Qhorin Halfhand was Ser Arthur Dayne - Revisited.

[frenin]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The scene could swing on Howland, true. But then why all the mystery around Arthur's death? I think a well respected and much lauded white cloak becoming a black cloak would perfectly underline that swing given what the cloaks symbolize. The ToJ will be revisited. The idea that by night all cloaks are black is repeated several times in the series. Winter will come. The emphasis will shift from the game of thrones to the song of ice and fire. All these story elements will fit together, and I'm merely suggesting how that will happen.

There is no mystery about Arthur's death, first we're told Ned killed him, then Ned himself says that's bs  but no one ever doubts he's dead, just as no one ever doubts the rest are dead.

 

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The deaths of the others aren't signposted like Arthur's is by Ned and Bran. GRRM is practically telling you to watch this space. I agree that the best warriors can be beaten. The result of the fight might have went any way due to any number of circumstances, but the one who decides all that is the author who strives to make the best storytelling choice.

The others simply weren't as formidable as Arthur was, but Ned does respect them as we see in his dreram.

 

 

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It's hard enough to argue that one survived, several more would be a nightmare.

Why Arthur? Because that is where the text points us. What I mean by the term signposting is that the text is pointing us towards a mystery. It's a technique designed to help the reader stay with what's happening. Sometimes they tell you to look in a certain direction, like when Catelyn signposts the death of Jon Arynn as a murder mystery after the letter from her sister or when Tormund signposts that the pink letter might contain lies. Sometimes they tell you to watch this space, like Bran wishing Ned had told him more about how Arthur Dayne had almost killed him but for Howland Reed or when Jon shrinks from asking Qhorin more about the shy maid on her wedding night.

I don't think it's any hard, if we're ready to open that can of worms, everyone but the "confirmed deads" lived to tell the tale.

Doubtful that the text points us nothing, the text only say that Arthur was an apparently great gyt and the best swordsman ever, nothing more really.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

That's a good question, I never looked into it. In that case we have a Theon Greyjoy and a Theon Stark, but in the case I'm proposing we only have Ironborn and a variant of the name in Dorne. I'm curious about both to be honest.

It's a name and doesn't seem to be one specifical regional name name, for us to determine that, we should see that name several times in a region and few on the others.

 

 

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

He says they are no different than them, but they lack discipline, while a lot of people degrade the wildlings as sub-human monsters. The OP said a somewhat chivalrous attitude and I stand by that.

But that's not chivalrious. You're grasping straws, acknowledging a danger is not chivalric.

 

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Robert would have come for him.

Completely impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

If Arthur wasn't convinced, then it was unnecessary for him to go to the Wall, though.

Plus, if Jon was considered PTWP, it made sense he could be no use while still a child, so the long wait had to be endured. The realisation then should have reawakened that conviction and prompted "Qhorin" into action, but it did not.

But that would require Arthur to be convinced and join the Watch with a purpose - on which he didn't act, so I find this reasoning rather contradictory.

We assume so and I think the assumption is reasonable, I'm only pointing out that we don't know the details.

 

I could hardly expect him to spread the word as a gospel, but more like, pry into things, revive the legends, get in touch with people likely to listen.... something, instead of nothing.

There is a difference between not spilling the beans and not doing a thing. What Qhorin did would be an equivalent to Obi-wan not telling Luke a thing about Anakin or the Force.

What did he choose to defend the realm from if he wasn't convinced that a reaaaaly big threat was coming? You can't have it both ways.

Oh, I don't insist that Qhorin should have mentored Jon, but that he should have played some role related to his Arthur Dayne persona. Which he didn't.

The same way he went about it in Ned's PoVs where he hid Jon's parentage in plain sight?

Plus, what you are saying is: GRRM faked the death of a character and had him interact with a protagonist without actually utilising the character for anything of importance that couldn't have been done by anyone else. That makes Arthur as Qhorin utterly and absolutely useless.

