R+L=J v.166

[corbon]

On 8/10/2019 at 3:50 AM, EvanSol919 said:

To start with, I firmly believe R+L=J so that's what I'm basing this question off of.

I find it hard to believe that no one has guessed Jon's true parentage. Now there may be people who suspect - Varys, Littlefinger, etc. And it seems likely that members of House Dayne are in on the lie (In Deep Geek has made great videos about it).

Be wary of videos. Its a medium perfect for exploiting a little bit of knowledge about books to those who have even less knowledge. I've seen few that impressed me, and nearly all have huge holes in them. They also tend to take very old theories talked about for years and claim, or leave the impression of, responsibility for them. 
In short, my impressions of most of the videos that are talked about is that they are usually somewhat less than honest with the facts (eg text in opposition is never explored), and their attributions. Its easy to get a way with a lot in a video, and there is little chance of 'rebuttal' - its basically a one way conversation. 

Quote

Also I'm sure that there was a maester and other servants in the ToJ. Otherwise the Kingsguards would be doing the cooking and cleaning. 

I don't expect there was a maester, though its possible. Probably not many in the way of servants - they are basically hiding from the whole world and the fewer people who know the better.
But there was definitely somebody else there that has not been confirmed. "They" found Ned with Lyanna dead in his arms.

Quote

Even if people believed what Robert said, that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna, then there was a possibility of her becoming pregnant.

That was well over a year ago. Lyanna was relatively unimportant for almost everybody. Some wild northern girl. Few people south of the Neck care much about the North, or the Starks.
Don't forget, we get a distorted view, because we are mostly in Ned's head, and around Robert, the two people for whom Lyanna was the biggest deal. Her abduction was a factor in the war starting, but for almost everyone other than those two, an insignificant and quickly forgotten factor. What actually set the war off was Brandon's wild demands at the Red Keep and Aerys's responses. Neither of which apparently referenced Lyanna.  Sure, Rhaegar supposedly abducted that Northern girl, but then they both disappeared. The war started. Lots of things happened,
Then months later Rhaegar reappears. The war continues. No northern girl. No talk, no thinking, no demands, about the northern girl. Who? Way back when? What? There's a war on!
Rhaegar dies, the dynasty is defeated and over thrown. Everybody else's lives go on.
A few people are vaguely aware of Lyanna, but very few care. Having disappeared well over a year before Ned turns up with his bastard, she's not a factor, especially with Rhaegar turning up without her or any mention of her up to 6 months before Ned's new born bastard appears.

Quote

And what did Ned say she died of?

I doubt he mentioned it or her to anyone other than private conversation with Robert. I doubt more people than Robert and maybe Varys (and of course those who were there) even know Ned found her alive.
I guess Ned told Robert she died of a fever. It has the benefit of being true, and un-suspicious.

Quote

Did no one get a good look at her body?

How could they? Why would they? Who cares!

Quote

And no one wondered why 3 members of the Kingsguard, including the Lord Commander, was with Lyanna and not on Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys, the believed to be Targaryen heir?

Who knows that? There are rumours Ned killed Arthur Dayne, but they are mostly founded on him returning Dawn to Starfall - he had to get that sword somehow, no chance Arthur gave it to him.
Whent? He was with Rhaegar when they disappeared right? And never reappeared? Must have been lost in some skirmish, or to sickness, or something. Who cares, really. Its not like his family survived the war intact...
Hightower? He went off on a mission from Aerys to find Rhaegar, right? Must have succeeded, 'cause Rhaegar reappeared. But he never reappeared either, right?  Wonder what happened to him? Oh well?
There's probably a Hightower somewhere obsessive over the White Bull's fate. But the Hightowers have been kept conspicuously out of sight by GRRM so far...

Maybe a few people know more. In which case, you are right, why aren't there more questions, more suspicion. But there is no evidence* that more people know, and I think the lack of questions and suspicions tells its own story there.

*Actually, I have a feeling there is one piece of evidence. I have a feeling that there is something in tWoIaF, perhaps a sideboard of the White Book, Arthur Dayne's entry maybe(?), that indicates the fate of the three KG is known, at least to Barristan who would have written their final entries.
I believe this to be a mistake. I don't think Barristan knows what happened at ToJ, and I think the editors of tWoIaF forgot this, just making a cool entry based on what we know..
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Or perhaps that was just in the show.

Quote

And there's the issue of timing. Jon was born at the end of the rebellion, which according to Ned lasted close to a year. If Ned was Jon's father, he would have had to have slept with someone during the campaign, kept in touch with her while the country was in civil war, then picked up the baby while marching back to Winterfell. For as much as Catelyn wonders about who Jon's mother was, she doesn't seem to think about the logistics. 

Thats the best time for such logistics. Its not surprising (and Catelyn thinks entirely forgivable) for a man to father a bastard while on campaign, away from his wife. And during campaign there are infinite opportunities for a random woman in a Lords tent (or inn, or castle etc), even for just one night. A common woman would be entirely unremarkable, a noblewoman could easily either pass as a common woman temporarily, or be 'covered' by the man's buddies.

The 'picking up' is covered. Ned went off on a whole trip south after the war before he came home. And literally did the pick up on that trip!

Don't forget, the bastard's mother wasn't tied to one spot from conception to pickup.
Her and Ned don;t have to be in touch the whole time either, she just has to get in touch towards the end - and why wouldn't she?

Quote

So that brings us back to the central question - do you think anyone else knows or suspects Jon's true parentage?

No. Its very simple, very clean. HR doesn't talk. Ned doesn't talk to anyone except private conversations with Robert in which the info he gives out is kept to a bare minimum. I think Wylla is the only other one who knows (I think she was the cleaner/cook/wetnurse/midwife at ToJ) and she doesn't talk either, because that would risk Jon's life, and her own, and possibly the Daynes'.

Everyone else has ready (but wrong) answers that are suitably salacious and so satisfying, and thus don't need to think about what other answers might be.

I think Ned took Wylla from ToJ (he had to have a wetnurse to transport Jon to Starfall, right? And ToJ needed some support staff, and must have planned for a wetnurse for Jon with Lyanna's situation, right?) and so rode in to Starfall to deliver Dawn with Wylla in tow nursing Jon.
Hence the Daynes think Wylla is the mum (with the official cover as wetnurse).
I think Robert got a report about Ned's visit to Starfall, with the same conclusion as the Daynes, asked Ned about his conclusion, and Ned gave him Wylla's name without confirming or denying anything (as we saw in their on-page conversation, which allowed Robert to assume his own beliefs were accurate).
Everyone else who has heard about Starfall makes the Ashara assumption, at least as a possibility high on the list. Its perfect. Old rumours of Ashara's dismissal from court involving a pregnancy and Starks. Ned leaves Starfall with his bastard. Ashara suicides. Obvious. Why look anywhere else?

On 8/11/2019 at 4:58 AM, EvanSol919 said:

There's a theory that Littlefinger was the one who told Brandon Stark that Rhaegar had abducted Lyanna. In Deep Geek made a video about it.

Its cute, I like it myself, but it has no actual textual basis and GRRM has basically said no.

Quote

As for Varys, I'm sure he knew about the Tower of Joy - the crown prince, the warden of the north's daughter and two members of the kingsguard all ending up in one place - I'm sure he had someone watching.

I don't. He's not omniscient. He's good at his job and has the little birds in the Red Keep, but I don't think there was anyone at ToJ reporting to him.
He may have known a bit about it, but not necessarily much, and not went down when Ned arrived.

Quote

Plus I'm sure that there was a maester and servants there throughout the year of the rebellion.

As above, not necessarily many, and not necessarily a maester. And not necessarily there for that long.
What value to Aerys if he could tell the rebels he had Lyanna? Or could even bluff them so. And yet he did not, as far as we know.
I don't think anyone with any opportunity to report to Aerys was at ToJ. I think the KG were still loyal to Aerys, but were following their legitimate orders and not in a position (probably happily so for some or all) to report to Aerys.

Quote

Varys is focused on Aegon's ascension to the throne. Why would he care about a boy who is claimed to be a bastard and currently at the Wall thousands of miles away from King's Landing?

Indeed.

Quote

As for the Targaryen succession, there's a theory that Aegon is not a Targaryen but a Blackfyre. Some even go further and believe Varys is a Blackfyre, Alt Shift X made a video about it. If that's true, then Varys really doesn't want a potential Targaryen heir acknowledged. 

I don't think it matters. Why would a secret Blackfyre not want to take over the Targaryen throne and mantle? The Blackfyres are only relevant because they think they are Targaryens with a better claim than the Targaryens. I'm sure any Blackfyre that sat the iron throne would do so as a Targaryen.
 

21 hours ago, EvanSol919 said:

In regards to Littlefinger, the theory goes that he was recovering at the Inn of the Crossroads waiting until he could travel through the Vale. Remember winter had returned by this point. The inn would be the rendezvous point where Lyanna would meet up with Rhaegar. As for Brandon he was known for being reckless. He had to be physically restrained from confronting Rhaegar at Harrenhal. Again In Deep Geek goes more in depth. 

Yep. Its a nice little theory. It fits neatly though there is no direct textual support. But GRRM basically said no - my recollection, though SSMs are very difficult to search, is that someone asked him about this theory (its an old one, despite more recent videos) and he basically said "what? Littlefinger was just a kid with no power or place back then". Not a direct denial to completely rule it out, but a pretty obvious one, and not his common devious dodge type response either.

Quote

Varys has spies throughout Westeros. For example he knew that Catelyn was coming to King's Landing. 

Did he know she was coming, or did he know she had arrived?
I think he had alert people in the port at KL, or did a deal with the ship they came in on's master. Its possible he also had alert people in the port they boarded ship also. But he does not have people everywhere and he is not omniscient. Or omnipresent.

