Ashara, post Harrenhal possibilities

[The Twinslayer]

On 9/6/2018 at 4:06 AM, SFDanny said:

Perhaps it was too harsh, but it is accurate. I apologized for being too harsh, but I don't for my judgement on your points concerning this SSM. You come to this discussion with history on the subject, and it's, in my opinion, not good.

I am utterly confused by the suggestion that I have a "history" on this topic that is "not good."  Evidently you and I disagree on whether GRRM changed his mind about what he (allegedly) said in an email to a fan in 1999 and the time he published the world book fifteen years later.  I have explained my view on this clearly and it is based on a fair comparison of the e-mail and the text found in the world book.  I have also explained elsewhere why I believe that the information that e-mail provides about Jon's birthdate was likely discarded when GRRM chose not to include the information about Ashara in Storm of Swords.  It is a very reasonable theory; the only problem with it is that it challenges the timeline set out on the "reference guide" on the first page of the R+L=J page.  That isn't a history on my part that is not good.  That is just participating in an exchange of views on a discussion board. 

In fact, I have a hard time understanding how you think GRRM saying that Ashara "was one of Princess Elia's lady companions in King's Landing in the first few years after Rhaegar married Elia" but actually meant that Ashara "was one of Princess Elia's lady companions on Dragonstone in the first few years after Rhaegar married Elia, although they visited King's Landing during that period as well."  But I am prepared to assume that you have read the words and that that is really what you think they mean.

Regarding your asking if there is evidence that Ashara may have been present at Harrenhal after the start of the rebellion, I believe I provided it already, but here it is.  Barristan states that Ashara had a stillbirth and then threw herself off a tower "soon after."  Let's assume she was pregnant for 6-9 months prior to the stillbirth and that "soon after" means within a period of zero to three months.  That has her getting pregnant anywhere from 6-12 months before she supposedly died.  Let's further assume that she was alive and well when Ned arrived at Starfall after the end of the rebellion and that Ned arrived at Starfall 12-14 months after the start of the rebellion.  That means that Ashara became pregnant after the start of the rebellion, possibly as late as 8 months after the rebellion started.  

The rest is easy.  Barristan says that Ashara was "dishonored" and that it happened "at Harrenhal."  If the dishonoring led to the pregnancy that led to the (supposed) stillbirth, that means Ashara had to be present at Harrenhal when she became pregnant.  That places her "at Harrenhal" at some point between the beginning of the rebellion and eight months after it started.  

Note that I am not saying that this is definitive.  Barristan's musings are deliberately ambiguous.  It is possible, for example, that she was dishonored at Harrenhall before the rebellion started but only became pregnant later on, possibly even by someone different from the person who did the original dishonoring.  I don't think it is possible, however, that she became pregnant during the Harrenhal tournament and that the resulting stillbirth led her to throw herself off the tower.  That would have Barristan thinking of a period of well over a year as "soon after," which is too much of a stretch for me. 

I am also aware that there is an argument that "at Harrenhal" means "at Harrenhal during the Year of the False Spring."  That is one possible way to read it, but it is far from the only way to read it, since many things are described as happening"at Harrenhal" (using that exact phrase) both before and after Lord Whent's tournament.       

 

[SFDanny]

On 9/11/2018 at 12:34 PM, The Twinslayer said:

I am utterly confused by the suggestion that I have a "history" on this topic that is "not good."  Evidently you and I disagree on whether GRRM changed his mind about what he (allegedly) said in an email to a fan in 1999 and the time he published the world book fifteen years later.  I have explained my view on this clearly and it is based on a fair comparison of the e-mail and the text found in the world book.  I have also explained elsewhere why I believe that the information that e-mail provides about Jon's birthdate was likely discarded when GRRM chose not to include the information about Ashara in Storm of Swords.  It is a very reasonable theory; the only problem with it is that it challenges the timeline set out on the "reference guide" on the first page of the R+L=J page.  That isn't a history on my part that is not good.  That is just participating in an exchange of views on a discussion board. 

In fact, I have a hard time understanding how you think GRRM saying that Ashara "was one of Princess Elia's lady companions in King's Landing in the first few years after Rhaegar married Elia" but actually meant that Ashara "was one of Princess Elia's lady companions on Dragonstone in the first few years after Rhaegar married Elia, although they visited King's Landing during that period as well."  But I am prepared to assume that you have read the words and that that is really what you think they mean.

Regarding your asking if there is evidence that Ashara may have been present at Harrenhal after the start of the rebellion, I believe I provided it already, but here it is.  Barristan states that Ashara had a stillbirth and then threw herself off a tower "soon after."  Let's assume she was pregnant for 6-9 months prior to the stillbirth and that "soon after" means within a period of zero to three months.  That has her getting pregnant anywhere from 6-12 months before she supposedly died.  Let's further assume that she was alive and well when Ned arrived at Starfall after the end of the rebellion and that Ned arrived at Starfall 12-14 months after the start of the rebellion.  That means that Ashara became pregnant after the start of the rebellion, possibly as late as 8 months after the rebellion started.  

The rest is easy.  Barristan says that Ashara was "dishonored" and that it happened "at Harrenhal."  If the dishonoring led to the pregnancy that led to the (supposed) stillbirth, that means Ashara had to be present at Harrenhal when she became pregnant.  That places her "at Harrenhal" at some point between the beginning of the rebellion and eight months after it started.  

Note that I am not saying that this is definitive.  Barristan's musings are deliberately ambiguous.  It is possible, for example, that she was dishonored at Harrenhall before the rebellion started but only became pregnant later on, possibly even by someone different from the person who did the original dishonoring.  I don't think it is possible, however, that she became pregnant during the Harrenhal tournament and that the resulting stillbirth led her to throw herself off the tower.  That would have Barristan thinking of a period of well over a year as "soon after," which is too much of a stretch for me. 

I am also aware that there is an argument that "at Harrenhal" means "at Harrenhal during the Year of the False Spring."  That is one possible way to read it, but it is far from the only way to read it, since many things are described as happening"at Harrenhal" (using that exact phrase) both before and after Lord Whent's tournament.       

 

What I have a hard time understanding is how one can so totally misread the meaning of the most common words in the english language and build a entire fanciful theory about the author's intent based on distorting what the author said. I have a hard time understanding that when others point this out, instead of correcting your theory, you not only continue to push this distortion but use it to claim it proves totally unrelated statements by the author are also disproven. This is not then a discussion of what could or could not have been changed following the 1999 SSM. I'd love to have that discussion. This is a continual pushing of nonsense as proven truth. That's what I mean by your "history" on this subject. 

In the context of this discussion, I laid out the the scanty evidence we have for Ashara's post Harrenhal whereabouts. Because the author has given us so few points we can be sure of about her locations, all of which works very well with Martin's statement of Ashara not being "nailed to the floor", it is exceedingly interesting to read other's ideas of just where they think she was during this period. I include in that your own speculation about a possible trip back to Harrenhal. But, Twinslayer, if you want others to accept , as you so desperately seem to, that Martin changed his mind about Ashara not being "nailed to the floor" you need to provide evidence that he did so. Where does he provide a even a hint that Ashara was in Dorne, or Starfall, for the entirety of this time? He doesn't. In fact, your own Harrenhal speculation shows you don't think he did as well.

The spirit of this thread is entirely speculative, so it is great to have anyone's ideas about what could have gone on during this time. I prefer speculation based on evidence, but any ideas are welcome. If, however, you want to dispute the meaning of common english words, or make claims the words of the author are no longer relevant, that needs much more than speculation. It needs proof, not distortions of it.

