R + L = J v.167

[The Hidden Dragon]

6 minutes ago, Megorova said:

What is written there, same as what is written in appendices of all ASOIAF's books, is an information known by general public/characters. It's what they think to be true. Which doesn't mean that they are always correct with that knowledge. Cersei's children is an evidence of that. In one book they are written in appendix as Robert's children, in later books, when characters found out, that those three could be Jaime's bastards, the information written in appendix about their parentage also changed.

Actually, the appendix to ADWD lists Joffrey, Tommen and Mrycella as children of Robert and Cersie.  I just checked.

[Sly Wren]

7 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

I think I found where Ran talked about the Stark family tree showing that Lyanna died at the TOJ.  See the attached link.  I hope I did it right, i'm crappy at linking. it's entry 985.

 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/34958-the-asoiaf-wiki-thread/?p=7061843

Precisely--an in-world family tree presenting in-world knowledge (what Ned told people), which may or may not be actually true once the full backstory of Lyanna comes out.

 

[Sly Wren]

Just now, The Hidden Dragon said:

Actually, the appendix to ADWD lists Joffrey, Tommen and Mrycella as children of Robert and Cersie.  I just checked.

Yup! So far, the appendices and family trees GRRM writes and publishes reflect the "official" record, not always conducive to actual reality.

[LynnS]

18 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

 

But the family tree Ran cites about Lyanna at the tower of joy is like all the other family trees in the novels and appendices, right? It still shows Jon as Ned's son, right?

So, it shows what Ned told people about Lyanna's death, like what he told them about Jon.

So, maybe it's telling actual reality. Or maybe it's just saying what Ned told people--and, like other things Ned has told on this subject, it's a lie.

So--we really need the novels to confirm.

We do need the novel since Ran adds the caveat that until the book is published, this is semi-canon and things could change.  I'd say they have changed if Lyanna's bones were boiled.  I don't think that happened at the ToJ. 

[LynnS]

13 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Ned is the only POV-character, who was with Lyanna at the time of her death.

Just a minor correction - Howland Reed  knows what happened at the ToJ.  

[The Hidden Dragon]

9 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Precisely--an in-world family tree presenting in-world knowledge (what Ned told people), which may or may not be actually true once the full backstory of Lyanna comes out.

 

Except for a few things

1) the in-world Stark family tree found in ASOIAF does not show when or where anybody died,

2) Ran's description of the Stark family tree he saw sounds like that family tree is reference for George only, i.e. NOT in-world

[LynnS]

19 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Precisely--an in-world family tree presenting in-world knowledge (what Ned told people), which may or may not be actually true once the full backstory of Lyanna comes out.

 

I can imagine that Ned would not want to implicate Ashara Dayne in any way. 

[The Hidden Dragon]

15 minutes ago, LynnS said:

We do need the novel since Ran adds the caveat that until the book is published, this is semi-canon and things could change.  I'd say they have changed if Lyanna's bones were boiled.  I don't think that happened at the ToJ. 

yes, we definitely need the next novel or two! 

One small point, whether the family tree is canon or semi-canon is irrelevant to this discussion (it was relevant in the wiki thread because of the need to cite it in the wiki).  Canon, to my understanding, does not mean true or false.  i think canon refers to work written by the author.  It is canon that Cat tells Ned that Lysa tells her that the Lannister had Jon Arya killed.  We later learn that Lysa killed Jon Aryn at Littlefinger's direction.  Both are canon, I believe, but it is untrue that the Lannister killed Jon.  Likewise TWOIAF contains mainy family trees, making them canon, but not necessarily true...I think.

[Sly Wren]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

We do need the novel since Ran adds the caveat that until the book is published, this is semi-canon and things could change.  I'd say they have changed if Lyanna's bones were boiled.  I don't think that happened at the ToJ. 

Yup.

46 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I can imagine that Ned would not want to implicate Ashara Dayne in any way. 

Absolutely--especially given how he reacts to finding out her name is gossiped about at Winterfell.

