What Would Jon do When he Learns he was Born of Rape?

[Julia H.]

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

No one who has read the text could say that Aerys was not willing to kill children. That is not the same as saying that he did kill children.

Which he did not as far as we can tell. So of all Aerys's crimes infanticide is the one he canont be seriously accused of.

I disagree. We know of a single child (out of two extended families wiped out) who escaped the king's revenge due to the special request of someone Aerys could not refuse - and this child was an orphan relation of a subordinate family, not a direct descendant or close kin of the lord of Duskendale. Aerys killed a lot of people, ordered complete families to be extinguished out of revenge, yet, not a word anywhere that he took care to spare the children whenever he could. On the contrary, we know he had no qualms about killing children. In-world, Ned somehow associates him with the killing of children. The author has made it perfectly clear that Aerys did kill - among others - children.

[frenin]

23 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I disagree. We know of a single child (out of two extended families wiped out) who escaped the king's revenge due to the special request of someone Aerys could not refuse - and this child was an orphan relation of a subordinate family, not a direct descendant or close kin of the lord of Duskendale. Aerys killed a lot of people, ordered complete families to be extinguished out of revenge, yet, not a word anywhere that he took care to spare the children whenever he could. On the contrary, we know he had no qualms about killing children. In-world, Ned somehow associates him with the killing of children. The author has made it perfectly clear that Aerys did kill - among others - children.

Aerys is the singlest most vilified character in the whole series, The World of Ice and Fire, is a book dedicated to slander him and tell in detail how much of a cunt he really was. He is the sole character absolutely everyone loves to dunk on.

And even then, after all that, there is no mention that he killed children. Why in the world would anyone make it vague?

The one child he was perfectly willing to kill, he did not kill out of sympathy for Barri B.

Yeah, he killed a good lot of people, yeag he killed a good deal of innocents  but it seems so far they were adults, or at least considered adults in Westeros. 

The author has not made it perfectly clear that he kills children, come on now lol.

 

@Terrorthatflapsinthenight9

Quote

Well he was about to do it with his plan to blow up King's Landing with wildfire. 

Indeed.

@Corvo the Crow

Quote

Darklyns and Hollards beg to differ.

I don't know how given that Dontos is still alive.

[Julia H.]

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

And even then, after all that, there is no mention that he killed children. Why in the world would anyone make it vague?

The one child he was perfectly willing to kill, he did not kill out of sympathy for Barri B.

Yeah, he killed a good lot of people, yeag he killed a good deal of innocents  but it seems so far they were adults, or at least considered adults in Westeros. 

The author has not made it perfectly clear that he kills children, come on now lol.

 

What's the likelihood that there was only one child in whole families that Aerys killed off? He may not have specifically targeted children when he ordered the execution of complete houses, distant relations including, but nothing indicates that he spared children of his own accord either. 

Then we have what Ned said about Aerys, and it is anything but vague. The evidence in the books is clear and convincing. 

[frenin]

32 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Then we have what Ned said about Aerys, and it is anything but vague.

You're  using your initial premise to support your initial premise.

 

32 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The evidence in the books is clear and convincing. 

I mean it is not, you want it to be no doubt but it is simply not convincing at all.

 

32 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

What's the likelihood that there was only one child in whole families that Aerys killed off? He may not have specifically targeted children when he ordered the execution of complete houses, distant relations including,

This is a fictional book, so whatever odds Martin wants to. So yes, it's perfectly plausible that there was no children among those families other than Dontos and they were all late teens and young adults.

Mind you, in Tywin's case, we're explicitly told he killed children when dealing with both Reynes and Tarbecks, yet in Aerys's case we're told that he did spare the one child we're told about in those families.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

but nothing indicates that he spared children of his own accord either. 

I mean, no, we know he would have killed children, King's Landing was full of them. 

There's nothing that indicates that he killed children tho. Honestly, no one who keep it vague. Had Aerys killed children, i can tell you we'd know it with all the details, just as we know the gruesome details about the Starks's deaths.

