Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alyn Oakenfist

How come Rhaegar stationing 3 Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy didn't tip anybody off?

Recommended Posts

Not that it's impossible Hightower fought at the BotB, but all we really know is he doesn't appear to have originally been with Rhaegar in early 282, and only found Rhaegar and stayed with Dayne and Whent when Rhaegar returned to KL before the BotT.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TsarGrey said:

I don't have that, so would you care to tell what it says in the relevant part? Anything else than just listing him present or something of the sort?

Not disputing the rest. Not in the mood and too little info for that.

I actually misremembered. The app doesn’t say Hightower was at the BotB, only Aerys sent Hightower to find Rhaegar, who could not be found for the first few months of the rebellion, so likely this happened after the BotB.

”Lord Robert, Lyanna’s betrothed, was consumed by the need to avenge himself on Rhaegar, but the prince could not be found for the first few months of the war. Rumor had it that he [Rhaegar] was in the south with Lyanna, at a place called the Tower of Joy, near the red mountains of Dorne. But eventually his father sent Ser Gerold Hightower to recall Rhaegar to his duties, though Rhaegar ordered ser Gerold, Ser Arthur, and Ser Oswell to keep guard over Lyanna in the south.”

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

As far as I can tell the app doesn't say Hightower fought in the BotB, only that Aerys eventually sent Hightower to recall Rhaegar to his duties.

Yup, I thought it did, but when I had a look to reply to TsarGrey I saw I was misremembering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

A youtuber I watch who isn't normally a whacko seems to think that the Kingsguard at the TOJ did a reverse suicide by cop honor death thing.  It doesn't make much sense with Ned and his gang essentially on the same side.   Could be Rhaegar told them specifically to kill anyone who came around or any number of things.  It's not like Rhaegar didn't know the Starks were gunning for him because he absolutely could have used his Kingsguard's support during the war raging.  Maybe my youtuber isn't far off in thinking there is some honor/duty directive involved here.  Ned is the only person I've seen give a sword back after a guy is dead.   Unwin grabbed his sword up and there are plenty of examples of VS swords being taken from corpses.  The Daynes like Ned.   Revere Ned even.   It doesn't add up or make a lot of sense.  I just try to keep myself in check because this is a maddening subject, by understanding everything I know about the TOJ came from a very sick man's fever dream.   The story just isn't right, complete, exact or understandable.  

That is pretty much the best guess at why there was a fight resulting in eight corpses. Ned had no good reason to insist on a battle, just as the Kingsguard would not if they prioritized Lya's well-being and the safety of the child. Killing Ned and his buddies accomplishes neither, just as Ned has nothing to gain by killing a KG.

Instead, there are considerable hints that the way to redeem your honor - especially in relation to the KG - is by blood. Ser Harrold Langward demanded death by duel after Maegor's death, Jaehaerys' Kingsguard demanded the execution of Lucamore Strong to redeem the honor of the order which had been befouled by their false brother, and after the murder of Aegon II, when all KG present were deemed guilty of regicide (either by involvement or incompetence) Ser Gyles Belgrave had the grace to own that ruling, regaining his honor by choosing beheading at the hands of Cregan Stark.

Especially Belgrave's reasoning fits very well with the overall sentiment of the Kingsguard at the tower. Their are at the end of their line. The Targaryens are done, and they, personally, failed both Rhaegar and Aerys II. It doesn't matter that they may have obeyed orders or volunteered to take charge or Lyanna.

They weren't with Rhaegar when the hammer fell, and they weren't with Aerys when Jaime befouled his cloak and murdered his king. They failed in their most sacred duty and death is the only way to redeem themselves.

Such a reading would also fit very well with the ultimate outcome of the fighting. Ned was an adequate swordsman, Howland Reed a crannogmen with no proper training at arms, and Ethan Glover the former squire of Brandon Stark, suggesting that he was a youth younger than both Brandon and Ned. Even if the other four Northmen were better warriors, there is little chance that men who are supposed to be among the greatest knights of their generation (and Arthur Dayne seems to have been the greatest warrior alive at the time) would have all died in that fight.

Rather than assuming they wanted to prevail and defeat the Northmen it is better scenario to go with the idea they were looking forward to a honorable death in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeanF said:

1. I think in any case, the treatment of Tanselle is presented as being atrocious.

That cannot be argue,  but just as i would not be treated the same way a judge would treat Prince Harry, I doubt that the heir of Winterfell would be treated as Tanselle was. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

2. I'd be interested for your reasoning on it being a nasty kidnapping.  Do we really have sufficient information?  

Oh,  I don't consider it nasty, i'm just echoing the first definition.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

No, its not. You've just invented that. there is no evidence at all that anyone outside of Ned and Howland know exactly where they died.

The building of a cairn does not instantly make the knowledge of the the cairn's existence, or its purpose, 'widely known'.

Cairns in an isolated place that no one has reason to visit may be entirely unknown, except by the builders.
And if anyone did visit, what do they learn? There are cairns. Not what (or who) they are for.

Hmm, fair enough.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned's dream title refers to them in white cloaks. 
Though that doesn't mean they wore them all the time, agreed.

The folk and the majority of the nobles recognize their peers or betters by clothes or facial traits, Westeros know the Targs by their hair and eyes, the Lannisters by their lions and golden hair.

If someone as famous as Barri the Bold could just go in hiding just by removing the white cloak, i doubt that those three would've been as stubborn to wear it the entire journey.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

But its not just a reaction. He had days to formulate his response. 
And he didn't ride into the Red Keep calling for his sister's return.

He had days for his rage to grow and grow. 

No he didn't call for his sister's return, he rode into the Red Keep calling for the head of her abductee. Who knows what else he could've said.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

She also didn't call for the death of the crown prince.

Yet, she was not the heir.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Brandon didn't demand Lyanna's return or release. At least not initially, or that we know of.
Its unlikely anyone in KL even knew of the supposed 'abduction' at that stage. 

Unless we're operating on the basis that Brandon Stark is literally the dumbest man on existence, I'd think that we can believe that if he did not said it at the very beginning, when facing the charge of treason pointing at Rhaegar as a extenuating for their act would be on the top of ihs head. And per Yandel we know that demanded "redress for Rhaegar's wrongs".

And if the news had not travelled all the way back to King's Landing yet, by the time the parents came back for the ransom, they sure had.

And how the fact that Brandon did or did not demand the return of her sister factor on Rhaegar kidnapping said sister, when facing the King??

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

There was a whole war and a trial by battle,

Is it then any less treasounous?? It seems more of an offender if there was a war in between.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

and a different king.

And different accused, Tanselle and Dunk are not Brandon and Lyonel.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

One circumstance is not the other.

Yet you compare them. When both comparisons are way off.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Just because Lyonel got away with treason (in the long term) doesn't mean every jackass in the seven kingdoms can expect to do so.

Absolutely not, it just means that each case is world, with a different King and having the whole context in mind, i very much doubt that Brandon would have received anything more severe than a few years in exile, if he was punished at all.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Bullshit. We have virtually no info at all about what actually happened. 

Yet, the info we have points towards one direction. 

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

And Robert's commentary on it is about a stupid as Dany's. Its pretty clear that Ned doesn't accept that Robert is remotely close to the truth. He's just mouthing off his hate.

Robert's comments are biased, heavily, yet there they are. There is nothing stupid to Dany's, she received info all from heavily pro Targaryen bias and she still thinks that Rhaegar took Lyanna at swordpoint... for love. Dany's pov is important because it shows how her family and the loyalists choseto frame the situation. Just as Robert's rants show his pov too. And they still think it was kidnapping with extenuatings ofc.

We don't know what Ned thinks about the affair or what he thought  once and stopped thinking with years or what he never thinked at all. For what is worth Ned has some kind of sympathy towards Aerys, i doubt that means that Aerys did not horribly kill his brother and father.

It may turn to be wrong all the way, some kind of "who really killed Jon Arryn"?? So far is what we have.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

The 'sources' don't cover the actual event at all.

Taking Lyanna at swordpoint is covering the actual event.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

No, its an accurate account of all we know of that event. There is no reason to believe Jaime has or would omit any important details.

How is an accurate account of all we know of that event when prior Jaime's tale, we only knew that:

 

Quote

Brandon had been twenty when he died, strangled by order of the Mad King Aerys Targaryen only a few short days before he was to wed Catelyn Tully of Riverrun. His father had been forced to watch him die. He was the true heir, the eldest, born to rule.