 

[The Map Guy]

On 9/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, Ygrain said:

Oh? And where does it say that Brandon was her first? Or that she saw their affair as more than just a tumble with a hottie?

Sorry for the delayed reply.

Barristan said Ashara, a maid, was dishonored at Harrenhal, possibly by a Stark...so its either Ned or Brandon. We are continuing this debate by assuming it was Brandon, and Brandon would be her first.

My apologies, there is nothing stating that Brandon would be Ashara's "only". But in some Arya Chapter in ASOS, "She was the only one he ever loved".....meaning Brandon loved Ashara even though she was not the first woman he has been with. Brandon and Ashara had a real love story, (at least from Brandon's side).

 

On 9/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, Ygrain said:

Agreed - but 99% out of next to zero is still next to zero...

Thanks for acknowledging the Dungeon Sex Theory is not impossible. I just feel it is more probable. Ashara is in the same city, during the same time, at the same castle, with good connections, and given weeks, not days...and more importantly: consistent plot motive from what happened at the Tourney.....this is what GRRM gives us. The rest is our imaginations......unless you want GRRM to also say she knew the dungeon guards too, but that would be too obvious.

This Dungeon Sex Theory addresses every point we know about Ashara, especially timing. The whole theme of Ashara is Stark Honor....and how it was not really that honorable, considering what Brandon did, and what Lyanna did with Rhaegar. It's about ditching honor for love. The only Stark that was honorable the whole entire time is Ned.

Also, this Dungeon Sex Theory assumes Brandon never met Ashara for a quickie before he was imprisoned while in King's Landing, and Brandon & Ned had similar dungeon-living conditions. Brandon might of had it easier, who knows.

On 9/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, Ygrain said:

Plus, you haven't elaborated how Ashara came to know the secret tunnels.

I'll retract this statement since there is no proof. But everything else that was mentioned above would still suffice.

 

On 9/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, Ygrain said:

I wouldn't know, a quickie would be like the last thing on my mind.

Brandon didn't think he would die, killing him would spark a war. It is the same parallel with Ned. At worse, he may be given a chance to take the black. And if he takes the black, he would be released from his betrothal to Catelyn. With your lover feeding and cleaning you in a dungeon, this may be the last few times to make love with your lover before you take the black. (Unfortunately for Ned's dungeon parallel, he ain't getting any from Varys.)

 

Something to think about, from Ned's Dungeon POV Chapter in AGOT, Varys says:

"...why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones. Ponder it, if you would, while you wait upon the queen. And a spare thought for this as well: the next visitor who calls on you could bring you bread and cheese and the milk of the poppy for your pain....or he could bring you Sansa's head."

Re-worded to match Brandon's dungeon parallel:

"...why is it always the (young betrothed's without real love) who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones. Ponder it, if you would, while you wait upon (King Aerys). And a spare thought for this as well: the next visitor who calls on you could bring you bread and cheese and the milk of the poppy, (and dungeon sex) for your pain....or (another) could bring you (Lyanna's) head."

....spare a thought

[SFDanny]

On 9/11/2018 at 5:09 AM, Lord Varys said:

I don't think this would have been difficult. Yes, Elia and the children were kept in Maegor's Holdfast, and there no tunnels in the walls there, but we know from Sansa's example that hostages can get out of there and walk around the castle. All Varys needed to do was to make contact with Elia (say, when she was summoned into the king's presence or via some servant) and then have her bring the child and meet him at a secure location.

If Littlefinger can smuggle Sansa out of the Red Keep with the help of Dontos Hollard then Varys sure as hell could have swapped a toddler with the help of the boy's mother.

One should also not underestimate the amount of real power Varys may have wielded as the king's trusted Master of Whisperers. People may have been very aware that antagonizing Varys leads to you facing the champion of House Targaryen the next day.

The fact that Varys apparently remained in KL despite the wildfire plan is a problem in any scenario - after all, it is considerable distance from the Red Keep to the harbor, and if Aerys had commanded to first ignite the wildfire beneath the Red Keep for some mad reason, Varys wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

But then - as I said above, it is not unlikely that Varys used/counted on Jaime to prevent the wildfire plan, and/or had other means in place to prevent it. It shouldn't have been that difficult considering that only real maniacs would have really wanted to burn the city they all lived in. In the end, most likely, only Aerys II himself and Rossart and some of the other pyromancer leaders. One assumes that the average pyromancers just did as they were told (Hallyne has no idea what his predecessors did during Aerys' days) and the servants moving the jars were not told what they were for or what the guys in charge intended to do with them.

All Varys would have needed to do is to have men in place to prevent the execution of such plans. Say, whoever Aerys may have sent down to ignite the wildfire beneath the Red Keep may have met a similar fate as Kevan and Pycelle did in ADwD.

I am confident Varys had plans to save himself from the wildfire plot if it actually is ordered. Which also implies I think he would have known about it. But Varys is generally free to come and go as he pleases throughout King's Landing and the Red Keep, within certain restrictions most importantly related to the King's presence and his orders, and Elia and her children are hostages who do not have that luxury. There is also nothing to indicate Varys is in anyway in charge of keeping Elia and her children in their confinement. Unless they are in the black cells at this point. Yet we know they are not in the black cells when Ser Gregor and Ser Amory break down the doors. 

Now, that, of course, doesn't mean Varys would not have spies watching the coming and goings from Elia's quarters. In fact, I would count on it. He may have guards who he has either blackmailed or bribed to do as he orders them to do. But he is very likely not in charge of their confinement.

So, yes, he could have done this, if Elia goes along with it. Is it easy? No. Aerys's obviously is given much of his attention to keeping Elia and her children close to him. Not only in denying them passage to Dragonstone, but also in the designation of Viserys as his heir. The paranoid delusions of the king about "Dornish betrayal" weigh heavily on his mind in the last days of his life. I doubt he doesn't pay attention to Elia and her children's confinement. The last thing Varys would want is to be caught helping Aegon escape. That would mean his torture and death.

Your comparison to Littlefinger's plot with Ser Dontos and Sansa is rather mistaken, in my opinion. Littlefinger has literally months to plan this and put in place all the myriad pieces of the plot to make it happen. Varys has perhaps days. But that is just another obstacle in the way of this likely happening, which I think we both think unlikely.

 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Barristan said Ashara, a maid, was dishonored at Harrenhal, possibly by a Stark...so its either Ned or Brandon. We are continuing this debate by assuming it was Brandon, and Brandon would be her first.

My apologies, there is nothing stating that Brandon would be Ashara's "only". But in some Arya Chapter in ASOS, "She was the only one he ever loved".....meaning Brandon loved Ashara even though she was not the first woman he has been with. Brandon and Ashara had a real love story, (at least from Brandon's side).

I think you are mistaking a quote of Arya's about her mother and father. 

Quote

He looked at her uncomfortably. "My aunt Allyria says Lady Ashara and your father fell in love at Harrenhal -"

"That's not so. He loved my lady mother."

"I'm sure he did, my lady, but -"

"She was the only one he loved." (ASoS 495) bold emphasis added

This is Arya speaking about her father and mother, not Brandon and Ashara.

 

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Ashara is in the same city, during the same time, at the same castle, with good connections, and given weeks, not days...and more importantly: consistent plot motive from what happened at the Tourney.....this is what GRRM gives us. The rest is our imaginations......unless you want GRRM to also say she knew the dungeon guards too, but that would be too obvious.

This Dungeon Sex Theory addresses every point we know about Ashara, especially timing. The whole theme of Ashara is Stark Honor....and how it was not really that honorable, considering what Brandon did, and what Lyanna did with Rhaegar. It's about ditching honor for love. The only Stark that was honorable the whole entire time is Ned.

