The Meereenese Knot started at the Tower of Joy in 2005

[The Map Guy]

4 minutes ago, dmfn said:

I think some of you are being pretty harsh. I've heard way stupider theories where people didn't bother to provide any kind of evidence and got less backlash than you're giving Map Man.

The Jon/Meera thing isn't only based on two curly-haired actors. Literally every character between the ages of 12 and 20 has been introduced as a possible 'somebody'.

And forcing a guy to defend Star Wars is just rude. I don't care how bad which movie sucked, Stars Wars is a billion dollar mega whore of an empire. Easily one of the most recognizable franchises in human history. The fact that I can't use the word 'force' and 'empire' in the paragraph without sounding like a pun should illustrate the point.

If GRRM fails to finish this series, or worse, finishes like an episode of Scoobie Doo where every missing person is a secret idenity/secret Stark/night king/queen bullshit character that you have to find in the appendix it will be forgotten in less time than it's taken me to write this.

 

Thank you dmfn...i needed that.

[kissdbyfire]

@The Map Guy, this idea has at least one more huge issue for me, apart from the absolute and complete lack of clues, hints, foreshadowing, whathaveyou in the first three books. 

You keep arguing thiat the year 2005 is sort of at the centre of it all b/c the SW prequel came out that year and sort of made Martin change the story b/c of it. You say these "coincidences" you use to back up your idea appear in AGoT, ACoK, and ASoS, but are completely absent in AFfC and ADwD b/c Martin "changed" his story. Well, mate, Feast came out in 2005, but it was written between 2000 (when ASoS was published) and 2005. See how it doesn't add up? If something in a film released in 2005 made Martin change his story, then AFfC wouldn't have been published in the same year. Being super duper optimistic, it would have taken Martin at least a couple of yrs to basically rewrite everything pertaining to this plot, and then possibly a bunch of other stuff as well, just so the book makes sense as a whole. 

[Lady Fevre Dream]

20 minutes ago, dmfn said:

I think some of you are being pretty harsh. I've heard way stupider theories where people didn't bother to provide any kind of evidence and got less backlash than you're giving Map Man.

The Jon/Meera thing isn't only based on two curly-haired actors. Literally every character between the ages of 12 and 20 has been introduced as a possible 'somebody'.

And forcing a guy to defend Star Wars is just rude. I don't care how bad which movie sucked, Stars Wars is a billion dollar mega whore of an empire. Easily one of the most recognizable franchises in human history. The fact that I can't use the word 'force' and 'empire' in the paragraph without sounding like a pun should illustrate the point.

If GRRM fails to finish this series, or worse, finishes like an episode of Scoobie Doo where every missing person is a secret idenity/secret Stark/night king/queen bullshit character that you have to find in the appendix it will be forgotten in less time than it's taken me to write this.

 

No one is 'forcing' anyone to defend Star Wars.  It was actually half of the OP, so how can it even make sense to complain about discussing it?  I didn't start out in here being harsh, I don't think I'm being harsh now, perhaps the give and take issue is about reply and response on both parts? 

And, I'm not sure on your point of putting down GRRM on the possibility of not completing the series (as far as I've noticed, that hasn't come up in this discussion other than by the OP, I know I haven't said anything about it one way or the other).  Then, to follow up in a complaint about secret Stark and Targs in an appendix for clarity to people that are complaining they don't see the sense, or the Star Wars comparison, in Meera having ever been a secret Stark/Targ. 

ETA:  Now I could use some of that rum. 

[The Fattest Leech]

20 minutes ago, dmfn said:

I think some of you are being pretty harsh. I've heard way stupider theories where people didn't bother to provide any kind of evidence and got less backlash than you're giving Map Man.

The Jon/Meera thing isn't only based on two curly-haired actors. Literally every character between the ages of 12 and 20 has been introduced as a possible 'somebody'.

And forcing a guy to defend Star Wars is just rude. I don't care how bad which movie sucked, Stars Wars is a billion dollar mega whore of an empire. Easily one of the most recognizable franchises in human history. The fact that I can't use the word 'force' and 'empire' in the paragraph without sounding like a pun should illustrate the point.

