Jump to content
Black Crow

Heresy 221 and the Children of Winterfell

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Jova Snow said:

I sometime think if GRRM hates bards or something, should I watch Tom from brotherhood closely?

I don't think it's that he hates bards (though Ser Rodrik actually does).

But GRRM is committed to realism.  And in a world with no free press, no professional journalism, no encyclopedias, no Wikipedia, virtually no science, no modern concept of history, and in short, no way to know what is true and what is not... bullshit is going to be easy to find.

People in these books (as in our world) constantly lie, misremember, distort truths, make assumptions that aren't well founded, and create complete stories for political reasons.

And often they just fail to figure something out.  They do not even realize there is a thing to figure out, and so they never even try.  So, instead, they default to some commonplace idea that turns out to be completely wrong.

If you took a poll, all of Westeros would state the sun orbits the world.  None realize the world orbits the sun.  "Truths" are not always true.

"One thing I wanted to do was suggest the uncertainty of truth." -- GRRM, 1999

Edited by JNR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Of course that's operating under the notion that Cersei won't want revenge against Aegon.

Remember: when Aegon takes the city, she's going to have to run for her life. Her children will probably all be dead at that point: if Dumb&Dumber can be somewhat taken seriously, Myrcella might die at the hand of the Sand Snakes and Tommen will die as a casualty in the tug of war between his mother and his wife. One of them may even kill themselves (all the more painful)

If she survives The Winds of Winter (I am 99% sure she does), she will be out for blood.

Well, Cercei is a malignant narcissist, so she wants revenge against everyone.  I'm also not sure that Myrcella and Tommen will end up dead either, in spite of Maggi the Frog.   I say this because of Jaime's weirwood stump dream.  He is confronted by the line of his ancestors going back to Lann the Clever.  Including Cersei, Joffrey and Tywin; all of whom end up dead.  Myrcella and Thommen are missing from that dream.  Myrcella is in Dorne and Cersei may very well send Tommen disguised and into hiding since she has suggested that before.  So the meaning of Maggi's prophecy could be suspect or twisted in some way.  Cetainly, Cersei layers on the meaning particularly about Tyrion as the valonqar.  The little brother could be someone else associated with a brotherhood of some kind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, JNR said:

Citing the World book as your authority isn't a help.  I'm just going to quote... again... the Vulture interview.

As it happens, I don't think we should be "as oblivious as Cersei."

Given the long gap between Harrenhal and the Rebellion, there is simply no way Aegon was born immediately after Harrenhal and yet (per SSM) was a year old at the time of the Sack.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that there was a lengthy amount of time between the tourney and the beginning of the rebellion. If you put all the known pieces of the puzzle together, Jon Arryn called his banners only a few months into 282. 

The timing of specific events are things that Maester Yandel would have no reason to fudge. People would know when the tourney occurred, when the rebellion occurred, and when the sack occurred, etc, etc. There's no logical reason to question his text when he states the tourney took place during the False Spring at the end of 281, and that the False Spring only lasted two turns. If it's the end of the year and it only lasted two months, then the tourney occurred at the beginning of November 281. Of all the "facts" that Yandel could have twisted, dates are not one of them.

Rhaegar is reported missing early in 282, and since his absence coincides with when Lyanna went missing it's a happy coincidence for King Robert to assert that he took her. I believe Rhaegar was missing, because he was attending Aegon's birth, and when Elia was able to travel they left for Dorne. That would account for him not being on Dragonstone by the time Brandon rode to Kings Landing and Aerys sent for him.

There really is no logical way to place Aegon's birth prior to the tourney, nor to place his conception afterward.

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

American History is full of lies, but none of them are about the dates. Columbus is given credit for discovering America in 1492. He certainly wasn't the first European to set foot in North America, nor did he set foot on the actual continental United States we know today, but no historian has ever fudged the year he set sail from Spain. Dates just aren't facts that historians lie about.

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that there was a lengthy amount of time between the tourney and the beginning of the rebellion.