Quote

The Tower of Joy was on the Prince's Pass, the main route into Dorne and during a time of civil war House Fowler, the Wardens of the Prince's Pass, would have been paying attention to who was coming in and out.

The tower of Joy is a watchtower in the pass. Which means it is built where it can watch the pass but not necessarily be easily accessible to travellers through the pass.
Such an abandoned post is an excellent place to hide.

The Fowlers paying attention to large armed bodies, yes. And military men displaying their affiliations, yes. But a tiny group travelling incognito? Easy to pass. I don't think the pass is walled off or anything, that travellers have to go through serious inspections at both ends. Possibly a few low level guardsmen doing a brief, likely lazy or corrupt, inspection at most.
Look at how easily Catelyn passed through the entire north with Rodrik Cassel. Whent, in plain clothes, fronting for a group of 4-6 men and women could easily pass incognito.

Quote

Also Gerald Hightower and Ned didn't seem to have had trouble finding the tower so there were people in KL who knew.

There may have been people in KL that knew, but there is no evidence for that. Gerold and Ned may have (probably did) had contact with people outside KL. 
I think Hightower probably went to Starfall or met Ashara elsewhere and she told him where to go. And I think she contacted Ned. But both of these are also speculative and without evidence.

Quote

And do you really think that there wasn't a maester attending to a pregnant Lyanna?

I think its a reasonable possibility yes. I think a midwife, near to her time,is more likely. I wonder if Wylla had midwifery skills? 
I think when you are hiding from the king and his supporters as well as the rebels and their supporters, you keep the number of people involved at an absolute minimum.

Quote

As for permanent habitation, Lyanna, Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent were there for about a year.

Were they? Or did they go there only a few months before the end? Or were they even stuck there de to Lyanna's condition while travelling between other locations. 
I don;t think we know.

Quote

There would have had to be people doing the cooking and cleaning, unless the Kingsguard were doing everything. 

I agree that there were other people or at least another person (Wylla probably) there. But I think numbers would have been minimal.

And I think the KG are perfectly capable of 'camp' routines, and even Lyanna would be, other than her advanced pregnancy.

 

[FictionIsntReal]

On 8/10/2019 at 10:06 PM, EvanSol919 said:

In regards to Littlefinger, the theory goes that he was recovering at the Inn of the Crossroads waiting until he could travel through the Vale. Remember winter had returned by this point. The inn would be the rendezvous point where Lyanna would meet up with Rhaegar. As for Brandon he was known for being reckless. He had to be physically restrained from confronting Rhaegar at Harrenhal. Again In Deep Geek goes more in depth. 

Brandon was reckless and quick to confront Rhaegar, but that was based on something he saw himself rather than the word of someone who just challenged him to a duel and lost.

Quote

Varys has spies throughout Westeros. For example he knew that Catelyn was coming to King's Landing.

Cat herself thinks that the captain of the ship that brought her over spilled the beans, since he recommended the inn where she was found. When she announced she was going to give a silver stag to all his men, he tried to get her to give it to him so he could "hold" it for them until they returned to Tyrosh and could give it to their families rather than wasting it at dice, so she figures he tried to get his coin another way.

Quote

The Tower of Joy was on the Prince's Pass, the main route into Dorne and during a time of civil war House Fowler, the Wardens of the Prince's Pass, would have been paying attention to who was coming in and out. Also Gerald Hightower and Ned didn't seem to have had trouble finding the tower so there were people in KL who knew. And do you really think that there wasn't a maester attending to a pregnant Lyanna? As for permanent habitation, Lyanna, Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent were there for about a year. There would have had to be people doing the cooking and cleaning, unless the Kingsguard were doing everything.

Gerold Hightower was Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, so his personal connections to the two Kingsguard with Rhaegar may have helped him. We also don't know that they were all at the tower at that point in time, or if they moved there later, as corbon pointed out. I really don't think there was a maester there because the Citadel has a monopoly on them and they decide on all the assignments. You can't just hire a random peasant, like Wylla the wetnurse.

Quote

 Now for the Blackfyre theory. First the Golden Company is a mercenary company. They don't have the unlimited resources. Second there were potentially several Blackfyres. Daemon Blackfyre had seven sons and at least two daughters, and surely the focus would have been on the male line. It's possible that some of the female line got separated and it was only after Maelys's death (which was in 260 AC so only 38 years before the beginning of GoT) and the end of the male line that the GC tracked down members of the female line. According to Pycelle, Varys was born into slavery not sold into it by his family.

The only named daughter of Daemon was Calla, who was married to Bittersteel. According to GRRM, Bittersteel had no children. Varys being born into slavery just moves the question up a generation. How close are the main line of Blackfyres to his branch if they've permitted his mother to be a slave? Would they accept someone born into slavery as a Blackfyre, or take any claims to such descent as big talk from someone of the lowest birth?

On 8/11/2019 at 7:12 PM, corbon said:

 I don't expect there was a maester, though its possible. Probably not many in the way of servants - they are basically hiding from the whole world and the fewer people who know the better.
But there was definitely somebody else there that has not been confirmed. "They" found Ned with Lyanna dead in his arms.

I find the argument that there was a wetnurse there plausible. Jon had to feed on something.

I disagree that nobody would remember Lyanna. The Starks are one of the most important families in Westeros, she's their only daughter, and she's betrothed to another Lord Paramount. That war developed into something much bigger, but people remembered. That's why Robert didn't have to get married when Ned and Jon Arryn did. The reveal of her death is what resulted in Robert marrying Cersei. Lyanna would be remembered alongside her father and older brother as casualties of the Targaryens. People appear to remember Ashara Dayne having some connection to Ned Stark, and she's far less important to the rebellion than Lyanna.

Quote

I doubt he mentioned it or her to anyone other than private conversation with Robert. I doubt more people than Robert and maybe Varys (and of course those who were there) even know Ned found her alive.
I guess Ned told Robert she died of a fever. It has the benefit of being true, and un-suspicious.

As noted, Robert's eligibility to marry was very much a public matter. The reveal of Lyanna's death was important news, although Ned certainly had leeway in exactly what he let out.

Quote

Who knows that? There are rumours Ned killed Arthur Dayne, but they are mostly founded on him returning Dawn to Starfall - he had to get that sword somehow, no chance Arthur gave it to him.
Whent? He was with Rhaegar when they disappeared right? And never reappeared? Must have been lost in some skirmish, or to sickness, or something. Who cares, really. Its not like his family survived the war intact...
Hightower? He went off on a mission from Aerys to find Rhaegar, right? Must have succeeded, 'cause Rhaegar reappeared. But he never reappeared either, right?  Wonder what happened to him? Oh well?
There's probably a Hightower somewhere obsessive over the White Bull's fate. But the Hightowers have been kept conspicuously out of sight by GRRM so far...

Maybe a few people know more. In which case, you are right, why aren't there more questions, more suspicion. But there is no evidence* that more people know, and I think the lack of questions and suspicions tells its own story there.

*Actually, I have a feeling there is one piece of evidence. I have a feeling that there is something in tWoIaF, perhaps a sideboard of the White Book, Arthur Dayne's entry maybe(?), that indicates the fate of the three KG is known, at least to Barristan who would have written their final entries.
I believe this to be a mistake. I don't think Barristan knows what happened at ToJ, and I think the editors of tWoIaF forgot this, just making a cool entry based on what we know..
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Or perhaps that was just in the show.

It's not just a rumor. Ned has told Bran about fighting Arthur, and how Howland Reed saved his life. On the other hand, Ned hasn't told Bran about the Harrenhall tourney that Howland attended where he first met Ned, even though that's common knowledge. It would not be a "mistake" for Barristan to write about Eddard killing Arthur, it's common knowledge. And it is in the World of Ice and Fire, attributed to maester Yandel. Ned also built cairns around the tower for the men who fought and died there. Barbrey Dustin certainly knows about them due to her late husband occupying one of them.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I disagree that nobody would remember Lyanna. The Starks are one of the most important families in Westeros, she's their only daughter, and she's betrothed to another Lord Paramount. That war developed into something much bigger, but people remembered.

Its not that she's entirely forgotten, its just that shes not terribly important (to southerners - most people care little for the north, remember) and not relevant (compared to the war, and the Brandon/Aerys events that set it off). Yes, she'd be remembered as a Targ casualty, but a very very early one, way, waaay before Jon. Which is the point.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That's why Robert didn't have to get married when Ned and Jon Arryn did.

I don't agree with this. Hoster didn't have a third daughter. Robert didn't get married because he didn't need to. Ned was appropriate for Catelyn, with her being affianced to Brandon before, and Jon worked out perfect for Lysa (well, not personally) as the older widower suddenly needed an heir and she was quietly proven fertile.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The reveal of her death is what resulted in Robert marrying Cersei.

Not sure there is any evidence for this either. I think Robert was slated to marry Cersei anyway, to keep the Lannisters on board. Do you have any evidence this was only decided after Ned returned? Maybe there is something I missed.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Lyanna would be remembered alongside her father and older brother as casualties of the Targaryens. People appear to remember Ashara Dayne having some connection to Ned Stark, and she's far less important to the rebellion than Lyanna.

Some people do, those for whom its relevant.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's not just a rumor. Ned has told Bran about fighting Arthur, and how Howland Reed saved his life.

It is a rumour.
Ned telling Bran something doesn't make it public knowledge. All Ned told Bran was that Arthur would have killed him if not for Howland Reed. Ned didn't even say it was during/after the war.
Long before Bran was born there was a rumour that Ned killed Arthur in single combat. Ned's soldiers whispered of it, glamourising their young lord. But that rumour certainly wasn't the way Ned would tell it.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It would not be a "mistake" for Barristan to write about Eddard killing Arthur, it's common knowledge.

I don't think it is at all. Ned doesn't speak of it. Howland doesn't. No one does who knows. Just a rumour after the war, which is easily attributable to Ned taking Dawn to Starfall.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And it is in the World of Ice and Fire, attributed to maester Yandel.