If GRRM fails to finish this series, or worse, finishes like an episode of Scoobie Doo where every missing person is a secret idenity/secret Stark/night king/queen bullshit character that you have to find in the appendix it will be forgotten in less time than it's taken me to write this.

 

I get this. I do. But speaking for myself about the hair issue, the OP said this theory started because of the show actors and he went from there. I was going by those words. 

In the show, the actors for Jon and Meera both have curly hair. In the books they look very different. I am not finding any connections between the two characters... besides Meera is Mera, and she is a spearwife, and she is a sea queen of sorts as Bran is/will be a “sea lord” with his greenseeing Magic’s. Each surviving  Stark boy has a spearwife. Bran and Daenerys are being developed as the ice and fire components, and maybe Meereen was named after Meera just for parallels sake between these two characters.  

 

[dmfn]

@Lady Fevre Dream

i'm not trying to put Martin down. I'm actually nerding out so hard I'm trying to find someone who'll ship me GoT comic books to China. but him not finishing ASOIAF is a frequent fear/topic in the fandom. 

i realize the show is the show but it's a good stand-in for how awful ASOIAF would be if left to someone else who isn't as invested emotionally as the creator is to finish it. 

Sorry to ruffle anyone's feathers

[Lady Fevre Dream]

3 minutes ago, dmfn said:

@Lady Fevre Dream

i'm not trying to put Martin down. I'm actually nerding out so hard I'm trying to find someone who'll ship me GoT comic books to China. but him not finishing ASOIAF is a frequent fear/topic in the fandom. 

i realize the show is the show but it's a good stand-in for how awful ASOIAF would be if left to someone else who isn't as invested emotionally as the creator is to finish it. 

Sorry to ruffle anyone's feathers

Fair enough, I just meant it really didn't come up in this thread, other than.......the mention of the long periods of time with the last two books, and don't get me started on the show.  Honestly, I don't try to be harsh to people, especially at first, LOL

[Davjos]

Once again I would like to start by saying I like your approach to the map and the practical clues in combination with (in my opinion quite weak) textual hints. However, AFFC was published first in the UK on October 17 2005, the SW3 RotS premiere was May 19 2005. Assuming GRRM saw RotS early, he had 5 months to write enough material to create a full book when he decided to remove the Meera Stargaryan storyline, get this new writings edited, finalised, printed, published. Knowing GRRMs writing speed, this seems highly unlikely. 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Its not a storyline of JUST separating Twins. THAT is generic.

Its the storyline of a tragic couple in love amidst a rebellion. The mother dies giving birth to twin prince and princess. Heroes separate the twins from the wrath of a new empire. The babies grow up not knowing their true identity.

THAT is bit more specific.

It is basically just a derivation of the secret prince trope, the huge part of which is not knowing their true parentage (Arthur, Aragorn). Plus, Luke and Leia are not born prince and princess, Leia only becomes a princes after being adopted by the Organas.

1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

Huh??  Anakin wasn't a King, Padme wasn't a Queen, or........wasn't at that time, I still don't quite get that part of it, other than an elected Queen. 

She was a Senator, the Queen was someone else at the time.

1 hour ago, dmfn said:

And forcing a guy to defend Star Wars is just rude.

No idea what you mean here.

 

59 minutes ago, The Map Guy said:

Tell me all this...all the clues I listed for R+L=J&M in my original post and on my map, coincidences after coincidences after coincidences after coincidences after coincidences.......are just plain coincidences and mean nothing.

They are not real clues, sorry. You have there symbols and metaphors which may, or may not, refer to any theory. You claim that RLJ is unproven in the same way but that is not correct, as it relies on facts, not metaphors or metamaps. 