From the canon -- a much better source than the World book.  Jaime was 15 at Harrenhal and 17 at the Sack; that's quite simple.

But you can get there other ways too.  For instance, you can use Ned's own information from AGOT to determine this.  Chapter one tells us:

Quote

Bran's father sat solemnly on his horse, long brown hair stirring in the wind. His closely trimmed beard was shot with white, making him look older than his thirty-five years.

Quote

Jon was fourteen, an old hand at justice.

So we know Ned was 21 when Jon was born.  

How old was Ned at Harrenhal?  We know that too, from Ned himself:

Quote

The memory came creeping upon him in the darkness, as vivid as a dream. It was the year of false spring, and he was eighteen again, down from the Eyrie to the tourney at Harrenhal.

So, in short, Ned was 18 at Harrenhal.  And he was 21 when Jon was born within a few months of the Sack. 

(How do we know Jon was born within a few months of the Sack?  Because there's no way Jon could always have passed as Robb's age if he were really a full year older than Robb.  We know they are quite close in age.)

So it's clear from this that a good two years went by between Harrenhal and the Sack, exactly as the situation with Jaime demonstrated already. 

Since we know the Rebellion lasted about one year, that means there was about another year between Harrenhal and the Rebellion.

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

The timing of specific events are things that Maester Yandel would have no reason to fudge.

Are you sure about that?  Think about it.

If Rhaegar was attending Elia when she gave birth to Aegon, as we see in Dany's HOTU vision... and Elia gave birth to Aegon about the time the Rebellion began... then there's virtually no chance Rhaegar had just kidnapped Lyanna and was busy raping her somewhere far away.

Do you think Yandel would want to inform King Robert, in a book meant to please King Robert, that Rhaegar never kidnapped and raped Lyanna? 

I don't.  I think he would do whatever he had to do, adjusting history, to wallpaper over that uncomfortable truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JNR said:

From the canon -- a much better source than the World book.  Jaime was 15 at Harrenhal and 17 at the Sack; that's quite simple.

 

11 minutes ago, JNR said:

Bran's father sat solemnly on his horse, long brown hair stirring in the wind. His closely trimmed beard was shot with white, making him look older than his thirty-five years.

We've already gone over this. All that it would take is for Jaime and Ned's birthdays to occur after the tourney, so anytime in November or December. People do have birthdays in November and December, so this is not a trick - just a simple detail that works with the canon. The same could be said about Brandon, who was 19 in 280 and 20 in 281. All it would take to be 20 when he died is to have a January or even February birthday.

11 minutes ago, JNR said:

If Rhaegar was attending Elia when she gave birth to Aegon, as we see in Dany's HOTU vision... and Elia gave birth to Aegon about the time the Rebellion began... then there's virtually no chance Rhaegar had just kidnapped Lyanna and was busy raping her somewhere far away.

Do you think Yandel would want to inform King Robert, in a book meant to please King Robert, that Rhaegar never kidnapped and raped Lyanna? 

I think Yandel knows very well when Aegon was born, but the length of time Rhaegar was missing from Kings Landing leaves enough room to spin the story. 

Rhaegar and Elia had made Dragonstone their home, so there would be nothing surprising about going to Dragonstone immediately after the tourney. Aegon's birth year is 282 - no month given, but using the dates of Rhaegar and Elia's marriage and Rhaenys birthday all occurring in 280, it's very reasonable to use April 281 as Aegon's conception month, and place his birth month into January 282. Lyanna went missing in January 282 leaving enough time for Rhaegar to attend the birth and still be blamed for Lyanna's disappearance at the beginning of the new year.

"Columbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety two..."

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Feather Crystal said:

All that it would take is for Jaime and Ned's birthdays to occur after the tourney, so anytime in November or December.

You seem not to have noticed this:

10 minutes ago, JNR said:

So, in short, Ned was 18 at Harrenhal.  And he was 21 when Jon was born within a few months of the Sack.  