This is really not difficult, could Aerys have killed children at some point? Sure. Do we have a reason to believeh he did so far? No, we don't.

I mean, the rebels certainly did not rise to stop the murder of some unspecified children, they rose because they were targetted by Aerys, we know that Ned's making shit up to get to Bob's soft side.

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, frenin said:

There is no reason to believe there was other children but Dontos, this is a book made to and for slandering Aerys, had he killed children we would have known with details, lots of them.

Sorry, it’s just the opposite. There’s no reason to believe that two whole families, including distant kin, were killed and there were no children among the victims. 
And @Julia H.’s whole post in reply to yours. 
 

Happy 2023 everyone!

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Aerys is the singlest most vilified character in the whole series,

 

Is he? I’m not sure he is vilified enough. Let’s compare him w/ another disgusting PoS we get to see in the current timeline, Ramsay Bolton. 
Ramsay is a bastard born of the rape of a common woman, has had a horrific childhood/adolescence, his father is a nasty & cruel man, etc. Ome could even argue Ramsay is a product of his upbringing & circumstances. I won’t do that, because I don’t think that’s an excuse for the atrocities he’s committed and continues to commit. 
Now compare that to Aerys, who’s had an absurdly privileged existence even when compared to other nobles in-universe. He was able to indulge his every whim, had the realm at his feet, literally. And commits atrocities w/o having to worry about any type of consequence since he has the KG standing at his door while he savagely rapes his sister-wife and beats her and bites her and gods know what else. 
Yeah, sorry but he’s not vilified enough, and I’m sticking to my opinion here. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

The World of Ice and Fire, is a book dedicated to slander him and tell in detail how much of a cunt he really was. He is the sole character absolutely everyone loves to dunk on.

And it’s easy for the maesters to do it because it’s so completely deserved. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

And even then, after all that, there is no mention that he killed children. Why in the world would anyone make it vague?

There’s no spelled out mention that he’s killed children but the text shows at the very least one instance where he obliterated two whole families and their distant kin. And to assume there were no children among the all the family members included here is preposterous IMO. 

Not everything has to be spelled out. “A word to the wise” and all that. 
And again, what @Julia H. brought up, that Ned very much associates Aerys with the killing of children. So the slaughter of all the Darklyn/Hollard + Ned’s attitude is more than enough to establish this w/o having to enumerate how many children he had killed and how. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

The one child he was perfectly willing to kill, he did not kill out of sympathy for Barri B.

Again, assuming Dontos was the only kid among those families and kin is kind of ridiculous. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Yeah, he killed a good lot of people, yeag he killed a good deal of innocents  but it seems so far they were adults, or at least considered adults in Westeros. 

The author has not made it perfectly clear that he kills children, come on now lol.

See above.  indeed.

 

[frenin]

25 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sorry, it’s just the opposite. There’s no reason to believe that two whole families, including distant kin, were killed and there were no children among the victims. 

I mean... The fact we're not told about any other children and the only child among both families was actually the spared one?

Since when are we being coy about Aerys's atrocities?

If they were children, it would have been mentioned, just as it was mentioned in the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion, it adds to the severity of the punishment.

 

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Now compare that to Aerys, who’s had an absurdly privileged existence even when compared to other nobles in-universe. He was able to indulge his every whim, had the realm at his feet, literally. And commits atrocities w/o having to worry about any type of consequence since he has the KG standing at his door while he savagely rapes his sister-wife and beats her and bites her and gods know what else. 
Yeah, sorry but he’s not vilified enough, and I’m sticking to my opinion here. 

I truly don't know where are you going with this one sorry.

 

11 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And it’s easy for the maesters to do it because it’s so completely deserved. 

Sure, the maesters do not pull punches when it comes to Aerys... except about this?

 

12 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

There’s no spelled out mention that he’s killed children but the text shows at the very least one instance where he obliterated two whole families and their distant kin. And to assume there were no children among the all the family members included here is preposterous IMO. 