- Lyanna died in a bed of blood, and we have a connection that bloody bed = birthing bed

- Ned has been living his lies for fourteen years, and at this point, Jon is fourteen

- Ned has some experience with secrets too dangerous to share, and the only secret we know him harbouring is who Jon's mother was

- his promises to Lyanna keep resurfacing all the time, as well as her connection to blue roses, which are eventually revealed to be her QoLaB crown from Rhaegar

 ...and so on. Those are facts stated on-page, not metaphors. Nothing you have stated for your case for Meera as Jon's twin so far is a fact that would fit somewhere, or contradict something seemingly established (just like Ned's claim that Jon's mother was some commonborn Wylla defies not just his personality but logic). The entirety of Ned's PoVs goes without a mention of anything that could hint at her existence; if you have any quotes from Ned's PoVs that you think support your case, then by all means post them. Discussing the maps or Star Wars is basically putting the cart before the horses.

[Magnus9]

Whether or not this pans out to be true (and we might never know, unless GRRM flat-out denies it) it is a very interesting and reasonable theory. Unlike a lot of them it rests on looking at the book through the lens of - they're books, not real events. Authors and writers change their books and scripts as events develop, especially multi-part ones. This is very much worth further thought and research in the text, not curt dismissal.

[The Map Guy]

1 hour ago, Davjos said:

Once again I would like to start by saying I like your approach to the map and the practical clues in combination with (in my opinion quite weak) textual hints. However, AFFC was published first in the UK on October 17 2005, the SW3 RotS premiere was May 19 2005. Assuming GRRM saw RotS early, he had 5 months to write enough material to create a full book when he decided to remove the Meera Stargaryan storyline, get this new writings edited, finalised, printed, published. Knowing GRRMs writing speed, this seems highly unlikely. 

Thanks

But again...my theory:

Before May 2005 - GRRM has R+L=J&M ready...either for AFFC or ADWD

May 19 2005 - Star Wars

May 29 2005 - GRRM announce omitting characters in AFFC

Between May to October 2005 - GRRM contemplates what to do with R+L=J&M...decides buy more time on his decision by pushing Jon & Bran chapters to ADWD

ADWD was suppose to come out in 2006 or 2007 since it was already ready, but it came out much later in 2011.

This leads me to believe that GRRM decided to cut R+L=J&M after October 2005 AFFC, and did a rewrite that cost another six years.

[The Map Guy]

44 minutes ago, Magnus9 said:

Whether or not this pans out to be true (and we might never know, unless GRRM flat-out denies it) it is a very interesting and reasonable theory. Unlike a lot of them it rests on looking at the book through the lens of - they're books, not real events. Authors and writers change their books and scripts as events develop, especially multi-part ones. This is very much worth further thought and research in the text, not curt dismissal.

Thank you for understanding!

Yes, real world situations definitely can impact a storyline of a fantasy saga

ASOIAF has been around for 22 years and you expect the author to keep the exact same story since the beginning? You expect no plot holes after 22 years?

Nothing is perfect

[The Map Guy]

2 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I get this. I do. But speaking for myself about the hair issue, the OP said this theory started because of the show actors and he went from there. I was going by those words. 

In the show, the actors for Jon and Meera both have curly hair. In the books they look very different. I am not finding any connections between the two characters... besides Meera is Mera, and she is a spearwife, and she is a sea queen of sorts as Bran is/will be a “sea lord” with his greenseeing Magic’s. Each surviving  Stark boy has a spearwife. Bran and Daenerys are being developed as the ice and fire components, and maybe Meereen was named after Meera just for parallels sake between these two characters.  

 

Yes I did mention this about the TV show, but I was trying so hard to find proof without any reference to the TV show...because i know this forum would burn me for it

[The Map Guy]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

@The Map Guy, this idea has at least one more huge issue for me, apart from the absolute and complete lack of clues, hints, foreshadowing, whathaveyou in the first three books. 

You keep arguing thiat the year 2005 is sort of at the centre of it all b/c the SW prequel came out that year and sort of made Martin change the story b/c of it. You say these "coincidences" you use to back up your idea appear in AGoT, ACoK, and ASoS, but are completely absent in AFfC and ADwD b/c Martin "changed" his story. Well, mate, Feast came out in 2005, but it was written between 2000 (when ASoS was published) and 2005. See how it doesn't add up? If something in a film released in 2005 made Martin change his story, then AFfC wouldn't have been published in the same year. Being super duper optimistic, it would have taken Martin at least a couple of yrs to basically rewrite everything pertaining to this plot, and then possibly a bunch of other stuff as well, just so the book makes sense as a whole. 

