R+L=J v.166

[Bael's Bastard]

George's 8 or 9 months comment indicates Jon could have even been born in the weeks after the Trident, and after Rhaella and Viserys were sent to Dragonstone.

It's hard to know which route Ned took to the TOJ, but by land the TOJ is quite a bit more distant from KL than KL is from the Trident, a journey which took Ned about two weeks in a rush.

The distance from KL to Storm's End alone is about the same distance as from the Trident to KL. Then from Storm's End to the TOJ is quite a bit more, though it's possible Ned traveled some amount by sea.

The point is, it's plausible that it took Ned over two weeks, maybe even closer to a month, to get from KL to the TOJ, which would be about a month or a month and a half after the Trident.

[lehutin]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

They are talking about different times of the same trip. That there is a morning start to a voyage that involves a midnight portion of traveling should be expected of this journey. There is no contradiction here.

Ah, I misunderstood your post earlier. Got it. I had never considered that they might've been remembering different times of the same trip.

[Frey family reunion]

3 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

George's 8 or 9 months comment indicates Jon could have even been born in the weeks after the Trident, and after Rhaella and Viserys were sent to Dragonstone.

It's hard to know which route Ned took to the TOJ, but by land the TOJ is quite a bit more distant from KL than KL is from the Trident, a journey which took Ned about two weeks in a rush.

The distance from KL to Storm's End alone is about the same distance as from the Trident to KL. Then from Storm's End to the TOJ is quite a bit more, though it's possible Ned traveled some amount by sea.

The point is, it's plausible that it took Ned over two weeks, maybe even closer to a month, to get from KL to the TOJ, which would be about a month or a month and a half after the Trident.

I would argue that it could have been even longer than that.  Keep in mind that the start of the war to the Sack of King's Landing took "close to a year".  The siege of storm's end didn't start until after the Battle of Ashford and it also lasted "close to a year".  And the tower of joy battle didn't occur until after the siege.  So very roughly speaking the time between the start of the war and the Ashford battle should be about equal to or probably less than the time period between the Sack of King's Landing and the battle at the tower of joy.

As for your first comment, sure.  All of this is fairly nebulous with a lot of room for interpretation.  We really don't know exactly when Dany was conceived other than it was while Rhaegar was prepping the troops for the Battle of the Trident.  

For those who don't question either Viserys' accuracy (or perhaps truthfulness) in what he tells Dany it could not have been too far before Rahella's Dragonstone flight.  I am one, who questions both Viserys accuracy and truthfulness, but that's really a point for another time).

And in his answer GRRM seems to suggest either that Jon was born either at the time of Dany's conception or shortly thereafter.  Or of course it could also suggest different gestation periods of the two (perhaps one premature and/or one via a long pregnancy).

ETA: to be fair GRRM's answer could have nothing to do with lining up conceptions and births, and very well may be the product of a timeline that was in GRRM's mind at the time he answered the question. 

But my point is, GRRM have left these events vague enough, that it's fairly absurd to rule out possibilities based on a time line that the reader can only as of now guess or estimate.

[corbon]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And the tower of joy battle didn't occur until after the siege.  

The ToJ fight counts as neither a 'battle' (other than metaphorically) or part of 'the war'. The war starts when Jon Arryn calls his banners, and officially ends at the Sack of Kings Landing. There are undoubtedly more metaphorical 'battles' in the south - such as Ned relieving Stannis by accepting the surrender of the Tyrells and the ToJ skirmish, and probably other similar small fights and negotiated surrenders. But these are not part of the 'war' timeline.

Quote

Aerys's Hand, Rossart, was killed at a postern gate after cravenly attempting to flee the castle. And last of all to die was King Aerys himself, at the hand of his remaining Kingsguard knight, Ser Jaime Lannister. Like his father, Ser Jaime did as he thought best for the realm, bringing an end to the Mad King.

And so ended both the reign of House Targaryen and Robert's Rebellion—the war that put an end to nearly three hundred years of Targaryen rule and ushered in a new golden era under the auspices of House Baratheon.

Quote

Many now agree that the true start of Robert's Rebellion began with Lord Arryn's refusal and his courageous calling of his banners in the defense of justice. Yet not all the lords of the Vale agreed with Lord Jon's decision, and soon fighting broke out as loyalists to the crown attempted to bring Lord Arryn down.