Yandell says it was said Ned killed Arthur in single combat, indicating he's reporting a rumour, not a fact.

Quote

Most famous of all was Ser Arthur Dayne, the deadliest of King Aerys II's Kingsguard, who defeated the Kingswood Brotherhood and won renown in every tourney and mêlée. He died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat. Lord Stark then returned Dawn to Starfall, and to Ser Arthur's kin, as a sign of respect.

The rumour we head of was just about Ned and Arthur, not the other KG. 

Quote

Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. 

I think the 'with his brothers' part is a error, as I said. There is no way Yandel could know that unless Ned talked of it, and all the other evidence suggests Ned didn't talk of it.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Ned also built cairns around the tower for the men who fought and died there. Barbrey Dustin certainly knows about them due to her late husband occupying one of them.

Not so.

Quote

"Lord Dustin and I had not been married half a year when Robert rose and Ned Stark called his banners. I begged my husband not to go. He had kin he might have sent in his stead. An uncle famed for his prowess with an axe, a great-uncle who had fought in the War of the Ninepenny Kings. But he was a man and full of pride, nothing would serve but that he lead the Barrowton levies himself. I gave him a horse the day he set out, a red stallion with a fiery mane, the pride of my lord father's herds. My lord swore that he would ride him home when the war was done.

"Ned Stark returned the horse to me on his way back home to Winterfell. He told me that my lord had died an honorable death, that his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne. He brought his sister's bones back north, though, and there she rests … but I promise you, Lord Eddard's bones will never rest beside hers. I mean to feed them to my dogs."

There is no evidence she knows about the cairns, their number, their location beyond the wide generality "his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne".

 

[FictionIsntReal]

On 8/15/2019 at 10:40 PM, corbon said:

Its not that she's entirely forgotten, its just that shes not terribly important (to southerners - most people care little for the north, remember) and not relevant (compared to the war, and the Brandon/Aerys events that set it off). Yes, she'd be remembered as a Targ casualty, but a very very early one, way, waaay before Jon. Which is the point.

Rather than saying Lyanna wasn't important, I would say it's mostly that Jon is perceived as unimportant. Bastards don't have noble surnames, hence putting them beneath the notice of the nobility.

Quote

I don't agree with this. Hoster didn't have a third daughter. Robert didn't get married because he didn't need to. Ned was appropriate for Catelyn, with her being affianced to Brandon before, and Jon worked out perfect for Lysa (well, not personally) as the older widower suddenly needed an heir and she was quietly proven fertile.

Robert was effectively the figurehead of the rebellion, and after those marriages came the Trident with his men fighting for him as king rather than just an aggrieved lord. The new king-to-be would be the most eligible bachelor on the rebel side and would definitely be made part of a marital alliance if it were feasible.

Quote

Not sure there is any evidence for this either. I think Robert was slated to marry Cersei anyway, to keep the Lannisters on board. Do you have any evidence this was only decided after Ned returned? Maybe there is something I missed.

In Eddard VII Robert recalls that he didn't want to marry after Lyanna's death, but that Jon Arryn then suggested marrying Cersei. During the year Robert was crowned Arryn had been busy pacifying Dorne, and announcing a betrothal in the middle of that would have made things more difficult. Jon cited the necessity of having an heir should Viserys try to take the throne, and Oberyn had been trying to rally men to Viserys prior to Jon going to Dorne.

Quote

It is a rumour.
Ned telling Bran something doesn't make it public knowledge. All Ned told Bran was that Arthur would have killed him if not for Howland Reed. Ned didn't even say it was during/after the war.

The absence of Arthur and his fellow kingsguards at the Tower from battle was noted during the war. It's a matter of historical record that the other kingsguard save Jaime were at the Trident, and of them only Barristan survived. The fact that Ned told Bran is relevant because Ned has kept his children from hearing about much of that history, like the Harrenhall tourney and of Ashara Dayne. The fight with Arthur isn't some secret that Ned told Bran to keep in confidence, it's relevant to the ongoing relationship between houses Stark and Reed.

Quote

Long before Bran was born there was a rumour that Ned killed Arthur in single combat. Ned's soldiers whispered of it, glamourising their young lord. But that rumour certainly wasn't the way Ned would tell it.

The "single combat" bit is incorrect, as Ned told Bran Howland Reed's intervention saved him. That part is the "rumor", and if you examine the section you quoted from Yandel, he first states that Arthur's death alongside his brothers as fact and then characterizes the single combat with Ned as rumored.

Quote

I don't think it is at all. Ned doesn't speak of it. Howland doesn't. No one does who knows. Just a rumour after the war, which is easily attributable to Ned taking Dawn to Starfall.

Ned does speak of it, he told Bran about Arthur nearly killing him. And if you're willing to treat Ned's delivery of Dawn to Starfall as historical fact, why not the deaths of Arthur and his kingsguard brothers? Do you think Ned showed up with the sword and said "Don't ask me how I got it, or what's up with Arthur"?

Quote

Yandell says it was said Ned killed Arthur in single combat, indicating he's reporting a rumour, not a fact.

The rumour we head of was just about Ned and Arthur, not the other KG.

The deaths of all three kingsguard is treated as historical fact. It's just the single combat which is a rumor.

Quote

I think the 'with his brothers' part is a error, as I said. There is no way Yandel could know that unless Ned talked of it, and all the other evidence suggests Ned didn't talk of it.

You have to dismiss parts of the text as "error" because it doesn't fit your interpretation. I go with the interpretation which is actually consistent with all the text. I can make up any theory I want if I ignore enough of the text.

Quote

There is no evidence she knows about the cairns, their number, their location beyond the wide generality "his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne".

That's not a quote of what Ned Stark said, that's her telling "Reek" the things important to her. She doesn't care about the other men who died. There were nobility among those men and their families would all insist on knowing what happened to them. Homicide is considered the most reliable crime statistic today because it's so much harder to ignore a body or missing person than most things. If someone's death does go under the radar, it's typically because they're lower-class and thus considered relatively unimportant. The nobility are the important people in Westeros. Cairns are built specifically to mark a place in a visible manner; Renly's grave does not have one because Loras wanted to keep their shared spot private.

[corbon]

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Rather than saying Lyanna wasn't important, I would say it's mostly that Jon is perceived as unimportant. Bastards don't have noble surnames, hence putting them beneath the notice of the nobility.

Sure.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Robert was effectively the figurehead of the rebellion, and after those marriages came the Trident with his men fighting for him as king rather than just an aggrieved lord. The new king-to-be would be the most eligible bachelor on the rebel side and would definitely be made part of a marital alliance if it were feasible.

Fine in theory, except he wasn't made part of the marital alliance. You claim one reason, I point out another. 

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

In Eddard VII Robert recalls that he didn't want to marry after Lyanna's death, but that Jon Arryn then suggested marrying Cersei. During the year Robert was crowned Arryn had been busy pacifying Dorne, and announcing a betrothal in the middle of that would have made things more difficult. Jon cited the necessity of having an heir should Viserys try to take the throne, and Oberyn had been trying to rally men to Viserys prior to Jon going to Dorne.

Correction. He didn't want to marry after Lyanna was taken from him. Which any time from before the war. The binding Lannisters angle places it most reasonably after the Sack, but not necessarily as a result of the reveal of her death.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The absence of Arthur and his fellow kingsguards at the Tower from battle was noted during the war. It's a matter of historical record that the other kingsguard save Jaime were at the Trident, and of them only Barristan survived.

Agreed.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The fact that Ned told Bran is relevant because Ned has kept his children from hearing about much of that history, like the Harrenhall tourney and of Ashara Dayne.

It shows that Ned doesn't like to talk about it and when he does, its a somewhat different story to that we hear or elsewhere.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The fight with Arthur isn't some secret that Ned told Bran to keep in confidence, it's relevant to the ongoing relationship between houses Stark and Reed.

I don;t think its a deep secret that Ned keeps, just that he doesn't talk about it, nor does anyone else who was there. So no one knows anything for sure.
Even what he did tell Bran was not really about "the fight at ToJ", just the most vague generalism that we think (almost certainly correctly) is about ToJ. Bran doesn't know that.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The "single combat" bit is incorrect, as Ned told Bran Howland Reed's intervention saved him. That part is the "rumor", and if you examine the section you quoted from Yandel, he first states that Arthur's death alongside his brothers as fact and then characterizes the single combat with Ned as rumored.

Correct.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Ned does speak of it, he told Bran about Arthur nearly killing him.

That wasn't explicitly speaking of the ToJ (or any specific) fight. That was a vague generalism about Arthur Dayne.

Quote

"Was there one who was best of all?"

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. 

See how Ned doesn't talk of it, even to Bran?
 

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And if you're willing to treat Ned's delivery of Dawn to Starfall as historical fact, why not the deaths of Arthur and his kingsguard brothers? Do you think Ned showed up with the sword and said "Don't ask me how I got it, or what's up with Arthur"?

Ned's delivery of Dawn to Starfall is a publicly witnessed and widely acknowledged fact.
The deaths of Arthur and his brother KG was private and the only people who know of it don't speak of it. Therefore its not likely to be known at all, let alone widely known.
However, the death of Arthur by Ned's hand is easily surmised by anyone and everyone, simply by the public known fact that he returned Dawn to Starfall.

What I see from Ned is a very very consistent refusal to speak anything about the ToJ events to anyone. Robert, his King, merely has one peripheral detail relating to it, the name of the wetnurse, whom Robert assumes is the mother - and that datapoint relates as much or more to after Starfall and after, when Ned was known to have a wetnurse with his bastard, as to ToJ.
Ned gets angry, or sad, when these things come up, and won't talk any more, even to his King or to his son.

