Howland Reed at the Tower of Joy

[Frey family reunion]

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The kingsguard were Targaryen loyalists, protecting Rhaegar's son who, like Viserys and Dany, could potentially pose a threat to the Usurper's rule. They obviously would not want the child to fall into Robert's hands.

The Kingsguards weren't necessarily Targaryen loyalist.  They were loyal to King Aerys to whom they swore an oath.  After all they stood guard and protected Aerys while he raped another Targaryen.  

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Once the throne had changed hands, these men were essentially outlaws. They would have to bend the knee to Robert and be pardoned, as Barristan did, or else flee into exile like Ser Willem. But they tell Ned that while Ser Willem was a good man he was not a knight of the kingsguard

They make it clear that they weren't outlaws once the throne had changed hands.  They made it clear that they were still Knights of the Kingsguard.  And they were knights of the Kingsguard because they swore an oath to Aerys Targaryen.  If they were still acting as Kingsguards when they encountered Eddard it had to be because they were following orders from the King that had not yet been accomplished.

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So the kingsguard feared Ned would bring the child to Robert, while Ned probably thought the kingsguard, loyal to their oaths, wanted to go out on their shields and that there was one more battle, if we can call it that, to fight before the war truly ended.

I don't think the Kingsguard feared anything, or had to try and decipher Eddard's intentions.  I think everyone made their intentions pretty clear before the battle.  They had sworn an oath that they were willing to die to fulfill and Eddard and company had come to stop them from fulfilling their oath.

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

"They" refers to Howland and Arthur. Arthur would have killed Ned had Howland not intervened, but that doesn't mean Howland killed Arthur. If Howland intervened without killing Arthur, by saying something or anything other than lethal means, (and there is no real evidence that he did kill Arthur), then Arthur remained alive to make "they" with Howland, following Ned into the tower after he'd rushed ahead to answer his sister's call.

Setting aside, the "sister's call", because I'm not convinced that Lyanna was in the tower o joy, and basing this on the chronology and geography of a fevered dream is rife with peril (as GRRM has explicitly wanred a reader coming to a similar conclusion).  I basically agree with part your premise.  (not the idea of Arthur being alive) but the idea of Howland using reason to resolve the conflict.

Ned thinks Jaime was the worst knight of the Kingsguard because he betrayed his solemn oath to protect King Aerys.  Ned think Arthur Dayne was the best knight, even better than Ser Barristan whom he seems to admire, and better than the other two knights he helped defeat at the tower of joy.  The question is what makes Ser Arthur stand out?

That's when I go back to the Knight's dilemna.  What if Aerys assigned these Kingsguards to a task that also went against their initial vows to protect the innocent?  Perhaps Eddard holds Arthur in the highest esteem because Arthur found a way out of the dilemna.  It would be dishonorable to disobey a sworn oath to the King, but if that oath meant harming an innocent, than Arthur would find dishonor in fulfilling his oath to the King.  So Arthur's way out is simple, let Eddard kill him.  He doesn't betray his oath to King Aerys and he doesn't break his oath as a knight.  And my guess is, it was Howland Reed that reminded him of this oath, perhaps a call back to the KOTLT reminding the defeated knights to teach their squires about honor, and their duty to defend those weaker than themselves.

[Sir_Kyle_Bonesky]

I enjoyed reading your theory on Howland Reed. Thanks for sharing! If you want to go down a rabbit hole, or two, on the mystery of Howland's role, I'd recommend the following:

1. Ask, is Howland a "good guy" or "a bad guy"? I guess this all depends on what "side" you think the green men and the children of the forest are on. After answering that, does Howland hanging out with the Starks "once" at a tourney, and appearing in a "fever dream" with Eddard, necessarily mean that he was an ally of the Starks and/or a possible love interest of Leanna's? Fever dreams are never 100% accurate. Give "the order of the green hand's" 'what happened at the tower of joy' video a good listen/watch.
2. When considering whether or not he's a good guy or bad guy, go for a deep swim in European mythology, esp Germanic and Welsh. Find characters that match his, and Leanna's, story (and even Rheagar's ).

I don't believe he was a trusted companion or friend of Ned's, and I think that may be why he has been at greywater watch since the events occurred (possible banishment; similar to why Benjen joined the watch shortly thereafter, and why Rhaegar's kingsguard did the same then went beyond the wall *if you believe that* #ManceRayder, and why Ashara Dayne "disappeared").

George has said mythology is scattered throughout his tale, just as much as history is.

Me personally - I believe Howland killed Rhaegar, not Arthur, and I plan to post about it like you posted your ideas. Again, thanks for sharing your unique perspective.

[three-eyed monkey]

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

This is a good example of signposting a mystery. Bran wished he had asked his father what he meant when he said that Arthur would have killed him but for Howland, but of course Ned had gotten sad thinking about the Tower of Joy and said no more. So the question the author wants us to ask is raised in the text and left unanswered. This informs us that there is more to know here but we need to keep reading.

If Arthur just died as we first assume, and as Westeros assumes, then there really is no mystery and no need for GRRM to withhold the information about what Ned meant. That story is already out there since Cat's second chapter in the first book. Cat hears that Ned had slain Arthur. Later Cersei repeats the story when talking to Ned. If that's really what happened then why not confirm it through Ned's conversation with Bran in the second book, straight from the horses mouth rather than through rumors retold by people who were not there.