But he didn't sacrifice his life for Jon, he sacrificed himself for a brother of the Watch who, unlike himself, stood a chance to finish the mission. They couldn't escape and Qhorin's submission would never have been believed, given what a staunch enemy of the Wildling he was. It was about learning Mance's plans and warning the Watch, not about Jon.

Not sure what you mean here?

This is not about storytelling but about characterisation - Ned keeps to himself things which are hurtful to him (or to others), that's why we need to learn from other characters because our current PoVs were never told, and characters like Meera are surprised at that.

Ygrain, I think you make some very good points here, as usual. I feel I'm pushing the prophecy boat out a little too far and I accept the flaws in reasoning with regard to those parts of the theory. However, I feel a lot of them can be ironed out by incorporating a lot of what you are saying. At the start of the OP I said that the theory simply states that Arthur survived and took the black under the name Qhorin.

It is hard to know how convinced Arthur was about the Prince that was Promised. Rhaegar had been wrong before. So let's say you're right, Arthur fought in his capacity as kingsguard and Howland snared him in his net, putting Ned in control of the scene at the tower.

You're suggesting that Ned then executed him because he refused to yield, and that's reasonable, but again I don't see the reason to withhold that just for the sake of characterization when there are other options that would yield a bigger pay off. Ned could just as well have offered Arthur the black, as long as it was under a new name so that Robert would never know, and sworn by Ned to never reveal Jon's secret to anyone, including Jon. Ned would return the sword to Starfall and Arthur Dayne would dead to the world.

Arthur might well have been a broken man at that stage, Rhaegar was dead, the king he was sworn to protect was dead, the white cloak of the kingsguard had been soiled by Jaime, he might have even lost half a hand by then.

That way there is no reason for Qhorin to spend the years prepping for the Others with Aemon so he's free to throw himself into defending the realm from the wildings. He is sworn to silence about Jon, and he's a man of his word, but he does get a chance to redeem his failure as a kingsguard, even though I agree that the mission is about getting Jon to infiltrate the wildlings.

Arthur still gets and arc and his symbolic journey from white cloak to black remains intact, even if it was forced upon him, as it will ultimately be forced upon all.

3 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Then that makes Ned's beheading for Gared an unforgivable mistake, no? If Howland tries to reason with Arthur by using words like the ones you mention, then why isn't he warning Ned as well? Why isn't he telling Ned of the dangers beyond the Wall? Or wouldn't Ned have been there when Howland was having this chat with Arthur while he presumably was trying to save his life? 

Arthur doesn't need a change of name or identity to take the black. Plenty knights of the Kingsguard were sent to the NW. Robert gave Barristan a pardon and named him his Lord Commander. I'm sure he could have been convinced to allow Arthur to take the black. And better that than have him executed as a traitor, which could have turned him into a lightning rod or a martyr for the Targaryen cause and perhaps driven an even bigger wedge between Ned and Robert, especially after Robert pardoned Jaime for the killing of Aerys.

Good points. I believe the above scenario would answer a lot of these objections too.

3 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Qhorin was on the Wall long enough that he knew Rickard Stark.

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Meaning, not Arthur :-)

No, Qhorin said he knew Rickard Stark, not that he was on the Wall long enough that he knew Rickard Stark. Arthur must have met Lord Rickard when he visited Aerys in King's Landing in 264 AC to present plans to reclaim lands north of the Wall. Qhorin did mention that Rickard was a friend to the Watch.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

I read the whole theory but not all the comments. Generally speaking I don't like the "this person is that person" theories because I think it cheapens the story, particularly to be done over & over again (Not that it is done over & over again but there are so many theories about this person being that person) 

That being said I think the piece is very well written & I don't see anything off hand that would negate it. 

I also think it would be sadly ironic for Arthur to have spared Ned & then for Ned's "son" to kill Arthur/Qhorin. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

There is no mystery about Arthur's death, first we're told Ned killed him, then Ned himself says that's bs  but no one ever doubts he's dead, just as no one ever doubts the rest are dead

No one ever questions Jon being Ned's son either but we're pretty sure that isn't true. I don't think the lack of anyone questioning him being dead means much. There is somewhat of a mystery, considering we aren't given any description of him & the entire scene @ the TOJ is very vague. Of course, that doesn't mean it equates to Arthur being Qhorin. 