So consistent with Ned's behaviour, what I think happened at Starfall is that Ned very respectfully and sorrowfully return Dawn to the Dayne, without telling them virtually anything - at most a "yes, Arthur is dead, I'm sorry. He died most honourably" sort of answer.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The deaths of all three kingsguard is treated as historical fact. It's just the single combat which is a rumor.

In one single place, which is not GRRMs direct writing, the death of the three KG is mentioned.
Given the way GRRM has written Ned's interactions around this event, I suspect that this one mention is an error, and Yandel does not in fact know this.
Unless Ned told someone, which would run counter to both his characterisation and his needs of the moment (such a story invites more interest in a matter he desperately needs to keep secret), I don;t see how Yandel or anyone else could know this.
 

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You have to dismiss parts of the text as "error" because it doesn't fit your interpretation. I go with the interpretation which is actually consistent with all the text. I can make up any theory I want if I ignore enough of the text.

Fair call.
I'm not "dismissing" it entirely.
I'm saying that I think it likely that this isolated datapoint, which is not from GRRM directly, which stands in direct opposition to Ned's characterisation and needs, is an error.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That's not a quote of what Ned Stark said, that's her telling "Reek" the things important to her.

Its the text we have, Anything else is your invention. 

Quote

 He told me that my lord had died an honorable death, that his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne.

 

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

She doesn't care about the other men who died. There were nobility among those men and their families would all insist on knowing what happened to them.

Would they? There was a war on, or the after effects of one. I don't think they wold insist on Ned telling them full stories. I don't think they would push on their Lord's obvious sadness and loss. I think they would accept the briefest and most basic explanation, exactly as we hear from Lady Barbrey. Especially given Ned's own sadness and losses.
Even if you disagree, its just your made up opinion, nothing from the text.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Homicide is considered the most reliable crime statistic today because it's so much harder to ignore a body or missing person than most things. If someone's death does go under the radar, it's typically because they're lower-class and thus considered relatively unimportant. The nobility are the important people in Westeros.

These are not murders or missing people. They are warriors who went to war and didn't come back. Their Lord, and friend, says they died honourably and were buried locally, thats enough for almost anyone. 

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Cairns are built specifically to mark a place in a visible manner; Renly's grave does not have one because Loras wanted to keep their shared spot private.

Cairns are built to honour the dead. Cairns built in an isolated place that no one goes to, and left unmarked, are not there for everyone else.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 8/18/2019 at 5:42 PM, corbon said:

Sure.

Fine in theory, except he wasn't made part of the marital alliance. You claim one reason, I point out another.

He wasn't made part of a marital alliance when the war was going on and Lyanna's whereabouts were unknown. He was made part of a marital alliance after the war was over. Stannis was also pushed into a political marriage after the war, although the reason he wasn't during it is that he was besieged in Storm's End.

Quote

Correction. He didn't want to marry after Lyanna was taken from him. Which any time from before the war. The binding Lannisters angle places it most reasonably after the Sack, but not necessarily as a result of the reveal of her death.

The marriage took place after the reveal, and Robert is clearly linking Lyanna to his lack of a desire to marry. Cersei herself recalls him saying her name on their wedding night. When Joffrey breaks his betrothal to Sansa, there is a lot of hubbub about making it acceptable. In the absence of a formal disavowal of the betrothal, we can assume that Robert and Lyanna were still considered officially betrothed until the reveal of her death.

Quote

It shows that Ned doesn't like to talk about it and when he does, its a somewhat different story to that we hear or elsewhere.

I don;t think its a deep secret that Ned keeps, just that he doesn't talk about it, nor does anyone else who was there. So no one knows anything for sure.
Even what he did tell Bran was not really about "the fight at ToJ", just the most vague generalism that we think (almost certainly correctly) is about ToJ. Bran doesn't know that.

That wasn't explicitly speaking of the ToJ (or any specific) fight. That was a vague generalism about Arthur Dayne.

See how Ned doesn't talk of it, even to Bran?
 

Many memories of the rebellion are sad for Ned, but that doesn't mean he refuses to talk about it. Bran asked who the finest knight was, and Ned freely offered that it was Arthur Dayne and how Ned himself nearly died at Dayne's hand. Bran doesn't ask a follow-up question.

Quote

Ned's delivery of Dawn to Starfall is a publicly witnessed and widely acknowledged fact.
The deaths of Arthur and his brother KG was private and the only people who know of it don't speak of it. Therefore its not likely to be known at all, let alone widely known.
However, the death of Arthur by Ned's hand is easily surmised by anyone and everyone, simply by the public known fact that he returned Dawn to Starfall.

We don't have POV chapters during Ned's visit to Starfall or return to King's Landing or his meeting with Barbrey Dustin after the ToJ. But there's no reason to assume that he refused to tell people how the men there died. We've never seen Howland in a POV chapter and don't get any indication that he doesn't speak of it. Instead his children are surprised that Ned hasn't told Bran how their fathers first met at the Harrenhall tourney.

Quote

What I see from Ned is a very very consistent refusal to speak anything about the ToJ events to anyone. Robert, his King, merely has one peripheral detail relating to it, the name of the wetnurse, whom Robert assumes is the mother - and that datapoint relates as much or more to after Starfall and after, when Ned was known to have a wetnurse with his bastard, as to ToJ.
Ned gets angry, or sad, when these things come up, and won't talk any more, even to his King or to his son.

Ned only refuses to speak of Jon's mother, and prohibits discussion in Winterfell of Ashara. That incident with Cat is portrayed as unusual. We don't get any indication he puts a kibosh on discussion of the kingsguard or the other men who fought and died alongside him at the ToJ.

Quote

So consistent with Ned's behaviour, what I think happened at Starfall is that Ned very respectfully and sorrowfully return Dawn to the Dayne, without telling them virtually anything - at most a "yes, Arthur is dead, I'm sorry. He died most honourably" sort of answer.

Do you think Ashara didn't ask Ned how her brother died? And if Ned refused to say, wouldn't the Daynes regard that as rather disrespectful? Couldn't Ned have sent someone else like Howland if he was too uncomfortable to tell Arthur's family what happened?

Quote

In one single place, which is not GRRMs direct writing, the death of the three KG is mentioned.
Given the way GRRM has written Ned's interactions around this event, I suspect that this one mention is an error, and Yandel does not in fact know this.
Unless Ned told someone, which would run counter to both his characterisation and his needs of the moment (such a story invites more interest in a matter he desperately needs to keep secret), I don;t see how Yandel or anyone else could know this.

Ned doesn't actually prohibit or refuse to discuss the fight at the tower, and he doesn't need to keep that part secret. It's just Jon that he refuses to talk about.

Quote

I'm saying that I think it likely that this isolated datapoint, which is not from GRRM directly, which stands in direct opposition to Ned's characterisation and needs, is an error.

The World of Ice and Fire is considered by GRRM to be canon unless it contradicts something in the main series. And that's not a contradiction, as it's only your interpretation that Ned refused to tell anyone what happened rather than something explicitly in the text.

Quote

Its the text we have, Anything else is your invention.

It's Dustin relaying information to Reek. There's no reason to think that's the sum total of everything she knows and that therefore Ned didn't tell her any more. The facts that she does give are consistent with what we know of the ToJ, and anything more specific wouldn't have any relevance to Reek.

Quote

Would they? There was a war on, or the after effects of one. I don't think they wold insist on Ned telling them full stories. I don't think they would push on their Lord's obvious sadness and loss. I think they would accept the briefest and most basic explanation, exactly as we hear from Lady Barbrey. Especially given Ned's own sadness and losses.
Even if you disagree, its just your made up opinion, nothing from the text.

These are not murders or missing people. They are warriors who went to war and didn't come back. Their Lord, and friend, says they died honourably and were buried locally, thats enough for almost anyone.

The war was over by the time Ned brought those men to Dorne. King's Landing had fallen and Mace Tyrell had laid down his arms without a fight. This is a culture that strives to remember the deaths of noblemen in battle, not one that just shrugs off who died where and how.

Quote

Cairns are built to honour the dead. Cairns built in an isolated place that no one goes to, and left unmarked, are not there for everyone else.

Cairns are themselves a visible marking. The graves are not supposed to be secrets.

[corbon]

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

The marriage took place after the reveal, and Robert is clearly linking Lyanna to his lack of a desire to marry. Cersei herself recalls him saying her name on their wedding night. When Joffrey breaks his betrothal to Sansa, there is a lot of hubbub about making it acceptable. In the absence of a formal disavowal of the betrothal, we can assume that Robert and Lyanna were still considered officially betrothed until the reveal of her death.

I agree with all of that. The point remains, you claimed that Robert was 'not available' until after the news of Lyanna's death, and that his marriage to Cersei was only discussed subsequently. But you have not shown either of those to be fact, only supposition. The text shows that Robert became available after Lyanna was taken from him, it does not clarify whether that was by death or kidnapping. 
Your interpretation is possible, and maybe even more likely than not, but it is not confirmed.
I really care little at all for this point either way, just pointing out that your claims were not objectively verified.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Many memories of the rebellion are sad for Ned, but that doesn't mean he refuses to talk about it. Bran asked who the finest knight was, and Ned freely offered that it was Arthur Dayne and how Ned himself nearly died at Dayne's hand. Bran doesn't ask a follow-up question.

I gave you a quote and underlined the relevant portion, which you the entirely ignore.

The fact that Bran says Ned got sad and would say no more is a clear indication that Bran did, in fact, ask more questions, he just didn't tell us about that part of the conversation. If a conversation ends naturally, you don't say someone 'would say no more'. You only say that if the conversation tried to continue and was closed down.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

We don't have POV chapters during Ned's visit to Starfall or return to King's Landing or his meeting with Barbrey Dustin after the ToJ. But there's no reason to assume that he refused to tell people how the men there died.