Actually, as I tried to show, we don't know that Ashara was in King's Landing at this time. The likelihood points to her being on Dragonstone while Elia recovers from Aegon's birth when Brandon rides in with his companions and is taken prisoner. Which certainly calls into question your claim that timing supports the Dungeon Sex Theory. We can't say for sure, but the evidence of the duties as lady companion and Elia's location are against it. Now, perhaps the dishonor at Harrenhal has her immediately dismissed from Elia's company, but we don't know that.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Brandon didn't think he would die, killing him would spark a war. It is the same parallel with Ned. At worse, he may be given a chance to take the black. And if he takes the black, he would be released from his betrothal to Catelyn. With your lover feeding and cleaning you in a dungeon, this may be the last few times to make love with your lover before you take the black. (Unfortunately for Ned's dungeon parallel, he ain't getting any from Varys.)

Killing Brandon and Rickard did not spark a war. It is only when Jon Arryn is commanded to give him Ned's and Robert's heads that he raises his banners in rebellion. Lord Arryn does so because these men are foster children he had pledged to care for. While I have no doubt Jon would like to rebel before that, he doesn't do so. By the way, that when Jon does this, and when Aerys sends his command may tell us the timing of Elbert Arryn's death. He may still be a hostage when the message is sent with the thought this would make Lord Arryn kill Ned and Robert to get his own heir back. That Jon refuses this blackmail tells us a lot about his character.

[Bael's Bastard]

8 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Killing Brandon and Rickard did not spark a war. It is only when Jon Arryn is commanded to give him Ned's and Robert's heads that he raises his banners in rebellion. Lord Arryn does so because these men are foster children he had pledged to care for. While I have know doubt Jon would like to rebel before that, he doesn't do so. By the way, that when Jon does this, and when Aerys sends his command may tell us the timing of Elbert Arryn's death. He may still be a hostage when the message is sent with the thought this would make Lord Arryn kill Ned and Robert to get his own heir back. That Jon refuses this blackmail tells us a lot about his character.

I used to assume that as well, but I don't think we know enough to say with certainty that there was enough of a gap, or any gap at all, between Jon receiving word of the execution of Rickard and Brandon, and Jon receiving Aerys's command to execute Ned and Robert, for him to have chosen not to rebel over the executions of Rickard and Brandon, then chosen to rebel over Aerys's command to execute Ned and Robert.

Catelyn certainly recalls that Jon raised his banners in revolt against Aerys rather than give up those he had pledged to protect, and we have no reason to doubt that. But that is not incompatible with the possibility that Jon received a message from Aerys that contained both word of his execution of Rickard and Brandon, and his command that Jon send him the heads of Ned and Robert, and perhaps an ultimatum including a still-alive Elbert.

I hadn't considered the possibility that Elbert was still alive when Aerys commanded Jon to send him the heads of Robert and Ned, but that would make a lot of sense, and would put Jon in a much more difficult position. I suspect Jon had already concluded that Elbert would never make it out alive, but for him to be forced to make the call between Elbert's life and the lives of Ned and Robert makes it all the more dramatic.

[The Map Guy]

45 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I think you are mistaking a quote of Arya's about her mother and father. 

Its part of the general Brandon & Ashara theory.

Ned Dayne was talking to Arya about how Ned Stark and Ashara fell in love. He heard this story from Allyria Dayne, who probably heard it from Ashara's mouth.

The following paragraph, Arya asked if "Dornishmen are liars." The response she gets is that "they are famous for it."

Even though Arya is thinking that Ned Dayne is liar, it also can mean the story Allrya told is a lie...or perhaps the story Ashara told Allyria was a lie.

Being sisters, big sister told little sister a lie about her crush being Ned Stark. If Brandon was the actual crush, and Ashara admitted it, it would have brought Brandon and Ashara dishonor, since Brandon was betrothed to another. Saying Ned Stark was her crush had no repercussions....which was also brought up in same paragraph of that chapter.

55 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

This is Arya speaking about her father and mother, not Brandon and Ashara.

Yes, you are right....but for the reason I listed above, swap Ned for Brandon in this pronoun game.

 

56 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Actually, as I tried to show, we don't know that Ashara was in King's Landing at this time. The likelihood points to her being on Dragonstone while Elia recovers from Aegon's birth when Brandon rides in with his companions and is taken prisoner. Which certainly calls into question your claim that timing supports the Dungeon Sex Theory. We can't say for sure, but the evidence of the duties as lady companion and Elia's location are against it. Now, perhaps the dishonor at Harrenhal has her immediately dismissed from Elia's company, but we don't know that.

I thought you said your TWIOAF calculations made it possible that Ashara was in King's Landing at the time. Regardless, I'm using the SSM as a referencing point.

 

 

 

[The Map Guy]

FYI, the Dungeon Sex Theory is not my theory...its something that has been mentioned in previous forums over the years.

It just makes the most sense to me. It addresses everything we know about Ashara AND Brandon, and it tells a GREAT secret story, with multiple matching parallels.

Theory doesn't get the attention of the R+L=J theory because B+A=stillborn has no future to the story of ASOIAF.

R+L=J has a future story with Jon Snow.

B+A=stillborn is a side-story addressing the honorable Starks.

The Stark family is infamous for their honor. But when their honor is actually tested (like a betrothal), they abandon their honor for love. We see this with Lyanna (if she really ran away with Rhaegar), we this with Robb Stark, we probably see this in Brandon Stark.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I am confident Varys had plans to save himself from the wildfire plot if it actually is ordered. Which also implies I think he would have known about it. But Varys is generally free to come and go as he pleases throughout King's Landing and the Red Keep, within certain restrictions most importantly related to the King's presence and his orders, and Elia and her children are hostages who do not have that luxury. There is also nothing to indicate Varys is in anyway in charge of keeping Elia and her children in their confinement. Unless they are in the black cells at this point. Yet we know they are not in the black cells when Ser Gregor and Ser Amory break down the doors. 

We don't know whether Elia still had the freedom of the castle or not - like Sansa did, even after her entire family was rebelling against the Iron Throne. If she did, this would have been a non-issue. Even if not - it is not that far-fetched to believe Varys found a way to get to her and her child. If it was deemed completely impossible that nobody in Westeros would buy the Aegon story.

Quote

Now, that, of course, doesn't mean Varys would not have spies watching the coming and goings from Elia's quarters. In fact, I would count on it. He may have guards who he has either blackmailed or bribed to do as he orders them to do. But he is very likely not in charge of their confinement.

That wasn't my point. The point was that while neither Varys nor his little birds could sneak into Elia's apartments unseen, there are many scenarios imaginable how he could have contacted Elia and swapped the children.

Quote

So, yes, he could have done this, if Elia goes along with it. Is it easy? No. Aerys's obviously is given much of his attention to keeping Elia and her children close to him. Not only in denying them passage to Dragonstone, but also in the designation of Viserys as his heir. The paranoid delusions of the king about "Dornish betrayal" weigh heavily on his mind in the last days of his life. I doubt he doesn't pay attention to Elia and her children's confinement. The last thing Varys would want is to be caught helping Aegon escape. That would mean his torture and death.

Actually, this is not necessarily true. It is even imaginable that Aerys II knew about the swapped children if the whole thing was a last minute effort to ensure the survival of two male branches of House Targaryen. But even if this wasn't the case - if Varys was caught he could still claim he was acting in Aerys' best interest. After all, he did not smuggle all of Rhaegar's family out of the castle, did he? Elia and Rhaenys would have still sufficed as hostages against Dorne, no?