 

Quote

For those who don't question either Viserys' accuracy (or perhaps truthfulness) in what he tells Dany it could not have been too far before Rahella's Dragonstone flight.  I am one, who questions both Viserys accuracy and truthfulness, but that's really a point for another time).

Indeed, so do I.

But a 12 hour period, is not 'too far'.

Quote

But my point is, GRRM have left these events vague enough, that it's fairly absurd to rule out possibilities based on a time line that the reader can only as of now guess or estimate.

Well now, that 'absurdity' depends on how far out from the calculated timeline such possibilities are, doesn't it.
Given the calculated timeline has 'range' estimates for various points, numerate people are willing to accept anything that comes within, or even quite close to, such ranges. But some things just don't fit anywhere near close enough.
 

[St Daga]

On 4/11/2020 at 10:51 AM, Bael's Bastard said:

One could take these statements to mean that Brandon had no sons at all, legitimate or illegitimate, but could have had illegitimate daughters.

You make a good point, one I have thought of before as well. Years ago, it nearly ended my idea's that perhaps Domeric Bolton was a bastard of Brandon's. I also am reminded that as interesting as the information in the SSM's are, GRRM has also stated that until it ends up in the text, it's not canon, and that since he is more gardener than architect, his story has the potential to change. Although on this one, GRRM's statement does seem specific enough to doubt he would alter his ideas. 

[Bael's Bastard]

2 hours ago, St Daga said:

You make a good point, one I have thought of before as well. Years ago, it nearly ended my idea's that perhaps Domeric Bolton was a bastard of Brandon's. I also am reminded that as interesting as the information in the SSM's are, GRRM has also stated that until it ends up in the text, it's not canon, and that since he is more gardener than architect, his story has the potential to change. Although on this one, GRRM's statement does seem specific enough to doubt he would alter his ideas. 

Despite the wording, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a bastard son or more. But I wouldn't count on Jon being one of them.

[Frey family reunion]

On 4/14/2020 at 5:10 PM, corbon said:

The ToJ fight counts as neither a 'battle' (other than metaphorically) or part of 'the war'. The war starts when Jon Arryn calls his banners, and officially ends at the Sack of Kings Landing. There are undoubtedly more metaphorical 'battles' in the south - such as Ned relieving Stannis by accepting the surrender of the Tyrells and the ToJ skirmish, and probably other similar small fights and negotiated surrenders. But these are not part of the 'war' timeline.

Sigh, you have completely missed my point.

The issue is if we have any way of knowing how long the tower of joy occurred after the Sack of Kings Landing.  Was it fairly immediate, say within a month, or was it even a longer period of time.

One possible way of estimating is by comparing two similar time frames.  

We are told that the time between the start of the war and the Sack of King's Landing was "close to a year".  This is through Ned's POV.

Other POVs (I believe both Tyrion and Davos) have indicated that the Siege of Storm's End lasted close to a year.

So, if the time period between the start of the war and the Sack of King's Landing is roughly equal to the length of time that the Siege of Storms End lasted than we can have a rough idea at a minimum that the tower of joy would have occurred after the Sack of King's Landing.

The Siege of Storm's End did not start until some time after the Battle at Ashford.   And we believe we knew everything that happened up to Ashford.  Arryn calls the banners, the battle for Gullstown is fought, Robert travels to Storm's End, calls his banners, then engages in the relatively quick battles of Summerhall.  He then marches to Ashford where he is turned back by Randyll Tarly.  Some time after that the Tyrells commence with the Siege of Storm's End.  

Assuming that the time period of the Siege is roughly equal to the time period of the start of the war until the Sack, then the siege should have lasted after the Sack for about the same time period that it took the above events to occur.  

And of course the tower of joy battle had to have occurred some time later.

So perhaps, it might have been months rather than weeks that the tower of joy was fought after the Sack.

On 4/14/2020 at 5:10 PM, corbon said:

Well now, that 'absurdity' depends on how far out from the calculated timeline such possibilities are, doesn't it.
Given the calculated timeline has 'range' estimates for various points, numerate people are willing to accept anything that comes within, or even quite close to, such ranges. But some things just don't fit anywhere near close enough.
 