Yes there is. We are explicitly told by Bran than Ned 'would say no more', which clearly directly refers to Ned's interactions with Arthur Dayne at the end, since the subject was explicitly Arthur Dayne and thats the known interaction that Ned has with him..
In addition, we see no time anywhere with anyone where Ned discusses this.
We further see only the most vague possible indirect information from those people Ned did indirectly speak of it.
We further see that the 'public' rumours are very out of character from what Ned might say, clearly indicating that he is not the origin.

Its a clear pattern that fits Ned's character and needs. 

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

We've never seen Howland in a POV chapter and don't get any indication that he doesn't speak of it. Instead his children are surprised that Ned hasn't told Bran how their fathers first met at the Harrenhall tourney.

HR is an obscure and remote figure that doesn't really interact with the rest of Westerosi society after the ToJ. He is also a close and loyal friend. We can't expect that he's been telling tales when Ned hasn't and doesn't want them told.

The Harrenhal tale of how Ned and Howland met is not a secret and not particularly private. It is not comparable to the ToJ story.
And yet, Ned still didn't speak of it. There are whole volumes between the lines there...

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Ned only refuses to speak of Jon's mother, and prohibits discussion in Winterfell of Ashara. That incident with Cat is portrayed as unusual. We don't get any indication he puts a kibosh on discussion of the kingsguard or the other men who fought and died alongside him at the ToJ.

We do, and I underlined it in the quote and you ignored it.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Do you think Ashara didn't ask Ned how her brother died? And if Ned refused to say, wouldn't the Daynes regard that as rather disrespectful? Couldn't Ned have sent someone else like Howland if he was too uncomfortable to tell Arthur's family what happened?

Possibly she did ask. I have no idea, or preference either way. 
But if Ned answered, 'with honour' for example (as he did with Lady Dustin), then that would be enough for the Daynes, as it would be enough for nearly any Westerosi noble family. Thats what is important, culturally. Death, as a warrior society, is not a huge thing the way it is in our current society, nor are the physical particulars what are important. The sociological manner of it, 'with honour' is what matters to these people. So, no, not at all disrespectful. Especially given he is RETURNING DAWN, something he has no requirement, or obligation to do.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Ned doesn't actually prohibit or refuse to discuss the fight at the tower, and he doesn't need to keep that part secret. It's just Jon that he refuses to talk about.

He never has need to prohibit it because no one knows about it for him to prohibit. He does refuse to discuss it, Bran tells us.

And he very much does need to keep it a secret. The general knowledge that Hightower, Dayne and Whent were all in one place and died together, absolutely begs the question of what they were doing together and why. Which leads in the direction of Jon.
People not knowing about the three KG at ToJ fighting to the death vs Ned and his companions, after the war is finished, is a key component in the lack of interest or investigation into what Ned did between leaving Storms End and his responsibilities and appearing at Starfall with Dawn and a bastard.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

The World of Ice and Fire is considered by GRRM to be canon unless it contradicts something in the main series. And that's not a contradiction, as it's only your interpretation that Ned refused to tell anyone what happened rather than something explicitly in the text.

It is a contradiction.
Ned explicitly refuses to talk of it, even privately to his son. Plus politically its suicide for him to discuss it. Plus all the very very limited discussion out there is clearly of false origins. 

If Ned won't talk, how can anyone possibly know? HR will follow Ned, and is an inaccessible source in general. Wylla perhaps? She's a peasant nobody, with no evidence she's discussed it all all, and a motive to keep everything that happened there quiet if she was there.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

It's Dustin relaying information to Reek. There's no reason to think that's the sum total of everything she knows and that therefore Ned didn't tell her any more.

So you are literally creating more info that is not in the text with no logical justification. While ignoring info that is in the text. And ignoring motive and political needs. 

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

The facts that she does give are consistent with what we know of the ToJ, and anything more specific wouldn't have any relevance to Reek.

The facts that she does give are also consistent with a reasonable answer from Ned that suits his needs.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

The war was over by the time Ned brought those men to Dorne. King's Landing had fallen and Mace Tyrell had laid down his arms without a fight.

Still, these are men that went off to war and never returned. Their deaths are not unexpected shocks. They are things that their families have accepted and prepared themselves for, while hoping not to happen.

Their families also understand that dying doesn't end the moment a piece of paper is signed. Even when hostilities have ended, there are still likely to be lawlessness and trouble in many areas (see the Riverlands for example) and the effects of war (for example peasants drafted into warriors and now without any way to go home, or even place to go home to, and now attuned to violence and brigandry).

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

This is a culture that strives to remember the deaths of noblemen in battle, not one that just shrugs off who died where and how.

Correction. This is a culture that values the social manner of a mans death, rather than the physical details.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:59 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Cairns are themselves a visible marking. The graves are not supposed to be secrets.

Unless those cairns are marked (you think Ned had an engraver along, or scratched their names into rocks with whatever tools he had at hand before moving out with the baby?), then there is no indication for anyone who happens upon them who lies there. What cairns do is show respect for the dead, not publicity.

[FictionIsntReal]

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The fact that Bran says Ned got sad and would say no more is a clear indication that Bran did, in fact, ask more questions, he just didn't tell us about that part of the conversation. If a conversation ends naturally, you don't say someone 'would say no more'. You only say that if the conversation tried to continue and was closed down.

It means Bran expected him to say more, as Bran only "wished he had asked him what he meant". I've seen that phrasing used elsewhere when a person declines to ask further. Bran didn't personally know anyone who died in that incident and has no need to press his father on something he can tell makes Ned sad to talk about. If Ned didn't want people to know about Arthur Dayne fighting him and Howland he might have just declined to mention that, but the lives and deaths of the kingsguard are a matter of public record so it might have been pointless to try hushing that up as he did with Ashara in Winterfell.

Quote

Yes there is. We are explicitly told by Bran than Ned 'would say no more', which clearly directly refers to Ned's interactions with Arthur Dayne at the end, since the subject was explicitly Arthur Dayne and thats the known interaction that Ned has with him..
In addition, we see no time anywhere with anyone where Ned discusses this.
We further see only the most vague possible indirect information from those people Ned did indirectly speak of it.
We further see that the 'public' rumours are very out of character from what Ned might say, clearly indicating that he is not the origin.

Do you think Ned thought he could tell Bran but not any of his other children? And do you think he told Barbrey Dustin but not any other relations of his companions?

The bit that the World of Ice and Fire depicts as a rumor rather than fact is that Eddard killed Arthur in single combat. And indeed the exact manner of Dayne's death would be something far fewer people would know about than the fact that he did die after being absent for every battle of the rebellion proper. Similarly, it's hard to handwave away the fates of Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower, which is why I don't think it's a mistake for the work to treat their deaths alongside Arthur's as facts.

Quote

Its a clear pattern that fits Ned's character and needs.

Why does Ned "need" to hide that the remaining Kingsguard died alongside Arthur Dayne and opposite the similarly late Willam Dustin, Ethan Glover, Martyn Cassel, Theo Wull and Mark Ryswell? Particularly when people already know that he left Storm's End at the end of the rebellion, headed to Dorne, found his sister's dead body and brought the late Sword of the Morning's blade to Starfall?

Quote

HR is an obscure and remote figure that doesn't really interact with the rest of Westerosi society after the ToJ. He is also a close and loyal friend. We can't expect that he's been telling tales when Ned hasn't and doesn't want them told.

Howland did tell his kids about the Harrenhall tourney, including some of Ned's interaction with Ashara. They're surprised Bran hasn't head the stories, but we know from Catelyn that Ned forbid any mention of Ashara's name, which is why Arya finds herself similarly ignorant to Edric Dayne's surprise when he discusses her, even though Arya knows Arthur was the Sword of the Morning. Servants in Winterfell gossiped about Arthur Dayne, but Ned didn't forbid any discussion of him.

Quote

The Harrenhal tale of how Ned and Howland met is not a secret and not particularly private. It is not comparable to the ToJ story.
And yet, Ned still didn't speak of it. There are whole volumes between the lines there...

Treating the deaths of the kingsguard knights as a secret is assuming your conclusion while attempting to argue for it. And within Winterfell, some of that story is actually forbidden to speak of, whereas we get no comparable edict of Ned forbidding discussion of the three kingsguard.

Quote

We do, and I underlined it in the quote and you ignored it.

You cut off the quote right before Bran notes he wishes he had asked another question rather than Ned refusing to answer him.

Quote

Possibly she did ask. I have no idea, or preference either way. 
But if Ned answered, 'with honour' for example (as he did with Lady Dustin), then that would be enough for the Daynes, as it would be enough for nearly any Westerosi noble family. Thats what is important, culturally. Death, as a warrior society, is not a huge thing the way it is in our current society, nor are the physical particulars what are important. The sociological manner of it, 'with honour' is what matters to these people. So, no, not at all disrespectful. Especially given he is RETURNING DAWN, something he has no requirement, or obligation to do.

Barbrey wasn't satisfied with Ned's explanation, she was angry that Ned got her husband killed and then didn't even send the body back. Merely saying the magic word "honorable" isn't a satisfactory answer. I'd expect that Ned would have felt he owed more to a woman he was trying to pay his respects than what he freely offered Bran without prompting.

Quote

He never has need to prohibit it because no one knows about it for him to prohibit. He does refuse to discuss it, Bran tells us.

In the section where Catelyn recalls the one time Ned scared her, she recalls that the servants were gossiping about Ned's interactions with both Arthur and Ashara. And then only the latter is forbidden to speak about. And as I just pointed out, Bran remembers failing to ask a follow-up question rather than Ned refusing to answer one.

Quote

And he very much does need to keep it a secret. The general knowledge that Hightower, Dayne and Whent were all in one place and died together, absolutely begs the question of what they were doing together and why. Which leads in the direction of Jon.
People not knowing about the three KG at ToJ fighting to the death vs Ned and his companions, after the war is finished, is a key component in the lack of interest or investigation into what Ned did between leaving Storms End and his responsibilities and appearing at Starfall with Dawn and a bastard.