Quote

Your comparison to Littlefinger's plot with Ser Dontos and Sansa is rather mistaken, in my opinion. Littlefinger has literally months to plan this and put in place all the myriad pieces of the plot to make it happen. Varys has perhaps days. But that is just another obstacle in the way of this likely happening, which I think we both think unlikely.

Littlefinger has a note in Sansa's room in Maegor's Holdfast days immediately after Tyrion makes him the fake offer. Originally, he wanted to take Sansa with him when he left KL for the Vale in ACoK. That led nowhere because Tyrion had lied to him. If Littlefinger can deliver such a message to Sansa, then Varys could deliver a similar message to Elia.

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I used to assume that as well, but I don't think we know enough to say with certainty that there was enough of a gap, or any gap at all, between Jon receiving word of the execution of Rickard and Brandon, and Jon receiving Aerys's command to execute Ned and Robert, for him to have chosen not to rebel over the executions of Rickard and Brandon, then chosen to rebel over Aerys's command to execute Ned and Robert.

Catelyn certainly recalls that Jon raised his banners in revolt against Aerys rather than give up those he had pledged to protect, and we have no reason to doubt that. But that is not incompatible with the possibility that Jon received a message from Aerys that contained both word of his execution of Rickard and Brandon, and his command that Jon send him the heads of Ned and Robert, and perhaps an ultimatum including a still-alive Elbert.

If I recall correctly, it is me who believes in the STAB conspiracy, right? I just don't think the prewar conspiracy includes going to war for each other against the throne. So, if there isn't a conspiracy that includes such an agreement, then why would Lord Arryn raise his banner because another Hight Lord and his heir are killed by the king's justice to which all of them are pledged to follow? I think any High Lord would be outrage at such a judgement, but that's a huge step to go war for the North, especially if Elbert is still alive. I would note that no High Lord raises his banners in rebellion over the captivity of Brandon's party. Even the North submits to Aerys's judgement. Like you, I think Catelyn's judgment is right. No matter the timing of the news, Jon cannot break faith with his pledge to protect his foster sons. 

I would also point to Hoster Tully's reaction to this. It is his daughter's  betrothed that is killed, yet he does not go to war until there is a pledge for a wedding of both of his daughters to the Lords Stark and Arryn. And notice these marriages are not put off to the end of the war. Perhaps Jon's relationships with Rickard and Brandon are different, but we don't know that they are. What we know is he has a foster parent relationship with Ned and Robert that we are told is the reason for the rebellion.

A side note here is that I'm fascinated with why Aerys issues his demand for Ned and Robert's heads. Why? Especially Robert's. Has either Robert or Ned done something to give Aerys cause to demands their deaths? Is it because word reaches King's Landing that the two are going to raise their banners in rebellion in response to Rickard and Brandon's deaths? If so, we have a time difference between the news of Brandon and Rickard's death and Aery's demand for Ned and Robert's heads. If it is because the marriage betrothal between House Stark and House Baratheon then why no call for Hoster Tully to submit to the King's judgement?

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I hadn't considered the possibility that Elbert was still alive when Aerys commanded Jon to send him the heads of Robert and Ned, but that would make a lot of sense, and would put Jon in a much more difficult position. I suspect Jon had already concluded that Elbert would never make it out alive, but for him to be forced to make the call between Elbert's life and the lives of Ned and Robert makes it all the more dramatic.

I think it makes the most sense. Hopefully we will find out some answers soon.

[Lord Varys]

@SFDanny & @Bael's Bastard

When we talk about the cause of the war then an analogy with the outbreak of World War I might be in order - the murder of Franz-Ferdinand can be compared to Aerys' order to kill Ned and Robert, but it wasn't the cause of the war if you look at the overall political situation.

In Westeros the abduction of Lyanna is much more important there, as was the previous scandal at Harrenhal which drove a wedge between Robert and Rhaegar. If that hadn't happened then Rhaegar could have been the leader of this rebellion against his father, with Jon, Ned, and Robert fighting at his side.

We don't yet know what Ned and Robert would have done if Aerys had not demanded their heads, but chances are pretty high that they would have rebelled still. I mean, do we honestly believe Ned would have ignored the deaths of his father and brother?

I don't think so. 

It is also very unlikely that Robert and Rhaegar would have been able to see common ground after the abduction. Perhaps the Vale wouldn't have been part of the Rebellion from the start then, but it seems pretty clear that Ned would have been pretty much in the same situation as Robb is when his father is arrested and then executed. And Robert, well, Robert would have been just as pissed about the Lyanna thing as he was anyway. It was the thing driving his rage, not so much the fate of Brandon/Rickard or the fact that Aerys had wanted him dead.

[SFDanny]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 When we talk about the cause of the war then an analogy with the outbreak of World War I might be in order - the murder of Franz-Ferdinand can be compared to Aerys' order to kill Ned and Robert, but it wasn't the cause of the war if you look at the overall political situation.

The analogy fails on so many levels, LV. We are talking about a rebellion against a absolute monarch vs. sovereign powers allying themselves in open alliances and preparing for war well before the Archduke is assassinated. Once again, I have to point out I'm the one who believes in the STAB alliance in this discussion. The analogy would be closer is if we had agreement the High Lords were preparing to get rid of Aerys's control over them. Even then the contrast of revision of real world power balances between competing capitalist states versus a rebellion against a central monarch is too great to make the analogy work.

What I do agree with is there is much more behind the scenes that lead to the rebellion than either the murders of Brandon and Rickard or the kidnapping of Lyanna show. I also agree that Jon Arryn's decision to raise his banners in response to the order to kill Ned and Robert is the precipitating cause of the rebellion as the murder of Franz-Ferdinand was of World War I. But to contributing causes we can go back to the deaths of the dragons, the effect of a united war against the Ninepenny Kings, and many others.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 In Westeros the abduction of Lyanna is much more important there, as was the previous scandal at Harrenhal which drove a wedge between Robert and Rhaegar. If that hadn't happened then Rhaegar could have been the leader of this rebellion against his father, with Jon, Ned, and Robert fighting at his side.

You make some fairly large assumptions here. First and foremost is the idea that the Starks and the Baratheons were ever open to supporting Rhaegar in his effort to replace his father through his planned council. My opinion, which I've stated elsewhere many times, is that was never the case and that is what caused in part the "scandal" at Harrenhal. By which I mean the Rhaegar's crowning Lyanna his queen of love and beauty. I see this as the response to the Starks delivering a rejection of Rhaegar's proposal. The politics of Harrenhal is a topic for another thread, of course, but since you raise it here, I wanted to answer your hypothetical.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't yet know what Ned and Robert would have done if Aerys had not demanded their heads, but chances are pretty high that they would have rebelled still. I mean, do we honestly believe Ned would have ignored the deaths of his father and brother?

I don't think so. 

Ignored? Never. The North remembers. But would Ned fight a hopeless fight if it was only the North versus the Iron Throne? That's not quite so clear. Torrhen Stark knelt in the face of a hopeless war to save his people and save his House. Ned was a brilliant general, but I'm not sure he would have chosen war against overwhelming odds. Perhaps, I'm wrong and he never would have done anything else but to fight alone to the last Northman, but that was never the case. Ned knew when he left the Vale that he had both Robert and Jon committed to fight with him.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is also very unlikely that Robert and Rhaegar would have been able to see common ground after the abduction. Perhaps the Vale wouldn't have been part of the Rebellion from the start then, but it seems pretty clear that Ned would have been pretty much in the same situation as Robb is when his father is arrested and then executed. And Robert, well, Robert would have been just as pissed about the Lyanna thing as he was anyway. It was the thing driving his rage, not so much the fate of Brandon/Rickard or the fact that Aerys had wanted him dead.