 

Quote

“My father went south once, to answer the summons of a king. He never came home again.” “A different time,” Maester Luwin said. “A different king.”

 

Quote

“Unspeakable??” the king roared. “What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died,

 

Quote

“And there’s my grandfather, Lord Rickard, who was beheaded by Mad King Aerys. His daughter Lyanna and his son Brandon are in the tombs beside him. Not me, another Brandon, my father’s brother. They’re not supposed to have statues, that’s only for the lords and the kings, but my father loved them so much he had them done.”

 

Quote

“I told you, there are no men like me. Answer me this, Lady Stark— did your Ned ever tell you the manner of his father’s death? Or his brother’s?” “They strangled Brandon while his father watched, and then killed Lord Rickard as well.” An ugly tale, and sixteen years old. Why was he asking about it now? “Killed, yes, but how?” “The cord or the axe, I suppose.” Jaime took a swallow, wiped his mouth. “No doubt Ned wished to spare you. His sweet young bride, if not quite a maiden. Well, you wanted truth. Ask me. We made a bargain, I can deny you nothing. Ask.”

 

This are all the accounts we have prior Jaime's tale, we have that Ned's father answered the call of his king, something really messed up happened to his father and brother and that his family got a very dialed down version of it.

After that we have Jaime remembering how Lord Rickard had screamt and then nothing until the World book when we're told more of the same.

 

Quote

Instead of granting them fair hearing, King Aerys had them brutally slain, then followed these murders by demanding that Lord Jon Arryn execute his former wards, Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark. 

 

So quite literally, the only account we have about what it happened it's Jaime's. So, it's really a circular reasoning.

How Rickard Stark went from being an innocent man ransoming his child to stand accused of treason it's a rather important tidbit that Jaime does ommit.

Since Jaime cuts to the chase and all that. There is a lot that we actually miss.

 

Quote

Jaime poured the last half-cup of wine. “He rode into the Red Keep with a few companions, shouting for Prince Rhaegar to come out and die. But Rhaegar wasn’t there. Aerys sent his guards to arrest them all for plotting his son’s murder. The others were lords’ sons too, it seems to me.” “Ethan Glover was Brandon’s squire,” Catelyn said. “He was the only one to survive. The others were Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn, Jon Arryn’s nephew and heir.” It was queer how she still remembered the names, after so many years. “Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both.” “There were trials. Of a sort. Lord Rickard demanded trial by combat, and the king granted the request. Stark armored himself as for battle, thinking to duel one of the Kingsguard. Me, perhaps. Instead, they took him to the throne room and suspended him from the rafters while two of Aerys’s pyromancers kindled a blaze beneath him. The king told him that fire was the champion of House Targaryen. So all Lord Rickard needed to do to prove himself innocent of treason was … well, not burn. “When the fire was blazing, Brandon was brought in. His hands were chained behind his back, and around his neck was a wet leathern cord attached to a device the king had brought from Tyrosh. His legs were left free, though, and his longsword was set down just beyond his reach. “The pyromancers roasted Lord Rickard slowly, banking and fanning that fire carefully to get a nice even heat. His cloak caught first, and then his surcoat, and soon he wore nothing but metal and ashes. Next he would start to cook, Aerys promised … unless his son could free him. Brandon tried, but the more he struggled, the tighter the cord constricted around his throat. In the end he strangled himself. “As for Lord Rickard, the steel of his breastplate turned cherry red before the end, and his gold melted off his spurs and dripped down into the fire. I stood at the foot of the Iron Throne in my white armor and white cloak, filling my head with thoughts of Cersei. After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, ‘You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.’ That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree.”

There is a good lenght of time from the fathers standing entering innocents and them dying traitors, time that Jaime does not bother to cover.

 

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

The point is, Brandon didn't ride into the Red Keep screaming for Lyanna's return.

You don't know that.

 

9 hours ago, corbon said:

Nor did Rickard. 

This is even more absurd since the only thing we have about Rickard are his last moments while he is charged with treason. 

By that reasoning, Rickard did not go to King's Landing to ransom his heir, since at any point we see him addresing that.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

She may have come up that we haven't heard about yet. My point is that its interesting that she apparently wasn't the key part of either Brandon or Rickard's story.

I don't how it's interesting when there are chuncks of info we don't know about. Sure she wasn't the key part of Rickard's story, his story was literally having him facing a trial by combat.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Sure. But the point remains. Lyanna wasn't the key to either Brandon or Rickard's arrivals to the Red Keep. If she were, thats not the sort of detail one omits.

Why would a drunk Jaime who gives no shits about either of them, not omit that part when it literally has zero impact on the story he's talking, Jaime is talking the story of how they died, no the story about how worried they were about Lyanna.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

So the narrative put forward, doesn't fit what we are told. Brandon's reaction is clearly derived from the supposed 'abduction', but its not just a reaction to that. The natural reaction to that would be to demand her release or return. Or even to see her. But thats not what he demanded.

He demanded the head of the kidnapper, that seems a perfectly natural reaction, especially in someone that hothead.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Also telling, is Hoster's reaction, upon hearing what Brandon did.
He raged and called Brandon a gallant fool.

Hoster did not know that Brandon was heading to his death, no one could have known that,  he just knew that he had gone to King's Landing enraged.

It's necessary to know that Hoster believed Brandon a fool to see that racing in black rage to King's Landing it's foolish?? Mind you that it being foolish and it being understandable have little to do one thing with the other. We do very foolish things that we still consider understandable or at least relatable.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

No, she did not know. Not in any detail. Her summary was that Aerys had Brandon strangled and then murdered Rickard. She didn't know that there were trials (or a sort). She didn't know Rickard demanded trial by combat. She didn't know that Brandon strangled himself trying to rescue his father.

She knows that they died there, she knows how Brandon died,  what again, she does not knoe are the specifics.  

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Why do you get to assume who does and does not know? 
Why would anyone not present know the manner of their deaths? because they were informed.
Maybe those people do, maybe they don't. Why would they be told and not others though?

I'm talking about 4 families. The Baratheons, the Starks, the Lannisters and the Arryns.

Robert, Jaime Ned and old Jon would def know, Ned hid a fact of 20 to his family, Cersei does not show any knowledge of it, neither do Tywin and Kevan tbf but i don't think that would be the sort of info that they would miss. Neither Stannis or Renly were involved and they don't seem to care enough to ask.

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

I don;t see any way that riding into the Red Keep and demanding Rhaegar's death is going to end positively for Brandon. 
If he'd ridden in demanding Lyanna's return, I could see a positive outcome being possible (but probably destroyed by Aerys). But demanding Rhaegar die? Leaves no room.

It does, we have covered that. Lyonel did far worse,  he got away clean. 

He demands Rhaegar's death because Rhaegar kidnapped his sister, any level headed King would have understood that. The only way to avoid death was not going to King's Landing, the moment he went to the Red Keep, he was dead meat, as showed by his father's and the hundreds of deads.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

And with Rhaegar not there, its not even possible that Rhaegar could accept it as a challenge.
So he can't create the death of Rhaegar this way, he can't get back his sister this way, he can't avenge House honour this way. There is literally no possible positive outcome for Brandon in the circumstances.

He could wait for Rhaegar,  wait for the small Council to summon Rhaegar, a lot of things, he was at the hands of a deranged man, so his fate was sealed regardless but that there was no positive outcome?? I'm doubtful.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Now if his approach had been different, then there might be the reasonable expectation of a positive outcome. And then the blame would fall squarely on Aerys' shoulders' rather than Brandon's.

But with what Brandon did, he has to accept as much blame as Aerys for escalating the situation.

That's simply bs. Brandon is in no way or shape guilty for Aerys actions, saying that "he has to  accept as much as Aerys" is simply laughable.

Both Rogar Baratheon and Lyonel Baratheon got away with treason, the idea that Brandon could not is wishful thinking, the idea that Brandon shares the blame for all those deads reeks to apologism to me. Like blaming someone for walking for the wrong side of town.

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Neither of which 'absolve' Rhaegar and Lyanna. But assessing their portion of blame must necessarily wait until we know exactly what they did and did not do.
Unless we are mindless and unreasonable haters. 

Huh, we can blame others for mad men doings, because that does not mindless or unreasonable.

 

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Aerys was already known for paranoia and distrust, not reasonable-ness.

Sure but anyone outside of the Red Keep were hardly to know that Aerys was full of paranoia and distrust.

 

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Now if his approach had been different, then there might be the reasonable expectation of a positive outcome. And then the blame would fall squarely on Aerys' shoulders' rather than Brandon's.