Basically Meera, via Bran Chapters existed in ACOK, ASOS, ADWD...skipping 2005 AFFC

Bran, Meera, and Jon had a 11 year gap between 2000 ASOS and 2011 ADWD.

In the middle is 2005 AFFC, which GRRM CHOSE TO OMIT Bran/Meera to BUY SOME TIME on how to address the twins issue and Star Wars.

ADWD was suppose to come out 2006 or 2007 according to GRRM's estimation, but it took 6 years in reality...hinting he probably did a re-write somewhere.

[The Map Guy]

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

It is basically just a derivation of the secret prince trope, the huge part of which is not knowing their true parentage (Arthur, Aragorn). Plus, Luke and Leia are not born prince and princess, Leia only becomes a princes after being adopted by the Organas.

She was a Senator, the Queen was someone else at the time.

No idea what you mean here.

 

They are not real clues, sorry. You have there symbols and metaphors which may, or may not, refer to any theory. You claim that RLJ is unproven in the same way but that is not correct, as it relies on facts, not metaphors or metamaps. 

- Lyanna died in a bed of blood, and we have a connection that bloody bed = birthing bed

- Ned has been living his lies for fourteen years, and at this point, Jon is fourteen

- Ned has some experience with secrets too dangerous to share, and the only secret we know him harbouring is who Jon's mother was

- his promises to Lyanna keep resurfacing all the time, as well as her connection to blue roses, which are eventually revealed to be her QoLaB crown from Rhaegar

 ...and so on. Those are facts stated on-page, not metaphors. Nothing you have stated for your case for Meera as Jon's twin so far is a fact that would fit somewhere, or contradict something seemingly established (just like Ned's claim that Jon's mother was some commonborn Wylla defies not just his personality but logic). The entirety of Ned's PoVs goes without a mention of anything that could hint at her existence; if you have any quotes from Ned's PoVs that you think support your case, then by all means post them. Discussing the maps or Star Wars is basically putting the cart before the horses.

I appreciate you trying to put me down gently, but if you are looking for facts, you came to the wrong place.

Half of these forums are about theories without facts, symbolism, metaphors or coincidences.

I feel like I brought in more than your average poster in regards to a theory....even if its just symbolism, metaphors and coincidences....a lot of coincidences....esp. a coincidental map dating back to probably 1991.

It may not convince you, but that not true for everyone else.

If you had an ex-bf that you bumped into at the supermarket as coincidence, and then again a hour later at the library as a coincidence, and then again a hour later at the cafe as coincidence, and then again a hour later at the train station as a coincidence....and again and again......how many coincidences do you need before you figure out he is intentionally stalking you?

 

And to be fair, everything you listed are just technically coincidences for R+L=J. The last part was just symbolism.

R+L=J is a fact when GRRM says it is a fact.

If GRRM comes out tomorrow with Alzheimer, and says R+L is really D.......we have to live with it and accept it.....no matter how many coincidences there were for R+L=J.

 

I already posted a quote from Ned in the original post.

Quote

"They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it."

- Eddard I, AGOT

Let's try this:

"[Ned & Howland] had found [Jon] still holding [Meera's] body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken [Meera's] hand from [Jon's]. Ned could recall none of it [at the moment because he was standing next to Robert in the Winterfell crypts]." 

This was Ned's brief flashback to ToJ while talking to Robert. Note word-arrangement that Howland took "her" hand from his, not "his" hand from her...quick symbolism that he took Meera.

 

And to add a cherry on top...what did Robert & Ned talk about immediately after? the very next paragraph?

Rhaegar and the Trident.......which is my strongest foreshadowing clue for R+L=J&M via the Ruby Map

 

Coincidence??

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

I appreciate you trying to put me down gently, but if you are looking for facts, you came to the wrong place.

Half of these forums are about theories without facts, symbolism, metaphors or coincidences.

I feel like I brought in more than your average poster in regards to a theory....even if its just symbolism, metaphors and coincidences....a lot of coincidences....esp. a coincidental map dating back to probably 1991.