When Robb marches south he has every reason to believe the the alliances of the rebellion will hold. The Riverlands are under attack from the Lannisters and he is going to help their cause, not just free his father. The Baratheon brothers are themselves in rebellion to the Lannisters claim of the Iron Throne, even though they are hardly unified in their response. Robb also anticipates that the Vale will come into the fight given his aunt's claim that the Lannister's had killed Jon Arryn. Given all of that, I think there are similarities between Robb's and Ned's understanding of who will be his allies in Robert's Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings. And, yes, I believe Robert and Rhaegar would never see common ground after Lyanna's abduction. Would that have come to war between a King Rhaegar and a furious Robert? I don't know the answer to that hypothetical.

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

I thought you said your TWIOAF calculations made it possible that Ashara was in King's Landing at the time. Regardless, I'm using the SSM as a referencing point.

It is possible. I'm sorry if I haven't made that clear, but I've also stated that it is likely that Ashara is with Elia on Dragonstone during this period because of her recent delivery of Aegon and during Elia's recovery from the birth. That's what we would expect from a lady companion to the Princess. My judgement on what is likely is certainly debatable, and I certainly do recommend using Martin's remarks about Ashara "not being nailed to the floor" as a referencing point for this discussion.

In short, "Dungeon Sex Theory" is possible. I think for all the reasons I and others have stated it is highly unlikely. But go for it if it moves you.

Oh, I know you didn't come up with theory. I've read it here before. I did not know it started elsewhere, but then I frequent just a few other boards. I do like many other informed ASoI&F sites and podcasts (shout out to Radio Westeros), but I find most of the other boards, with a few exceptions, filled with some very crazy ideas and little understanding of the books. That happens here sometimes, but the long history of this board and the built up knowledge over the years keeps me here.

[The Twinslayer]

14 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What I have a hard time understanding is how one can so totally misread the meaning of the most common words in the english language and build a entire fanciful theory about the author's intent based on distorting what the author said. I have a hard time understanding that when others point this out, instead of correcting your theory, you not only continue to push this distortion but use it to claim it proves totally unrelated statements by the author are also disproven. This is not then a discussion of what could or could not have been changed following the 1999 SSM. I'd love to have that discussion. This is a continual pushing of nonsense as proven truth. That's what I mean by your "history" on this subject. 

In the context of this discussion, I laid out the the scanty evidence we have for Ashara's post Harrenhal whereabouts. Because the author has given us so few points we can be sure of about her locations, all of which works very well with Martin's statement of Ashara not being "nailed to the floor", it is exceedingly interesting to read other's ideas of just where they think she was during this period. I include in that your own speculation about a possible trip back to Harrenhal. But, Twinslayer, if you want others to accept , as you so desperately seem to, that Martin changed his mind about Ashara not being "nailed to the floor" you need to provide evidence that he did so. Where does he provide a even a hint that Ashara was in Dorne, or Starfall, for the entirety of this time? He doesn't. In fact, your own Harrenhal speculation shows you don't think he did as well.

The spirit of this thread is entirely speculative, so it is great to have anyone's ideas about what could have gone on during this time. I prefer speculation based on evidence, but any ideas are welcome. If, however, you want to dispute the meaning of common english words, or make claims the words of the author are no longer relevant, that needs much more than speculation. It needs proof, not distortions of it.

 

Ah, now I understand.  You have me confused with someone else.  

I have never suggested that Ashara was "nailed to the floor" in Starfall during the entirety of the rebellion.  In fact, my entire theory that Ned and Ashara may be Jon's parents depends on Ashara being somewhere other than Starfall at the key moment when Jon was conceived. I assume that was an honest mistake on your part, so I take no offense.  

To elaborate a little, since Clash of Kings, when we saw Catelyn roaming from Winterfell to King's Landing (in Game), from Riverrun to the Stormlands (in the middle of the War of Five Kings, no less) and back to Riverrun with only a small escort, I have thought it possible that Ashara did something similar during Robet's Rebellion.  That is why I have always thought it possible that Ned and Ashara met up during the Rebellion and that the result of that meeting was Jon Snow.  I have also always thought it likely that Ashara stayed at Harrenhal after Lord Whent's tourney and that she was caught there when winter returned after the False Spring.  Alternatively, I have suggested in the past that, like Catelyn during the War of Five Kings, Ashara may have served as something of a diplomat, taking a message to the rebels, either from Aerys or Rhaegar. 

Either way, Harrenhal would be a logical place for the Ned-Ashara tryst that resulted in Jon Snow, since Ned would likely have spent time at Harrenhal during the Rebellion, including on his way to Riverrun after the Battle of the Bells, or on his way back to his "warring in the South" immediately following his wedding to Catelyn.  I took Barristan's musings in Dance -- that Ashara had been dishonored at Harrenhal -- as possible confirmation of my theory that Jon may have been conceived during a Ned-Ashara tryst at Harrenhal, during the Rebellion.   So, my friend, since your objection to my theory was your belief that I was suggesting that Ashara never left Starfall during the Rebellion, I think we can put that objection to rest.  

I'll go a little further for the sake of clarity.  My other critique of the 1999 e-mail is as follows.  First, assuming it is an accurate account of something GRRM said, and assuming he took time to think about the question, we need to interpret it within its context.  He made the statement in 1999, shortly before he published Storm.  He was asked, in essence, whether the timeline ruled out Ashara as a possible mother for Jon.  His response was, in essence, that Ashara moved around a lot and could have met Ned at the right time to be Jon's mother.  So far, so good.

He then went further and said that, in Storm, we would read about how Ashara was a companion to Elia in King's Landing in the first few years of Rhaegar's marriage.  We now know that that statement really isn't accurate.  

We also know that, once Storm was published, we got a lot of information about Robert's Rebellion, including new information about the timing of Ned's marriage to Catelyn and about Robb's birth.  But we did not get the promised information about Ashara's movements.  Instead, we got the Arya chapter that featured Ned Dayne.  

My theory is that when he wrote the 1999 email, GRRM had a draft chapter that described Ashara's movements and that pinpointed Jon's birthdate in a way that confirmed that Ned and Ashara met up 9 months before Jon was born.  (That would not mean that Ashara is definitely Jon's mother; just that GRRM planned to lay out a scenario confirming that was possible).  But he ran into problems because that timeline didn't work with the timeline Jaime was laying out for the Battle of the Bells and other information about the timing of the Ned/Cat marriage that ultimately did  make it into Storm.  I believe that GRRM's solution was to ditch the Ashara chapter, and with it, he ditched the decision to fix a date for Jon's birth around the time of the Sack.  That does not mean that Jon was not born around the time of the Sack.  It just means that any theory built around the 1999 e-mail is built on an assumption that is, as likely as not, untrue.

And, I take the fact that we now know that Ashara was a companion to Elia on Dragonstone rather than at King's Landing as further support for the idea that GRRM abandoned the ideas he was exploring when he (supposedly) wrote the 1999 email. I see no reason to think that he the only change in GRRM's thinking is the one that presents a direct contradiction between the 1999 e-mail and a later book.  

I appreciate the fact that reasonable people can disagree about this, and that my reading of this may not be entirely correct.  But I also think there is a very strong probability that I am right about this.  And the fact that you or another poster may disagree with this logic does not mean I should abandon it.  It just means that you disagree with it, which is the whole purpose of a discussion board like this. 

Anyway, hopefully that will clear up your confusion and, going forward, the discussion can focus on the ideas we are discussing rather than attributing someone else's views to me.  