21-18 = 3.  That suggests at least two years between Harrenhal and the Sack, no matter how you fudge around with birthdays. 

There was a gap of a year between Harrenhal and the Rebellion.

2 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I think Yandel knows very well when Aegon was born

Well, I think so too.  And GRRM knows as well:

Quote

At the time of the Sack, Aegon Targaryen was, "Still a babe at the breast. A year old, give or take a turn or two."

You just have to realize that

1) Aegon was born about the time Jon Arryn called his banners, and connect that with

2) Dany saw Rhaegar with Elia when Aegon was a newborn, to see

3) How hollow and ill-founded R+L=J has always been

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Euron himself raided Lannisport at the start of the Greyjoy rebellion. 

Actually, Euron was the brains behind the plan. Victarion and Aeron are actually the ones who did most of the actual raiding and warring.

Euron is a puppetmaster. Notice how he got out of the whole Greyjoy Rebellion unscathed?

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

The Iron Bank has called in their debts, so if Cersei refuses to pay the crown's debt with Lannister gold then she'll have more than one creditor coming after her. If they hire a Faceless Man to get their revenge, maybe Arya will get to scratch her off her list?

Myrcella won't die until after Tommen dies and she herself is crowned - for real this time. Westeros may not accept her in the line of succession, but she may end up marrying whomever sits the Iron Throne after Tommen. If she wants to keep Dorne as an ally, Cersei would be wise to go ahead with the marriage to Trystane.

The Faith Militant will grow in power until they wrest control of Tommen from Cersei's hands. I'm not sure how she's going to get herself out of trouble with Pycelle and Kevan dead. All she has is Maester Qyburn just like in the mummer's version. There's only so much Ser Robert Strong can do to keep the High Sparrow at bay. Cersei is screwed unless Euron does step in to offer his assistance, but if the Forsaken chapter is any indication, he'll be a little busy at the beginning of Winds. I think he's waiting for Victarion to capture a dragon and bring him back Daenerys. Surely he knows Victarion's intentions, but I'm sure he's got a surprise in store for Victarion too. Euron and Victarion are replaying the roles of Bloodraven and Bittersteel. The latter became enemies with Bloodraven coming out on top as the victor, but with the reversal of historic events, Victarion may have a chance if he manages to bind one of the dragons to himself.

But the Lannisters are not in debt. The Iron Throne is in debt.

So, whoever has the Iron Throne has the debt. If Cersei refuses to pay and defaults, she is acting as Queen Regent and the custodian of the Iron Throne not as the ruling Lady of Casterly Rock. Sure, she can still have creditors harassing her or a bounty on her head....but the Iron Throne has its own coffers. House Lannister pays taxes, true, but House Lannister cannot be held responsible for the Iron Throne's finances. Not on paper.

So, if creditors are after her, they are going to be asking her to help rectify what is now Aegon's problem (LOL!!! I would hate to be that messenger). They can still send a Faceless Man after her but 

I agree on Myrcella. But I find it strange that you feel like Westeros wouldn't accept her in the line of succession. By then, Stannis will likely be either: 1) dead or 2) so weak and so far removed from the situation in King's Landing he might as well be dead.

Tommen is going to be like that one Targaryen prince during the Dance with Dragons. Torn apart by crowds that have competing interests. Tommen is not going to survive this tug-of-war between his mother, his in-laws and the Faith. Mace won't be in King's Landing for long and neither will Randyll Tarly because the wars in the Reach and the Stormlands absolutely cannot be ignored. So that leaves Cersei against Margaery who has removed the kids' gloves. How much you wanna bet that Margaery will be named Queen Regent? Cersei's last-ditch, ill-conceived effort to get rid of the Tyrells will likely end up in the deaths of Margaery and Tommen and push the Faith into the arms of Aegon (whether she knows it or not)

Myrcella is a more preferable option but Trystane is in Dorne. A betrothal is not a marriage; while Doran Martell is going to be slow in breaking such a betrothal and Nymeria has the makings of a cunning stateswoman (which might lure Cersei into a false sense of security), Cersei might come to regret the fact that she overplayed her hand with Trystane. Instead of secretly plotting to lure Trystane into a death trap, she should've treated Trystane like she treated Sansa when Sansa was betrothed to Joffrey. That was a mistake.

