Heresy 219 and a whisper of Winter

[LynnS]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:16 PM, JNR said:

Folks in another place have, rather amusingly, often imagined it as a kind of Hilton hotel, with a large staff performing a variety of tasks in service of Rhaegar and Lyanna for the better part of a year. 

Also central to this thinking is that Jon must have Targ blood.  @wolfmaid7 will be interested to know that Orys Baratheon was Aegon the Conqueror's bastard half-brother, according to Fire and Blood.

Quote

Aegon I's grandson Jaehaerys I Targaryen considered it an open secret that Orys was Aerion's bastard son, a dragonseed of House Targaryen. Nonetheless, even Jaehaerys knew nothing about Orys's mother or the circumstances of his birth, not even rumors. As for whether Orys was conceived as a product of first night or just a youthful dalliance by Aerion was unknown.^[9][10]   

 

[JNR]

6 hours ago, St Daga said:

I actually wonder if this reveal won't come in the show, also. D&D act like they have at least one more "shock" and I think that shock might debunk RLJ.

Could be, and of course I'd laugh like a hyena if it happened.  I just have no faith at this point that GRRM ever told them very much about unpublished books at all. 

We know, for instance, that he didn't tell them the origin of Others, and they instead just made it up for their show -- that, or else he did tell them and they decided to do some different thing.  But the thing they did, I'm sorry to say, made me laugh like a hyena.

Also, of course, consider how poorly they implemented their version of RLJ -- Rhaegar annulling his marriage to Lyanna.  Somebody forgot that that would be impossible, because in Show World, just like Book World, it requires the marriage to be unconsummated (which is why Sansa could be married to Ramsay, despite already being married to Tyrion).  And we know for sure Rhaegar had already consummated his marriage to Elia, hence his children... so once again, I was literally laughing at the show's "revelation."

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I’d argue that the TOJ doesn’t imply that she was at the tower of joy or gave birth to the tower of joy.  The dream is separated into two distinct scenes, separated by a surreal image

The best argument for her presence IMO is this:

Quote

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

This is not part of the dream, but rather, how Ned thinks of the dream. 

So, in the dream he's had multiple times, about the TOJ and the KG, it seems Lyanna does put in an appearance.  Now, this doesn't mean she was really there -- it's just a dream! -- but I consider it enough to amount to an implication.

The phrase "bed of blood" I charitably allow to be a reference to birth based on canonical precedent... although there are so few references, none of us could be shocked if in the next book a hulking male warrior dies in a bed of blood.  And we would all laugh like hyenas.

[JNR]

3 hours ago, LynnS said:

Also central to this thinking is that Jon must have Targ blood.

Certainly.  But I think we will find that Jon Snow, unlike Jon Show, has quite a different lineage.

How much of the interest in the fake history -- novellas and F&B --  basically stems from the idea Jon is a Targ, do you suppose?

I wonder how many fans, if they learn he isn't, will scratch their heads and ask themselves why they bothered to read all that soporific Targ content.

[JNR]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:50 PM, SirArthur said:

I don't know why house Dayne would open the cairn or why Lady Dustin is mad about a soldier buried far away. That seems to be a rather common end for a soldier.  

1. He wasn't just a soldier.  He was her husband.

2. He wasn't acting as a soldier at this time.  This was after the war.  He was helping Ned deal with Ned's personal issue, and in the process of helping Ned, he literally died.

3. Ned took the huge trouble to return the horse roughly fifteen hundred miles.  Well, that's an incredibly nice gesture, no doubt... but not the one she wanted, as she explicitly tells us.  She wanted her husband's remains, just as the Starks wanted Lyanna's, and after Ned got killed, the Starks wanted Ned's. 

But Ned, in the tale he told her, simply couldn't be bothered to return them, although he could have and she knows that because he brought back Lyanna's.