So if Ned just admitted to killing Arthur Dayne between Storm's End and returning Dawn and Lyanna's body to their homes nobody would think twice but the addition of the remaining two kingsguard whom everybody knows were absent from the battles but now dead would be the straw that broke the camel's back? And people are interested enough to gossip about it, but a man's bastard is not really considered a topic for polite conversation among the nobility and people just attribute Jon to various women Ned could have slept with.

Quote

It is a contradiction.
Ned explicitly refuses to talk of it, even privately to his son. Plus politically its suicide for him to discuss it. Plus all the very very limited discussion out there is clearly of false origins.

No, Bran didn't ask rather than Ned refusing. There's no contradiction and I don't have to ignore any text. It's not political suicide for Ned to talk about fighting the kingsguard. Everyone knows he took Dawn from the late Arthur around the time he found his dead sister. He went back to Robert and their shared grief over Lyanna is what ended the enmity over Rhaegar's children. Blaming kingsguard loyal to Rhaegar for keeping Lyanna prisoner until she died fits well with Robert's preferred narrative.

Quote

If Ned won't talk, how can anyone possibly know? HR will follow Ned, and is an inaccessible source in general. Wylla perhaps? She's a peasant nobody, with no evidence she's discussed it all all, and a motive to keep everything that happened there quiet if she was there.

Wylla is a peasant whose word counts for less, but considering that both Ned and Edric refer to her as Jon's mother, I think there was some arrangement of a preferred story that happened at Starfall. Edric attests to that based on Wylla being his wetnurse as well, so there's a decent probability that some of his knowledge comes from her.

Quote

So you are literally creating more info that is not in the text with no logical justification. While ignoring info that is in the text. And ignoring motive and political needs.

We've got knowledge of what happened, and then we hear Barbrey's perspective. When she only relays  that Ned got her husband killed in Dorne and buried the body there rather than returning it, that makes sense because that's who she cares about. She's not narrating an encyclopedia entry to Reek and has no reason to ramble on about dead men she doesn't care about.

Quote

The facts that she does give are also consistent with a reasonable answer from Ned that suits his needs.

Agreed.

Quote

Still, these are men that went off to war and never returned. Their deaths are not unexpected shocks. They are things that their families have accepted and prepared themselves for, while hoping not to happen.

There were no battles in Dorne, although Cersei does admittedly accuse Ned of burning some peasant holdfasts there. And Barbrey is still pissed.

Quote

Their families also understand that dying doesn't end the moment a piece of paper is signed. Even when hostilities have ended, there are still likely to be lawlessness and trouble in many areas (see the Riverlands for example) and the effects of war (for example peasants drafted into warriors and now without any way to go home, or even place to go home to, and now attuned to violence and brigandry).

The Riverlands have been the most frequent battleground in the war of the five kings. As noted, Dorne was free from battles in the rebellion. The Lannister regime in the present day is also on shakier ground than the widely popular and regularly victorious Robert Baratheon, who removed the Targaryens from Kings Landing but left the other Lords Paramount in charge of their realms.

Quote

Correction. This is a culture that values the social manner of a mans death, rather than the physical details.

The White Book records lots of details of the knights of the kingsguard. It doesn't just say "He was honorable. He died honorably during the reign of King Soandso". Those knights, particularly Arthur, were quite famous, and Gerold was even Lord Commander.

Quote

Unless those cairns are marked (you think Ned had an engraver along, or scratched their names into rocks with whatever tools he had at hand before moving out with the baby?), then there is no indication for anyone who happens upon them who lies there. What cairns do is show respect for the dead, not publicity.

They are a public marker of respect for the dead, which is inconsistent with an attempt at secrecy. Tearing down the tower might be part of an attempt to destroy evidence, but marking the dead afterward was not.

[Frey family reunion]

On 6/30/2019 at 2:29 AM, Vashon said:

A better question is why anyone thinks itd matter at all if rl=j. He looks absolutely nothing like Rhaegar, everybody in the realm who knows he exists just think hes Neds boy, there is no dna testing, and even if there were, it wouldnt matter, as after Maegor, the precedent of multiple marriages was ended. Not a single soul would raise a spear to put him on the throne or respect anyone who would.

This is an excellent point, and one that no one really seems to want to acknowledge.  In addition, the throne is no longer a Targaryen throne is it?  Now that it’s been taken by the Baratheon and then for all practical purposes stolen by the Lannisters.  If Jon were to sit on the Iron Throne it would only be through conquest at this point.  And Jon’s Targaryen ancestry would only come into play, if he were used as a figurehead (like Young Griff) for people to rally around.  As a practical matter, there probably isn’t enough room left int he series for this scenario to come into play.

And if it did come into play, it would be an almost complete disregard of Jon’s story arc through the first five books, which has primarily dealt with Jon’s oath to the Wall vs his relationship with the wildlings vs his coveting of Winterfell.

Becoming a Targaryen and moving south to claim the Iron Throne, hasn’t been set up at all in Jon’s story arc.  And if this did happen, dare I say, this would be extremely sloppy storytelling (just refer to the HBO series for proof).

[frenin]

On 8/26/2019 at 12:40 AM, corbon said:

I agree with all of that. The point remains, you claimed that Robert was 'not available' until after the news of Lyanna's death, and that his marriage to Cersei was only discussed subsequently. But you have not shown either of those to be fact, only supposition. The text shows that Robert became available after Lyanna was taken from him, it does not clarify whether that was by death or kidnapping. 
Your interpretation is possible, and maybe even more likely than not, but it is not confirmed.
I really care little at all for this point either way, just pointing out that your claims were not objectively verified.

Robert himself always makes  clear that he would've married Lyanna had she lived. More than one he says that had Lyanna lived, they'd be brothers.

[Ygrain]

Guys... I'm afraid I've lost interest in discussions as there is very little new to be added. Until and if TWOW rekindles my passion for debates... Fare well. I guess I might check the forums occasionally, so if you want to talk, PM me.

With thanks for the years of awesome time,

Ygrain.

 

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, frenin said:

Robert himself always makes  clear that he would've married Lyanna had she lived. More than one he says that had Lyanna lived, they'd be brothers.

Exactly. Not to mention that there is no internal reason why (nor any textual evidence given) that Jon Arryn pushed Robert Baratheon to consider Cersei Lannister as a marriage prospect before the Sack of King's Landing. Jon wanted Robert to marry Cersei to ensure Tywin would stand with him against a possible Targaryen invasion/rebellion with the goal to put King Viserys III on the Iron Throne.

Such a prospect wouldn't been on Jon's mind while it wasn't even clear that (1) Tywin Lannister would cut his ties to the Targaryens by betraying his friend and king Aerys II at King's Landing and (2) that King Viserys III and Daenerys Targaryen would escape from Dragonstone to the Free Cities.

Tywin's daughter wouldn't have married King Robert if the Lannisters had not joined the rebels at the last possible moment (then the Lannisters would have been kept at arm's length the way the Tyrells later were) and there would have obviously be not need to secure Lannister support against a Targaryen restoration if Stannis had captured Viserys III and Daenerys and King Robert could have sent those children to Rhaegar and Aerys II in the afterlife (or otherwise neutralized them, say, by making Viserys III a eunuch septon and Dany a silent sister or his heir's future wife).

It is quite clear that the Lannister marriage only came up after Robert had taken the throne and it was clear that his betrothed, Lyanna Stark, was dead.

Robert was in love with Lyanna and we see that noblemen in Westeros (Baratheons included) have no issues marrying widows. Just think of the twice-widowed Daemon Targaryen marrying the widow Rhaenyra Targaryen or the widower Rogar Baratheon marrying the widowed Alyssa Velaryon (not to mention the three sucessive husbands of Rhaena Targaryen and Elaena Targaryen).

While there is a small chance that Lyanna being raped, etc. (if this were truly the officially accepted and only repeated story by Lyanna Stark - which is ridiculous) would have soiled her, it was up for the king to decide whether she was still suitable or not - and Robert Baratheon had made his call. We also see in Margaery switching from Renly to Joffrey that it doesn't really matter whether your family or your bride was previously betrothed/married to your enemy - at least, if your family is powerful enough to force the new bride on you.

And there is question that Ned would have forced Robert to marry Lyanna to restore the honor of House Stark - just as he was forced to marry his brother's betrothed to honor his house's contract with Lord Hoster Tully.

[SFDanny]

On 9/3/2019 at 8:01 AM, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that the Lannister marriage only came up after Robert had taken the throne and it was clear that his betrothed, Lyanna Stark, was dead.

While I think it is quite clear that Robert had taken the throne already before any marriage to Cersei was pursued, I don't think it is "clear" that Robert hears of Lyanna death before that takes place. I've argued for a long time that it is likely only after Robert hears the news of her death that this takes place, but unless you have information the rest of us don't I don't see how one can say this claim is "clear." Robert's obsession with Lyanna and getting her back is the best evidence we have that he wouldn't consider a marriage to Cersei until Lyanna's death is known. It is likely that Ned delivers that news on his return trip to the North from Starfall, which gives us an idea of when this takes place, but the details of this time period are very much up in the air and up for discussion.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

While I think it is quite clear that Robert had taken the throne already before any marriage to Cersei was pursued, I don't think it is "clear" that Robert hears of Lyanna death before that takes place. I've argued for a long time that it is likely only after Robert hears the news of her death that this takes place, but unless you have information the rest of us don't I don't see how one can say this claim is "clear." Robert's obsession with Lyanna and getting her back is the best evidence we have that he wouldn't consider a marriage to Cersei until Lyanna's death is known. It is likely that Ned delivers that news on his return trip to the North from Starfall, which gives us an idea of when this takes place, but the details of this time period are very much up in the air and up for discussion.