But with what Brandon did, he has to accept as much blame as Aerys for escalating the situation.

A reasonable king understands the circumstances, not just go full Stannis. I don't consider Aegon V the very best king so it's silly make that comparation.

How Brandon's actions traduces to the fathers and their retinues??

 

11 hours ago, corbon said:

Nor did it. 
There were trials (of sorts).  They may not have been (I expect they weren't) fair trials, but describbing it as a mass murder orgy is as over the top as it is silly to give Brandon a complete pass.

Brandon Stark, Kyle Royce, Elbert Arryn and Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce's father, Jeffory's Mallister father, Ethan Glover father, whatever retinue that accompanied them, Rickard Stark and 200 men. All dead.

If that's not a mass murder orgy i don't know what it is. Farce of trials aren't trials.

 

11 hours ago, corbon said:

We'll never know that. 

If you say so.

 

11 hours ago, corbon said:

Brandon shouldn't have gone to him at all. Thats was Rickard's place. 

Brandon was the heir, he could go.

 

11 hours ago, corbon said:

Brandon shouldn't have gone to him at all. Thats was Rickard's place. 

Rickard went quietly, to ransom his son and he still got murdered. It seems to me that you're going for the we'll never to make a point, Aerys was not interested in making any pact.

In fact, outburst or not, Rhaegar and Brandon had given Aerys a golden opportunity to disown his heir without trouble, no one relevant would have protested after what Rhaegar had pulled. The only thing the Martells would demand would be either that Aerys respected Aegon's place as heir or that Viserys were to married to Rhaenys. 

Yet, that's not what Aerys did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Jaime is not exactly giving a play by play analysis of everything that happened complete with all dialogue by the parties.

Agreed. 
Yet even Jaime's brief account includes the defining points.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

All he says is that Brandon rode into the Red Keep demanding Rhaegar come out and die and that Aerys had him arrested for it.

Yup. It was all about Rhaegar. Not Lyanna. Strange that. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

He only brings up Rickard after Catelyn says they were killed without trial, which prompts Jaime to correct her by describing the "trial" that took place.

Agreed.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

There's absolutely no reason to conclude that Rickard said nothing about Lyanna based on that passage.

I didn't conclude that Rickard said nothing about her. I pointed out that he is not reported as saying anything about her, which leads us to the conclusion that she was not the defining element of his participation in this little story. 
Which is inconclusive, but interesting.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

There's not much reason to assume Brandon didn't either, we have one paraphrased line of dialogue from him, I'm sure he said more than that during the event in question (not to mention Lyanna was the obvious motivation for wanting to kill Rhaegar). I find your take on this a bit odd in light of your emphasis on not making assumptions or inferences elsewhere.

Thats because you are misreading my take. 
My take is not that nether of them definitively said anything about her. But that neither of them are reported as mentioning her which tells us that she was not the defining element of their participation.
Which is interesting, not definitive.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I find it hard to believe that death would even be considered for Brandon under a reasonable king.

Treason is treason. The punishment is death. Its the starting default point, by definition. I agree, that there is a good chance that a reasonable king would walk back from that starting point. But even then, thats effectively throwing yourself on the kings mercy for no reason other than gross stupidity.

But Aerys was known to be unreasonable. Thats makes it even stupider.

And thats before we even consider that Rhaegar wasn't even present making Brandon's action stupider yet.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

If he was a common schmuck, sure. But high lords and their heirs get a lot more leeway than some common schmuck,

Sometimes, yes. 
You really think that applies when Aerys is king though? Obviously not.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

particularly given the circumstances of him being told Rhaegar had kidnapped his sister. In real life it wasn't at all unheard of in the Middle Ages for lords who actually committed treason through participating in full-on rebellions against the king to be let go with a ransom or some other punishment. Brandon was a fucking idiot, but the idea that he absolutely had to die for that one line is based on a pretty caricatured version of medieval justice.

No such idea exists.
the point is that he put his head on the line, with a known paranoiac king, for no possible positive outcome.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

And equating his responsibility for the Rebellion with that of Aerys is absurd.

Aerys has his own responsibility.
But take Brandon out of the equation, have a calm and reasonable Rickard petition Aerys for the return of his daughter (which they both want), don't you think there is a high chance the rebellion could have been averted?

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Regarding the debate about "nasty kidnapping" - it's true we don't know the details,

My point is that we literally know nothing about it.
We only have the points of view of two people who clearly also know nothing about the truth and have extremely biased viewpoints that are devoid of facts.
We don't know who participated.
We don't know how it  was done.
We don't know what the followup was.
Heck, we don;t even know if there was an actual physical kidnapping!

To give hypothetical example: its entirely possible that Lyanna escaped her guardians for her own reasons, was being hunted (vis a vis the grey girl in Mel's visions) by her guardians or even outlaws, and was rescued by Rhaegar and his companions and then pled with them to not send her back to her family to be married off to Robert. And that Rhaegar and/or her sent a message to Rickard about that, which Brandon got first and went off his nut at (remember he had prior history with Rhaegar - who beat him in the biggest tourney in history - at Harrenhal from the QoLaB incident).
I don't know if it went down like that or if it was an out and out kidnapping including killing her guardians. I just know that even this would fit entirely within the narrative we have - due to Brandon's actions the Starks and their allies are forced to brand it a 'kidnapping' and Robert then gets to assume 1000s of rapes, while Dany and the Targaryens romanticise it.

The point is we have literally zero facts about it.
So calling is a 'nasty kidnapping' is not just jumping a conclusion we can't reasonably make on the evidence we have, its doing it in a deliberately biased and misleading way.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

The extent to which the details of this situation are publicly known (or believed to be known) is somewhat ambiguous. We know that soldiers at Winterfell started spreading rumors about Ned killing Arthur Dayne in single combat. Cersei also accused Ned of killing Arthur when she brought up Ashara. Ned told Bran that Arthur Dayne would have killed him if not for Howland Reed. So does this mean the overall story of Ned and his companions fighting the KG trio is widely known?

I don;t see how.
All of those 'indicators' can be reasonably assumed (even though they don;t necessarily follow, they do reasonably follow) by the indicate-ees from the known fact that Ned returned Dawn to the Daynes.
'Obviously' he could only take Dawn from Arthur's dead body.
So 'obviously' he killed Arthur.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Do people know where it took place, or why?

We have literally zero indication from anyone other than Ned that they know.

The only thing we have that points to more is the Worldbook entry that suggest Arthur died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of the war. Which also says that he was 'said to have' been slain in single combat with Ned Stark.
That reads like a maester tried to do some research and interviewed Ned and others and got minimum facts, which he couldn't even confirm as reliable. Not like a 'known' story.
And I doubt more than 1 or maybe 2 people in world have read that passage in the world book. Its a hand produced, single copy, gift for Robert Baratheon (then his heirs), and we've seen Joffrey's interest in books. Maybe Tommen's read it, probably not.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Do they know that they fought outside a tower where Lyanna was inside?

There is not a single indication anyone does outside Ned and Howland.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Presumably Ned gave some story to the families of his companions who died at the ToJ.

Why presume this much? 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

How much did he tell them?

Whats Ned's policy? Tell nothing. Change the subject.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Do they know their loved ones were killed by the KG?

What did Ned tell Lady Barbrey? 

Quote

He told me that my lord had died an honorable death, that his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne. 

Absolutely minimal information.
 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

We also don't fully know how well-known the ToJ was or exactly how isolated it was.

Agreed. But we can take a few educated guesses.

First, its just a round tower, not a castle, keep, holdfast or township, and its small enough for Ned to pull down with just himself, HR and 10 or so horses.

Second, since no one mentions it, or mentions the KG there, or mentions Lyanna or Rhaegar there, its clearly not "on the beaten track". How isolated exactly is impossible to determine, but its clearly not easily accessible to the main thoroughfare through the pass. That also fits its likely purpose, more on that below. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

It's described as being on the north end of the Prince's Pass, but what exactly does that mean?

Its the northern end of the Red mountains, not the northern end of the Princes Pass. Nightsong guards the northern end of the Princes Pass.

The Princes Pass is wide - its other name is 'the Wide Way' and quite long. One end is Nightsong - Caron territory, Stormlands Marcher lords and the other end is Kingsgrave - Dornish Manwoody's.