[The Map Guy]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

It is possible. I'm sorry if I haven't made that clear, but I've also stated that it is likely that Ashara is with Elia on Dragonstone during this period because of her recent delivery of Aegon and during Elia's recovery from the birth. That's what we would expect from a lady companion to the Princess. My judgement on what is likely is certainly debatable, and I certainly do recommend using Martin's remarks about Ashara "not being nailed to the floor" as a referencing point for this discussion.

In short, "Dungeon Sex Theory" is possible. I think for all the reasons I and others have stated it is highly unlikely. But go for it if it moves you.

Oh, I know you didn't come up with theory. I've read it here before. I did not know it started elsewhere, but then I frequent just a few other boards. I do like many other informed ASoI&F sites and podcasts (shout out to Radio Westeros), but I find most of the other boards, with a few exceptions, filled with some very crazy ideas and little understanding of the books. That happens here sometimes, but the long history of this board and the built up knowledge over the years keeps me here.

These forums are all fun and games. Some topics are debated gently, some topics are debated with heat. Someone may believe a theory, someone else may not. Whatever happens, its not going to change our real lives.

Ashara may indeed be Septa Lemore, I just disagree with the approach you took because it disregards some obvious things. It makes obsolete who Ashara's lover is...Ashara is supposedly at the Tower of Joy & we get no reaction from her when her brother is killed by Ned...and Ashara fakes a suicide to help conceal Aegon's identity & secret mission, even though everyone thinks Aegon is dead and no one is looking for them. And all this is assuming fAegon is the real deal in the first place.

It's okay that not everyone believes in the Dungeon Sex Theory. It only requires two major "what ifs": Brandon was chosen one out of the five that could of slept with Ashara at the Tourney....and that Ashara was in King's Landing while Brandon was imprisoned there. These are plausible "what ifs". What follows is a story that can pretty much explains itself.

If the biggest criticism about this theory is "how Ashara gets pass the dungeon guard?", I'm more shocked that Ashara was in the same castle at the same time with Brandon in the first place. But getting pass the dungeon guard...we can use our imaginations...she's Dornish, she'll figure something out.

Here is an fun imaginary example:

Dungeon Guard: Hey Lady Ashara, you're looking beautiful today, how's it going? How is your brother doing? You know I look up to him right? Anyways what brings you to the dungeons?

Ashara: I'm well, and Arthur is on some secret mission with Rhaegar. Can you let me in the dungeons? It's a secret too.

Dungeon Guard: Sorry, I cannot let you in Lady Ashara.

Ashara: I'll show you my boobies.

Dungeon Guard: BOOBIES? Alright, I'll let you in, but promise me this must remain a secret...and no escapees.

Ashara: I promise. And I promise no escapees. *flashes her boobies & walks into the dungeon*

 

As sexists as this sounds, she is Dornish, and its very PG-rated compared to a lot of other things in ASOIAF. But I'm sure there are other ways and other conversations that would get her inside the dungeons.

[The Map Guy]

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

He was asked, in essence, whether the timeline ruled out Ashara as a possible mother for Jon.  His response was, in essence, that Ashara moved around a lot and could have met Ned at the right time to be Jon's mother.  So far, so good.

Don't forget GRRM hasn't confirmed R+L=J at all.

GRRM is still talking as if Ned the father of Jon. Anything relating to Ned+Mother=Jon may be a wild goose chase.

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

These forums are all fun and games. Some topics are debated gently, some topics are debated with heat. Someone may believe a theory, someone else may not. Whatever happens, its not going to change our real lives.

I agree with most of that, but I would add that none of that excludes some serious discussion between people with understanding of the books seeking real insights into the material. Fun and games, yes. Sometimes learning as well. Hopefully that fun and games and learning sometimes makes our real lives more enjoyable and that can be a change for the better.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Ashara may indeed be Septa Lemore, I just disagree with the approach you took because it disregards some obvious things. It makes obsolete who Ashara's lover is...Ashara is supposedly at the Tower of Joy & we get no reaction from her when her brother is killed by Ned...and Ashara fakes a suicide to help conceal Aegon's identity & secret mission, even though everyone thinks Aegon is dead and no one is looking for them. And all this is assuming fAegon is the real deal in the first place.

That you disagree is all to the good. Disagreements can certainly help my understanding and maybe yours as well. I have to disagree that my theory makes it obsolete who was Ashara's lover, or what is the identity of her child's father. It is very important in trying to pin down some of her movements in the early days after Harrenhal. Particularly if she becomes pregnant at the tourney. It explains her "dishonor" Ser Barristan thinks of, and it explains his reference of her having turned to a Stark. But it doesn't mean that that is the sum of Ashara. Dishonored woman, tragic loss of a child, and suicide. My theory looks at the possibility that she is much more of an active player and less of a total victim than we have her as yet. Not because she has to be anything more than we know, but because there are clues that she might be still alive and active in Varys and Illyrio's plot. If so, that demands an explanation and I don't think that explanation depends on who her lover was, or at least not as the crucial part of that explanation. 

That Ashara would continue her mission to safeguard Aegon, and Lyanna's child as well, after her brother was killed makes sense if we see her as someone motivate by her loyalty to Rhaegar and/or Elia. That doesn't mean she shows no reaction to Ser Arthur's death; something I've never suggested. It only means she continues on with her mission despite her loss. Something real world women do all the time. That mission is two-fold. To help Ned provide a cover story to protect Lyanna's child from discovery from Robert's forces, and to hide Aegon not only from Robert's forces, but from Ned and Howland as well. I think any child of Rhaegar is in terrible danger from Robert's new regime, and Ashara may well have played a role in safeguarding more than one of them. That means also finding a safe hiding place for the child, or in this case children. Ned has promised to raise Jon as his own, and Wylla has a safe place to continue to claim she is Jon's mother. Ashara disappears after a supposed suicide in which her body is never found, and takes Aegon to the Free Cities. So far you are right, this assumes Aegon is Aegon, but as I said in the OP this doesn't mean that Young Griff is Aegon. He might or might not be. That is the importance of the five year gap in knowledge before Jon Connington is brought into the plot. 

You don't have to believe any of this. I started this thread saying this is an area of the story in which there is very little known and is open to lots of speculation. I think I've provided some interesting speculation based on working within the things we do know, and what I think is likely. I'm glad you found it interesting enough to comment on.

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

It's okay that not everyone believes in the Dungeon Sex Theory.

Count me as one of those who doesn't believe for the reasons I've already stated. 

 

[Bael's Bastard]

14 hours ago, SFDanny said:

If I recall correctly, it is me who believes in the STAB conspiracy, right? I just don't think the prewar conspiracy includes going to war for each other against the throne. So, if there isn't a conspiracy that includes such an agreement, then why would Lord Arryn raise his banner because another Hight Lord and his heir are killed by the king's justice to which all of them are pledged to follow? I think any High Lord would be outrage at such a judgement, but that's a huge step to go war for the North, especially if Elbert is still alive. I would note that no High Lord raises his banners in rebellion over the captivity of Brandon's party. Even the North submits to Aerys's judgement. Like you, I think Catelyn's judgment is right. No matter the timing of the news, Jon cannot break faith with his pledge to protect his foster sons. 

My point is that I don't think we have enough information to be able to state that Jon received word of the execution of Rickard and Brandon and whoever else had been executed by that point, had enough time to have chosen not to raise his banners, then received word of the command to execute Ned and Robert, then chose to raise his banners.

Catelyn's POV only tells us that when Aerys had demanded the heads of Ned and Robert, Jon had raised his banners in revolt. It does not give us enough information to tell us that Jon had made a conscious decision not to revolt after learning of the executions of Rickard, Brandon and whoever else had been executed at that point.