Child murder is always highlighted because it's an enormous crime and it adds to the monstrosity of the person commiting it.

Tywin did obliterated two families and their kin and that case it's spelled out that there were children among the casualties.

If Aerys had killed children during the Darklyn Defiance we would have known with all the nasty details, but who knows, there are more book in the corner, maybe Martin does write it.

 

 

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And again, what @Julia H. brought up, that Ned very much associates Aerys with the killing of children. So the slaughter of all the Darklyn/Hollard + Ned’s attitude is more than enough to establish this w/o having to enumerate how many children he had killed and how. 

As i said, this whole debate started around  how reliable or truthful Ned was being in that instance.

Using Ned (the premise) as evidence for the premise is a silly thing.

If one's not trusting Ned's/Robert's/Tywin's  words, the fact that they said those words is not going to convince.

Even if Ned's being truthful, and he is not, Aerys could have not killed a single child during the Duskendale Defiance's aftermath but killed dozen of children from Flea Bottom.

 

 

21 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Again, assuming Dontos was the only kid among those families and kin is kind of ridiculous. 

Eh, assuming we would not be told about the other children is also kind of ludicrous.

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I mean... The fact we're not told about any other children and the only child among both families was actually the spared one?

Let me see if I understand… so, if we’re not specifically told something, if it’s not spelled out, that is proof that it never happened? 
If so, I think you’re in for a few surprises.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Since when are we being coy about Aerys's atrocities?

If they were children, it would have been mentioned, just as it was mentioned in the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion, it adds to the severity of the punishment.

See above.

 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I truly don't know where are you going with this one sorry.

 

You said Aerys was the most vilified character in the books, as if that’s somehow unjustified? That’s what I understood, and I was just trying to say that I don’t think it’s unjustified, and that he deserves every bit of it. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Sure, the maesters do not pull punches when it comes to Aerys... except about this?

See above. Come on! There are lots and lots the maesters leave out, that absolutely doesn’t mean that something never happened. Not everything must be spelled out, not even by the maesters who wanted to vilify Aerys. Again, it also goes back to what Ned says about the ‘murder of children’. You said Ned lied, I think that’s a pretty silly statement given what we know of the character and the seriousness of the situation. 
He’s talking to Robert, who went through all of that with him, and who, in this instance, has an opposing view. Why would Ned make this up then? What’s to stop Robert, who is disagreeing with him, to say, “what you on about, Stark? Aerys was many things, but he never murdered children. Which he obviously never says, 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

 

Child murder is always highlighted because it's an enormous crime and it adds to the monstrosity of the person commiting it.

No, not always. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Tywin did obliterated two families and their kin and that case it's spelled out that there were children among the casualties.

If Aerys had killed children during the Darklyn Defiance we would have known with all the nasty details, but who knows, there are more book in the corner, maybe Martin does write it. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

 

 

As i said, this whole debate started around  how reliable or truthful Ned was being in that instance.

Using Ned (the premise) as evidence for the premise is a silly thing.

the breaking up of your reply went screwy. 
I’ll say this. IMO it’s just not possible that no children were killed when two whole families & their kin were decimated. End of. 
I get it, you disagree. And I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

If one's not trusting Ned's/Robert's/Tywin's  words, the fact that they said those words is not going to convince.

Even if Ned's being truthful, and he is not, Aerys could have not killed a single child during the Duskendale Defiance's aftermath but killed dozen of children from Flea Bottom.

How on Planetos can you know that? Short answer is, you just can’t. That’s only your opinion, nothing more. 

[frenin]

26 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Let me see if I understand… so, if we’re not specifically told something, if it’s not spelled out, that is proof that it never happened? 
If so, I think you’re in for a few surprises.

When it comes about child murders, not that it didn't happen per se, just that outcome being far likelier.