Er... don't want to pull "rank" on you but I guess I've seen a bit more of the forums in my years here. Yes, a lot of symbolical or metaphorical stuff is talked here, and some seems really convincing, like the "corn code" - which GRRM dismissed when asked about it. 

The most robust theories, the ones that most people are buying into, are the ones which bring in "facts" from the books and arrange them in a way that makes sense so much that we are basically just waiting for GRRM to spell it out. RLJ, fAegon, Jon coming back to life... 

With the map interpretation, you have certainly brought in something I don't recall seeing before, but as for theories built on symbolisms and metaphors, I'm afraid that you would easily be outdone by pages and pages of symbolism supposedly confirming that Mance is Rhaegar, even though GRRM stated that Rhaegar was cremated.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

And to be fair, everything you listed are just technically coincidences for R+L=J. The last part was just symbolism.

Er, nope. The first parts are facts, the latter "coincidental" connections that can be made. The blue roses, if that's what you mean by the "last part", work on both levels, symbolic as well as factual, because Lyanna did indeed receive those roses from the guy who supposedly kidnapped and raped her.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

If GRRM comes out tomorrow with Alzheimer, and says R+L is really D.......we have to live with it and accept it.....no matter how many coincidences there were for R+L=J.

And the shitstorm over the lack of continuity will be even bigger than the current SW one.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

I already posted a quote from Ned in the original post.

Let's try this:

"[Ned & Howland] had found [Jon] still holding [Meera's] body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken [Meera's] hand from [Jon's]. Ned could recall none of it [at the moment because he was standing next to Robert in the Winterfell crypts]." 

Sorry, forgot to adress that one, and I'm afraid it doesn't work. The whole passage goes:

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it.

There are two problems with your interpretation: pronoun reference, and context. The whole paragraph is about Lyanna's death. She is the only female referenced in any way, so every she/her refers again to Lyanna. Another female as an object of the pronoun reference would have to be indicated somehow, at least in some veiled way. - Doesn't necessarily mean no other female was present, only that she is not referenced in this paragraph. 

Furthermore, when you refer to someone as their body, it usually means they are dead, which Lyanna is in this paragraph, not to mention the pesky pronoun reference, "her" body. It makes no sense to refer to a living child as a body, especially in such a context. The whole paragraph is consistent in its references, both pronoun and contextual (Lyanna's death), the only inconsistence being the bolded "they", the reference of which is not established but necessarily means that there must have been at least one other person except Howland.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

 Note word-arrangement that Howland took "her" hand from his, not "his" hand from her...quick symbolism that he took Meera.

Not really sure what you are trying to read into this. Ned and Lyanna were holding each other's hand. Lyanna held tight, then as she died, her clutch released but Ned continues to hold onto her until Howland makes him let go. There is nothing specific about the wording.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

And to add a cherry on top...what did Robert & Ned talk about immediately after? the very next paragraph?

Rhaegar and the Trident.......which is my strongest foreshadowing clue for R+L=J&M via the Ruby Map

The talk about Rhaegar and the Trident ensues naturally, as they go from Lyanna's death to the death of the guy whom Robert blames:

Ned could recall none of it. “I bring her flowers when I can,” he said. “Lyanna was … fond of flowers.”
The king touched her cheek, his fingers brushing across the rough stone as gently as if it were living flesh. “I vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her.”
“You did,” Ned reminded him.
“Only once,” Robert said bitterly.
They had come together at the ford of the Trident while the battle crashed around them, Robert with his warhammer and his great antlered helm, the Targaryen prince armored all in black. On his breastplate was the three-headed dragon of his House, wrought all in rubies that flashed like fire in the sunlight. The waters of the Trident ran red around the hooves of their destriers as they circled and clashed, again and again, until at last a crushing blow from Robert’s hammer stove in the dragon and the chest beneath it. When Ned had finally come on the scene, Rhaegar lay dead in the stream, while men of both armies scrabbled in the swirling waters for rubies knocked free of his armor.
“In my dreams, I kill him every night,” Robert admitted. “A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves.”
There was nothing Ned could say to that.