I just think it is premature to take for granted that there was a distinction between the execution of Rickard, Brandon, etc., and the command to execute Ned and Robert. I don't take issue with speculation that that might have been the case. As I said, I once believed that to be the case, but that was based on what I now think are faulty assumptions.

Obviously we can only speculate. But personally, I think it is much more likely that Aerys sent Jon a message informing him that Rickard, Brandon, etc. had been executed for their crimes, commanding him to execute Ned and Robert and send their heads, and threatening him if he didn't comply, whether with the life of a still living Elbert, or with his own life and house.

Whether Elbert was still alive or had already been executed when Aerys sent his demand to Jon, it seems likely that Jon would have been the one Aerys summoned to court to answer the charges against Elbert. And even if Jon wasn't the one who was summoned by Aerys to answer for the charges against Elbert, Elbert was still his nephew and heir.

Whatever the case, Jon would have been in the same boat as Rickard and the other fathers that were summoned to court to answer for the charges against their sons. Yet he had chosen not to go to King's Landing to try to free his nephew and heir. Which indicates to me that Jon had given Elbert up for dead from the time he was taken hostage.

And depending on whether Elbert had already been executed when Aerys sent his demand, or was threatened with execution if Jon didn't comply with Aerys's demand, Jon either already had a personal reason to rebel against Aerys (the execution of his nephew and heir), or chose to rebel against Aerys knowing his nephew and heir would be executed.

Would Jon have still raised his banners in a hypothetical where Aerys did not call for the heads of Lord Robert and the new Lord Ned? My speculation is, with Ned's father and brother butchered by Aerys, and his sister abducted by Rhaegar, I don't think there was much chance of avoiding him raising his banners, and Robert's with him.

In which case, Jon would be in a position of having to choose between joining his foster sons against House Targaryen, preventing his foster sons from returning to their homes and raising their banners, or letting them do their thing while he sat out. I guess the question is where Jon would have drawn the line of what his love or pledges drove or obligated him to do.

15 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I would also point to Hoster Tully's reaction to this. It is his daughter's  betrothed that is killed, yet he does not go to war until there is a pledge for a wedding of both of his daughters to the Lords Stark and Arryn. And notice these marriages are not put off to the end of the war. Perhaps Jon's relationships with Rickard and Brandon are different, but we don't know that they are. What we know is he has a foster parent relationship with Ned and Robert that we are told is the reason for the rebellion.

I am definitely not downplaying the relationship between Jon and his foster sons Ned and Robert in his decision to revolt. I often make note of the fact that the backbone of the revolt was the father-son relationships between Jon and his foster sons, not any known blood or marriage ties. I am only objecting to the assumption that Jon made a distinction where he chose not to revolt over the execution of Rickard, Brandon, etc., then chose to revolt over the demands re: Ned and Robert. It is at this point a possibility, but by no means can it be taken for granted based on the statement in Catelyn's POV, or information elsewhere.

Hoster has good reason not to go to war over the deaths of Brandon and Rickard, as with his daughter's betrothed dead, and the father of his daughter's betrothed who negotiated the betrothal dead, he has no ties to them until he negotiates new ties with Ned and Jon.  Jon's situation is very different, though.

There is Jon's relationships with Ned and Robert. There is Jon's pledge (possibly to Rickard and Steffon) to protect Ned and Robert. There is Ned's and Robert's relationship with each other. There is Robert's love for Ned's sister Lyanna. There is Rickard's promise of Lyanna's hand to Robert. There is Jon's nephew/heir's relationship with Ned's brother and Rickard's son/heir Brandon.

Despite no known blood, marriage, or betrothal ties himself, Jon has a lot of relationship and relationship of relationship ties here, whereas Hoster's only potential ties are killed before they can be made, and only the forging of new ties gives him a reason to join in.

15 hours ago, SFDanny said:

A side note here is that I'm fascinated with why Aerys issues his demand for Ned and Robert's heads. Why? Especially Robert's. Has either Robert or Ned done something to give Aerys cause to demands their deaths? Is it because word reaches King's Landing that the two are going to raise their banners in rebellion in response to Rickard and Brandon's deaths? If so, we have a time difference between the news of Brandon and Rickard's death and Aery's demand for Ned and Robert's heads. If it is because the marriage betrothal between House Stark and House Baratheon then why no call for Hoster Tully to submit to the King's judgement?

Personally, I don't think there was a time difference. But even if there was, I don't think word of their intention to raise their banners would be necessary to explain why Aerys called for their heads. Aerys had just murdered Ned's Lord father and brother, and Rhaegar still held Ned's sister and Robert's betrothed after abducting her, which had been Brandon's excuse for riding into the Red Keep shouting for Rhaegar to come out and die in the first place. As such, Aerys had good reason to assume that the new Lord Stark and Lord Baratheon would cause him trouble if he didn't deal with them first.

Aerys didn't hold any Tullys, and had already killed the men Hoster had hoped to make ties to House Stark with. Not sure what the king demanded or expected of Hoster during that period, would/will be interesting to know. But I think he was in a very different situation than Jon. Hoster was hoping to establish political ties. Jon had established strong relationship ties with people who had their own strong relationship ties. He was in deep. Not to say he couldn't have made a different decision regardless. For his nephew/heir it would have been understandable. But he made the choices he made.

[SFDanny]

4 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

My point is that I don't think we have enough information to be able to state that Jon received word of the execution of Rickard and Brandon and whoever else had been executed by that point, had enough time to have chosen not to raise his banners, then received word of the command to execute Ned and Robert, then chose to raise his banners.

Catelyn's POV only tells us that when Aerys had demanded the heads of Ned and Robert, Jon had raised his banners in revolt. It does not give us enough information to tell us that Jon had made a conscious decision not to revolt after learning of the executions of Rickard, Brandon and whoever else had been executed at that point.

I just think it is premature to take for granted that there was a distinction between the execution of Rickard, Brandon, etc., and the command to execute Ned and Robert. I don't take issue with speculation that that might have been the case. As I said, I once believed that to be the case, but that was based on what I now think are faulty assumptions.

I got that, and I agree we can't be sure of this or much of anything other than what we are explicitly told in the books. Which is why I tend to go with what the text says or what evidence strongly supports when sorting through our options. Which by the way, I'd point out that we have no real idea when the word of Brandon and Rickard's deaths actually get out. It could be much delayed after Aerys's demand for Ned and Robert's heads. Absolute monarchs are under no compulsion to reveal what they do with their prisoners or their petitioners. Mostly they do so in open court for the effect their pronouncements have, but that's not necessarily so in this case. Unless we have a leak from some witness to the "trial by combat" then it is up to Aerys when the results are announced. After all, we know that not all the fathers of the accused, or uncles in Jon's case, show up in response to the king's summons. If you want to persuade them to come for justice in order to murder them, it might not be the best strategy to announce the deaths of those who do show up, especially just how Rickard died.

Which all is a long way of saying that your caution about assuming a specific timing in when the news is heard rings true both ways.

5 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Obviously we can only speculate. But personally, I think it is much more likely that Aerys sent Jon a message informing him that Rickard, Brandon, etc. had been executed for their crimes, commanding him to execute Ned and Robert and send their heads, and threatening him if he didn't comply, whether with the life of a still living Elbert, or with his own life and house.

Whether Elbert was still alive or had already been executed when Aerys sent his demand to Jon, it seems likely that Jon would have been the one Aerys summoned to court to answer the charges against Elbert. And even if Jon wasn't the one who was summoned by Aerys to answer for the charges against Elbert, Elbert was still his nephew and heir.

Whatever the case, Jon would have been in the same boat as Rickard and the other fathers that were summoned to court to answer for the charges against their sons. Yet he had chosen not to go to King's Landing to try to free his nephew and heir. Which indicates to me that Jon had given Elbert up for dead from the time he was taken hostage.