 

27 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

You said Aerys was the most vilified character in the books, as if that’s somehow unjustified? That’s what I understood, and I was just trying to say that I don’t think it’s unjustified, and that he deserves every bit of it. 

No, my bad lol. I was just stating he's the most vilified character in the books. 

 

30 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

See above. Come on! There are lots and lots the maesters leave out,

Doesn't really seem so tho.

 

30 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Not everything must be spelled out,

Child murder is spelled out. 

It's like the Cain mark of Westeros for the readers.

 

32 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

You said Ned lied, I think that’s a pretty silly statement given what we know of the character and the seriousness of the situation. 
He’s talking to Robert, who went through all of that with him, and who, in this instance, has an opposing view. Why would Ned make this up then? What’s to stop Robert, who is disagreeing with him, to say, “what you on about, Stark? Aerys was many things, but he never murdered children. Which he obviously never says, 

I'm saying he lied... because Ned lied lol, the rebels rose for very specific reasons, none of which included protecting children, unless we're counting grown ass men like Ned or Robert as children, then sure.

Ned was trying to appeal to emotion in a moment Robert was blinded by anger and fear, that's it. Aerys is just a nice strawman to punch and try and get to appeal to Robert's heroic and deluded chlid, the one who saw himself as as hero and heroes don't kill blah blah blah, that part.

What's to stop Robert? Well, i'd say Robert's character would stop him.

 

 

36 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, not always. 

This case being the "not always".

 

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

the breaking up of your reply went screwy. 
I’ll say this. IMO it’s just not possible that no children were killed when two whole families & their kin were decimated. End of. 

It's perfectly possible, it is unlikely, i'll admit that much. 

But then again, this is fiction.

 

38 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

How on Planetos can you know that? Short answer is, you just can’t. That’s only your opinion, nothing more. 

Jon Arryn rose in rebellion in direct defiance to Aerys's demand of sending him both of his very grown wards's heads.

We know Ned is rose tinting the truth lol. The motif for the Robellion is spelled out ad nauseam, "innocent children" doesn't really come up that much.

 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

If you genuinely think that in wiping out 2 families plus extended kin, that there was only a single child, then you are in absolute denial. 
 

and the fact that after everything Aerys did you’d somehow doubt he was capable of having children killed is delusional at best, or you are intentionally lying at worst.

[Corvo the Crow]

Quote

"And the Hollards?"

"Attainted and destroyed," said the maester. "I was forging my chain at the Citadel when this happened, but I have read the accounts of their trials and punishments. Ser Jon Hollard the Steward was wed to Lord Denys's sister and died with his wife, as did their young son, who was half-Darklyn. Robin Hollard was a squire, and when the king was seized he danced around him and pulled his beard. He died upon the rack. Ser Symon Hollard was slain by Ser Barristan during the king's escape. The Hollard lands were taken, their castle torn down, their villages put to the torch. As with the Darklyns, House Hollard was extinguished."

"Save for Dontos."

"True enough. Young Dontos was the son of Ser Steffon Hollard, the twin brother of Ser Symon, who had died of a fever some years before and had no part in the Defiance. Aerys would have taken the boy's head off nonetheless, but Ser Barristan asked that his life be spared. The king could not refuse the man who'd saved him, so Dontos was taken to King's Landing as a squire. To my knowledge he never returned to Duskendale, and why should he? He held no lands here, had neither kin nor castle. If Dontos and this northern girl helped murder our sweet king, it seems to me that they would want to put as many leagues as they could betwixt themselves and justice. Look for them in Oldtown, if you must, or across the narrow sea. Look for them in Dorne, or on the Wall. Look elsewhere." He rose. "I hear my ravens calling. You will forgive me if I bid you good morrow."

Sorry, but this Robin fella doesn't look like an adult to me, doesn't even look like a late teen. 

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, frenin said:

When it comes about child murders, not that it didn't happen per se, just that outcome being far likelier.

 

No, my bad lol. I was just stating he's the most vilified character in the books. 