The area was historically a significant battleground between Dornish and Stormlanders. As such, it likely had a number of watchtowers constructed along it as are mentioned throughout Westeros. These are usually situated on hills, where they have a good viewpoint all around. In contrast, roads tend to follow the lowest points of a pass...
A single round tower fits this very well. It would be isolated, but have a good view and not be inaccessible, just not on the thoroughfare. There would be no reason for people to go to it if they were travelling through the pass. 

There also seems to be little (maybe no) permanent occupation within the Princes Pass. No Houses based there (that we know of), no towns, etc. Possibly there are some, maybe very small, but also maybe there are none. That too fits the historic situation of a contested area often raided.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Is it hidden from the main road travelers would take?

I doubt its hidden. The purpose of a tower is to see stuff. To see far, and get plenty of warning.
But it doesn't need to be hidden to be isolated. And old watchtower on a hill not necessarily close to the main pathway and not necessarily easy to get to woud have few or no visitors. Especially if no signs of occupation were displayed. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

The tower would presumably have servants,

Not in itself. It was likely abandoned over 100 years ago when Dorne became part of the 7 kingdoms and the Princes Pass ceased to be a batteground area.
There may have been a small number of servants with the KG party though. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

and at the very least people would have to come to bring supplies for the inhabitants.

Yes, depending on how long they stayed there.
that should be hard to do secretly. Juts pick a time when no other travellers are in sight to move off or on the main pathway at a suitable spot. The rest of the time the supplies are just normal trade goods plying their way through the pass.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

According to the wiki, the semi-canon "A World of Ice and Fire" app says that Lyanna was found inside the tower by Ned. Setting aside the debate about canon status of the app, I'm not familiar with it so can anyone explain if the app is meant to be from an in-universe perspective like how TWOIAF is written by a maester?

No. Its supposed to be a synthesis of all the knowledge we have from reading the books. There are a few things there that are 'new' information - mostly things that could be surmised or inferred at least in part by what we know already, so more 'confirmation' of some theories than anything else.

To give an example:
Hightower is stated in the app (nowhere else) as being sent to Aerys to find Rhaegar and get him to come back and take command after the BotBells. thats 'new' information. But it, or something very like it, was already inferred as likely by astute readers who noted
i) Hightower was not a noted Rhaegar man
ii) the royals initially didn't take the rebellion that seriously, until they lost the BotBells
iii) Hightower strangely appeared to play no part in the Rebellion even when it was taken seriously
iv) Connington was appointed as a Rhaegar-like leader when Rhaegar 'could not be found' early on
v) Rhaegar did re-appear and take command some time after BotBells
vi) Hightower eventually surfaces with Rhaegar's closest companions at the ToJ.

So it was already theorised, based on the data points n the books, that Hightower was sent to get Rhaegar, and found him and thats why Rahegar returned. This was effectively confirmed by the app. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Would this mean that (according to the app) the name of the tower and Ned finding her there was public knowledge?

No.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

And speaking of Lyanna, there is the question of how her death was explained.

What needs to be explained?

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

How do people in Westeros believe she died?

Most don;t care or think about. She's not actually a personally significant person for most people, outside her immediate family and a small northern social circle. And there were much bigger things to think about what with the whole rebellion and 1000s of deaths and dynasty change and all.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Ned tells Robert that he was with her when she died, so at the very least we know he didn't give Robert a story about how she was already dead when he found her.

Most likely Ned told Robert a partial truth - she died of a fever. Thats perfect Ned - minimal information, no actual lie, lets the other person make their own wrong assumptions in a way that is safe for Ned's purposes. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Did he tell him where he found her?

There is no evidence he did. And what we see from Ned is that he shuts down those sorts of conversations as quickly as possible. He never ggives out ore information than necessary.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Did he tell him that he fought the KG there?

I very much doubt it.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Did he need to say that?

Why would he? 

Its much better for him to keep Lyanna and his bastard and the KG as very separate things. 

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I know there's a lot of questions in this post, and I don't have the answers to them or else they wouldn't be needed.

None of us have sure answers.

But we can see clear hints. Ned never talks about this stuff, and when it comes up he gives minimal information and closes down the discussion.
Everything that is demonstrably 'known' by anyone other than Ned or Howland can easily be 'inferred' by people who don't actually know the facts, through the minimal facts they do know. Ned went south with friends. Friends died in the south. Ned returned Dawn to the Daynes.  

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

It's tough to make a full judgement on this without knowing exactly what the public (or at least prominent nobility) knows or believes.

Indeed. But that is clearly GRRM's plan.
He does leave us enough hints to get clear and reasonable understanding of the high points though. But to get that understanding you have to sift through all the data, analyze what people might actually have access to knowledge of and how they might get that knowledge, and also what people may infer (correctly or incorrectly - often incorrectly) from the few datapoints they have.


Almost no people (characters) in Westeros conduct analysis like this. Most leap to conclusions from a few salient 'facts' (which may or not be true themselves) and then believe what they have decided as though it is unquestioned truth. And their own biases inform their understanding. This too is 'normal' human behaviour.
I find Catelyn's questioning Ned about Jon's mother very interesting as an example of this. She starts with a few rumours she's heard, effectively comes to a conclusion of her own, though she's not sure of it, and asks Ned as a way of confirming (or not) her conclusion. When Ned's response shocks her, she doesn't actually listen to his words, and ends up stronger in her conclusion but still not sure. And because we are in her POV, any readers follow the same path. They don't actually follow Ned's words, but are fooled by Cat's pre-conclusion bias and conclude Ned is responding about Ashara, even though Ned is explicitly clear he's responding about Jon.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

If it is widely known that the KG were stationed with Lyanna at a tower in Dorne and fought Ned and his crew to the death right before she died (for whatever reason), it should be a little suspicious that Ned came home with a bastard son after the war.

Indeed. Very very suspicious. Yet thats not a suspicion that a single person in Westeros voices or even thinks of.

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

But we don't necessarily know how well-known those details are.

Don't you think, aside from everything else, that that last point is a clue?

IMO in all of Westeros, two people, maybe three, actually know what happened at ToJ. Ned's dead. Howland Reed is hidden away in the Neck. Wylla the weturse (likely) isn't being asked because no one knows she was there, and wouldn't tell anyway as that would threaten the life of the child she nursed.
Maybe there are one or two others, another servant, or a Maester perhaps. Maybe not.

Share this post


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

That is pretty much the best guess at why there was a fight resulting in eight corpses. Ned had no good reason to insist on a battle, just as the Kingsguard would not if they prioritized Lya's well-being and the safety of the child. Killing Ned and his buddies accomplishes neither, just as Ned has nothing to gain by killing a KG.

Instead, there are considerable hints that the way to redeem your honor - especially in relation to the KG - is by blood. Ser Harrold Langward demanded death by duel after Maegor's death, Jaehaerys' Kingsguard demanded the execution of Lucamore Strong to redeem the honor of the order which had been befouled by their false brother, and after the murder of Aegon II, when all KG present were deemed guilty of regicide (either by involvement or incompetence) Ser Gyles Belgrave had the grace to own that ruling, regaining his honor by choosing beheading at the hands of Cregan Stark.

Especially Belgrave's reasoning fits very well with the overall sentiment of the Kingsguard at the tower. Their are at the end of their line. The Targaryens are done, and they, personally, failed both Rhaegar and Aerys II. It doesn't matter that they may have obeyed orders or volunteered to take charge or Lyanna.

They weren't with Rhaegar when the hammer fell, and they weren't with Aerys when Jaime befouled his cloak and murdered his king. They failed in their most sacred duty and death is the only way to redeem themselves.

Such a reading would also fit very well with the ultimate outcome of the fighting. Ned was an adequate swordsman, Howland Reed a crannogmen with no proper training at arms, and Ethan Glover the former squire of Brandon Stark, suggesting that he was a youth younger than both Brandon and Ned. Even if the other four Northmen were better warriors, there is little chance that men who are supposed to be among the greatest knights of their generation (and Arthur Dayne seems to have been the greatest warrior alive at the time) would have all died in that fight.

Rather than assuming they wanted to prevail and defeat the Northmen it is better scenario to go with the idea they were looking forward to a honorable death in battle.

Thank you for another detailed explanation of another thing I don't really get.  Your examples illustrate the crazy lengths these characters will go to for honor's sake.   Just makes me all the more interested in reading the words, if they ever come.  

Note:  My youtuber thought Dayne actually killed himself while Ned was up with Lyanna.   I disconnected there.  

Share this post


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

That cannot be argue,  but just as i would not be treated the same way a judge would treat Prince Harry, I doubt that the heir of Winterfell would be treated as Tanselle was. 