 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Doubtful that the text points us nothing, the text only say that Arthur was an apparently great gyt and the best swordsman ever, nothing more really

Well, not really. The text says much more than that, as 3EM has pointed out. Whether or not it's being interpreted correctly is another matter. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

But that's not chivalrious. You're grasping straws, acknowledging a danger is not chivalric.

But he didn't merely acknowledge a danger. He spoke with respect for them. He recognized they have something to be valued as well. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Completely impossible.

Why? It certainly isn't impossible & knowing how Robert, until the day he died, seethed with hatred for Rhaegar I don't think it's unreasonable to think he would have went after Rhaegar's good friend had he known he was alive. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

18 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

No, Qhorin said he knew Rickard Stark, not that he was on the Wall long enough that he knew Rickard Stark. Arthur must have met Lord Rickard when he visited Aerys in King's Landing in 264 AC to present plans to reclaim lands north of the Wall. Qhorin did mention that Rickard was a friend to the Watch.

Out of curiosity, how old do you think Arthur would be? I get that you may be trying to make him fit age-wise with Qhorin and his grey long braid, but I think you're pushing it a bit. 

I think he'd be of an age with Rhaegar and that it's possible he was the knight who replaced Gwayne Gaunt, following the Defiance at Duskendale, but that's obviously speculation. 

[frenin]

2 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No one ever questions Jon being Ned's son either but we're pretty sure that isn't true. I don't think the lack of anyone questioning him being dead means much. There is somewhat of a mystery, considering we aren't given any description of him & the entire scene @ the TOJ is very vague. Of course, that doesn't mean it equates to Arthur being Qhorin. 

We're not given any descrption of Whent either, except his mood nor we're given any of Hightower. There is a reason and evidence for Lyanna's case, there is only absence of evidence in this case and  very circumstancial evidence that is more tinfoil than evidence.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, not really. The text says much more than that, as 3EM has pointed out. Whether or not it's being interpreted correctly is another matter. 

I don't see it tbh, i just see tinfoil.

 

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But he didn't merely acknowledge a danger. He spoke with respect for them. He recognized they have something to be valued as well. 

He did. He said, Jon, those who think the wildlings as rabble are idiots, they can be pretty dangerous. There is nothing chivalric about that. Just as there is nothing chivalric in acknowledging a foe's threat. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Why? It certainly isn't impossible & knowing how Robert, until the day he died, seethed with hatred for Rhaegar I don't think it's unreasonable to think he would have went after Rhaegar's good friend had he known he was alive. 

Not if he was in the wall.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

There is no mystery about Arthur's death, first we're told Ned killed him, then Ned himself says that's bs  but no one ever doubts he's dead, just as no one ever doubts the rest are dead.

I doubt Arthur's death, and I think there is good reason to.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

The others simply weren't as formidable as Arthur was, but Ned does respect them as we see in his dreram.

True, but there is a specific mystery about Howland and Arthur because it was teased by Ned but left to be revealed later.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't think it's any hard, if we're ready to open that can of worms, everyone but the "confirmed deads" lived to tell the tale.

Doubtful that the text points us nothing, the text only say that Arthur was an apparently great gyt and the best swordsman ever, nothing more really.

The text always points to something, even if a lot of readers don't realize how the writer is leading them.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

It's a name and doesn't seem to be one specifical regional name name, for us to determine that, we should see that name several times in a region and few on the others.

We can only go on what we know. Qhorin is an Ironborn name. Is it common elsewhere? From the wide array of characters we know of, no.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

But that's not chivalrious. You're grasping straws, acknowledging a danger is not chivalric.

It's more than an acknowledgment of danger.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

13 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Out of curiosity, how old do you think Arthur would be? I get that you may be trying to make him fit age-wise with Qhorin and his grey long braid, but I think you're pushing it a bit. 

I think he'd be of an age with Rhaegar and that it's possible he was the knight who replaced Gwayne Gaunt, following the Defiance at Duskendale, but that's obviously speculation.