But Lyanna's death is only one of the prerequisites to consider Cersei a potential bride for Robert. The other is the murder of King Aerys II and the Sack of King's Landing, revealing that the Lannisters are neither neutral in the Rebellion nor no longer (potential) Targaryen men.

The idea that the daughter Aerys II's childhood friend who did not come to Robert's aid before the Trident and whose son serves the king as a Kingsguard would be a prime candidate to marry a King Robert Baratheon in a scenario where Lyanna Stark is dead is simply not very likely.

Even more so, as I pointed out already, since part of the reasoning Jon Arryn gives Robert is that the king would need Tywin should Viserys III ever try to regain his father's throne - a scenario that's only imaginable if there are Targaryens left after the war. If Robert planned to eradicate the bloodline of his cousins and if he had succeeded at that there would have been no need to marry Tywin's daughter so that he could count on Lannister support against non-existing Targaryens in the future.

[Bael's Bastard]

It's not inconceivable that Jon had already contemplated a scenario in which Lyanna wasn't available to wed Robert before he actually learned she was dead, but I strongly doubt he would have broached the subject with Robert prior to confirmation of her death.

As for what Jon told Robert, I think Jon told Robert something Robert could accept, and repeat to himself. It's not really accurate, and at best contains a small grain of truth. They didn't need to wed the Lannisters to get their oaths. Tywin had no real option but to swear fealty.

Tywin had publicly thrown in with the Baratheon cause at the last minute, and going back to the Targs wasn't a realistic option, nor was going to war against the new regime. On top of that, the new regime had the power to make a judgement on Jaime.

They had Tywin by the balls if they wanted to push it, though Tywin put himself in that position as a calculated risk. But there was no reason for them to push it, and keeping Jaime in the KG was more beneficial to them than making an example of him. The war was over, and it was time to rule. Tywin was going to be under Robert anyways, but why not create ties that can't be easily broken?

The biggest risk was alienating the Martells and Dorne, who had fought on the side of the Targs, however begrudgingly, anyways. But Dorne just doesn't have as much to offer as the Westerlandd. And other than Ashara Dayne before she allegedly died, there wasn't really any marriage options for Robert in Dorne.

The only real benefit would have been separating the Targs from their sole remaining supporter, but Jon just doesn't seem to have taken the Targlings seriously as a threat. And the stakes to appease Dorne might have been high had the new regime chosen to keep the Lannisters at arm's length. They might have demanded the Lannisters be punished. Easier to go with the Lannisters.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It's not inconceivable that Jon had already contemplated a scenario in which Lyanna wasn't available to wed Robert before he actually learned she was dead, but I strongly doubt he would have broached the subject with Robert prior to confirmation of her death.

As for what Jon told Robert, I think Jon told Robert something Robert could accept, and repeat to himself. It's not really accurate, and at best contains a small grain of truth. They didn't need to wed the Lannisters to get their oaths. Tywin had no real option but to swear fealty.

What would Jon's reason for that, though?

Are you suggesting he had an ulterior motive to marry Cersei to Robert? If so, what reason was that? I don't recall any indication that Jon didn't always want the best for Robert.

And unless we have reason to doubt Robert's own account on the matter I suggest we buy it that Jon and Robert both believed that it was necessary to bind Lord Tywin even closer to the new Baratheon regime. There belief is the crucial factor - not our belief what may have been wise or necessary.

And Kingslayer and Sack of King's Landing or not - Lord Tywin was about as obliged to support a King Robert Baratheon against Viserys III as he was to support Aerys II against Robert. And he chose to remain neutral throughout Robert's Rebellion until the war was nearly over. He could have stood aside during another such war - and he could have decided to defect to Viserys III if it looked he was to win. Marrying Robert to his daughter ensured he would stand firmly at Robert's side.

There is a difference between no longer being on a person's side and being on your side. You can also care about neither.

Casterly Rock is, in the end, too powerful to fear the wrath of a restored Viserys III. And Viserys' triumph over the Baratheons would have opened up new wounds - wounds that would have caused challenges that may have prevented the new king to try to besiege Casterly Rock. Especially since one could always lay the ultimate blame for the murders at the feet of the late King Robert - in whose name all those atrocities were committed.

3 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The only real benefit would have been separating the Targs from their sole remaining supporter, but Jon just doesn't seem to have taken the Targlings seriously as a threat. And the stakes to appease Dorne might have been high had the new regime chosen to keep the Lannisters at arm's length. They might have demanded the Lannisters be punished. Easier to go with the Lannisters.

That idea that Jon did not fear the threat of a Targaryen restoration again goes against the established text.

Jon would have been an utter moron to suggest the Lannister match if he didn't think it was politically necessary. Tywin was a very ambitious man - making him the king's father-in-law put up Tywin as a constant potential replacement Hand, making him Jon's direct rival for his own office. Would he have done that if he hadn't thought Robert needed that link with the Lannisters? I don't think so.

But as has been established - the important point is that the matter could only have been raised after the Lannisters had forsaken the Targaryens and after Lyanna Stark was dead. And that essentially confirms the question of Robert's marriage only came up after the Sack.

And, frankly, the idea that Jon Arryn had a voice in the matter of Robert Baratheon's marriage prior to him being formally named his Hand is a completely unsubstatiated idea. We know that Lord Robert chose his own bride in Lyanna Stark, and we can be pretty sure that Robert would have also chosen Lya's replacement had he not decided to marry as a king for reasons of state in a setting where he already had named royal advisers, etc.

[frenin]

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Casterly Rock is, in the end, too powerful to fear the wrath of a restored Viserys III. And Viserys' triumph over the Baratheons would have opened up new wounds - wounds that would have caused challenges that may have prevented the new king to try to besiege Casterly Rock. Especially since one could always lay the ultimate blame for the murders at the feet of the late King Robert - in whose name all those atrocities were committed.

I don't know what make you say that, Casterly Rock can't do nothing against the might of the Iron Throne and with the sack, Tywin had effectively isolated himself from both the rebels and the Loyalist and Cersei is the only reason why that situation change, and it the end it "only" gives him connections with the crown, the rest of the Great Houses keep their distances. WhileCasterly Rock, surely must mean a long siege, Lannisport and the Westerlands are there to the raping.

If Viserys wanted to go after Tywin, the loyalist would gladly help and even some rebels would partake, nor do I think that blaming all on Robert would go better than blaming all in Amory Lorch, Viserys was old enough to know that Tywin wasn't answering his father summons and that that made his father afraid and Viserys "knows" than the Lords Lannister and Starks did what they did because their master, the usurper either commanded it or they thought it'd make him happy, that doesn't mean that Viseys or later Dany consider that Tywin had any, non treasonous, reason to sack KL and order the deaths of Elia and her children, not that Jaime Lannister had any, non treasonous, reason to muder the King he had sworn to protect.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And Kingslayer and Sack of King's Landing or not - Lord Tywin was about as obliged to support a King Robert Baratheon against Viserys III as he was to support Aerys II against Robert. And he chose to remain neutral throughout Robert's Rebellion until the war was nearly over. He could have stood aside during another such war - and he could have decided to defect to Viserys III if it looked he was to win. Marrying Robert to his daughter ensured he would stand firmly at Robert's side.

 

Well given the fact, that is either Robert or Rains of Casterly Rock, I can see why Tywin should feel obliged to do that, neutrality isn't a good  option for Tywin, is either stand alone against those who sure as hell would come for you, or help the only one that can help you survive with your power, prestige and wealth going untouch.

After the Kingslayer and the Sack of King's Landing, defecting to whatever Targs, him and Jaime at least, wasn't an option, as he himself put it, "they had forever forsaken House Targ" and in this case, he meaned it, Robert was Tywin last and only ship. And both Viserys and Dany and iirc, makes it clear.

Marrying Robert to his daughter, completely guaranteed his loyalty true enough, but Tywin has really no more options than back him.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That idea that Jon did not fear the threat of a Targaryen restoration again goes against the established text.

 

Even when I do believe that both Robert and Jon Arryn indeed feared a Targ restoration, at least Robert was rather paranoid with at the end of his life,  one has to wonder why they never send or hired an army they knew they could trust to both seize, given that they didn't want to kill harmless kids. Letting them roam free for 15 years while at the same time you fear that some day they come back for you, makes little sense.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But as has been established - the important point is that the matter could only have been raised after the Lannisters had forsaken the Targaryens and after Lyanna Stark was dead. And that essentially confirms the question of Robert's marriage only came up after the Sack.

 

Totally agree.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Jon would have been an utter moron to suggest the Lannister match if he didn't think it was politically necessary. Tywin was a very ambitious man - making him the king's father-in-law put up Tywin as a constant potential replacement Hand, making him Jon's direct rival for his own office. Would he have done that if he hadn't thought Robert needed that link with the Lannisters? I don't think so.

 

Robert would've never accept Tywin as a Hand and he clearly didn't consider him later when he went to Winterfell, and i'm fairly sure that Cersei would've nagged a lot about it. I don't think Jon ever considered Tywin a threat fir his office, and office btw w don't know if Jon Arryn actually wanted or that he was the only one up to the charge. 

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't know what make you say that, Casterly Rock can't do nothing against the might of the Iron Throne and with the sack, Tywin had effectively isolated himself from both the rebels and the Loyalist and Cersei is the only reason why that situation change, and it the end it "only" gives him connections with the crown, the rest of the Great Houses keep their distances. WhileCasterly Rock, surely must mean a long siege, Lannisport and the Westerlands are there to the raping.

Visenya Targaryen herself said that she and her brother and sister couldn't have taken Casterly Rock with their dragons - and those were pretty large beasts. The Rock is the one truly impregnable fortress in Westeros, and trying to starve the garrison is essentially impossible considering that the Rock also has its own harbor.