Agreed.

The point is that Tanselle wasn't even being seditious, let alone treasonous. She was performing common historical plays, something you see at any fair every year.

Yet the (near mad) prince unreasonably defined that as treasonous and there was a price to pay.

How much more treasonous to ride in to the Red Keep calling for the Crown Prince's head.
When Aerys is king.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

If someone as famous as Barri the Bold could just go in hiding just by removing the white cloak, i doubt that those three would've been as stubborn to wear it the entire journey.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

He had days for his rage to grow and grow. 

No he didn't call for his sister's return, he rode into the Red Keep calling for the head of her abductee. Who knows what else he could've said.

 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Unless we're operating on the basis that Brandon Stark is literally the dumbest man on existence, I'd think that we can believe that if he did not said it at the very beginning, when facing the charge of treason pointing at Rhaegar as a extenuating for their act would be on the top of ihs head. And per Yandel we know that demanded "redress for Rhaegar's wrongs".

Agreed. The point is that that wasn't his opening. Which was probably the dumbest thing ever done in the history of Westeros. Or up there at least. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

And if the news had not travelled all the way back to King's Landing yet, by the time the parents came back for the ransom, they sure had.

yup. But its too late then. Treason has been uttered, loudly, publicly, as a challenge.
And Aerys is a mad paranoiac.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Yet, the info we have points towards one direction. 

We don;t have any actual info. Neither Robert nor Dany give an account, just a wildly biased generalised description. Neither of which necessarily have anything to do with the actual facts. 
Neither extremely biased version has any actual connection to the event. They are both just propaganda stories.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Taking Lyanna at swordpoint is covering the actual event.

No, it is not. 
It is a super-simplified propaganda account of a possible event that we don't even know happened. At very best its a 4th hand story that runs through Viserys of all people. At worst its an entirely fictional account directly invented as a counter to the rebel 'story', which is probably just as fictional.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

How is an accurate account of all we know of that event when prior Jaime's tale, we only knew that:

Its accurate in that Jaime was actually there and has no reason to lie.
its all we know in that the other accounts are not from people who were there, and Jaime's account does not directly contradict them anyway, it merely expands them from obvious "wasn't there, this is what I've heard" simplifications to a still simple but slightly more developed "was there, this is what I know" story.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

So quite literally, the only account we have about what it happened it's Jaime's. So, it's really a circular reasoning.

Dot reasoning. There's no circle.
Jaime's is the only account we have from a person. But it is reinforced by the worldbook. And it doesn't contradict the other data, merely expands it from a relatively neutral and certainly more informed viewpoint.

Therefore it is an accurate (to the best of our knowledge) and full (fullest we have) account of what we know.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

How Rickard Stark went from being an innocent man ransoming his child to stand accused of treason it's a rather important tidbit that Jaime does ommit.

Rickard wasn't an innocent man ransoming his child.
He was summoned to court to answer his son's treason charge. He elected trial by combat. He was his son's champion.
Aerys cheated the trial.

 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

You don't know that.

Sure I do. Jaime said he rode in demanding that Rhaegar come out and die. 
Those two things, they are not the same.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

This is even more absurd since the only thing we have about Rickard are his last moments while he is charged with treason. 

Not according to either Cat or Jaime.

Quote
"Ethan Glover was Brandon's squire," Catelyn said. "He was the only one to survive. The others were Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn, Jon Arryn's nephew and heir." It was queer how she still remembered the names, after so many years. "Aerys accused them1 of treason and summoned their fathers2 to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."
"There were trials3. Of a sort. Lord Rickard4 demanded trial by combat, and the king granted the request. Stark armored himself as for battle, thinking to duel one of the Kingsguard. Me, perhaps. Instead they took him to the throne room and suspended him from the rafters while two of Aerys's pyromancers kindled a blaze beneath him. The king told him that fire was the champion of House Targaryen. So all Lord Rickard needed to do to prove himself innocent of treason5 was . . . well, not burn.

1. the sons, Brandon and his companions were accused of Treason.
2. The fathers were summoned to court to answer the charges. That means the sons are charged, but the fathers have to pay the price.
3. There were trials (of a sort). Thats for the sons. But the fathers pay the price.  
4. Rickard demanded trial by combat - for Brandon.
5. By this stage, with Rickard roasting, Aerys is likely battier than batshit. Its no surprise that Aerys makes a verbal mistake in his batshit burning excitement madness and call Brandon's treason that Rickard is answering for, Rickards treason. Its a fine line argument at the best of times.

The fact remains, that when the dust settled neither Cat nor Jaime believed that the fathers had been charged with Treason.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

By that reasoning, Rickard did not go to King's Landing to ransom his heir, since at any point we see him addresing that.

No. He was explicitly summoned to answer the charge of Treason to his son, and he demanded his son's trial be by combat.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Why would a drunk Jaime who gives no shits about either of them, not omit that part when it literally has zero impact on the story he's talking, Jaime is talking the story of how they died, no the story about how worried they were about Lyanna.

The reason Brandon died is what he came into the Red Keep shouting about. Thats the story. Period.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm talking about 4 families. The Baratheons, the Starks, the Lannisters and the Arryns.

And I don;t see why those and those people alone would know. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Robert, Jaime Ned and old Jon would def know, Ned hid a fact of 20 to his family, Cersei does not show any knowledge of it, neither do Tywin and Kevan tbf but i don't think that would be the sort of info that they would miss. Neither Stannis or Renly were involved and they don't seem to care enough to ask.

Everyone who was there knows. The question is, who else was told, and why? the answer is, we don't know.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

That's simply bs. Brandon is in no way or shape guilty for Aerys actions, saying that "he has to  accept as much as Aerys" is simply laughable.

For escalating the situation. Not for the individual actions within the situation.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Sure but anyone outside of the Red Keep were hardly to know that Aerys was full of paranoia and distrust.

You might want to think about that one...

2 hours ago, frenin said:
Brandon Stark, Kyle Royce, Elbert Arryn and Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce's father, Jeffory's Mallister father, Ethan Glover father, whatever retinue that accompanied them, Rickard Stark and 200 men. All dead.

If that's not a mass murder orgy i don't know what it is. Farce of trials aren't trials.

The 200 men weren't murdered then. They probably died later in the war. All we know is they went south and never came home.
Same goes for any retinue - not that I think there was any. Just the 5 young men.
The ones who were 'murdered' were 4 young men who were a party to clear treason, and their fathers, who answered to the charges.

Its judicial murder, sure. And there are 8 or 9 victims, at least one of which is definitely guilty.

But its not the 100s you make out.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Brandon was the heir, he could go.

Not his place, Even as heir. Rickard was close. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:
Rickard went quietly, to ransom his son and he still got murdered.

By that time there was a whole extra treason thing going on, which he was summoned to answer for. Thats a whole different thing to coming to petition the King for the return of a daughter that the king doesn't want connected to his son either.

2 hours ago, frenin said:
It seems to me that you're going for the we'll never to make a point, Aerys was not interested in making any pact.

Not after Brandon triggered his fear and paranoia, no.

Before? He and Rickard no doubt wanted the same thing - Rhaegar and Lyanna separated.

2 hours ago, frenin said:
In fact, outburst or not, Rhaegar and Brandon had given Aerys a golden opportunity to disown his heir without trouble,

Aerys didn't want to disown Rhaegar. They had disagreements at times, and at certain stages Aerys' paranoia led him to distrust even Rhaegar, but Rhaegar was still the shining hope of House Targaryen.

More importantly, Aerys' internal politics go out the window when Brandon triggers his paranoia with a direct attack on House Targaryen.

2 hours ago, frenin said:
Yet, that's not what Aerys did.

Aerys responded to the stimuli Brandon provided him.
And he's responsible for his actions thereafter.
Just as Brandon is responsible, in his own way, for providing that stimuli in the way he did and thereby changing the course of events.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody must have thought Rhaegar sent 3 KG knights to the Tower of Joy to protect his stolen Northern wild princess and her child. 

Then GRRM had a Zoom meeting which concluded that this wouldn't be good for the plot. So everyone forgot and ignored it. 

Share this post


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

Everybody must have thought Rhaegar sent 3 KG knights to the Tower of Joy to protect his stolen Northern wild princess and her child. 

Then GRRM had a Zoom meeting which concluded that this wouldn't be good for the plot. So everyone forgot and ignored it. 

they don't have cellphones with locator devices on them...