Another great question. We don't know how old either Arthur or Qhorin are, so I guess that's the absolute answer, but I think we might have a vague picture if we just join a few dots.

The earliest record we have of Ser Arthur Dayne is when he championed the tourney at Lannisport in 276 AC in the white of the kingsguard. Jaime was the youngest ever member of the kingsguard at fifteen, the previous record holder being Roland Crakehall of unknown age, who served in the kingsguard of Daeron II and Aerys I. Even if Arthur received his white cloak at the age of sixteen, and if he was newly appointed at the tourney in Lannisport, then he would have been born around 260 AC. This is the latest possible year of his birth, and it’s about all we can determine as fact when it comes to Arthur’s age.

This would make him of an age with Rhaegar, who was born in 259 AC. Given that Arthur and Rhaegar were close friends, many accept they were also close in age, but I’m not so sure. Let me explain why.

As far as we know there were nine knights who served as kingsguard to Aerys II. They were Gerold Hightower, Barristan Selmy, Arthur Dayne, Harlan Grandison, Gwayne Gaunt, Jon Darry, Oswell Whent, Lewyn Martell, and Jaime Lannister.

Gwayne Gaunt died in Duskendale in 277 AC. We’re not told who replaced him but we know it was not Hightower or Selmy, who had served King Jaehaerys, and it was not Arthur Dayne, already a renowned member of the kingsguard by 276 AC as mentioned. In 279 AC, Rhaegar was betrothed to Elia Martell and Prince Lewyn accompanied her to court as part of her Dornish entourage so it is most likely that he took the vacant spot as part of the marriage arrangement. Then in 281 AC, Jaime replaced old Harlan Grandison who died in his sleep.

They are the only changes to the kingsguard during Aerys’ reign that we know of. I think it’s very likely that Aerys’ original seven were inherited from Jaehaerys, as kingsguard serve for life, just as Rhaegar would have inherited Aerys’ seven if the throne had passed to him peacefully. That would mean Ser Arthur was already a member of the kingsguard when Aerys ascended to the throne in 262 AC.

Barristan Selmy received his white cloak in 260 AC, at the age of twenty-three. Twenty years later, when Lord Commander Gerold Hightower was injured fighting the Kingswood Brotherhood, command passed to Arthur not Barristan. This further supports the notion that Arthur, despite being potentially younger than Barristan, had seniority as a kingsguard over the others, with the exception of Harlan Grandison who was aged and close to his natural death.

From a storytelling point of view it’s tempting to think that Arthur may have been appointed to the kingsguard after the fire at Summerhall in 259 AC, when Rahegar was born. We don’t know how many of Aegon’s seven perished in the flames, there was at least one vacancy created by the death of Ser Duncan the Tall, but there may have been as many as five. If Arthur was appointed after Summerhall but before the appointment of Barristan, and he was a young man at the time, between the age of seventeen and twenty, then he would have been born in the early 240’s AC. This would make him around forty years-old at the Tower of Joy, give or take a few years.

I suspect that’s older than many readers imagine, but I don’t think it is out of place with what we know. Ser Barristan tells us that Ser Arthur Dayne was Rhaegar’s oldest friend, meaning Rhaegar had been friends with Arthur longer than anyone else, probably since the prince was a child. However, that doesn’t mean that Arthur was a child at the time. As a young boy Rhaegar was bookish to a fault, the maesters were awed by his wits, and he took no interest in the play of other children. I think it’s more likely that the young prince struck a friendship with one of his father’s ever-present kingsguard instead.

Rhaegar did have some friends of an age, like Jon Connington, Myles Mooton, and Richard Lonmouth, but those relationships seemed to centre on being squires. Jon Connington was a year or two younger than his silver prince. He and Rhaegar squired together in King’s Landing. When Jon visited the Golden Company he remarked upon the orderly nature of their camp and how Arthur Dayne would have approved. It suggests Ser Arthur was a mentor to Jon, which again supports the idea that Ser Arthur was older than Jon and Rhaegar. 