 

Doesn't really seem so tho.

 

Child murder is spelled out. 

It's like the Cain mark of Westeros for the readers.

 

I'm saying he lied... because Ned lied lol, the rebels rose for very specific reasons, none of which included protecting children, unless we're counting grown ass men like Ned or Robert as children, then sure.

Ned was trying to appeal to emotion in a moment Robert was blinded by anger and fear, that's it. Aerys is just a nice strawman to punch and try and get to appeal to Robert's heroic and deluded chlid, the one who saw himself as as hero and heroes don't kill blah blah blah, that part.

What's to stop Robert? Well, i'd say Robert's character would stop him.

 

 

This case being the "not always".

 

It's perfectly possible, it is unlikely, i'll admit that much. 

But then again, this is fiction.

 

Jon Arryn rose in rebellion in direct defiance to Aerys's demand of sending him both of his very grown wards's heads.

We know Ned is rose tinting the truth lol. The motif for the Robellion is spelled out ad nauseam, "innocent children" doesn't really come up that much.

 

I partly agree, and partly don’t.

Saving children was not the reason for the rebellion.  Aerys had simply violated the feudal bargain by having lords murdered on a whim.

But, I do believe children would have died at Duskendale.  I think that why it is not specifically mentioned is that in-universe, the punishment meted out to the Darklyns and Hollards may have been seen as legitimate.  No one seems to have any sympathy for Lady Serala.  Laying hands on a king would be seen as a dreadful crime, meriting exemplary punishment.

The murder of Prince Maelor was considered just cause to slaughter the people of Bitterbridge.  Prince Daeron’s reputation was not in the least damaged by this.  Sparing the commons of Duskendale might even have been seen as merciful.

[Hrulj]

On 12/30/2022 at 9:49 AM, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

I've seen this idea before, that the 'promise me, Ned' was actually in reference to killing Jon because Rhaegar had told Lyanna what Jon would become and she wanted to prevent that.  I really like the way it turns everything on it's head and maybe justifies Ned letting Jon grow up just to go to the Wall. It's an interesting idea. Not killing children seems to be a bit of theme in the life of Ned Stark, so it would fit quite nicely.

 Know where it originated from? 

On 12/30/2022 at 10:36 AM, kissdbyfire said:

The idea usually comes from readers who are… quite into fanfic, to put it mildly & gently.

First, there’s no hint for it in the text. There’s only ‘promise me, Ned’, which isn’t really a hint, but rather 3 words that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The same tactic can be applied to virtually anything. 
But let’s assume for a millisecond that the premise is valid… Rhaegar told Lyanna they’d have a son who would destroy the world or cause the apocalypse or whatever. Okayyyyy… bit of a stretch then that, regardless of how the two ended up in the ToJ, that they’d carry on banging like bunnies, no? I mean, unless they wanted to breed some Antichrist type person. But then why did he tell her? That would only open the possibility for her to say, ‘no way Jose!’, jump off the damn tower or do any number of nasty things. 
There’s also the fact that there is abortion in Westeros, and unlike places in our world, it seems to be perfectly legal there. So, even if both knew this, and they kept shagging despite the risk, why would they wait until the time of birth to do something? 
I could go on and on, but I don’t wanna do that to myself.

 

Jon is alive and well at the wall. Yet Ned feels like a failure and thinks of Lyanna and Daenarys. 

Shagging like bunnies and making babies can happen consensually and non consensually. Kingsguard was there constantly. Doubt Rhegar left her much choice in the matter or that abortificants were available in such a measure. Bed of blood could be her last attempt to kill it. Even in a birth that leads to a mothers death there is rarely much blood, nevermind the ammount needed to be a bed of blood. For all we know she could've been stabbing her gut to kill Jon

On 12/30/2022 at 11:10 AM, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, I’ve seen that one as well. And I don’t think it holds any water either. As you’ve said, flimsy at best. Especially when we take into account what [little] we know about Lyanna. She really doesn’t come across as a damsel in distress type, and if that were the case and it was important for the story, we would have been given at least a few clues. And not being the helpless type, I don’t really see her carrying to term a pregnancy that was the result of rape and that she hated to the point of asking Ned to kill a newborn child. She would have tried to escape or kill herself before she got to the term of the pregnancy. Just my 2p. 

