior to the deaths of the 3 KG.  For example, Ned tells Robert that he (Ned) was present when Lyanna died, meaning that Ned has told Robert about Lyanna's death.  Ned also says that Robert "avenged Lyanna at the Trident." 

You don't avenge someone who is still alive.  That is why we are also told that the Dornish "burn to avenge Elia and her children."  You avenge someone who is dead.  So when Ned tells Robert that he avenged Lyanna on the Trident, a reasonable reader could conclude that Lyanna died before Robert killed Rhaegar.  And because Ned told Robert that he was present at Lyanna's death, and we know that Ned was with Robert at the Trident, we can safely assume that (if Lyanna was dead prior to the Battle of the Trident), Robert knew that Lyanna was already dead when he slew Rhaegar.   

And since we know that Ned fought the 3KG at the toj after the Battle of the Trident, that would mean that Lyanna died quite some time before that fight.

Another factor is the fact that Ned arranged for Lyanna's bones to get back to Winterfell from wherever she died.  If she died in a castle, the Silent Sisters would have stripped her bones and they would have been sent back to Winterfell.  If, however, she was at the toj, Ned and Howland would have left her dead body lying around while they destroyed the tower, built cairns for 8 men, and transported the body from the toj to Starfell.  That would be rather smelly, not to mention unhealthy -- particularly if they were also transporting a newborn. 

And there are other facts that support an argument that Lyanna died prior to the Ned vs. KG fight. 

Notably, if that analysis is correct (which I don't personally believe), it does not destroy the R+L=J theory.  It just eliminates the actions of Hightower, Dayne and Whent from the analysis.  

I very much agree with this.  When the reference guide was first introduced, and again when it was edited after the world book came out, I did my best to eliminate some of these errors.  I believe @Rumham was heavily involved in those discussions (at least with respect to the post-world book edits), too.  But I definitely agree that it is time to revisit the "reference guide," both to eliminate historical errors and to incorporate new information from the post-world book publications.   

Just a couple of things here. You avenge people for the wrongs done to them, and that can certainly include their deaths, but it isn't limited to dying. In the case of avenging Lyanna the conversation you reference is between Robert and Ned among the barrows of the First Men. In that conversation Robert speaks of "hundreds of times" Rhaegar must have raped Lyanna. So, no, vengeance isn't limited to a wrongful death. It can be for many wrongs.

We also know that Lyanna's death does not precede the Trident. We are told of the fight between Robert and Ned when at Robert's coronation Tywin presents the bodies of Elia and her children to the newly crowned king. That fight, we are told, isn't healed until after Lyanna's death.

Quote

Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the the war alone in the south. It had taken another death to reconcile them, Lyanna's death, and the grief they had shared over her passing. (AGoT 124)

We know Ned was with Lyanna when she dies from Ned's memories of Lyanna begging him to promise her something on her deathbed and how "they" had found him holding her dead body. By these things we can be sure Lyanna's death is after Ned leaves King's Landing. Martin also tells us that Ned did not take his troops with him into Dorne. Yet he does take them to relieve the siege of Storm's End. In fact we know Ned goes from Storm's End to Dorne and takes only six of his most trusted companions with him to do so. One of which is Howland Reed, who is named as finding Ned holding Lyanna's body. 

So, no, Lyanna died between the lifting of the siege and the trip to Starfall. And, in fact, as you so rightly point out she dies at the tower of joy. The same place in which his battle with Hightower, Whent, and Dayne takes place. Which we know takes place before Ned goes to Starfall because Ned brings Dawn to that city to return it to the Daynes after Ser Arthur's death.

The sequence of events in Ned's dream conversation in his encounter at the Tower of Joy is the sequence that is verified outside his dream, including Lyanna's death. The only "out of sequence" part of the conversation, if you can really call it that, is that Ned ends his questioning about Ser Willem, Rhaella, and Viserys's having gone to Dragonstone. That is obviously an ongoing event as well as being something that starts before King's Landing fell.

[Lord Varys]

I don't think it makes any sense to presume we know how many people were in the vicinity of the tower or how exactly Lyanna's flesh was removed from her bones. It may very well be that the Kingsguard were the only men at the tower when Ned arrived, but that doesn't tell us anything about the women who may have been there - septas, silent sisters, wetnurses, etc. With Lyanna dying her infant wouldn't have survived, either, if there hadn't been a wetnurse - Wylla, perhaps - to feed him.

And if there was no such wetnurse there then Ned would have to have acted quickly to get one from the next village, settlement, or keep or else watch his nephew die.

The idea that Ned could call on the help of local commoners to destroy the tower and dig the graves, etc. doesn't sound likely to me. The idea that the Lord of Winterfell and Warden of North actually personally tore down a tower and dug up a lot of graves while the corpse of his sister was slowly rotting under the Dornish sun sounds ridiculous to me. As does the idea that he and Howland personally carried Lyanna's stinking remains and a crying babe all the way to Starfall.

Lyanna Stark's remains would likely have been taken care of by some silent sisters or other people dealing with corpses in the vicinity of the tower, not half a world away.

If the Daynes know stuff about Jon Snow then either because Rhaegar/Lyanna/Arthur told them stuff before they all died and/or because Ned later told them (or only Ashara) what happened and who the infant he had brought with him was.

I've long maintained that Wylla may have been at the tower and only became the wetnurse of Edric Dayne after Ned had brought her to Starfall. Officially she became the boy's mother when in fact she was just his wetnurse, too. 