Yet so far, no one has been able to provide a compelling argument that Lyanna's conception could have occurred prior to her abduction assuming that she gave birth some time before the Battle of the Trident.

[Bael's Bastard]

I think a month is probably close to the minimum amount of time that passed between the Sack and TOJ. I doubt Ned remained long in KL after the Sack, but how many days did the lifting of the siege of Storm's End take to work out? I think travel time from KL to TOJ alone is 3-4 weeks, depending on whether it was mostly over land or by water. That said, I doubt there were months between Sack and TOJ. Depending on when Ned learns about the TOJ, there is going to be a sense of urgency, so it is just a matter of minimum travel time, and minimum time it takes to get things like lifting the siege done.

[Frey family reunion]

18 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I think a month is probably close to the minimum amount of time that passed between the Sack and TOJ. I doubt Ned remained long in KL after the Sack, but how many days did the lifting of the siege of Storm's End take to work out? I think travel time from KL to TOJ alone is 3-4 weeks, depending on whether it was mostly over land or by water. That said, I doubt there were months between Sack and TOJ. Depending on when Ned learns about the TOJ, there is going to be a sense of urgency, so it is just a matter of minimum travel time, and minimum time it takes to get things like lifting the siege done.

We also know that there were other battles the Ned fought in the south.  I don't think he immediately went to lift the Siege.

Quote

Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south.

Interestingly enough, his first order of business, post sack, was not to search for Lyanna.

So we have the time period it took for Ned to fight the last battles in the south.  Then the time period it took to lift the siege.  Then the time period it took for Ned to learn of the significance and location of the tower of joy and then to travel there.  

[Bael's Bastard]

It's not clear how much battling Ned actually did in the south, or when in his journey those battles occurred, but I see no reason to assume he was greatly delayed by battles on his way to the TOJ. He also didn't just turn back after the TOJ, but went on to Starfall. So he had lots of opportunities for skirmishes, aside from the siege and TOJ.

[SFDanny]

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

Sure, here is where you said it:

So you either have the Sack happening 15 to 16 months after the start of the war or else you move back the date of the start of the war in which case you are just arbitrarily putting more and more time between when you think Lyanna disappeared and to when the war started.  

I gave you an outside range of what is possible for the timing of when Jon Arryn raises his banners in rebellion when I wrote this:

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

This is mid 282 (probably April or May at the earliest) after Brandon and Rickard are dead.

The phrase "at the earliest" is secret code for ... "at the earliest." Meaning it could be later. It is an estimate. Yet you choose to use a obviously vague phrase such as "[t]he war had raged close on a year" to try to make it seem like my estimate is outrageous. It's not. The irony here is thick. You are using a estimate of "close to a year" to substitute for real evidence. There are things that have to happen before Lord Jon raises his banners. We know Rhaegar is in the Riverlands after the turn of the year. He has to meet up with Lyanna sometime after that. Word of the "abduction" needs to get back to Brandon who has to ride to Riverrun and tell Catelyn what has occurred and then he has to ride to King's Landing. Once Brandon and his party are taken prisoners in the Red Keep, word has to be sent to Rickard and the fathers of Brandon's companions (in Elbert's case to Jon Arryn) summoning them to King's Landing. Depending on where you think Lord Stark is when he gets the summons that can mean either Winterfell or somewhere on the road to Riverrun. I think the latter most likely. Once the "trial by combat" of Rickard vs fire takes place and Rickard and Brandon are dead, only then do we have Jon Arryn's act of rebellion in response to Aerys's demand for Robert and Ned's heads. It is a lot to take place between the first month of 282 to the rebellion.

Your limitation on the rebellion starting "close on a year" before the sack falls within my estimate. Remembering that I've given you facts that place the Sack within the range of the last six months of 283, that puts a June 283 date possible for the Sack - figuring July 1st minus the "wiggle room" factor. I can show you why we need to , and can, narrow down that range to later than that date, but for now let us say our agreed upon possibilities includes a June 282 for the start of the rebellion. The difference here is that I don't take "close on a year" to mean the rebellion could not have lasted over a year. You arbitrarily give the phrase a meaning of "less than a year" and I take it to mean "around a year." My interpretation is backed up by many facts in evidence, including some that we haven't gotten to yet, and yours seems to be based on your determination the phrase can only mean what you say it does.