55 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

Except for a few things

1) the in-world Stark family tree found in ASOIAF does not show when or where anybody died,

2) Ran's description of the Stark family tree he saw sounds like that family tree is reference for George only, i.e. NOT in-world

Agreed--though other trees of other families do give the local and even basic manner of death for people. So, putting Lyanna's place of death on a tree wouldn't be out of character generally for how Martin constructs the trees.

And I have a very, very hard time believing Martin needed any kind of reminder on where Lyanna died. Eye colors of minor and semi-minor characters? Sure. Where Lyanna died? No way.

Until we get confirmation in the books, those trees/records aren't "truth" yet--but, as you said above, that doesn't stop their being "canon."

[LynnS]

44 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

yes, we definitely need the next novel or two! 

One small point, whether the family tree is canon or semi-canon is irrelevant to this discussion (it was relevant in the wiki thread because of the need to cite it in the wiki).  Canon, to my understanding, does not mean true or false.  i think canon refers to work written by the author.  It is canon that Cat tells Ned that Lysa tells her that the Lannister had Jon Arya killed.  We later learn that Lysa killed Jon Aryn at Littlefinger's direction.  Both are canon, I believe, but it is untrue that the Lannister killed Jon.  Likewise TWOIAF contains mainy family trees, making them canon, but not necessarily true...I think.

Yes I agree.  That's a finer point and a more sophisticated distinction.

[Megorova]

18 hours ago, LynnS said:

Just a minor correction - Howland Reed  knows what happened at the ToJ.  

But he's not a POV-character, for now he's not even in the books.

[SFDanny]

On 8/26/2020 at 11:58 AM, Sly Wren said:

Agreed--though other trees of other families do give the local and even basic manner of death for people. So, putting Lyanna's place of death on a tree wouldn't be out of character generally for how Martin constructs the trees.

And I have a very, very hard time believing Martin needed any kind of reminder on where Lyanna died. Eye colors of minor and semi-minor characters? Sure. Where Lyanna died? No way.

Until we get confirmation in the books, those trees/records aren't "truth" yet--but, as you said above, that doesn't stop their being "canon."

Of course, but no one is saying what is in the books or the app or from the author's own mouth cannot be wrong. What information from those sources are is evidence. What isn't evidence is stuff made up by fans. Guessing can be fun. Those guesses just need to have some real evidence to back them up, or they are just wild speculation. It is just another form of fan fiction, or substituting a fan's story for the author's.

If you have any real evidence to back up the idea that Lyanna died elsewhere, then I would love to see it.  A lemon tree in Braavos isn't a reason to question where Lyanna died. It is a reason to question how that lemon tree got to Braavos, and if the incongruity of a lemon tree in Braavos points to some important part of the story. It does, but that has nothing to do with where Lyanna dies, or whether or not Dany's memories of Braavos are real.

[SerTarod]

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Of course, but no one is saying what is in the books or the app or from the author's own mouth cannot be wrong. What information from those sources are is evidence. What isn't evidence is stuff made up by fans. Guessing can be fun. Those guesses just need to have some real evidence to back them up, or they are just wild speculation. It is just another form of fan fiction, or substituting a fan's story for the author's.

If you have any real evidence to back up the idea that Lyanna died elsewhere, then I would love to see it.  A lemon tree in Braavos isn't a reason to question where Lyanna died. It is a reason to question how that lemon tree got to Braavos, and if the incongruity of a lemon tree in Braavos points to some important part of the story. It does, but that has nothing to do with where Lyanna dies, or whether or not Dany's memories of Braavos are real.

What is the evidence (your emphasis) that Lyanna died at the Tower of Joy? My reading of the story is that Lyanna is placed there because Ned, in his fever dream, thinks/dreams of Lyanna after the battle against the Kings Guard.

[Sly Wren]

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Of course, but no one is saying what is in the books or the app or from the author's own mouth cannot be wrong. What information from those sources are is evidence. What isn't evidence is stuff made up by fans. Guessing can be fun. Those guesses just need to have some real evidence to back them up, or they are just wild speculation. It is just another form of fan fiction, or substituting a fan's story for the author's.