Share this post


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

they don't have cellphones with locator devices on them...

Ten months is more than enough time for even stupid Lords like... so many of them, to put 2 and 2 together.

Lyanna kidnapped. Lord Stark and his heir killed while fighting for justice. Lyanna's fiancee Robert starts a war. Rhaegar had already crowned Lyanna Queen of Love and Beauty over his wife.

And even the most mediocre spies could bring info about 3 KG knights together somewhere (ToJ) when needed in war. And even in the unlikely possibility of no one suspecting KG knights' purpose at ToJ, Ned arriving with a (bastard) baby is enough to make anyone suspicious and doubtful, given Ned's view of honor. 

We have to accept that some fallacies are just to serve the plot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, corbon said:

Agreed ...

In the interests of brevity, I'm not going to go through this line by line, but will try to hit the main points.

I'm not going to convince you, but I think you just don't get the point I'm making about Jaime. You think this story is somehow highly telling and indicative of some undefined truth about Lyanna and that she's not mentioned, because IMO you're making the story out to be much more than it is. Jaime is not giving some grand summary of the dialogue that took place here. He's literally just saying "Brandon wanted to kill Rhaegar and Aerys locked him up for it." You're inferring that Brandon said nothing about Lyanna and that is absolutely not justified based on that line. And Rickard only gets brought up when Catelyn mistakenly says there wasn't a trial. Jaime says absolutely nothing about what Rickard did or said when he first arrived in KL or in any potential discussions with Aerys prior to the trial. This reminds me the people who argue that Ned telling Catelyn not to ask about Jon when she inquires about Ashara is telling because Catelyn didn't say anything about Jon. Except that the dialogue only starts with Ned's response, it doesn't say what Catelyn said. Given that Jon was the entire impetus for here interest in the matter, I don't think it's wise to assume she didn't ask about him. Similarly, given that Lyanna is Brandon's obvious motivation to want Rhaegar dead, I don't think it's wise to think he somehow only cared about Rhaegar and said nothing about Lyanna just because Jaime tells Catelyn that Aerys locked him up for threatening Rhaegar. As for Rickard, I've already pointed out that Jaime says nothing about him prior to the trial, but furthermore we know that he was called to KL to answer for Brandon's crimes - the direct reason for his participation in this part of the story is not an unknown question as you seem to imply - and the life of his heir was at stake. It wouldn't exactly be shocking if Lyanna took a back seat for the moment.

You can repeat "treason = death" over and over as if that would be the expected outcome in this situation, but it doesn't make it true. Even much worse "treason" with much less justification wasn't always punished with death if the perpetrator was a noble. If Brandon's threat at a man who (he believed) kidnapped his sister is "treason," it's definitely on the low end of the spectrum.

In your theory about an alternate scenario for RLJ, what are you saying is in the letter? Is Rhaegar just notifying them of what happened, or presumably is he saying that he's not going to return Lyanna to them? The former doesn't make sense given that they went missing for months and Lyanna never reappeared, and the latter doesn't really change the situation at all. Lyanna's wishes don't matter in the eyes of Westerosi nobility. Rhaegar is obligated to return her to her family. That's the point I was making in my post. This also makes me curious as to what exactly you're trying to get at with your fixation on Lyanna not being mentioned in Jaime's story. Assume your theory is true. How does it explain Jaime not mentioning Brandon or Rickard saying anything about her any more than the current story? Your theory even includes Brandon riding to KL because of the letter.

I seriously doubt that Ned was interviewed by a maester for the book or that he would have answered questions from them. I do think you make some reasonable guesses on some of these things, but I'm not fully on board with everything. Ned would have had to give at least a few details to Robert - obviously I'm not saying he's going to tell the whole truth, him lying or leaving out major details is obviously probable, but Robert would presumably ask some questions about where and how he found her, and I don't think Ned could get away with refusing to answer or changing the subject. Would he try to keep details to a minimum, especially anything that could implicate Jon's true parentage? Sure, but I don't think he could just tell Robert "Lyanna died of a fever, sorry bro" and leave it at that.

The information to Barbrey based on that passage is pretty minimal, but I think if you go through what is known, I don't think it's meaningless and indicipherable. And before I go into that, you are right that a lot of people wouldn't bother thinking through these things, but I don't think that means nobody has any clue what happened.

- Ned is known to have lifted the siege at Storm's End at the end of the war. He is known to have gone to Dorne afterwards with a small group of companions. 

- He's known to have gone to Starfall to return Dawn. I agree this is probably why people assume he killed Arthur Dayne. If it's believed that he killed Dayne, I don't think it's much of a jump to conclude that it's known that Ned's party fought the KG trio. Nobody gives the impression that the fate of Whent or Hightower is any more of a question than Dayne's, and none of Ned's companions besides Howland Reed returned with him. He told Barbrey (and presumably the families of the other dead guys) that they were buried in the Red Mountains of Dorne. Even if Ned never explicitly stated "we fought the KG and everyone died except Howland and me" I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together here. 

- Ned returned with Lyanna's bones, something that bothers Barbrey since he returned without her husband's. Lyanna Stark's fate was not known at the end of the Rebellion prior to Ned's trip to Dorne, but it is widely known now even if most people don't know how she died. 

Adding things all up you get:

- Dayne and Whent disappear along with Rhaegar and Lyanna and are basically never seen or heard from again as far as the public is concerned, even as a rebellion that eventually topples their king breaks out

- Hightower is sent to retrieve Rhaegar by Aerys. Rhaegar returns, but Hightower does not

- Ned leaves Storm's End with a small group of companions to go to Dorne, comes back only with Howland and Lyanna's bones

- Ned is believed to have killed Arthur Dayne before returning his sword to Starfall, which IMO means it's fairly safe to assume that it's widely believed that the KG and the members of Ned's party died fighting each other, with Ned and Howland being the only survivors.

Setting aside whether or not it means anything in terms of whether people would believe that Jon is Ned's bastard son, I really don't think connecting finding Lyanna with the deaths of the KG here is some huge reach that nobody is going to make. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 12:49 AM, Davjos said:

I guess the common narrative is they were Lyanna’s (overqualified) jailers. Unless you believe Rhaegar was married to Lyanna (and this was allowed and deemed valid) the baby at the ToJ was an unrecognised bastard of the Crown Prince, not exactly a common protectee for the KG, so I doubt a baby is that evident. 

I agree though there should perhaps have been speculation in this regard from the likes of Jaime, Barristan, Varys and perhaps, though less so, in the Robert-side of the Rebellion.  

How many even knew that the Kingsguard were at the TOJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Agreed.

The point is that Tanselle wasn't even being seditious, let alone treasonous. She was performing common historical plays, something you see at any fair every year.

Yet the (near mad) prince unreasonably defined that as treasonous and there was a price to pay.

How much more treasonous to ride in to the Red Keep calling for the Crown Prince's head.
When Aerys is king.

I don't really see how you can agree and then double down the bet.

Tanselle was targetted by a mad Prince because she was a nobody.  Aerion could her beat up with impunity, which is the reason why Duncan's case went as far as it did, Duncan was another nobody.

Comparing the case of two peasants with the case of the heir of Winterfell seems like cheating at solitaire to me, especially when there were far egregious cases with far less justifications that ended up with a slap on the wrist when highlords were involved.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Agreed. The point is that that wasn't his opening. Which was probably the dumbest thing ever done in the history of Westeros. Or up there at least. 

Doubtful, as there were extenuating argument for him, argument that nearly other king would have had in mind.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

yup. But its too late then. Treason has been uttered, loudly, publicly, as a challenge.
And Aerys is a mad paranoiac.

Too late for whom?? For Brandon et co?? Unlikely but who knows.

For Rickard and all those who followed?? That seems like an absurd.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

We don;t have any actual info. Neither Robert nor Dany give an account, just a wildly biased generalised description. Neither of which necessarily have anything to do with the actual facts. 
Neither extremely biased version has any actual connection to the event. They are both just propaganda stories.

We have actual info, you're dismissing said info not by something said in the books or by Martin but because your personal taste do not match with those two therefore they are wildly generalised description. You, with no other basis than how you perceive A or B character, are deciding that their versions has no actual connection to the event. Seems a wild step to me.

If both Dany's and Robert's versions are the same in principle but different in reasons, it seems to me that they may have an info that the reader does not posses, mind you that Dany repeats the same tale to Barri and the man doesn't contradict her.