It is such a slap in the face to her -- "Sorry about your husband dying to help me out, but hey, here's your horse, and by the way, I couldn't be bothered to bring back your husband's remains, despite knowing you would certainly want them."

And that's why she hates Ned like poison, and says she's going to feed his bones to her dogs.  Her whole goal is poetic justice: If Ned didn't bother to return Lord Dustin's bones, she is going to guarantee Ned never, ever lies in the crypts of Winterfell.

Now, some of us can choose to believe Ned was really this kind of callous bastard to the wife of a man who died to help him out.   This is the standard idea in another place.

I find it very hard to believe, myself -- that he did that not just once, but to every one of the five families of his companions and the three families of the KG.  I find it much more likely he did the best he could for them, just as he did for Lyanna. But because Lyanna died in a place with silent sisters, he had another option that didn't apply at the TOJ.

[Mullocose]

28 minutes ago, JNR said:

I find it very hard to believe, myself -- that he did that not just once, but to every one of the five families of his companions and the three families of the KG.  I find it much more likely he did the best he could for them, just as he did for Lyanna. But because Lyanna died in a place with silent sisters, he had another option that didn't apply at the TOJ.

Good Logic.

[Brad Stark]

Ned didn't avoid returning the bodies because he was lazy - we never saw anything about him to suggest he was lazy, and however flimsy or remote the tower was, tearing it down and building cairnes was a comparable amount of work.  Given Ned's honor, if he felt returning the bodies was the right thing to do, he would have done it even if it nearly killed him.  

[Matthew.]

On 3/15/2019 at 1:31 PM, alienarea said:

Either we have an unwritten rule to bury warriors were they fell, that Lady Dustin isn't aware of, or Ned chose to bury his fallen friends and the three KG in the same place because it was an epic fight.

Responding to the bolded, I think this factor is not irrelevant; it may be that destroying the tower and preparing the cairns for the combatants specifically - friend and foe alike - felt appropriate to Eddard, cathartic within the context. Or, for a more meta take, GRRM really liked that idea as an image, and considered concerns of what decorum dictated Eddard should do with the dead to be secondary to crafting a more compelling narrative.

Again, I say none of this to suggest that I think Lyanna died at the ToJ - I think she died at Starfall - only that I'm not convinced that the way Eddard handled the bodies necessarily has broader implications--eg, Arthur dying somewhere else, and so forth. This could just as easily be an instance where the author has failed to achieve verisimilitude for every reader, rather than something that is actually meant to stand out as odd behavior.

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, JNR said:

Certainly.  But I think we will find that Jon Snow, unlike Jon Show, has quite a different lineage.

How much of the interest in the fake history -- novellas and F&B --  basically stems from the idea Jon is a Targ, do you suppose?

I wonder how many fans, if they learn he isn't, will scratch their heads and ask themselves why they bothered to read all that soporific Targ content.

Well, I happened to need some new reading and was in the grocery checkout and.....

I'm not far in yet.  So all I can say is that it fits the billing as an historic account of the Targs.  It's not an uninteresting read and I am aware that it is written by Glyndayne rather than Yandel.   Time will tell what, if anything, is relevant to future novels.    I do find it curious that Martin has seen fit to throw a banner into the Targ bloodline question by making a Baratheon ancestor a Targ bastard.

To answer your question; if one's basic premise is that prophecy requires Jon to have both fire and ice in his blood, then everything becomes about being a targ or close to it.  I don't see it going this way, as you know.

Edit:

One of the questions on the general board has been about the nature of king's blood.  Specifically, how does Stannis Baratheon qualify and why is Melisandre interested in his offspring.  It seems the Baratheons have more than a little Targ blood; if this is a legitimate part of the back story.

      

[Brad Stark]

Whether Lyanna died at the Toj or elsewhere, we can probably assume she was not a combatant.  So it isn't much of a stretch her body was treated differently regardless of what happened. 