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

No, what Viserys said was that it was a midnight flight to Dragonstone, which means that they left, sailed off in the cover of night.  To now and try to suggest what he meant was that they started in the morning but the trip took them into midnight is really stretching it.  So either they left in the morning and hung out at the docks until midnight, or Jaime's memories are inaccurate or Visery's memories are inaccurate, or Viserys is perhaps romanticizing their flight to Dragonstone, or perhaps something else is to account.  Either way, it doesn't make me really think the "nine moons" timeline is also something that has to be etched in stone. 

Here is what Dany tells us Viserys said in his story:

Quote

The midnight flight to Dragonstone, moonlight shimmering on the ship's on the ship's black sails. (AGoT35)

There is nothing in this sentence that says the "flight" left King's Landing at midnight or just when Rhaella's ship left the capital to go to Dragonstone. Your insertion of a meaning into the phrase "midnight flight" that isn't there is a distortion of what it means. The "flight" to Dragonstone is longer than its time of departure, and needs to include a nighttime portion of the voyage. There is nothing wrong in Viserys's memory simply because he recalls the midnight portion of their voyage.

It seems some fans want to turn this departure into a modern scheduled train departure. This voyage depends on the what ship is available and can take on passengers, willingness to stop at Dragonstone, and the tides. The royal status of the passengers likely makes the first two factors possible. When they actually leave likely depends on the last factor.

As to the "nine moons" accuracy you seem to think the only evidence is Viserys's memory here. It is not. His memory is backed by other sources. First, Dany can count. She knows when her name day is, and the timing of the Sack of King's Landing is hardly a state secret. She obviously has no problem with Viserys's tale of "nine moons" because it fits with what she knows. Second, Stannis's account of how he, after his freedom from the siege at Storm's End is achieved, is given the task of building a fleet to sail to Dragonstone and capture the remaining Targaryens there. His account supports the "nine moons" timeline including the sneaking of Viserys and Dany out of the Dragonstone nursery after Daenerys's birth. Nothing we know of calls into question the nine moons approximation between Dany's birth and the flight from King's Landing. Everything we know supports that account.

Of actual interest, the "black sails" on the ship may indicate the purple sails of a Braavosi ship at night. Not that it makes any difference relative to the timeline.

 

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

I don't really know what year Jon was born in.  If indeed the Trident happened in 282, then I believe Jon had to have been born in 282.  If the Trident happened in 283 than I believe that Jon was born either in late 282 or early 283 depending on how early the Battle of the Trident happened.  I'm just arguing that Jon was born sometime before the Battle at the Trident.

Let's be clear:

1. The Battle of the Trident takes place in 283 AC. The corrected second edition of The World of Ice and Fire tells us so. We know the process of correcting mistakes in the first edition included changing this error. Because of @Ran's discussion with George we know this was an error that he approved correcting. There is no doubt about this fact. One doesn't fix errors that are not errors. 
2. We know the Sack of King's Landing takes place in 283 AC as well because of Aerys's death date in AGoT (page 872) tells us so.
3. We know the flight of Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem Darry to Dragonstone follows the news of Rhaegar's death reaching King's Landing (ASoS 419,) and predates the Sack because they are not in the city when the rebels take it. That tells us it too takes place in 283 because of it being bracketed by these two known events in 283 AC.
4. That tells us if Jon is born at the time of the Battle of the Trident or up to the time of the Sack of King's Landing or later in that same year of 283 AC., he has to have been born in 283 AC. Not 282 AC as you postulate.

This does not eliminate the possibility Jon was born before the Battle of the Trident or that he was born in 282 AC. However, what I posted before does eliminate the possibility of Jon being born in 282 AC. What we are left with is the possibility that Jon is born before the Trident but in 283 AC. While Martin's estimate of the difference between Dany and Jon's ages being "eight or nine months or thereabouts" leaves this it barely a possibility, it also pushes the timing of the year in which these events take place much later than you propose.