How Rhaegar carrying his northern girl by swordpoint does not have an actual connection to the event, what is then a connection to the event for you.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

No, it is not. 
It is a super-simplified propaganda account of a possible event that we don't even know happened. At very best its a 4th hand story that runs through Viserys of all people. At worst its an entirely fictional account directly invented as a counter to the rebel 'story', which is probably just as fictional.

Yes it is.

The propaganda is the love part, not the abduction, the abduuction remains prevalent in both stories, so we should take that as the truth until proven otherwise, not build an argument based on nothing. Btw how do you know that it's super simplified propaganda?? Martin does not call the man love struck for nothing.

We don't know where Dany heard it from, nor we know where Viserys heard it from, for all we know, Viserys received the tale from Rhaegar himself.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Its accurate in that Jaime was actually there and has no reason to lie.
its all we know in that the other accounts are not from people who were there, and Jaime's account does not directly contradict them anyway, it merely expands them from obvious "wasn't there, this is what I've heard" simplifications to a still simple but slightly more developed "was there, this is what I know" story.

Who is saying that Jaime is lying??

I'm saying that Jaime is ommiting info he doesn't care about to recall because they are not relevant to the tale he's telling. 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Dot reasoning. There's no circle.
Jaime's is the only account we have from a person. But it is reinforced by the worldbook. And it doesn't contradict the other data, merely expands it from a relatively neutral and certainly more informed viewpoint.

Therefore it is an accurate (to the best of our knowledge) and full (fullest we have) account of what we know.

There is a circle, a big one actually.

Jaime's the only account we have, we know that Jaime account is incomplete as he gives casually info we didn't know about (the treason charges) and does not bother to expand on that. By the fact that Jaime's tale is incomplete, acting as if was the full picture it's simply bad faith. It being the fullest account we have=/ It being the full account.

So far there is a gap of 7 months or so of the Robellion, the only things we know next to nothing about Maekar's reign but how he died,the only bits we know about the first Blackfyre Rebellion is how it ended and some feats of Fireball etc etc etc. Do you believe those records are full?? 

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Rickard wasn't an innocent man ransoming his child.
He was summoned to court to answer his son's treason charge. He elected trial by combat. He was his son's champion.
Aerys cheated the trial.

No, he didn't. He elected trial by combat for himself.

 

Quote

“There were trials. Of a sort. Lord Rickard demanded trial by combat, and the king granted the request. Stark armored himself as for battle, thinking to duel one of the Kingsguard. Me, perhaps. Instead, they took him to the throne room and suspended him from the rafters while two of Aerys’s pyromancers kindled a blaze beneath him. The king told him that fire was the champion of House Targaryen. So all Lord Rickard needed to do to prove himself innocent of treason was … well, not burn.

Himself, not his son/child/heir. He was suddenly the one being charged for treason.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Sure I do. Jaime said he rode in demanding that Rhaegar come out and die. 
Those two things, they are not the same.

No, you don't as Jaime could have easily ommit things.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

1. the sons, Brandon and his companions were accused of Treason.
2. The fathers were summoned to court to answer the charges. That means the sons are charged, but the fathers have to pay the price.
3. There were trials (of a sort). Thats for the sons. But the fathers pay the price.  
4. Rickard demanded trial by combat - for Brandon.
5. By this stage, with Rickard roasting, Aerys is likely battier than batshit. Its no surprise that Aerys makes a verbal mistake in his batshit burning excitement madness and call Brandon's treason that Rickard is answering for, Rickards treason. Its a fine line argument at the best of times.

The fact remains, that when the dust settled neither Cat nor Jaime believed that the fathers had been charged with Treason.

 

  1. True.
  2. No, the fathers don't have to pay the price, the just have to answer for their sons.
  3. There is no price paid for the fathers.
  4. Jaime does not say that Rickard was demanding it for Brandon, he quite literally says that Rickard needed to prove himself innocent of treason.
  5. You're arguing against the book, headcanon is not canon, there is nothing that says that Aerys mispelled or even if Jaime was quoting Aerys and not simply suming up the facts.

We don't know what they believed, and Jaime is recalling the story and Cat already knows whether they were charged or not. That's another circular reasoning.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

No. He was explicitly summoned to answer the charge of Treason to his son, and he demanded his son's trial be by combat.

Not true, he demanded a trial by combat for himself as per Jaime, anything else is you trying to pass your believes as fact.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

The reason Brandon died is what he came into the Red Keep shouting about. Thats the story. Period.

That's some major goalposting there.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

And I don;t see why those and those people alone would know. 

I did not say that only those knew...

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Everyone who was there knows. The question is, who else was told, and why? the answer is, we don't know.

Huh?? It was a supposition not a statement.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

You might want to think about that one...

Hmm no. Rickard did not know how batshit Aerys was and their brief meeting at Harrenhall, was just that a brief one, we don't even know if Brandon was there when Aerys had his attacks.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

For escalating the situation. Not for the individual actions within the situation.

So, Rhaegar and/ or Lyanna deserve even more blame, they were the ones who made the situation a tinderbox.

Brandon is resnposible of his fate, saying that he shares as much blame as Aerys is just absurd.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

The 200 men weren't murdered then. They probably died later in the war.

If you don't know when they were murdered why do you state when they were not??

 

Quote

All we know is they went south and never came home

We know that they accompanied Rickard to the Red Keep, we know that they never came back to the North, we know that Aerys felt freaky that day...

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Same goes for any retinue - not that I think there was any. Just the 5 young men.

Do you think that the fathers of those young men would travel without retinue??

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Its judicial murder, sure. And there are 8 or 9 victims, at least one of which is definitely guilty.

But its not the 100s you make out.

It's the 100s i made out, i think.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Not his place, Even as heir. Rickard was close. 

Indeed his place, nor Rickard was close.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

By that time there was a whole extra treason thing going on, which he was summoned to answer for. Thats a whole different thing to coming to petition the King for the return of a daughter that the king doesn't want connected to his son either.

That's a whole different thing...  And how that changes that Rhaegar has kidnapped Lyanna??

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Not after Brandon triggered his fear and paranoia, no.

Because... In fact we don't even know that Brandon triggered nothing in Aerys. 

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Not after Brandon triggered his fear and paranoia, no.

I doubt that Aerys cared two shits about Lyanna and whether Rhaegar was despoiling her or not, he'd use to bring about his heir's downfall, nothing else.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Aerys didn't want to disown Rhaegar. They had disagreements at times, and at certain stages Aerys' paranoia led him to distrust even Rhaegar, but Rhaegar was still the shining hope of House Targaryen.

Yes he did. But we're told that there was a risk of a brutal civil war between father and son just as we were told that there was risk of civil war between the Unworthy and his heir.

Nor until the war erupted and started going awry, Rhaegar meant anything else than a threat to Aerys. He certainly was not the shining hope of Aerys in the years between Duskendale and the Robellion and he had started to be a shining hope, for a good deal of Great Houses.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Aerys didn't want to disown Rhaegar. They had disagreements at times, and at certain stages Aerys' paranoia led him to distrust even Rhaegar, but Rhaegar was still the shining hope of House Targaryen.

I'd say that they enter the window, i don't still know that Aerys was triggered or that he cared much about Rhaegar.

I'd say that he perceived a lot of enemies anywhere  and Brandon's actions simply allowed him to destroy some of those, he tried to pull a Rains of Castemere on the Starks, Arryns and Baratheons.

Not that Brandon triggered him but that he had given him and opportunity. Which is why i believe he passed on the other given by Brandon.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 2:21 AM, corbon said:

Aerys responded to the stimuli Brandon provided him.
And he's responsible for his actions thereafter.
Just as Brandon is responsible, in his own way, for providing that stimuli in the way he did and thereby changing the course of events.

So, then Rhaegar is still responsible, since he was the first to stimulate...

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

In the interests of brevity, I'm not going to go through this line by line, but will try to hit the main points.

I'm not going to convince you, but I think you just don't get the point I'm making about Jaime. You think this story is somehow highly telling and indicative of some undefined truth about Lyanna and that she's not mentioned, because IMO you're making the story out to be much more than it is. Jaime is not giving some grand summary of the dialogue that took place here. He's literally just saying "Brandon wanted to kill Rhaegar and Aerys locked him up for it." You're inferring that Brandon said nothing about Lyanna and that is absolutely not justified based on that line. And Rickard only gets brought up when Catelyn mistakenly says there wasn't a trial. Jaime says absolutely nothing about what Rickard did or said when he first arrived in KL or in any potential discussions with Aerys prior to the trial.