Of course, that's all operating under the notion that Myrcella will be as pliable as Tommen and/or stupid like Joffrey. The girl is smart (really smart) and poised. And Myrcella is not a doormat. How many times did we watch Sansa watch Myrcella stand up to Joffrey and not catch any blowback without missing a beat.

Her near-death experience is also likely to leave a lasting impression. But miraculously, she readily agrees to aid Doran in the cover-up of the queenmaker plot.

Cersei might think Myrcella is a better option only to have her hands full. Myrcella might call Cersei out on her bulls--- more than once. The younger, more beautiful queen could very well be Myrcella.

But no. I don't think Cersei and Euron are going to cross paths until A Dream of Spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2019 at 10:42 AM, JNR said:

You seem not to have noticed this:

21-18 = 3.  That suggests at least two years between Harrenhal and the Sack, no matter how you fudge around with birthdays. 

There was a gap of a year between Harrenhal and the Rebellion.

Well, I think so too.  And GRRM knows as well:

You just have to realize that

1) Aegon was born about the time Jon Arryn called his banners, and connect that with

2) Dany saw Rhaegar with Elia when Aegon was a newborn, to see

3) How hollow and ill-founded R+L=J has always been

I am not missing a thing. Simple subtraction does not take into consideration which month something occurred.

Ned could be 18 at the tourney and 19 by December 280. A Nov/Dec birthday makes him 20 at the end of 281, 21 at the end of 282, 22 at the end of 283, and 35 years old when the book A Game of Thrones opens in early 298.

Yes, Aegon was born before Jon Arryn called his banners early in 282 when Ned was 20.

Ned is lying about Jon's birthday. He is older than Robb by 7 or 8 months. Noticeably older in development, but smaller in stature. Ned could have been 21 when Jon was born if Jon was also born after Ned's birthday, but I don't believe that he was. I believe Jon was born in August 282 - nine months after the tourney at Harrenhal.

We are both on the same page regarding the lie that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna. I'm just more precise in utilizing months in my calculations.

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

But the Lannisters are not in debt. The Iron Throne is in debt.

So, whoever has the Iron Throne has the debt. If Cersei refuses to pay and defaults, she is acting as Queen Regent and the custodian of the Iron Throne not as the ruling Lady of Casterly Rock. Sure, she can still have creditors harassing her or a bounty on her head....but the Iron Throne has its own coffers. House Lannister pays taxes, true, but House Lannister cannot be held responsible for the Iron Throne's finances. Not on paper.

So, if creditors are after her, they are going to be asking her to help rectify what is now Aegon's problem (LOL!!! I would hate to be that messenger). They can still send a Faceless Man after her but 

My point exactly. The Iron Throne has already abandoned Cersei and brokered an agreement with Stannis. They will back whoever they think will pay them back, and if killing Cersei helps Stannis, then that is what they would want done too.

6 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

I agree on Myrcella. But I find it strange that you feel like Westeros wouldn't accept her in the line of succession. By then, Stannis will likely be either: 1) dead or 2) so weak and so far removed from the situation in King's Landing he might as well be dead.

Westeros has never allowed a woman to inherit. Cersei wasn't allowed to keep the throne after Robert died, and Myrcella is older than Tommen.

6 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

How much you wanna bet that Margaery will be named Queen Regent?

Margaery is already queen. Why does she need to be declared Queen Regent? A regent is only in place if the king is too young, but what if his queen isn't? 

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

My point exactly. The Iron Throne has already abandoned Cersei and brokered an agreement with Stannis. They will back whoever they think will pay them back, and if killing Cersei helps Stannis, then that is what they would want done too.