Not saying that it cannot signify something else, only that is is a natural flow of conversation and thought that absolutely doesn't need to have a hidden meaning. - Speaking of which, look at the last sentence: does it mean that Ned agrees 100%, or that he is hiding something from Robert and therefore cannot comment on the ouspilled hatred?

[Springwatch]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yes, a lot of symbolical or metaphorical stuff is talked here, and some seems really convincing, like the "corn code" - which GRRM dismissed when asked about it.

To be fair, corn code is a pretty extreme example - even I thought it was nuts.

If grrm ever says, 'no games and no wordplay', then I will sit up and take notice, I promise you.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

To be fair, corn code is a pretty extreme example - even I thought it was nuts.

If grrm ever says, 'no games and no wordplay', then I will sit up and take notice, I promise you.

Well, I wasn't buying into it, either, but those who did had lots of meta stuff which seemed to make a lot of sense to them.

Not saying that GRRM never goes meta. Only, good theories are always backed by more factual stuff, or you can find such backing in retrospect, e.g. with Red Wedding or Jon Arryn's murder. Meta stuff itself does not suffice, GRRM has never been shown to work that way.

[The Map Guy]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Er... don't want to pull "rank" on you but I guess I've seen a bit more of the forums in my years here. Yes, a lot of symbolical or metaphorical stuff is talked here, and some seems really convincing, like the "corn code" - which GRRM dismissed when asked about it. 

The most robust theories, the ones that most people are buying into, are the ones which bring in "facts" from the books and arrange them in a way that makes sense so much that we are basically just waiting for GRRM to spell it out. RLJ, fAegon, Jon coming back to life... 

With the map interpretation, you have certainly brought in something I don't recall seeing before, but as for theories built on symbolisms and metaphors, I'm afraid that you would easily be outdone by pages and pages of symbolism supposedly confirming that Mance is Rhaegar, even though GRRM stated that Rhaegar was cremated.

Er, nope. The first parts are facts, the latter "coincidental" connections that can be made. The blue roses, if that's what you mean by the "last part", work on both levels, symbolic as well as factual, because Lyanna did indeed receive those roses from the guy who supposedly kidnapped and raped her.

And the shitstorm over the lack of continuity will be even bigger than the current SW one.

Sorry, forgot to adress that one, and I'm afraid it doesn't work. The whole passage goes:

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it.

There are two problems with your interpretation: pronoun reference, and context. The whole paragraph is about Lyanna's death. She is the only female referenced in any way, so every she/her refers again to Lyanna. Another female as an object of the pronoun reference would have to be indicated somehow, at least in some veiled way. - Doesn't necessarily mean no other female was present, only that she is not referenced in this paragraph. 

Furthermore, when you refer to someone as their body, it usually means they are dead, which Lyanna is in this paragraph, not to mention the pesky pronoun reference, "her" body. It makes no sense to refer to a living child as a body, especially in such a context. The whole paragraph is consistent in its references, both pronoun and contextual (Lyanna's death), the only inconsistence being the bolded "they", the reference of which is not established but necessarily means that there must have been at least one other person except Howland.

Not really sure what you are trying to read into this. Ned and Lyanna were holding each other's hand. Lyanna held tight, then as she died, her clutch released but Ned continues to hold onto her until Howland makes him let go. There is nothing specific about the wording.

The talk about Rhaegar and the Trident ensues naturally, as they go from Lyanna's death to the death of the guy whom Robert blames:

Ned could recall none of it. “I bring her flowers when I can,” he said. “Lyanna was … fond of flowers.”
The king touched her cheek, his fingers brushing across the rough stone as gently as if it were living flesh. “I vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her.”
“You did,” Ned reminded him.
“Only once,” Robert said bitterly.
They had come together at the ford of the Trident while the battle crashed around them, Robert with his warhammer and his great antlered helm, the Targaryen prince armored all in black. On his breastplate was the three-headed dragon of his House, wrought all in rubies that flashed like fire in the sunlight. The waters of the Trident ran red around the hooves of their destriers as they circled and clashed, again and again, until at last a crushing blow from Robert’s hammer stove in the dragon and the chest beneath it. When Ned had finally come on the scene, Rhaegar lay dead in the stream, while men of both armies scrabbled in the swirling waters for rubies knocked free of his armor.
“In my dreams, I kill him every night,” Robert admitted. “A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves.”
There was nothing Ned could say to that.