We have no idea what exactly happened at court that led to the deaths of Brandon and Rickard. That story still has to be told. We just got a brief and incomplete summary by a 16-year-old who is neither famed for his intelligence nor his perceptiveness. This is most glaring with there having to be an explanation why Ethan Glover didn't go down with Brandon, Rickard, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn.

The idea that the Mad King gave two cents about the threat to Rhaegar's life made by Brandon is pretty much ludicrous. Aerys II was suspecting that Rhaegar was plotting against him with the Starks since Harrenhal. If he actually believed the Starks had turned their back on Rhaegar then he would have likely done everything in his power to arrange a duel between Rhaegar and Brandon howing, in the Aegon IV way, that Brandon would rid him of his ingrate son.

We are up for a suprise there. My best for what actually happened is that Aerys II didn't believe that Brandon and Rickard weren't in cahoots with Rhaegar, interpreting the 'Lyanna abduction' as the starting point of the Rhaegar-Stark campaign to make Rhaegar king. This would explain why Rickard and the companions also had to die. One has to keep in mind that Rickard Stark also stood accused of a crime for some reason. Lord Rickard demanded a trial-by-combat for himself.

1 hour ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

You can repeat "treason = death" over and over as if that would be the expected outcome in this situation, but it doesn't make it true. Even much worse "treason" with much less justification wasn't always punished with death if the perpetrator was a noble. If Brandon's threat at a man who (he believed) kidnapped his sister is "treason," it's definitely on the low end of the spectrum.

The Mad King could have viewed such a threat as the kind of crime that warrants execution ... he was mad, after all, and did this kind of thing back at Duskendale. But the idea that he would have viewed Brandon's threat in that fashion is dead since the point we learned that Rhaegar and Aerys II weren't exactly on the same page prior to the Rebellion. Which was first indicated back in ASoS and elaborated upon in AFfC, ADwD, and TWoIaF.

1 hour ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I seriously doubt that Ned was interviewed by a maester for the book or that he would have answered questions from them. I do think you make some reasonable guesses on some of these things, but I'm not fully on board with everything. Ned would have had to give at least a few details to Robert - obviously I'm not saying he's going to tell the whole truth, him lying or leaving out major details is obviously probable, but Robert would presumably ask some questions about where and how he found her, and I don't think Ned could get away with refusing to answer or changing the subject. Would he try to keep details to a minimum, especially anything that could implicate Jon's true parentage? Sure, but I don't think he could just tell Robert "Lyanna died of a fever, sorry bro" and leave it at that.

Yandel lives in Oldtown. He never spoke to Ned.

But the idea that Ned wouldn't have told Robert and his buddies or the families of the dead KG (especially the Daynes when he was at Starfall but also the Hightowers) what took place is ludicrous.

Ned needs to keep his bastard and the Lya thing separate, yes, but he cannot create the impression he isn't completely forthcoming/has something to hide about the mission and death of the famous KG he and his friends killed. And Robert and his court would need a very clear narrative about how those famous guys died to really have a confirmation that they are not going to lend credence and legitimacy to the claim of Viserys III.

The best take there is simply not to assume that Ned's Jon Snow story and Ned's Lyanna-KG story has to be interconnected in the version Ned spread. A way to do that would be to keep the bastard a completely separate issue, one he was only communicating months or (in regards to the court) years after he told Robert about the death of Lyanna.

And one should never make the mistake that people only know the stuff that has been revealed so far. A lot of people might know more, and quite a few people could know as much as Ned or Howland Reed themselves. We just never met them or never heard from them what they know even if they are POVs. Barristan Selmy could know pretty much the entire Lyanna-KG story. After all, he is the guy who would have written about the fates of the three KG in the White Book and for that he would have gotten information either from Robert or Ned himself, asking him about what transpired after Ned returned from Starfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Ten months is more than enough time for even stupid Lords like... so many of them, to put 2 and 2 together.

Not if they have neither 2 nor 2 to pyt together.

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Lyanna kidnapped.

Over a year ago. She's dead man, surely. probably a year ago (except for Robert, whom Ned told she died in his arms in no doubt a private conversation). Or a whore in Lys. Wherever whores go. That thing was... forever ago.

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Lord Stark and his heir killed while fighting for justice.

A year and a rebellion ago. Killed for treason.

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Lyanna's fiancee Robert starts a war.

Robert didn't start the war and it wasn't over Lyanna.
Aerys and Jon started the war and it was over Aerys'  overeach in punishing High Noble families - calling for Ned and Robert's heads when they'd not been involved at all thus far.

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Rhaegar had already crowned Lyanna Queen of Love and Beauty over his wife.

Thats best part of two years ago, and blew over immediately with no relevance for several months.

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

And even the most mediocre spies could bring info about 3 KG knights together somewhere (ToJ) when needed in war.

How? There is no one else there to tell them. 
The most you're likely to get is that they went into the Princes Pass, which means they are somewhere in Dorne 0- unless they left already be a different route...

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

And even in the unlikely possibility of no one suspecting KG knights' purpose at ToJ,

No one even knows they were there, let alone why.

10 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Ned arriving with a (bastard) baby is enough to make anyone suspicious and doubtful, given Ned's view of honor. 

What do people know of Ned? He's a (shy) 20 year old second son nobody from the howling wastes of the frozen north, to most of Westeros.

Even his best friend Robert thought (gleefully almost) that Ned slipped up once. He's human, and its so not a big deal for a noble on campaign to get his needs met that even Cat thinks it was fine. Its only bringing Jon into her house that riles her.

 

3 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

 

Sorry, I just lost a big reply and don't have time to do it again. just the short stuff above (and below). Apologies for that.

2 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

How many even knew that the Kingsguard were at the TOJ?

Ned, Howland, and maybe a tiny handful of co-conspirators (Ashara Dayne perhaps?) or similar.

I don't think any one else.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

 

Sorry, similarly, lost a big reply, no time to get back to it.

Moving house, and city, this weekend, so was already 'stealing' time to respond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no idea what exactly happened at court that led to the deaths of Brandon and Rickard. That story still has to be told. We just got a brief and incomplete summary by a 16-year-old who is neither famed for his intelligence nor his perceptiveness. This is most glaring with there having to be an explanation why Ethan Glover didn't go down with Brandon, Rickard, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn ...

 

I agree with most of this. I'm not entirely sold on the "Aerys thought Rhaegar was colluding with the Starks" theory but it's plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, corbon said:

Sorry, I just lost a big reply and don't have time to do it again. just the short stuff above (and below). Apologies for that.

I understand the frustration on that so no worries. I'm not entirely sure the other stuff in your post addresses my points. I can buy that the exact location of the KG, the ToJ, etc. is perhaps known only to a few. But that still leaves the fact that it's widely known that Ned went to Dorne with a small group of companions and came back only with Howland and Lyanna's bones after returning Dawn to Starfall (which we know created a widespread belief that Ned killed Arthur Dayne). The only logical conclusions to that are a) Ned and his companions fought the KG in Dorne, leaving only Ned and Holwand as survivors, and b) Ned found Lyanna (or at least her remains) in Dorne. I really don't think it take much wit or creativity to think those two things are related.

Edited by ATaleofSalt&Onions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I agree with most of this. I'm not entirely sold on the "Aerys thought Rhaegar was colluding with the Starks" theory but it's plausible.

Oh, he wasn't ... but it is clear that the king and his court believed that he did after Harrenhal. We are told they did, and we are told that they didn't buy the anger of Brandon and Ned over the coronation.

If that was true then, then it stands to reason that Aerys II also didn't buy that Lyanna had been 'abducted' and that the Starks weren't in on this 'abduction'.

He would have believed they were colluding and that Brandon's show at KL was some kind of elaborate distraction supposed to confuse the king and give him the impression Rhaegar and the Starks were enemies so Rhaegar could in secret recruit even more rebels to his cause.

The reason why Brandon, his companions, and Lord Rickard had to die would then be because they refused to admit they were traitors in cahoots with Rhaegar. The same would also be the rationale between the death sentence on Ned and Robert ... they would have been in on the whole thing, too.

At least in the paranoid mind of the Mad King.

This kind of thing also explains why the king didn't really focus his attentions immediately on Robert and the Arryns, ignoring the actual rebellion for too long ... they were looking for Rhaegar and Lyanna who they would have assumed were the actual leaders of this conspiracy. It would have taken considerable time for Aerys II to realize and finally admit that his son and heir was innocent of all that, and that Robert was indeed trying to do away with both father and son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...