But killing Cersei doesn't help Stannis because Stannis' situation and Cersei's situation are completely removed from each other.

You know what would help Stannis right now? Killing Roose Bolton and his son both. Which might happen considering that the Faceless Men have someone in their back-pocket who would very much like to speak with the Bolton men.

34 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Westeros has never allowed a woman to inherit. Cersei wasn't allowed to keep the throne after Robert died, and Myrcella is older than Tommen.

Huh?

Widows don't inherit their dead husband's estate. The children are the first in line to inherit and then the brothers. Widows only inherit if there is no next of kin.

If Myrcella's brothers are dead, her Baratheon uncles are dead or in disfavor (I think Stannis will be dead by that point in The Winds of Winter), her cousins are either doomed or bastards, her Baratheon grandfather is dead, she has no other next of male kin...then, the logical conclusion is that Myrcella is the only one. Myrcella will be Westeros' first ruling Queen. Probably not for long but the first is the first.

In Westeros, males come before females regardless of age. Only in Dorne do they give women a fair shake. But even still there are females who rule their households like male lords do because their fathers had no sons and they are the eldest, their brothers have been removed from the line of succession or their brothers are all dead. Lady Anya Waynwood and Ser Arys' mother, Lady Arwyn Oakheart, are the best examples of this.

So, all of Myrcella's male relatives have to be dead before she becomes Queen. Stannis is a nonfactor that is over a thousand miles away fighting a battle he cannot win under normal circumstances and no one likes him for a wide variety of reasons. Shireen is a PR nightmare with the greyscale in remission.

Trust me: Myrcella will be Queen. If Westeros refuses to accept her it won't be because of her sex, it will be because they hate Cersei and they love Aegon.

47 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Margaery is already queen. Why does she need to be declared Queen Regent? A regent is only in place if the king is too young, but what if his queen isn't? 

First of all, Margaery is Queen Consort. She has no real hard power of her own. Queen Consorts wield the soft powers of influence; they have no power outside of the king. Their power comes from their relationship to the king. Queen consorts vary in power. They can range from being more powerful than the Hand of the King; to being on the level of the lesser Small Council members; to being one of the king's unofficial advisors; to just being a bedwarmer and a babysitter.

Queen regents, on the other hand, wield the harder, concrete power of being able to tell someone to do something and that person will be compelled to obey. Until the king becomes of age, Queen Regents are the king.

Second of all, Margaery is 16 years old and legally an adult in Westeros.

Margaery as Queen Regent would be Cersei's superior. Because Cersei, at this point, is just the Lady of Casterly Rock. The Tyrells are not going to willingly put Cersei is another position of power...especially not after suspecting Cersei of murdering Pycelle and Kevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2019 at 11:56 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

But killing Cersei doesn't help Stannis because Stannis' situation and Cersei's situation are completely removed from each other.

Killing Cersei would make it easier for Stannis to take the Iron Throne.

On 5/10/2019 at 11:56 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

You know what would help Stannis right now? Killing Roose Bolton and his son both. Which might happen considering that the Faceless Men have someone in their back-pocket who would very much like to speak with the Bolton men.

The Boltons have always envied the Starks. That is why in history they used to kill and skin wolves. It's a symbolic gesture. They only hold Winterfell because the crown allows it. If Cersei were dead the Boltons would support whomever they thought would best allow them to keep Winterfell. If Cersei were to die before they engage Stannis in battle, they may be open to a parly. Do I think Cersei will die before Stannis attacks? No. I'm just theorizing what the Boltons would do politically if she were to die.

On 5/10/2019 at 11:56 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

If Myrcella's brothers are dead, her Baratheon uncles are dead or in disfavor (I think Stannis will be dead by that point in The Winds of Winter), her cousins are either doomed or bastards, her Baratheon grandfather is dead, she has no other next of male kin...then, the logical conclusion is that Myrcella is the only one. Myrcella will be Westeros' first ruling Queen. Probably not for long but the first is the first.