9 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

That said, there are some suggestions that Lyanna died well before Rhaegar died and therefore prior to the deaths of the 3 KG.  For example, Ned tells Robert that he (Ned) was present when Lyanna died, meaning that Ned has told Robert about Lyanna's death.  Ned also says that Robert "avenged Lyanna at the Trident." 

Oh, Ned speaks post hoc here. He knows that Lyanna did eventually die, so in his opinion the avenging may have preceded the actual death. But I take it Ned is just feeding Robert the idea here that he avenged Lyanna and her honor for being raped by Rhaegar - and then it does not matter that she was still alive. Her honor would have been restored. Sort of at least.

9 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I very much agree with this.  When the reference guide was first introduced, and again when it was edited after the world book came out, I did my best to eliminate some of these errors.  I believe @Rumham was heavily involved in those discussions (at least with respect to the post-world book edits), too.  But I definitely agree that it is time to revisit the "reference guide," both to eliminate historical errors and to incorporate new information from the post-world book publications.   

One could just as well delete all the stuff about how people imagine things to have unfolded at the tower and stuff. If the question is whether Jon is Rhaegar/Lyanna's child it is irrelevant what some Kingsguard did, etc. But then, I honestly doubt people continue to debate that question all that much considering we effectively already know that this thing is true. It hasn't been confirmed by George, but it has been confirmed.

In that sense - the only thing that remains here is debating the details around the mystery. And those are actually more world-building details and legal issues and the like and not really who are Jon's parents.

[The Twinslayer]

11 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Just a couple of things here. You avenge people for the wrongs done to them, and that can certainly include their deaths, but it isn't limited to dying. In the case of avenging Lyanna the conversation you reference is between Robert and Ned among the barrows of the First Men. In that conversation Robert speaks of "hundreds of times" Rhaegar must have raped Lyanna. So, no, vengeance isn't limited to a wrongful death. It can be for many wrongs.

We also know that Lyanna's death does not precede the Trident. We are told of the fight between Robert and Ned when at Robert's coronation Tywin presents the bodies of Elia and her children to the newly crowned king. That fight, we are told, isn't healed until after Lyanna's death.

We know Ned was with Lyanna when she dies from Ned's memories of Lyanna begging him to promise her something on her deathbed and how "they" had found him holding her dead body. By these things we can be sure Lyanna's death is after Ned leaves King's Landing. Martin also tells us that Ned did not take his troops with him into Dorne. Yet he does take them to relieve the siege of Storm's End. In fact we know Ned goes from Storm's End to Dorne and takes only six of his most trusted companions with him to do so. One of which is Howland Reed, who is named as finding Ned holding Lyanna's body. 

So, no, Lyanna died between the lifting of the siege and the trip to Starfall. And, in fact, as you so rightly point out she dies at the tower of joy. The same place in which his battle with Hightower, Whent, and Dayne takes place. Which we know takes place before Ned goes to Starfall because Ned brings Dawn to that city to return it to the Daynes after Ser Arthur's death.

The sequence of events in Ned's dream conversation in his encounter at the Tower of Joy is the sequence that is verified outside his dream, including Lyanna's death. The only "out of sequence" part of the conversation, if you can really call it that, is that Ned ends his questioning about Ser Willem, Rhaella, and Viserys's having gone to Dragonstone. That is obviously an ongoing event as well as being something that starts before King's Landing fell.

I don't want to get into a long back and forth about this because I agree that it is likely Lyanna died at the toj shortly after Ned fought the 3 KGs.  I do think, however, that this is a good example of the way GRRM writes things sufficiently vaguely that they are open to more than one reasonable interpretation.  

When Ned says that Robert avenged Lyanna, they are not talking about rape.  That discussion was 7 pages earlier (in my version).  Here is what Robert says right before Ned says Robert avenged her:  "Go down to into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon's honor!"

To me, that implies that Ned and Robert believe that Rhaegar is responsible for her death and that Robert killed Rhaegar after Lyanna died.  

Also, we are not told that the fight between Robert and Ned over the deaths of Rhaegar's children happens before Lyanna dies.  We are told that Ned and Robert reconciled when they grieved over Lyanna's death.  That would be true if the sequence played out like this:

• Rhaegar does something that makes Lyanna sick (she has a fever when she dies)
• Ned locates Lyanna, is with her when she dies.  Howland Reed and other friends of Ned find him holding her body and Howland takes her hand from Ned's. 
• Ned goes from that location to the Trident, sees Robert the morning of the battle, and tells him that Lyanna is dead and it's Rhaegar's fault.
• There's no time to mourn, because there is a battle to fight.  Robert goes into a berserker rage and kills Rhaegar, avenging Lyanna's death.
• Ned rushes immediately to King's Landing and gets there in time for the Sack. 
• Robert arrives later, is crowned, is given the dead Targaryen children by Tywin, and Ned and Robert have their fight. 
• Ned leaves that same day in a cold rage to fight the last battles of the war alone.  Presumably, this is Jon Arryn's idea to get Ned out of the city and to make sure someone competent leads the Barratheon forces into the final battles. 
• Ned and friends kill the 3KG, Ned goes to Starfall to return Dawn, and then goes to King's Landing.
• Ned and Robert are still angry with each other, but finally have a chance to mourn Lyanna's death together, and they are reconciled as a result. 

So while I share your interpretation of this particular issue, I believe it is possible that we are wrong and I won't be surprised if GRRM tells us Lyanna died before Rhaegar did.  He has certainly laid enough groundwork that he can do that credibly without having to retcon anything.