Agreed. But until it's confirmed in the books, things like the locale of Lyanna's death are all being guessed at by readers filling in blanks in ways that may or may not correct. We don't have direct evidence on the locale of her death. Like all reading, we are all anticipating potential outcomes and filling in blanks--exactly what we're supposed to do. Exactly what makes reading fun (sorry for sounding like a literacy promo). But none of it is direct evidence or confirmation until we get it in the novels.

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

If you have any real evidence to back up the idea that Lyanna died elsewhere, then I would love to see it.  A lemon tree in Braavos isn't a reason to question where Lyanna died. It is a reason to question how that lemon tree got to Braavos, and if the incongruity of a lemon tree in Braavos points to some important part of the story. It does, but that has nothing to do with where Lyanna dies, or whether or not Dany's memories of Braavos are real.

Agreed on the tree--no idea why that would be tied to her locale of death.

But, for now, we don't have direct evidence that Lyanna died at the toj--we have readers filling in blanks (as we're supposed to) in ways that may or may not be right. So evidence for where she dies--toj, Starfall, any other place that might be posited--is still educated guesses and anticipation. Unless someone has presented direct evidence on any of those locales that I've missed.

We need the books to settle it. That's the only "real" evidence that won't be readers filling in blanks.

6 hours ago, SerTarod said:

What is the evidence (your emphasis) that Lyanna died at the Tower of Joy? My reading of the story is that Lyanna is placed there because Ned, in his fever dream, thinks/dreams of Lyanna after the battle against the Kings Guard.

Yup.

[lehutin]

I don't get this Lyanna-was-at-Starfall thing. From what I got out of page 23,

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at Starfall,
2. the loyalist Kingsguard took Jon to the Tower of Joy,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna at Starfall,
4. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
5. Ned went back to Starfall to return Dawn.

If so, it seems like an unnecessary complication to this:

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy,
2. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna,
4. Ned went to Starfall to return Dawn.

There's an extra step and a double travel that has no purpose. Do some people just want the Daynes to be more involved in the story?

[Sly Wren]

4 minutes ago, lehutin said:

I don't get this Lyanna-was-at-Starfall thing. From what I got out of page 23,

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at Starfall,
2. the loyalist Kingsguard took Jon to the Tower of Joy,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna at Starfall,
4. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
5. Ned went back to Starfall to return Dawn.

Yeah--that seems kinda wacky to me, too.

If Lyanna and Jon were at Starfall, pretty sure they stayed at Starfall. Instead, the KG rode out to meet Ned and Co. at a neutral location (the toj) away from the people they were actually defending. Like Jon, like Duncan, etc. Because they can't fight Ned's whole army, so they lure him to a parlay with a smaller force.

Ned wins. Then goes to Starfall with Dawn, finding Lyanna and Jon there.

4 minutes ago, lehutin said:

If so, it seems like an unnecessary complication to this:

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy,
2. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna,
4. Ned went to Starfall to return Dawn.

There's an extra step and a double travel that has no purpose. Do some people just want the Daynes to be more involved in the story?

I agree that the scenario you cited seems . . . excessive.

But are there hints that Lyanna was at Starfall? That the Daynes are important and know something about Jon? Yes.

We need to next book to sort it out.

[Frey family reunion]

1 minute ago, lehutin said:

I don't get this Lyanna-was-at-Starfall thing. From what I got out of page 23,

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at Starfall,
2. the loyalist Kingsguard took Jon to the Tower of Joy,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna at Starfall,
4. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
5. Ned went back to Starfall to return Dawn.

If so, it seems like an unnecessary complication to this:

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy,
2. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna,
4. Ned went to Starfall to return Dawn.

There's an extra step and a double travel that has no purpose. Do some people just want the Daynes to be more involved in the story?

If Lyanna was at Starfall, I think the sequence is:

1.  Ned learns from some source that Lyanna gave birth at Starfall, and that Lyanna's child was taken from her to the tower of joy. 

2.  Ned travels with a guide who knows the location of the tower of joy.  I would guess Howland.

3.  Ned rescues Jon from the tower of joy and brings Jon back to Starfall to be reunited with Lyanna.  Returning Dawn was a cover story for the reason for his trip to Starfall.