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

I have no idea why George wrote 282.  I don't know if it was a typo or not.  If it wasn't a typo than my suggestion is that George was working off of a timetable where the Sack took place less than a year after the war started, and the War happened fairly soon after Lyanna's disappearance.   Not realizing that this would cause a discrepancy with other timelines.  Let me remind you what George himself said when presented with the question trying to estimate Jon and Dany's name days.

Please note the quote you use from Martin doesn't say what you say it does. In the same response he speaks of his constant struggle to keep the order right. What that should tell you, as with his response about the Meereenese Knot I quoted before, is that these things are very important to George in his efforts to get the books just right the way he wants them. Whether or not that ever entails us getting a timeline, or how detailed it will be is a separate point.

We don't know if George wrote the date of 282 for the Battle of the Trident in the first edition of The World of Ice & Fire, but we know he approved it at least. However, knowing that he also approved the correction for later editions should tell you all you need to know about what year the battle takes place - it is in 283 AC.

As I've pointed out, just how soon after the "abduction" Jon Arryn raises his banners in rebellion is an open question, but there is a lot of things that need to happen between the two events. As there are in the last half of 282 AC. What we can be sure takes place in early 283 is the marriage of Ned and Catelyn alongside of Jon Arryn and Lysa, because Robb is conceived on Catelyn's wedding night and his name day falls in the October - November 283 timeframe. That puts the Battle of the Bells in the very late 282 to very early 283 AC timeline.

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

But regardless, it doesn't change my opinion about any of the sequence of events.  GRRM left the timeline of Lyanna's abduction very vague, probably on purpose.  Because it was her abduction that set forth everything in motion. 

For the reader it is likely left vague on purpose, but the sequence of events are certainly decided upon by Martin long ago.

On 4/14/2020 at 9:27 AM, Frey family reunion said:

The implication here is that Rhaegar's journey may have included travels to places other than the Riverlands.  But ultimately he and his fellowship made their way to the Riverlands where Lyananna's purported abduction took place.  (Which might imply that Rhaegar had more than one mission he had to undertake, and bringing Lyanna into the fold, whether or not by force, was only one of the missions).

 I assumed it was early in 282 because of the Battle of the Trident being placed in 282.  If in fact the Battle of the Trident took place in 283, than the answer is simple, Lyanna's abduction (as suggested by @Bael's Bastard) didn't necessarily happen at the beginning of the year, but later in the year. 

Once again, none of that is a huge concern at least for me.  My suggested timeline is that the war started very soon after Lyanna's abduction, and waged for less than a year before the Sack, and Jon was born sometime before the Battle of the Trident.

I've long subscribed to the idea that the meeting of Lyanna and Rhaegar is a "chance meeting," akin to Gandalf and Thorin's chance meeting in Bree, upon which the fate of the world turns. So, I don't think it likely Rhaegar sets out to find Lyanna. Rather, I think the reason he is in the Riverlands is to consult with someone else about the puzzle he has to solve. The dragon has three heads, and Elia cannot provide him with another. I think he is there to find the Ghost of High Heart and get her wisdom  concerning the prophecy that binds so much of his life to duty. Just my guess on Rhaegar's reasons for being in the Riverlands.

I have no problem with Lyanna's abduction taking place later than the first month of 282 AC. Our early range is bordered by the necessity that it follows the turn of the year to 282. How much later is a question we need more information about, but as I said there are a number of things that must follow the abduction that predate the start of the rebellion. There are also a number of events that must take place in 282 before the turn of the year to 283. What we can be sure of is that those don't include either Jon's birth or the Battle of the Trident.

[Bael's Bastard]

@SFDanny, just a note, based on what Catelyn tells us Brandon never rode back to Riverrun after learning of Lyanna's abduction. Rather, he was on his way back to Riverrun, from wherever he had gone when he left Riverrun after dueling Littlefinger, when he learned of Lyanna, and rode to KL instead.