The insane wealth of House Lannister also guarantees that Tywin would always find men fighting for him, both in Westeros and Essos. It would be remarkably easy to have sellswords and sellsails raid and burn the eastern coasts of Westeros while the bulk of the king's strength is in the West.

I don't see a way how the Iron Throne could win a total war (i.e. a war to utterly destroy the enemy) against House Lannister.

In addition, we talk about a scenario after a King Viserys III has successfully defeated (for a time, at least) the Baratheons and their allies (which don't include the Lannisters in our scenario). As I said, this would have opened new wounds, affecting the new king's abilities to actually take the power of Casterly Rock head on. Do we assume the Stormlands, Vale, North, and (Tully-leaning) Riverlands would support him in that? I'd not wager on that.

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

If Viserys wanted to go after Tywin, the loyalist would gladly help and even some rebels would partake, nor do I think that blaming all on Robert would go better than blaming all in Amory Lorch, Viserys was old enough to know that Tywin wasn't answering his father summons and that that made his father afraid and Viserys "knows" than the Lords Lannister and Starks did what they did because their master, the usurper either commanded it or they thought it'd make him happy, that doesn't mean that Viseys or later Dany consider that Tywin had any, non treasonous, reason to sack KL and order the deaths of Elia and her children, not that Jaime Lannister had any, non treasonous, reason to muder the King he had sworn to protect.

If push came to shove Tywin could certainly have given Viserys III the heads of Lorch and Clegane, along with his solemn vow that they were acting on their own. He could have even sacrificed Jaime if that had been necessary. He is capable of that, we see it in AGoT.

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well given the fact, that is either Robert or Rains of Casterly Rock, I can see why Tywin should feel obliged to do that, neutrality isn't a good  option for Tywin, is either stand alone against those who sure as hell would come for you, or help the only one that can help you survive with your power, prestige and wealth going untouch.

But he took the course of neutrality during the Rebellion, too. Why did he do it back then when you think that was a stupid course?

And it is not a given that Tywin could not have made his peace with Viserys III. Nobody doubts it would have been difficult, but it was not impossible. People even reconciled after the Dance.

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

After the Kingslayer and the Sack of King's Landing, defecting to whatever Targs, him and Jaime at least, wasn't an option, as he himself put it, "they had forever forsaken House Targ" and in this case, he meaned it, Robert was Tywin last and only ship. And both Viserys and Dany and iirc, makes it clear.

Marrying Robert to his daughter, completely guaranteed his loyalty true enough, but Tywin has really no more options than back him.

The fact that his daugter actually killed him - and Tywin himself never liked Robert - indicates otherwise. Robert was a poor substitute for a Targaryen prince as Cersei's bride.

But you have to differentiate between Tywin's own opinion and Jon and Robert's beliefs. Not to mention the fact that the Sack was likely the crucial element that persuaded both Jon and Robert to consider Cersei as Robert's bride - because it proved - to them, at least - that the ties with House Targaryen were severed. If Tywin had sat out the entire war Robert would have likely thought he could not trust Aerys II's old buddy enough even if he married his daughter.

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

Even when I do believe that both Robert and Jon Arryn indeed feared a Targ restoration, at least Robert was rather paranoid with at the end of his life,  one has to wonder why they never send or hired an army they knew they could trust to both seize, given that they didn't want to kill harmless kids. Letting them roam free for 15 years while at the same time you fear that some day they come back for you, makes little sense.

That certainly is somewhat of an inconsistency - but not that big of a problem considering that Robert wasn't exactly a very deliberate king to put it mildly. And it is also quite clear that Robert was not keen to command the murder of another child.

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robert would've never accept Tywin as a Hand and he clearly didn't consider him later when he went to Winterfell, and i'm fairly sure that Cersei would've nagged a lot about it. I don't think Jon ever considered Tywin a threat fir his office, and office btw w don't know if Jon Arryn actually wanted or that he was the only one up to the charge.

We don't know that for a certainty, and neither could Jon when he suggested Cersei. What we do know is that Jon wasn't all that powerful as Hand - his king did as he pleased, not as Jon told him. And that could have certainly extended to Robert's choice of a Hand. If Cersei and Robert had gotten along we can be very sure that Tywin or Jaime would have replaced Jon around the time Cersei give Robert his first son.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Visenya Targaryen herself said that she and her brother and sister couldn't have taken Casterly Rock with their dragons - and those were pretty large beasts. The Rock is the one truly impregnable fortress in Westeros, and trying to starve the garrison is essentially impossible considering that the Rock also has its own harbor

"It's said", I don't mean it'd be easy  but i say it can be done, unless Viserys can't have a fleet forever, that harbor can be blocked.

 

 

Quote

The insane wealth of House Lannister also guarantees that Tywin would always find men fighting for him, both in Westeros and Essos. It would be remarkably easy to have sellswords and sellsails raid and burn the eastern coasts of Westeros while the bulk of the king's strength is in the West.

 I don't see a way how the Iron Throne could win a total war (i.e. a war to utterly destroy the enemy) against House Lannister.

I don't know how Tywin Lannister can pay them while he is being besieged to death in his own Rock, nor do i know how Tywin can considered himself, the Lord of the Westwhen the West is being taken from him.

It's not like he needs the whole Westeros to defeat the mighty lions of the Rock, say,  Dorne/North, the Reach and the Riverlands have enough manpower and are secluded enough to not fear the sellswords and raids.

I can see a way, the same way the Tyrells were about to defeat Stannis, by starved them to death.

 

Quote

In addition, we talk about a scenario after a King Viserys III has successfully defeated (for a time, at least) the Baratheons and their allies (which don't include the Lannisters in our scenario). As I said, this would have opened new wounds, affecting the new king's abilities to actually take the power of Casterly Rock head on. Do we assume the Stormlands, Vale, North, and (Tully-leaning) Riverlands would support him in that? I'd not wager on that.

If we were talking about Viserys commanding his new vassals to go in a killing spree on beloved Robert, beloved Jon Arryn and beloved Ned's families i'd agree but we are talking about a man, half Westeros think a snake.

 

Quote

If push came to shove Tywin could certainly have given Viserys III the heads of Lorch and Clegane, along with his solemn vow that they were acting on their own. He could have even sacrificed Jaime if that had been necessary. He is capable of that, we see it in AGoT.

 

I agree that Tywin would anything to save his and his house's necks, I doubt that might serve, because unless Lorch and Clegane were capable of calling the West banners and command them to sack KL, the man won't find any mercy.

 

Quote

But he took the course of neutrality during the Rebellion, too. Why did he do it back then when you think that was a stupid course?

And it is not a given that Tywin could not have made his peace with Viserys III. Nobody doubts it would have been difficult, but it was not impossible. People even reconciled after the Dance.

Because he was going to support and utterly destroy the losers, it wouoldn't matter if he was late Lord Tywin, he would've proven to be useful, when not loyal. But i can't see pulling off what he pulled had he ever thought it could come and bite him in the ass.

Well, those who reconciled themselves were the Lords who didn't have a personal grudge with each other and a lot of the key generals had already dead, but for Corlys, the man was awesome for actually can be able to do that, but neither Aegon II, nor Rhaenrya, nor Alicent and nor Aegon III, were forgiving when things were extremely personal, Aegon the Young always hated Waters for betraying his mother, Viserys being able to reconcile himself with Tywin is worthy of the "Conciliator" title, I don't see Viserys as such. But not him, I can't see Jaeharys forgiving Maegor or Beesbury, I can't see Daeron II forgiving Daemon, I can't see peace between Bloodraven and Bittersteel, I can't see the Tullys and the Starks forgiving the Red Wedding.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that his daugter actually killed him - and Tywin himself never liked Robert - indicates otherwise. Robert was a poor substitute for a Targaryen prince as Cersei's bride.

 

A last ship is not a ship you like tho, We are not talking about preferences here, Tywin would gladly sell his daughter to whatever royalty who looked her twice, as it happened it wasn't a royalty ut the new Hand of the King.

And Cersei only killed him when the man had given her Baratheons dididn't she??  I don't see Cersei or Tywin (if he ever believed it) parading the kids as Lannisters.

 

Quote

 But you have to differentiate between Tywin's own opinion and Jon and Robert's beliefs. Not to mention the fact that the Sack was likely the crucial element that persuaded both Jon and Robert to consider Cersei as Robert's bride - because it proved - to them, at least - that the ties with House Targaryen were severed. If Tywin had sat out the entire war Robert would have likely thought he could not trust Aerys II's old buddy enough even if he married his daughter.

Oh i very much agree on that but it's not like Robert had a lot of options after Lyanna's death isn't it??

 

 

Quote

That certainly is somewhat of an inconsistency - but not that big of a problem considering that Robert wasn't exactly a very deliberate king to put it mildly. And it is also quite clear that Robert was not keen to command the murder of another child.

Not very convinced in this part tbf but i take your word on this.

 

 

Quote

We don't know that for a certainty, and neither could Jon when he suggested Cersei. What we do know is that Jon wasn't all that powerful as Hand - his king did as he pleased, not as Jon told him. And that could have certainly extended to Robert's choice of a Hand. If Cersei and Robert had gotten along we can be very sure that Tywin or Jaime would have replaced Jon around the time Cersei give Robert his first son.

I don't see it, One thing is Robert ignoring Jon Arryn and a very different thing is Robert backstabbing him, Robert would've never had betrayed, if Jon Arryn wanted the office that bad to begin with,  for Cersei, not a chance.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 9/5/2019 at 8:33 AM, Bael's Bastard said:

The biggest risk was alienating the Martells and Dorne, who had fought on the side of the Targs, however begrudgingly, anyways. But Dorne just doesn't have as much to offer as the Westerlandd. And other than Ashara Dayne before she allegedly died, there wasn't really any marriage options for Robert in Dorne.

I don't think we know who all the eligible noblewomen were in Dorne. We don't even know the name of the ruling Princess of Dorne during Robert's Rebellion.