[Mullocose]

6 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Whether Lyanna died at the Toj or elsewhere, we can probably assume she was not a combatant.  So it isn't much of a stretch her body was treated differently regardless of what happened. 

Noncombatant? There are people out there who would have you believe Lyanna was the best jouster in the seven kingdoms...

 

Theon's dream of Lyanna spattered with blood also comes to mind...

[Black Crow]

9 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Responding to the bolded, I think this factor is not irrelevant; it may be that destroying the tower and preparing the cairns for the combatants specifically - friend and foe alike - felt appropriate to Eddard, cathartic within the context. Or, for a more meta take, GRRM really liked that idea as an image, and considered concerns of what decorum dictated Eddard should do with the dead to be secondary to crafting a more compelling narrative.

Again, I say none of this to suggest that I think Lyanna died at the ToJ - I think she died at Starfall - only that I'm not convinced that the way Eddard handled the bodies necessarily has broader implications--eg, Arthur dying somewhere else, and so forth. This could just as easily be an instance where the author has failed to achieve verisimilitude for every reader, rather than something that is actually meant to stand out as odd behavior.

Hence my scenario outlined above. The only significance I feel to the burials is that all who died were honourable men who deserved to lie together just as all of them died together.

[SirArthur]

12 hours ago, JNR said:

I find it very hard to believe, myself -- that he did that not just once, but to every one of the five families of his companions and the three families of the KG.  I find it much more likely he did the best he could for them, just as he did for Lyanna. But because Lyanna died in a place with silent sisters, he had another option that didn't apply at the TOJ.

1. As has been pointed out in the past, Ned and Lady Dustin both had about 15 years to recover the remains. Did she ever visit the Tower of Joy ? That is the whole problem I have with the scenario. Both of them didn't really care to return the bones in the aftermath. 

2. Lady Dustin (and a lot whole of other characters) come to the conclusion, that Lyanna's bones are in the crypts and that Lyanna and Lord Dustin died very far away in close proximity. If only one of those conditions is not true, the conclusion about the slap in the face is wrong. The Red Stallion is a hint and the statue in the crypt a recurring question. Why did Ned choose a statue for Lyanna over the ancient rules and traditions ? Because he promised her something ? So he "slaps" the tradition who gets a statue. 

Either way, it is remarkable that Ned gets more problems with Lady Dustin over the bones in the statue than with his own family (Benjen).

[The Chequered Raven]

18 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I’d argue a more compelling reason for Ned traveling from the tower of joy to Starfall, than taking returning a sword.  I would suggest that Ned travelled to the tower of joy with a small number of hand picked men he could trust because his mission wasn’t to free or find Lyanna, but instead his mission was to find and free Lyanna’s child.  

And the reason he makes the hazardous journey back to Starfall wasn’t really to return a sword, but instead to bring Lyanna’s child back to her at Starfall.

I like this thought!

So Lyanna's "Promise me! Ned, promise me!" could have meant "promise me to find and rescue my son!"

[Brad Stark]

3 hours ago, Mullocose said:

Noncombatant? There are people out there who would have you believe Lyanna was the best jouster in the seven kingdoms...

 

Theon's dream of Lyanna spattered with blood also comes to mind...

We have hints she was the Knight of the Laughing Tree and certainly was a great horse rider. 

But we haven't discussed any version of the Toj fight that includes horseback, and with a sword on foot, I doubt she'd be a match for anyone on either side, even if she wasn't close to 9 months pregnant. And which side would she have fought on? 

[JNR]

16 hours ago, Matthew. said:

This could just as easily be an instance where the author has failed to achieve verisimilitude for every reader, rather than something that is actually meant to stand out as odd behavior.

I would agree with this, except that GRRM went well out of his way to introduce Lady Dustin and all her fiery rhetoric in ADWD, calling attention to Ned's apparent double standard and how it affected others, and thus introducing a striking contrast with the super-honorable Ned we have known from earlier books... assuming she died at the TOJ, that is.