When Tommen dies, the Tyrells would push to marry Margaery to whomever they thought the rest of the realm would support as their next king. Once Young Griff is revealed as Aegon, Lady Oleanna may consider an alliance. If we're talking the line of inheritance, I think that Myrcella would be passed over in favor of Stannis.  

On 5/10/2019 at 11:56 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

In Westeros, males come before females regardless of age. Only in Dorne do they give women a fair shake. But even still there are females who rule their households like male lords do because their fathers had no sons and they are the eldest, their brothers have been removed from the line of succession or their brothers are all dead. Lady Anya Waynwood and Ser Arys' mother, Lady Arwyn Oakheart, are the best examples of this.

True, but Westeros has never accepted a female as their monarch. The war of the Greens and Blacks was because they would not allow Rhaenyra to inherit her father's throne. The king's second wife's son, Aegon II  became the accepted monarch.

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we have to realize that GRRM had always been writing short stories, one of them being the outline. He assembled a bunch of them into the first three books of ASoIaF and the gaps weren't visible because of the incredible pace. He failed to repeat this with the following short stories.

In case the mummers show ends as the leaks suggest, he is to blame as much as the mummers because they followed his broad strokes. Which he confirmed again and again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mullocose said:

Anyone read the Memory, Sorrow & Thorn Series???

Yes. I have talked about the parallels for years. But for me the Simon Jon story ended with the melting of Ice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that there was a lengthy amount of time between the tourney and the beginning of the rebellion. If you put all the known pieces of the puzzle together, Jon Arryn called his banners only a few months into 282. 

The timing of specific events are things that Maester Yandel would have no reason to fudge. People would know when the tourney occurred, when the rebellion occurred, and when the sack occurred, etc, etc. There's no logical reason to question his text when he states the tourney took place during the False Spring at the end of 281, and that the False Spring only lasted two turns. If it's the end of the year and it only lasted two months, then the tourney occurred at the beginning of November 281. Of all the "facts" that Yandel could have twisted, dates are not one of them.

Rhaegar is reported missing early in 282, and since his absence coincides with when Lyanna went missing it's a happy coincidence for King Robert to assert that he took her. I believe Rhaegar was missing, because he was attending Aegon's birth, and when Elia was able to travel they left for Dorne. That would account for him not being on Dragonstone by the time Brandon rode to Kings Landing and Aerys sent for him.

There really is no logical way to place Aegon's birth prior to the tourney, nor to place his conception afterward.

If GRRM has a detailed sheet of events and dates for Robert's rebellion, we should be able to piece it out.   But if he is just 'gardening' with a vague notion of what happened first, the timelines could grow and shrink more than Rob's wife's hips. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

GRRM characterizing Aegon's age as "about a year, give or take a turn or two" is a pretty inexact answer, giving himself a window where Aegon could be as young as ten months or as old as fourteen months; if "about a year" for RR is similarly inexact, the precise chronological relationship between the two becomes murky, particularly if Aegon's age is on the higher end of "about a year," and RR on the lower end.

Furthermore, I don't think he's giving such an inexact answer to be tricky, I think he's giving an inexact answer because it really is that inexact in his head, to give himself room to garden.
 

3 hours ago, Mullocose said:

Anyone read the Memory, Sorrow & Thorn Series???

Yes, I read them around the same time as I first read ASOIAF, and the Sithi/Norn stuff was particularly influential on some of my earliest theories about the Others.

Edited by Matthew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Matthew. said:

GRRM characterizing Aegon's age as "about a year, give or take a turn or two" is a pretty inexact answer, giving himself a window where Aegon could be as young as ten months or as old as fourteen months; if "about a year" for RR is similarly inexact, the precise chronological relationship between the two becomes murky, particularly if Aegon's age is on the higher end of "about a year," and RR on the lower end.