If Arthur Dayne was around forty at the Tower of Joy then he would be in his mid to late fifties when he died in the Frostfangs. I feel that is a very plausible age range for Qhorin Halfhand.

[frenin]

7 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I doubt Arthur's death, and I think there is good reason to.

I don't, i just believe it's Martin's fault,  everyone must be someone. Nor that i see a reason why he survives and  the he's killed offhand without doing anything barely relevant.

 

 

8 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

True, but there is a specific mystery about Howland and Arthur because it was teased by Ned but left to be revealed later.

The mystery is how they survived, not how Arthur saw reason after butchering almost all of Ned's pals. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The text always points to something, even if a lot of readers don't realize how the writer is leading them.

And sometimes  it's a death end. Coryanne style.

 

16 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

We can only go on what we know. Qhorin is an Ironborn name. Is it common elsewhere? From the wide array of characters we know of, no.

But we don't know that. There is one person called  that in the Iron Islands and  there is one person called  that in the North. Qhorin is not even a usual name.

 

 

18 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It's more than an acknowledgment of danger.

Is it?? Qhorin does not say they are worth  respecting them, he just acknowledges their danger iirc.

[three-eyed monkey]

2 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't, i just believe it's Martin's fault,  everyone must be someone. Nor that i see a reason why he survives and  the he's killed offhand without doing anything barely relevant.

It is GRRM's fault, we can agree on that.

3 minutes ago, frenin said:

The mystery is how they survived, not how Arthur saw reason after butchering almost all of Ned's pals. 

Well, I think Ygrain corrected me on that one too. Your're right, Ned and Howland won the fight thanks to Howland's net. That puts Ned in control and that in turn changes the motive for Arthur taking the black.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

But we don't know that. There is one person called  that in the Iron Islands and  there is one person called  that in the North. Qhorin is not even a usual name.

We have one person on the Iron Islands called Qhorin and we have one person at the Wall named Qhorin. People at the Wall can come from anywhere and we don't know where Qhorin came from, so we can at least relate it to the Iron Islands as we know that is somewhere the name is used.

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

Is it?? Qhorin does not say they are worth  respecting them, he just acknowledges their danger iirc.

He says they are as brave and as strong and as quick as we are but they lack discipline. He compares the wildlings favorably to themselves, which is rather gracious compared to how a lot of people describe wildlings.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

28 minutes ago, frenin said:

We're not given any descrption of Whent either, except his mood nor we're given any of Hightower. There is a reason and evidence for Lyanna's case, there is only absence of evidence in this case and  very circumstancial evidence that is more tinfoil than evidence.

 

Yeah, I mean there is definitely evidence For Lyanna's case and this is circumstantial but it doesn't negate the theory. 

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't see it tbh, i just see tinfoil.

Fair enough, I'm not saying I'm convinced, I'm just saying I'll agree there could be something there. 

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

He did. He said, Jon, those who think the wildlings as rabble are idiots, they can be pretty dangerous. There is nothing chivalric about that. Just as there is nothing chivalric in acknowledging a foe's threat. 

That isn't how I read that sentence, but of course you are able to interpret it anyway you wish. 

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

Not if he was in the wall.

No not if he were already at the wall but if Robert got wind he was alive Robert may hunt him down. If he made it to the wall before Robert got him he might be safe. 

[kissdbyfire]

On 1/18/2020 at 1:50 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

The fact is we don’t know how Arthur died. We don’t know how Howland saved Ned. We lack a reliable account of the death blow. To say there is room for reasonable doubt is an understatement. Was it Ned? Was it Howland Reed? Was a death blow even struck? If so, then why don’t we know about it?

I agree there’s plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I am very curious to learn more about all of this. My take on this is that Howland saved Ned by using some type of magic; specifically the greenseer/skinchanging type magic of the FM. 