This seems to me much more clearly deliberative and overt on GRRM's part than what he did in AGOT alone. 

Although, really, he had already dropped a significant clue in AGOT that Lyanna did not die at the TOJ with this other contrast:

Quote

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming.

Vs:

Quote

The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper

The simplest and best explanation for that, IMO, is that a significant amount of time passed between the TOJ and her death.  And in that time, she either got worse, or else she developed the problem that killed her.

If Ned found her there and moved her to Starfall, where she died, that would simply fall logically into place.

5 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Lady Dustin (and a lot whole of other characters) come to the conclusion, that Lyanna's bones are in the crypts and that Lyanna and Lord Dustin died very far away in close proximity. If only one of those conditions is not true, the conclusion about the slap in the face is wrong.

I don't think they decided that at all; I think it was simply another part of the tale Ned told them, just as he told them that Jon was his bastard. 

I think he was lying when he said Lyanna died at the TOJ, if so... but I'm sure he felt he was doing the best he could.

Very similarly, we find him lying in claiming to be a traitor when he dies in AGOT.   But he lied because he believed that was the best he could do under the circumstances.

[St Daga]

18 hours ago, JNR said:

On 3/17/2019 at 8:51 AM, St Daga said:

I actually wonder if this reveal won't come in the show, also. D&D act like they have at least one more "shock" and I think that shock might debunk RLJ.

Could be, and of course I'd laugh like a hyena if it happened.  I just have no faith at this point that GRRM ever told them very much about unpublished books at all. 

I probably should not have any faith in the show either, and I mostly do not. I guess it's the idea of a "shock" at the end that leads me to hope. I would also laugh like a hyena. I might even fall out of my chair!

 

18 hours ago, JNR said:

Also, of course, consider how poorly they implemented their version of RLJ -- Rhaegar annulling his marriage to Lyanna. 

Yes, from the toj reveal in the show, it has been either mishandled, either from laziness or from a reason that is yet to be revealed.

 

18 hours ago, JNR said:

The best argument for her presence IMO is this:

Quote

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

This is not part of the dream, but rather, how Ned thinks of the dream. 

I am just not sold on Lyanna being there. I think that Ned is conflating at least two, but probably three incidents in his fever dream. One incident involves the three white cloaks, one incident includes a tower long fallen, and one incident involves Lyanna in her "bed of blood" whatever the heck that could actually mean. Hopefully, time will tell and we can get an answer about this...

[St Daga]

5 hours ago, SirArthur said:

17 hours ago, JNR said:

I find it very hard to believe, myself -- that he did that not just once, but to every one of the five families of his companions and the three families of the KG.  I find it much more likely he did the best he could for them, just as he did for Lyanna. But because Lyanna died in a place with silent sisters, he had another option that didn't apply at the TOJ.

1. As has been pointed out in the past, Ned and Lady Dustin both had about 15 years to recover the remains. Did she ever visit the Tower of Joy ? That is the whole problem I have with the scenario. Both of them didn't really care to return the bones in the aftermath. 

2. Lady Dustin (and a lot whole of other characters) come to the conclusion, that Lyanna's bones are in the crypts and that Lyanna and Lord Dustin died very far away in close proximity. If only one of those conditions is not true, the conclusion about the slap in the face is wrong. The Red Stallion is a hint and the statue in the crypt a recurring question. Why did Ned choose a statue for Lyanna over the ancient rules and traditions ? Because he promised her something ? So he "slaps" the tradition who gets a statue. 

Either way, it is remarkable that Ned gets more problems with Lady Dustin over the bones in the statue than with his own family (Benjen).

I have always found Barbrey Dustin's protests a bit over the top. Does she really hate Ned that much? And if so, is it really for the reason that she claims? Personally, I think she is using Theon as a tool, perhaps because she thinks that Roose will question Theon about Barbrey's words, and I think she is attempting to play Roose false.