Furthermore, I don't think he's giving such an inexact answer to be tricky, I think he's giving an inexact answer because it really is that inexact in his head, to give himself room to garden.
 

I agree, with the possible caveat that wriggle room for gardening may not come into this. All that really matters to the outcome [and especially given that Jon is probably the only one now living] is that Robb and Jon appear to have been roughly of an age. Catelyn resented Jon not just because he was Ned's bastard - she accepted men have "needs" - who he had brought home, but because if they appeared to be of a similar age then that meant Ned had cheated on her right from the very beginning. If for the sake of argument Wylla the celebrated fisherman's daughter had come knocking on the door of Winterfell six months later, with a bundle of joy in her arms and a cheerful cry of "remember me dearie" that would be a very different matter.

As to Rhaegar on the other hand, I think that Maester Yandel is indeed telling porkies and here I'm inclined to agree with JNR. Its not necessary to question the dates. There's no reason to doubt when he disappeared from King's Landing. What we may legitimately question is what happened next and whether Yandel was filling in an undoubted blank in a way to please Trouserless Bob, rather than relating what may have been a very different truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Ned is lying about Jon's birthday.

An awfully convenient assumption.  I'm not at all sure he is, and I really don't think it can be demonstrated.

If we're honest, I think we have to admit that if Ned was anywhere near 21 when Jon was born, and he was 18 at Harrenhal, there really must have been a long gap between Harrenhal and the war.

22 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

We are both on the same page regarding the lie that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna. I'm just more precise in utilizing months in my calculations.

Well, you just trust the World book implicitly on this stuff. 

I'm not blaming you for it, but you're doing the exact thing we were warned by GRRM not to do:

On 5/10/2019 at 8:50 AM, JNR said:

The World shouldn’t necessarily be taken as gospel

The World book also clearly contradicts GRRM on the timing of Aegon's birth, so we can believe it, or we can believe him. I choose to believe GRRM's statement. 

18 hours ago, Mullocose said:

Anyone read the Memory, Sorrow & Thorn Series???

Sure.  A major influence on GRRM, as he's said in public.

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

As to Rhaegar on the other hand, I think that Maester Yandel is indeed telling porkies and here I'm inclined to agree with JNR. Its not necessary to question the dates.

That's true; you can get to the long gap between Harrenhal and the war without pondering birthdays or ages at all.

Now, whether Aegon's birth tells us where Rhaegar was about the time the war began is more debatable, mainly because Dany's HOTU visions are only that: visions.   Not established facts. 

However, I'm pretty sure that vision is true, and certainly the fan consensus is that it's true -- all discussion of "three heads of the dragon" assumes it's true. 

Dany herself seems to have had little/no doubt:

 
Quote

 

Dany could not let it go. "His is the song of ice and fire, my brother said. I'm certain it was my brother. Not Viserys, Rhaegar. He had a harp with silver strings."
 
Ser Jorah's frown deepened until his eyebrows came together. "Prince Rhaegar played such a harp," he conceded. "You saw him?"
 
She nodded. "There was a woman in a bed with a babe at her breast. My brother said the babe was the prince that was promised and told her to name him Aegon."

 

 
Edited by JNR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Catelyn resented Jon not just because he was Ned's bastard - she accepted men have "needs" - who he had brought home, but because if they appeared to be of a similar age then that meant Ned had cheated on her right from the very beginning. If for the sake of argument Wylla the celebrated fisherman's daughter had come knocking on the door of Winterfell six months later, with a bundle of joy in her arms and a cheerful cry of "remember me dearie" that would be a very different matter.

We certainly agree about this, too.  The canon's pretty clear why Cat thinks what she does:

Quote

The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

You can imagine her emotions, as a newlywed wife bringing her husband's heir to their castle, on discovering this literal state of affairs.

Jon might be slightly older or younger than Robb; I'm not sure we'll ever know the truth about that.  But they're certainly  close in age.   Jon was not twice as old as Robb when Cat first clapped eyes on him.

Edited by JNR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×