On 1/18/2020 at 1:50 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

If the doom the Prince that was Promised was prophesied to fight ever did descend on the realm, as Rhaegar believed, then it would come from the north as it had before. This is the very reason the Wall was built. As a black brother, Arthur Dayne would be well positioned to fight the enemy his prince was most concerned with. Meanwhile, Rhaegar’s son would be nearby at Winterfell, being raised in one of the few remaining houses in Westeros that still had respect for the Night’s Watch. There may even have been agreement at the tower that Ned’s new bastard would join the Watch once he came of age.

But we don’t know any of this. What we do know is that Rhaegar was obsessed w/ prophecies, and I don’t even think “obsessed” is the best choice of word here. And that’s it. IIRC there’s nothing in the text linking Rhaegar and a new Battle for the Dawn, or the WWs, or anything of the sort. If I’m misremembering, can you please point me to where I can find more on this? 

IRT the bolded + underlined: Ned was against Jon joining the Watch, and only agrees reluctantly b/c he doesn’t see another option. 

On 1/18/2020 at 1:50 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

There were some former allies of Arthur’s at Castle Black, like Jaremy Rykker and Alliser Thorne who had taken the black after finishing on the losing side in the rebellion, and there were some former foes, like Ulmer the archer who rode with the Kingswood Brotherhood. How well Arthur knew any of these men is unclear. Even if somebody did know him it’s hard to see why they would reveal his secret given that the man was widely respected, especially by those who knew him. Furthermore, if someone ever made the accusation and Qhorin simply dismissed it as a case of mistaken identity, then it’s hard to see how his accuser would prove it to people who believed Ser Arthur Dayne was dead.

Again, not so sure. There are quite a few men who would know Dayne. And while I agree that all involved could have sworn to keep it all a secret, in reality things don’t really work like that. B/c people talk, it’s human nature and I find it very unlikely that a secret this huge would have been kept from spreading. Especially b/c there were former enemies as well as former allies.

For me there’s also a possible age issue. We are not told how old the Halfhand is, and, granted, we're never told how old Dayne is either. But in my head canon, Dayne is close to Rhaegar in age, but I’ve always pictured the Halfhand as being significantly older, like 10 or 15 years older.

Now onto The Black Cloak and the rest of the thread.

 

[frenin]

19 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

We have one person on the Iron Islands called Qhorin and we have one person at the Wall named Qhorin. People at the Wall can come from anywhere and we don't know where Qhorin came from, so we can at least relate it to the Iron Islands as we know that is somewhere the name is used.

But Qhorin as far as we know is not a typical IB name, there is only one example, it's not as i don't know. Balon, or Theon.

 

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

He says they are as brave and as strong and as quick as we are but they lack discipline. He compares the wildlings favorably to themselves, which is rather gracious compared to how a lot of people describe wildlings.

Doubtful, Qhorin simply has no other bare to compare but to themselves and he's saying "they're as dangerous as us".

 

 

24 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, I mean there is definitely evidence For Lyanna's case and this is circumstantial but it doesn't negate the theory. 

Ofc it doesn't. The theory is based on putting into one body, two dead guys we know little about, that works for many characters, that doesn't make it more likely.

 

26 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No not if he were already at the wall but if Robert got wind he was alive Robert may hunt him down. If he made it to the wall before Robert got him he might be safe. 

That's a reason to conceal his identity until he got North, not to faking his death for 16 years.

[kissdbyfire]

@three-eyed monkey, just finished your 2nd op post. While I think there may be some similarities, for lack of a better word, I don’t think these are enough to be used as evidence that Dayne and Qhorin are one and the same. These similarities may well be used to describe anyone who possess certain positive traits. You describe these positive traits as being the very essence of chivalry, but I’d argue that it’s the other way about. These positive and admirable traits are human traits that were used to form the code of chivalrous behaviour. Just my 2p worth. 

I do have a question though...

What is the point of it all? What is the point of having Dayne fake his death, join the NW as Qhorin, and then having Qhorin die as well, w/o ever revealing his true identity and his purposes? 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You're suggesting that Ned then executed him because he refused to yield, and that's reasonable, but again I don't see the reason to withhold that just for the sake of characterization when there are other options that would yield a bigger pay off.