She probably went with Rhegar willingly. Lyanna strikes me as a mysoginist and her doing that was an ultimate slap to femininity and roles expected of it. However once her brother and father were roasted by Targaryens as consequences of her actions and now thousands of men were fighting to the death over it, doubt she'd be in much of a mood. The end of the kinguard to me hints of rape the most. The war is over. Rhegar is dead. It's Ned Stark coming to the tower, is he going to kill Lyanna and the baby? They knew there is no hope of winning either so even if a monster was coming they could do nothing about it. Yet they insist on dying rather than surrendering and facing judgement - acts of men who know they'd be killed anyway - which as men who aided Rhegar in rape they certainly would. They chose to die with swords in hands rather than face the axe or worse later. 

On 12/30/2022 at 3:26 PM, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

I do like the twist on Promise Me Ned, but due to your tone, it seems you mindlessly hate Jon.

I do hate the popular concept of Jon, not Jon himself. He's the messiah, the promised child, the third head, the child born into wedlock of Rhegar and Lyanna, the one that will end the Long Night by brooding extra nicely, the prophesized blood meant for greatness, Azor Ahai, the prophecised savior of the universe of legends past. I'd much prefer the story of never wanted rejected rapespawn whose uncle was made to promise to kill him but couldn't, so he sent him off to the wall to die in a way that saves Neds precious honor, a child that Rhegar would spit on because he's a boy and not a Visenya. 

[Castellan]

On 1/3/2023 at 11:49 AM, Hrulj said:

I do hate the popular concept of Jon, not Jon himself. He's the messiah, the promised child, the third head, the child born into wedlock of Rhegar and Lyanna, the one that will end the Long Night by brooding extra nicely, the prophesized blood meant for greatness, Azor Ahai, the prophecised savior of the universe of legends past. I'd much prefer the story of never wanted rejected rapespawn whose uncle was made to promise to kill him but couldn't, so he sent him off to the wall to die in a way that saves Neds precious honor, a child that Rhegar would spit on because he's a boy and not a Visenya. 

The 'boring' popular concept (which you overstate a bit) comes from the text though. But many characters had an apparent destiny/plot trajectory hinted at and then have been knocked off course. Its hard to know if some form of what was hinted at will come to pass. If not, its all a bit of a cheap "I tricked you!" game. I think its just that everyone's separate endeavours in the battle of ice and fire will come at a much greater cost than the reader initially anticipated and could have little or no reward for them but just death.

..and rather than a final settlement and happy ending there will be an idea that any stability and victory achieved is just a phase in a never ending struggle...

[Hrulj]

On 1/7/2023 at 9:12 PM, Castellan said:

The 'boring' popular concept (which you overstate a bit) comes from the text though. But many characters had an apparent destiny/plot trajectory hinted at and then have been knocked off course. Its hard to know if some form of what was hinted at will come to pass. If not, its all a bit of a cheap "I tricked you!" game. I think its just that everyone's separate endeavours in the battle of ice and fire will come at a much greater cost than the reader initially anticipated and could have little or no reward for them but just death.

..and rather than a final settlement and happy ending there will be an idea that any stability and victory achieved is just a phase in a never ending struggle...

He is stabbed to death. And no one has ever doubted he’d come back alive. It’s shitty writing by Martin that’s all. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

On 1/2/2023 at 7:49 PM, Hrulj said:

 Know where it originated from? 

Jon is alive and well at the wall. Yet Ned feels like a failure and thinks of Lyanna and Daenarys. 