Given that we know Elbert's father, Lord Jon's brother Ronnel, died about the time of Elbert's birth, I think it is safe to say Jon would be summoned to answer for Elbert's "crimes." However, here we get back to your warning about timing. We don't know when each father receives his summons or how close he is to King's Landing when he learns of it. Specifically, we have reason to believe that Rickard may well have been in the Riverlands on his way to his son's wedding when he gets the news, and if so he may have been the first able to respond. One would expect that no matter how fast the ravens fly to the Glover's home in Deepwood Motte, unless he is part of Rickard's company, he is going to take months to  respond to the King's summons. Which may explain why Ethan survives in a black cell waiting on his father to arrive.

It maybe that Rickard and Jon are informed in other ways than the king's summons. While Brandon rides into the Red Keep with a small party of companions, others in Riverrun, such as Winterfell guards who may have reported the news to Brandon of his sister's kidnapping, could know of where Brandon and friends were headed, and sent or delivered messages to both Rickard and Jon. There may have even been messages exchanged between the two, or three, or four High Lords as Rickard rides to King's Landing. There are just a lot of things about the timing of these events we don't know. One thing it does look like is that Aerys wants to kill both the fathers and sons. The easiest way to do that is to get them to walk willingly into his trap. But you are absolutely right, this is speculation built on some evidence, but speculation nonetheless.

A couple of things we can say about both Rickard and Brandon's strategy is that it severely overestimated the power of precedent in what Aerys was likely to do, and severely underestimated the depths of Aerys's cruelty and madness. Aerys was never close to Aegon V Targaryen in his adherence to laws, and the idea he would allow a trial of combat between Brandon and Rhaegar, or between Rickard and a real Targaryen champion was wildly off base. One would have thought the lesson of Aerys at Harrenhal and after Duskendale would have given them pause. Sorry, just some other thoughts that spring to mind as we go down this very interesting tangent.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

And depending on whether Elbert had already been executed when Aerys sent his demand, or was threatened with execution if Jon didn't comply with Aerys's demand, Jon either already had a personal reason to rebel against Aerys (the execution of his nephew and heir), or chose to rebel against Aerys knowing his nephew and heir would be executed.

Would Jon have still raised his banners in a hypothetical where Aerys did not call for the heads of Lord Robert and the new Lord Ned? My speculation is, with Ned's father and brother butchered by Aerys, and his sister abducted by Rhaegar, I don't think there was much chance of avoiding him raising his banners, and Robert's with him.

In which case, Jon would be in a position of having to choose between joining his foster sons against House Targaryen, preventing his foster sons from returning to their homes and raising their banners, or letting them do their thing while he sat out. I guess the question is where Jon would have drawn the line of what his love or pledges drove or obligated him to do.

I am definitely not downplaying the relationship between Jon and his foster sons Ned and Robert in his decision to revolt. I often make note of the fact that the backbone of the revolt was the father-son relationships between Jon and his foster sons, not any known blood or marriage ties. I am only objecting to the assumption that Jon made a distinction where he chose not to revolt over the execution of Rickard, Brandon, etc., then chose to revolt over the demands re: Ned and Robert. It is at this point a possibility, but by no means can it be taken for granted based on the statement in Catelyn's POV, or information elsewhere.

I agree with all of this.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Hoster has good reason not to go to war over the deaths of Brandon and Rickard, as with his daughter's betrothed dead, and the father of his daughter's betrothed who negotiated the betrothal dead, he has no ties to them until he negotiates new ties with Ned and Jon.  Jon's situation is very different, though.

There is Jon's relationships with Ned and Robert. There is Jon's pledge (possibly to Rickard and Steffon) to protect Ned and Robert. There is Ned's and Robert's relationship with each other. There is Robert's love for Ned's sister Lyanna. There is Rickard's promise of Lyanna's hand to Robert. There is Jon's nephew/heir's relationship with Ned's brother and Rickard's son/heir Brandon.

Despite no known blood, marriage, or betrothal ties himself, Jon has a lot of relationship and relationship of relationship ties here, whereas Hoster's only potential ties are killed before they can be made, and only the forging of new ties gives him a reason to join in.

I agree with all of this as well, but me add one more bit of speculation, not originally from me this time, to your last point. Just what is Brandon's relationship to Elbert and the rest of his companions, excluding his squire Ethan Glover? Stefan Stasse over at the Tower of the Hand and his podcast with Sean T. Collins has suggested, and I agree with him, that what we are seeing is not just a wedding party of young heirs and casual friends  caught up in the moment of outrage, but foster brothers as well. It would explain a lot about Elbert if we knew he was fostered in the North with Brandon. 

We know from the Lady Dustin that Brandon was fostered in Barrowton with "old lord Dustin" and we also know that the Dustin's boasted of a great hero of the War of the Ninepenny Kings. This sounds like a spot in which young lords like Elbert Arryn might be fostered as well, especially in return for Ned's own fostering in the Eyrie. In the case of Royce, he may not be just a foster brother, but also a distant cousin of the Starks, and the Mallisters are close neighbors of the North and Barrowton. If so it would explain a lot about why they all so eagerly ride to their doom.

I raise Hoster's reaction as a contrast, and I agree his motives likely involve everything you name and more. A war would place, and did place, the Riverlands in the forefront of the carnage. Only the Stormlands had near the measure of damage.  He would know what he was risking to his people. In some ways much more than Ned ever risked for the North.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Personally, I don't think there was a time difference. But even if there was, I don't think word of their intention to raise their banners would be necessary to explain why Aerys called for their heads. Aerys had just murdered Ned's Lord father and brother, and Rhaegar still held Ned's sister and Robert's betrothed after abducting her, which had been Brandon's excuse for riding into the Red Keep shouting for Rhaegar to come out and die in the first place. As such, Aerys had good reason to assume that the new Lord Stark and Lord Baratheon would cause him trouble if he didn't deal with them first.

Once again, I agree with most of this, but I think there is likely some time difference, and I admit you might be right on this point. We can't prove it one way or the other. I would just add that having reasons to want to raise his banners does not necessarily translate to a decision to do so. I have a hard time believing that Jon would sit out a war in which both Ned and Robert are fighting against Aerys, but starting a rebellion is a different thing entirely.

I also think you may be right that this is just a preemptive act on Ned and Robert, but one would think a normal order of execution would be based on some supposed crimes. Whether those are wholly manufactured or not is my only question. Did Robert and Ned do something that Aerys used as a cause to order their deaths?

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Aerys didn't hold any Tullys, and had already killed the men Hoster had hoped to make ties to House Stark with. Not sure what the king demanded or expected of Hoster during that period, would/will be interesting to know. But I think he was in a very different situation than Jon. Hoster was hoping to establish political ties. Jon had established strong relationship ties with people who had their own strong relationship ties. He was in deep. Not to say he couldn't have made a different decision regardless. For his nephew/heir it would have been understandable. But he made the choices he made.

Here again we agree.

Thanks again for this very interesting discussion. I like your thinking on this very much, even if we disagree on some points

[The Twinslayer]

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Don't forget GRRM hasn't confirmed R+L=J at all.

GRRM is still talking as if Ned the father of Jon. Anything relating to Ned+Mother=Jon may be a wild goose chase.

Of course,  R+L = J may very well be correct.  

Clearly, one of the big mysteries from Game of Thrones is, where is Lyanna's child.  Jon Snow is one possible candidate.  Young Griff is another.  We won't know the real answer until GRRM reveals it in the books.  If he ever publishes another ASOIAF book.