I have never killed anyone, in fight or otherwise, but I imagine there is a difference, and we know from Cat's PoV that every time Ned executed someone, he went to the godswood, and those were criminals and deserters. Here he had to do the same with a man whom he most likely respected and admired - I suppose that might be a memory he wouldn't have wanted to revisit or spread. - It is possible, of course, that it was Howland himself who did the kill and it was ascribed to Ned because no-one could imagine a mere crannogman taking out someone like Arthur.

 

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Ned could just as well have offered Arthur the black, as long as it was under a new name so that Robert would never know, and sworn by Ned to never reveal Jon's secret to anyone, including Jon. Ned would return the sword to Starfall and Arthur Dayne would dead to the world.

A problem here: what about the Targ loyalists sent to the Wall? Did they never encounter "Qhorin"?

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Arthur might well have been a broken man at that stage, Rhaegar was dead, the king he was sworn to protect was dead, the white cloak of the kingsguard had been soiled by Jaime,

When making the stance with the other two KG, Arthur doesn't seem broken in the least, and his comment "now it begins" doesn't fit with a broken man, either. Not to mention that there is still Viserys and Rhaella who need protection, and his best friend's newborn son, bastard or not. Disregarding these three, who were his duty, doesn't sound like something Arthur should do. If Ned offered him to yield and take the black,it basically means that he is asking Arthur to abandon his duty, as well as his friend's son. Why should Arthur be compelled to abandon them?

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

he might have even lost half a hand by then.

The loss of his hand is reported as having happened during a fight with wildlings,  i.e. after Qhorin joined the Watch, or else he would have had to come up with a different story.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

That way there is no reason for Qhorin to spend the years prepping for the Others with Aemon so he's free to throw himself into defending the realm from the wildings.

While ignoring the possibility that Rhaegar may have been onto something? Never trying to look out for Rhaegar's son and even requesting him for a highly dangerous mission? I really fail to see the logic behind Arthur's actions if he is Qhorin.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Arthur still gets and arc and his symbolic journey from white cloak to black remains intact, even if it was forced upon him, as it will ultimately be forced upon all.

Eh... and does Arthur need to get an arc? We already have two KG PoVs, with Barristan and Jaime, who both come to realize that the white cloak is not what it is made to be. Arthur was a tragic character, a man of honour sworn to a dishonorable liege, bonded with a man who opposed the king and who doomed them all, most likely while having best intention. That's one hell of a story even without changing cloak colours

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What is the point of it all? What is the point of having Dayne fake his death, join the NW as Qhorin, and then having Qhorin die as well, w/o ever revealing his true identity and his purposes?

As far as I can see, none. And GRRM is not famous for purposeless writing.

[frenin]

Overall, always that i see a theory about a non dead character i tend to think about the same quote...

 

"I never saw Joffrey's corpse, nor Robert's," growled the Eel's proprietor. "Maybe they're all alive as well. Maybe Baelor the Blessed's just been having him a little nap all these years."

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

Ofc it doesn't. The theory is based on putting into one body, two dead guys we know little about, that works for many characters, that doesn't make it more likely.

No it doesn't necessarily make it more likely. I was just saying it doesn't make it not true either. 

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

That's a reason to conceal his identity until he got North, not to faking his death for 16 years

Yeah, I don't know what the reason would be to conceal his identity for 16 years. There could be one, but I'm not aware of it. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

Overall, always that i see a theory about a non dead character i tend to think about the same quote...

 

"I never saw Joffrey's corpse, nor Robert's," growled the Eel's proprietor. "Maybe they're all alive as well. Maybe Baelor the Blessed's just been having him a little nap all these years."

 

 

Haha! Yeah I do too. I have a sister-in-law that still to this day insists Ned isn't dead because we didn't "see" him die. It's infuriating sometimes! 

[Corvo the Crow]

If Qhorin was Arthur he knew who Jon was. It was Jon who killed Qhorin and they had quite some time for a reveal before it happened. With Ned dead and Howland in some disease ridden swamp, why would Arthur not reveal the whole thing to Jon before forcing jon to kill him?

Same also holds true for Rhaegar=Mance theories.