I actually have the impression that Barbrey either might have been on decent terms with Ned, mostly because of the "lingering" look she gives his statue in the crypts, which is almost lover-like or caring. That look just doesn't fit her words, as far as I am concerned.

However, IF she did hate the Neddard that bad, I think it is not for a reason that she claims. One thing that stands out to me about Jon taking Gilly's child from her (and giving her Mance's) is that Gilly seems to NOT love Jon after this, but Jon thinks that she will hate him forever for what he forced her to do. So, it that vein, perhaps Barbrey hates Ned because he took a child from her, probably at the same time he brought that Red Stallion home to her. SSM's hint that Brandon could have had a bastard, an although I doubt it's a boy, there is some possibility that it could be Ramsay Snow. He is the other noted "Snow bastard" in the north in our storyline. Something about Ramsay claiming he is the trueborn heir to Winterfell, stands out to me. Ramsay is also associated with liking fierce, fast horses and has his red stallion, Blood. Also, there is that one time when Theon thinks that Barbrey's smile is very like Ramsay, an ugly smile. 

Although, I honestly hate to think that Brandon Stark could have fathered a child that is as awful a human as Ramsay! Domeric Bolton is also a possibility, he he is noted to be a fabulous rider, which could hint at either Brandon's riding skills, or the Ryswell connection with horseflesh! It's more likely it could be Domeric, because Barbrey truly seems to mourn him.

It's really tinfoil, and my biggest weakness is how either of these children would have fallen into Roose's hands, claimed as his sons.

And honestly, those SSM's imply that Brandon didn't have any son's at all, although it could be twisted to say that his son was born after his death. The SSM certainly seem to imply that Brandon had no legitimate children, so that could discount Domeric, and perhaps Ramsay too, since he is eventually legitimized.

I am sure people have seen them, but here is the link to the page that addresses GRRM's comments on Brandon and possible children of his.

[Brad Stark]

Quote

It'd be an exaggeration to say that Brandon died before he could have children. It's established in the books that he was no virgin. He could very well have left behind some little Snows in the various places he visited. But what's absolutely clear is that he had no legitimate children.

It seems to me only to say Brandon didn't have any legitimate Stark children, it doesn't rule out him having children assumed to be legitimate from a different father or legitimized into a different family.  He didn't outright say it, but it sounds like he is saying Brandon had bastards but they aren't part of the story. 

Ramsay unmistakabley has his father's eyes. 

[Brad Stark]

I don't see where or when Lyanna died being relevant to why the other bones were not returned.  Ned or Barbary could have made the trip at any point to retrieve them if they were that important.  Barbary is probably just bitter over her husband's death, and looking for something to complain about.  None of this is any different if Lyanna died in Dorne or North of the Wall.

[Matthew.]

58 minutes ago, JNR said:

I would agree with this, except that GRRM went well out of his way to introduce Lady Dustin and all her fiery rhetoric in ADWD, calling attention to Ned's apparent double standard and how it affected others, and thus introducing a striking contrast with the super-honorable Ned we have known from earlier books... assuming she died at the TOJ, that is.

This seems to me much more clearly deliberative and overt on GRRM's part than what he did in AGOT alone. 

I agree that what Lady Dustin's grievance highlights is intentional. However, I see the significance as an open question--are we meant to use her words to find an interpretation of the ToJ that does fit with the idea of Eddard's reputation, or should we read Eddard as more flawed and more human than his reputation? Is she highlighting an incongruity, or adding nuance?

Again, I don't view this as a binary choice, I would only argue that, were Eddard theoretically faced with the prospect of moving nine corpses through mountainous terrain - one of them his sister, who may have exhorted a promise out of him that she would be buried in the north - then it may be that giving the warriors an 'honorable burial' while only moving his sister was his best attempt at doing the right thing, even if it might have been imperfect, might have emphasized his own grief and obligations over the grief of those other families that also suffered losses.