"He was on his way to Riverrun when . . ." Strange, how telling it still made her throat grow tight, after all these years. ". . . when he heard about Lyanna, and went to King's Landing instead. It was a rash thing to do." She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

ACOK: Catelyn VII

[Bael's Bastard]

Some of the things which need to occur in 282:

- Brandon Stark, born in 262 AC, must turn 20 years old (TWOIAF: Aerys II)

- Brandon Stark, now turned 20 years old , must duel Littlefinger, either just under or recently turned 15, at Riverrun (AGOT: Catelyn IV)

- Brandon Stark must ride off from Riverrun (the app says to meet up with Lord Rickard Stark's wedding party coming down from the north) promising that he and Catelyn Tully will wed upon his return (AGOT: Catelyn X)

- Brandon Stark must do whatever he left Riverrun to do, and begin to ride back to Riverrun from wherever he went (ACOK: Catelyn VII)

- Lyanna Stark must allegedly be abducted by Rhaegar Targaryen in the Riverlands (TWOIAF: Year of the False Spring)

- Brandon Stark must be on his way back to Riverrun to wed Catelyn Tully when he learns of Lyanna's abduction, and rides to King's Landing (ACOK: Catelyn VII)

- Brandon Stark must arrive in King's Landing, make threats, and be arrested by King Aerys Targaryen (ACOK: Catelyn VII)

- King Aerys must send for Lord Rickard Stark and the fathers of Brandon Stark's companions to come to King's Landing to answer for their crimes (ACOK: Catelyn VII)

- Lord Rickard Stark and other fathers must travel to King's Landing from wherever they were

- Brandon Stark, still 20 years old, must be killed a few short days before he was to wed Catelyn Tully, together with his father, all but one of his companions, and their fathers (AGOT: Eddard I, ACOK: Catelyn VII)

[Alexis-something-Rose]

On 4/17/2020 at 1:26 PM, SFDanny said:

I've long subscribed to the idea that the meeting of Lyanna and Rhaegar is a "chance meeting," akin to Gandalf and Thorin's chance meeting in Bree, upon which the fate of the world turns. So, I don't think it likely Rhaegar sets out to find Lyanna. Rather, I think the reason he is in the Riverlands is to consult with someone else about the puzzle he has to solve. The dragon has three heads, and Elia cannot provide him with another. I think he is there to find the Ghost of High Heart and get her wisdom  concerning the prophecy that binds so much of his life to duty. Just my guess on Rhaegar's reasons for being in the Riverlands.

I think this is exactly it. I don't think there was anything premeditated on their parts as in let's rendez-vous at this place and vanish. 

To me it makes complete sense that the reason he was in the riverlands was to see the Ghost of High Heart. She was the one who predicted that the PtwP would come from Rhaella / Aerys's line, thereby forcing that marriage. With the things that we know from the HotU and Aemon's correspondence with Rhaegar, this is the one explanation that makes sense. And it doesn't require any mental gymnastics because we know what Rhaegar was thinking following Aegon's birth.

And I think there might have been some urgency on his part to go to High Heart because winter had returned after the small reprieve and we know winters can last years at the time. 

I think there are two parallels in the text that we might be able to apply to the events in the riverlands, and Laynna being carried off at sword point, but I think that might require a different thread.

[Back in Black-Snow]

1 hour ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I think this is exactly it. I don't think there was anything premeditated on their parts as in let's rendez-vous at this place and vanish. 

To me it makes complete sense that the reason he was in the riverlands was to see the Ghost of High Heart. She was the one who predicted that the PtwP would come from Rhaella / Aerys's line, thereby forcing that marriage. With the things that we know from the HotU and Aemon's correspondence with Rhaegar, this is the one explanation that makes sense. And it doesn't require any mental gymnastics because we know what Rhaegar was thinking following Aegon's birth.

And I think there might have been some urgency on his part to go to High Heart because winter had returned after the small reprieve and we know winters can last years at the time. 

I think there are two parallels in the text that we might be able to apply to the events in the riverlands, and Laynna being carried off at sword point, but I think that might require a different thread.

Winter doesn't come until several years later (during the main series - and that is just Autumn). Unless I am mistaken.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I think this is exactly it. I don't think there was anything premeditated on their parts as in let's rendez-vous at this place and vanish. 

To me it makes complete sense that the reason he was in the riverlands was to see the Ghost of High Heart. She was the one who predicted that the PtwP would come from Rhaella / Aerys's line, thereby forcing that marriage. With the things that we know from the HotU and Aemon's correspondence with Rhaegar, this is the one explanation that makes sense. And it doesn't require any mental gymnastics because we know what Rhaegar was thinking following Aegon's birth.