4.  The death bed scene with Lyanna occurred after Ned arrived at Starfall with Jon.

No extra step, no double travel, and it explains why Ned would take such a dangerous trip through enemy territory with a baby in tow, as opposed to getting the babe to safety and then sending Dawn back to Starfall via ship.  

It also does away with the very ackward scenario of Ned travelling a great distance through the mountains carrying his dead sister.

Really the "return of Dawn" makes no sense.  It doesn't rise to a level of importance for Ned to travel through the Mountains with a baby and with a dead sister.  Dawn could have always been sent with a formal peace party at a later date.

[Sly Wren]

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

If Lyanna was at Starfall, I think the sequence is:

1.  Ned learns from some source that Lyanna gave birth at Starfall, and that Lyanna's child was taken from her to the tower of joy. 

2.  Ned travels with a guide who knows the location of the tower of joy.  I would guess Howland.

3.  Ned rescues Jon from the tower of joy and brings Jon back to Starfall to be reunited with Lyanna.  Returning Dawn was a cover story for the reason for his trip to Starfall.

4.  The death bed scene with Lyanna occurred after Ned arrived at Starfall with Jon.

Maybe--are you thinking this goes along with the "Jon was intended to be a sacrifice/second Summerhall" theory?

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

No extra step, no double travel, and it explains why Ned would take such a dangerous trip through enemy territory with a baby in tow, as opposed to getting the babe to safety and then sending Dawn back to Starfall via ship.  

It also does away with the very ackward scenario of Ned travelling a great distance through the mountains carrying his dead sister.

Really the "return of Dawn" makes no sense.  It doesn't rise to a level of importance for Ned to travel through the Mountains with a baby and with a dead sister.  Dawn could have always been sent with a formal peace party at a later date.

On this--yes. Though I'd add that if all Ned has is Dawn, the trip still makes sense: he'd going to Starfall for his sister.

[Frey family reunion]

Just now, Sly Wren said:

Maybe--are you thinking this goes along with the "Jon was intended to be a sacrifice/second Summerhall" theory?

That's my thought.

GRRM may be giving us a bit of a road map to fulfilling TPTWP prophecy in Stannis' storyline.  Substitute Jon for Edric and Rhaegar for Melisandre and you get an idea of where I'm going with this.  The Kingsguards swore an oath to see the events through.

It also explains why the battle for the tower of joy was always going to be a battle to the death.  Ned got wind of the plan, and took a small hand picked group of very loyal northerners to retrieve Lyanna's son.

 

 

[lehutin]

26 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

If Lyanna was at Starfall, I think the sequence is:

1.  Ned learns from some source that Lyanna gave birth at Starfall, and that Lyanna's child was taken from her to the tower of joy. 

2.  Ned travels with a guide who knows the location of the tower of joy.  I would guess Howland.

3.  Ned rescues Jon from the tower of joy and brings Jon back to Starfall to be reunited with Lyanna.  Returning Dawn was a cover story for the reason for his trip to Starfall.

4.  The death bed scene with Lyanna occurred after Ned arrived at Starfall with Jon.

No extra step, no double travel, and it explains why Ned would take such a dangerous trip through enemy territory with a baby in tow, as opposed to getting the babe to safety and then sending Dawn back to Starfall via ship.  

It also does away with the very ackward scenario of Ned travelling a great distance through the mountains carrying his dead sister.

Really the "return of Dawn" makes no sense.  It doesn't rise to a level of importance for Ned to travel through the Mountains with a baby and with a dead sister.  Dawn could have always been sent with a formal peace party at a later date.

Why did the loyalist Kingsguard separate Jon from his mother?

 

Upon learning that Lyanna was at Starfall, why would Ned proceed directly to the Tower of Joy instead of first speaking with his sister, whom he's spent close to a year looking for?

 

Did Lyanna give birth to Jon and die at Starfall? Maybe, but it just seems like an unnecessary complication. Either there's double travel, or Ned bizarrely doesn't speak to his sister before recovering her child.