Shagging like bunnies and making babies can happen consensually and non consensually. Kingsguard was there constantly. Doubt Rhegar left her much choice in the matter or that abortificants were available in such a measure. Bed of blood could be her last attempt to kill it. Even in a birth that leads to a mothers death there is rarely much blood, nevermind the ammount needed to be a bed of blood. For all we know she could've been stabbing her gut to kill Jon

She probably went with Rhegar willingly. Lyanna strikes me as a mysoginist and her doing that was an ultimate slap to femininity and roles expected of it. However once her brother and father were roasted by Targaryens as consequences of her actions and now thousands of men were fighting to the death over it, doubt she'd be in much of a mood. The end of the kinguard to me hints of rape the most. The war is over. Rhegar is dead. It's Ned Stark coming to the tower, is he going to kill Lyanna and the baby? They knew there is no hope of winning either so even if a monster was coming they could do nothing about it. Yet they insist on dying rather than surrendering and facing judgement - acts of men who know they'd be killed anyway - which as men who aided Rhegar in rape they certainly would. They chose to die with swords in hands rather than face the axe or worse later. 

I do hate the popular concept of Jon, not Jon himself. He's the messiah, the promised child, the third head, the child born into wedlock of Rhegar and Lyanna, the one that will end the Long Night by brooding extra nicely, the prophesized blood meant for greatness, Azor Ahai, the prophecised savior of the universe of legends past. I'd much prefer the story of never wanted rejected rapespawn whose uncle was made to promise to kill him but couldn't, so he sent him off to the wall to die in a way that saves Neds precious honor, a child that Rhegar would spit on because he's a boy and not a Visenya. 

Rhaegar spitting on Jon because he isn’t a girl seems like a reach. Rhaegar just wanted another child. While yes he was naming his children after the conquerers, their is absolutely zero indication Rhaegar thought Jon needed to be a girl, or that a boy was useless to him.

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Hrulj said:

He is stabbed to death. And no one has ever doubted he’d come back alive. It’s shitty writing by Martin that’s all. 

Jon is not the first either, it has happened several times now and there’s at least one more happening right now with Dany having the bloody flux in the middle of nowhere is practically a death sentence but no he won’t die.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

On 12/30/2022 at 11:47 AM, EggBlue said:

you say that as if it's shocking the majority of fandom believe that . personally , I think if it's a purely romantic tale , it's a little sloppy . to go by Lyanna's personality , it's hard to believe she would want to run away from Robert to Rhaegar . of course , it's more likely that her admiration for Rhaegar combined with a desperation to run away from Robert equals love! but she is pretty mature for her age . she was questioning Robert's loyalty in early teens , believing that love wouldn't change a man's nature . then comes along Rhaegar who despite all his nobility is still a man who would go to a woman other than his first lawful wife . whether he takes Lyanna as a second wife or not , in Lyanna's pov , what does make him different in nature from Robert ? what prevents him from taking a third or forth wife?! 

however , for the lack of better explanation , I too , think it's most likely a one sided love on Lyanna's part and deception on Rhaegar's . 

See this morning's Notablog entry and that pic of Rhaegar and Lyanna beneath a weirwood tree together?  Thought of your post as soon as I saw it. 

[EggBlue]

1 hour ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

See this morning's Notablog entry and that pic of Rhaegar and Lyanna beneath a weirwood tree together?  Thought of your post as soon as I saw it. 

ugh  , so that seems official if paintings are canon! 

anyway , I really liked the tree . I also liked Lyanna's dress (albeit it's more Martel in terms of color than Stark! how did that happen ?) . but my favorite part of that pic was how creepy Rhaegar looked

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

8 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

ugh  , so that seems official if paintings are canon! 

anyway , I really liked the tree . I also liked Lyanna's dress (albeit it's more Martel in terms of color than Stark! how did that happen ?) . but my favorite part of that pic was how creepy Rhaegar looked

Yeah that's what made me think of your post and the idea that Lyanna was in love but Rhaegar was perhaps manipulating.