Not saying that it cannot signify something else, only that is is a natural flow of conversation and thought that absolutely doesn't need to have a hidden meaning. - Speaking of which, look at the last sentence: does it mean that Ned agrees 100%, or that he is hiding something from Robert and therefore cannot comment on the ouspilled hatred?

 

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it.

I didn't want to nerd out in my original post because it would make it too long, but I think that line has three possible meaning.

Lets breakdown this paragraph

• Story L = Ned holding Lyanna's hands as she dies
• After that he remembered nothing.
• Story M = They...Howland had taken her hands
• Ned could not recall none of it

1st Scenario....is what GRRM wants us to believe

Story L + "After that he remembered nothing" + Story M + "Ned could not recall none of it"

Story M backs up Story L, "After that he remembered nothing" prepares readers for the line "Ned could not recall none of it"

Two Inconsistencies = Who are THEY? Why is it worded "Howland had taken her hand from his"...and not "his hand from her"?

 

2nd Scenario....R + L = J

Let's just assume the chronology of this flash back is Story M first, then Story L.

Example: What did you eat today? I ate pizza for lunch and I ate a bagel for breakfast.

Story M = [Ned & Howland] had found [Jon] still holding [Lyanna's] body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken [Lyanna's] hand from [Jon]. Ned could recall none of it [because Robert was standing next to him and he had to keep this secret promise].

Let's rearrange the original paragraph by this chronology:

Story M + Ned could recall none of it [because Robert was standing next to him and he had to keep this secret promise] + Story L + After that he remembered nothing *end story*

One Inconsistency = Why is it worded "Howland had taken her hand from his"...and not "his hand from her"?

 

3rd Scenario....R+ L = J & M

Same logic as 2nd scenario but add Meera

Story M = [Ned & Howland] had found [Jon] still holding [Meera's] body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken [Meera's] hand from [Jon]. Ned could recall none of it [because Robert was standing next to him and he had to keep this secret promise].

This scenario is probably even sadder...picturing two newborns next to their dying mother. Baby Jon big-spoons Baby Meera while holding her hands, protecting her already. Howland, takes Meera's hands away from Jon, and now Howland does the protecting.

NO Inconsistency. In fact, this gives Howland Reed's appearance more value in this sad flashback.

[Legitimate_Bastard]

I don't buy the twin argument. Like so many have said, no hard evidence. Interesting read though - cool idea.

 

 

[The Map Guy]

Thanks for reading, but a interesting read would be if people re-read some of the Bran/Meera chapters and discover the subtle clues, foreshadowing, and symbolism that can represent Meera as a Stark or Targaryen, and not really Howland's birth daughter.

I didn't want to list all of them because I wanted the re-readers to convince themselves, instead of me trying to convincing them.

In the paragraph after "At the foot of the hall, the doors open and a gust of cold air made the torches flame brighter for an instant" in Bran III ACOK, has a quick sentence suggesting Meera may not seem to be who she really is. There are one or two little things in each Bran/Meera chapter (except ADWD) where your initial instincts kick in and tells you this may be something for R+L=J&M.

No hard evidence you say? Jon & Meera shares the strongest hard evidence: timing. Ned & Howland were at TOJ, Jon & Meera are the same age. Jon has a lot of supportive POV chapters for more hints, like Ned, Catelyn, Jon...etc. Meera just has Bran's POV, and in fewer books, (and maybe one Theon POV).

Also, don't forget about the maps GRRM drew. I deciphered a 1996 drawing of GRRM, where essentially you buy one Targ-twins theory (Jon & Meera), you get another Targ-twins theory for free (Jaime & Cersei).

In my personal opinion, GRRM created Howland Reed innocently as the most important character in the ASOIAF story. Howland Reed deserves more story than just saving Ned from Arthur Dayne at TOJ.