And I think there might have been some urgency on his part to go to High Heart because winter had returned after the small reprieve and we know winters can last years at the time. 

I think there are two parallels in the text that we might be able to apply to the events in the riverlands, and Laynna being carried off at sword point, but I think that might require a different thread.

The problem with the Ghost idea there is that Yandel tells us that Rhaegar's journey only took him to the Riverlands at the end of his quest, indicating he was going somewhere else before he went there. Since the High Heart is in the Riverlands this creates the conundrum that Rhaegar apparently didn't want to go there originally.

Of course, he may have believed the dwarf woman was somewhere else, but with Summerhall happening over two decades ago one could expect that she had already settled at the High Heart and had become a known seer by this time.

If the Ghost told him that his next and final child would be born by Lyanna Stark then there wouldn't have been any chancy nonsense with their meeting, of course. Then Rhaegar would have gone to find her as soon as possible, one imagines.

One could pause here for a moment and consider burying all this nonsense about special pairings producing special children. Prophecy is true only if it is true, right? Meaning the Ghost, like Maggy, would tell Rhaegar what would happen, not what he should do.

If she told Rhaegar point blank that his next and final child was to be the son of Lyanna Stark then this means he would have no other choice but to have a child with her. It wouldn't be love or special bloodlines or anything of that ... but a simple fact of reality. True prophecy does take away any illusion of free will if people believe in it ... and Rhaegar did believe in prophecy, the fool.

Like it was back with Jaehaerys II the Ghost prophesied that the promised prince would be born from the line of Aerys and Rhaella - but this didn't mean Jaehaerys II had to marry Aerys to Rhaella. They could have married different spouses and still ended up producing a child together somehow. After all, Dany is also a child of rape despite the fact that their parents were technically married. Aerys II could also have raped his sister if she was married to a different man.

Prophecy isn't something that can be used as a guide to inform your actions ... it just tells you what is inevitable if it is true, and if it is just a possibility then you can just ignore it because it isn't really a prophecy but just a possibility.

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Travis said:

Winter doesn't come until several years later (during the main series - and that is just Autumn). Unless I am mistaken.

It was winter before Harrenhal tourney. They thought it had ended, but as it turns out it hadn’t. That’s why that year is called “the year of the False Spring. 

TWoIaF, The Year of the False Spring

“The False Spring of 281 AC lasted less than two turns. As the year drew to a close, winter returned to Westeros with a vengeance.”

[Back in Black-Snow]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It was winter before Harrenhal tourney. They thought it had ended, but as it turns out it hadn’t. That’s why that year is called “the year of the False Spring. 

TWoIaF, The Year of the False Spring

“The False Spring of 281 AC lasted less than two turns. As the year drew to a close, winter returned to Westeros with a vengeance.”

Thank you.

[corbon]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The problem with the Ghost idea there is that Yandel tells us that Rhaegar's journey only took him to the Riverlands at the end of his quest, indicating he was going somewhere else before he went there. Since the High Heart is in the Riverlands this creates the conundrum that Rhaegar apparently didn't want to go there originally.

 

I think most people just understand that wanting or needing to go somewhere else first doesn't indicate that you don't want to go to any of the later places on your agenda.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One could pause here for a moment and consider burying all this nonsense about special pairings producing special children. Prophecy is true only if it is true, right? Meaning the Ghost, like Maggy, would tell Rhaegar what would happen, not what he should do.

Well, y'know, he could just ignore it like a normal person would and should.
Of course, that wouldn't have turned out so well for his ancestors who should have chosen not to sell up everything and leave Valyria for some godforsaken outpost at the edge of the world, 400 odd years ago. Silly morons, listening to nonsense like that, 

[frenin]

9 minutes ago, corbon said:

Of course, that wouldn't have turned out so well for his ancestors who should have chosen not to sell up everything and leave Valyria for some godforsaken outpost at the edge of the world, 400 odd years ago. Silly morons, listening to nonsense like that, 

I suppose it was an ok bet driking wildfire then.  

That said if Rhaegar actually got a prophecy from the Ghost of high heart it seems good to listen to her.