I think the rumors are a cover story, probably concocted to satisfy Robert. The story is not designed to cover the fact that it was Howland, not Ned, who killed Arthur. It's designed to cover something else. Ned went silent before Bran could ask what he meant for a reason. There is a reveal to come.

3 hours ago, KingStoneheart said:

I actually quite like the idea of this theory to be honest. I like Three-Eyed-Monkey's take on it above that Rhaegar may not have wanted any servants there at all as he could not trust any of them with this and I like the idea that Howland rescues Ned with his words instead of his sword.

I'm mainly stressing non-lethal means. Personally, I'm quite fond of the theory Howland used a net to end the fight, just like Meera used hers to snare Summer in Winterfell, and this allowed a dialogue.

3 hours ago, KingStoneheart said:

If Ned swears to honour Lyanna's request and keep Jon hidden, Arthur does maybe have the knight's dilemma where he is executed for being a Targaryen support instead of turning his cloak.

If Arthur is snared in a net he has a choice. Execution by Ned or perhaps, given Ned's respect for the man, he's offered the opportunity to take the black. The brothers of the Night's Watch are sworn to protect the realm of men from the Others, which is exactly what Rhaegar was trying to do with all the Prince that was Promised and three heads of the dragon business.

[three-eyed monkey]

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The Kingsguards weren't necessarily Targaryen loyalist.  They were loyal to King Aerys to whom they swore an oath.  After all they stood guard and protected Aerys while he raped another Targaryen. 

I mean they were loyal to the king during the rebellion, as opposed to the Usurper.

10 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

They make it clear that they weren't outlaws once the throne had changed hands.  They made it clear that they were still Knights of the Kingsguard.  And they were knights of the Kingsguard because they swore an oath to Aerys Targaryen.  If they were still acting as Kingsguards when they encountered Eddard it had to be because they were following orders from the King that had not yet been accomplished.

Robert wouldn't see it that way. If they bent the knee he might pardon them, like Selmy. If not then they were outlaws in the eyes of the new king. I'm pretty sure they knew that.

19 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So Arthur's way out is simple, let Eddard kill him.

If Arthur just decided to take the easy way out and let Eddard kill him, then that doesn't really match up with what Eddard told Bran; that Arthur would have killed him if it was not for Howland.

[three-eyed monkey]

26 minutes ago, Sir_Kyle_Bonesky said:

I enjoyed reading your theory on Howland Reed. Thanks for sharing! If you want to go down a rabbit hole, or two, on the mystery of Howland's role, I'd recommend the following:

1. Ask, is Howland a "good guy" or "a bad guy"? I guess this all depends on what "side" you think the green men and the children of the forest are on. After answering that, does Howland hanging out with the Starks "once" at a tourney, and appearing in a "fever dream" with Eddard, necessarily mean that he was an ally of the Starks and/or a possible love interest of Leanna's? Fever dreams are never 100% accurate. Give "the order of the green hand's" 'what happened at the tower of joy' video a good listen/watch.
2. When considering whether or not he's a good guy or bad guy, go for a deep swim in European mythology, esp Germanic and Welsh. Find characters that match his, and Leanna's, story (and even Rheagar's ).

I don't believe he was a trusted companion or friend of Ned's, and I think that may be why he has been at greywater watch since the events occurred (possible banishment; similar to why Benjen joined the watch shortly thereafter, and why Rhaegar's kingsguard did the same then went beyond the wall *if you believe that* #ManceRayder, and why Ashara Dayne "disappeared").

George has said mythology is scattered throughout his tale, just as much as history is.

Me personally - I believe Howland killed Rhaegar, not Arthur, and I plan to post about it like you posted your ideas. Again, thanks for sharing your unique perspective.

Welcome to the forum.

[Frey family reunion]

11 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I mean they were loyal to the king during the rebellion, as opposed to the Usurper.

No, they made it clear that they remained true loyal Kingsguards throughout.  Including when Eddard encountered them:

Quote

“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.
        “We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.
        “Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.
        “When King’s Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”
        “Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”
        “I came down on Storm’s End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, “and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”
        “Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.
        “Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”
        “Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.
        “But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”
        “Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.
        “We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.”

When they are saying they are good loyal Kingsguard throughout, they mean that they have stayed loyal to their vow to King Aerys throughout.  During the battle of the Trident, during the Sack of King’s Landing, up until Now, when Eddard and company rode to confront them.

11 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Robert wouldn't see it that way. If they bent the knee he might pardon them, like Selmy. If not then they were outlaws in the eyes of the new king. I'm pretty sure they knew that.

For them, it doesn’t matter what Robert wanted or thought.  They were fulfilling the solemn vow they made to the King, King Aerys, they weren’t outlaws they were Kingsguards.

11 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If Arthur just decided to take the easy way out and let Eddard kill him, then that doesn't really match up with what Eddard told Bran; that Arthur would have killed him if it was not for Howland.

No it exactly matches up.  They were down to basically two real combatants, Eddard and Arthur.  Eddard couldn’t beat Arthur, and he knew it.  So Arthur was ultimately going to win and thus be able to fulfill the vow he swore to King Aerys.  However, Howland steps in and reminds Arthur that he swore a vow before he ever became a Kingsguard, he swore a vow to protect the innocent. Thus if Aerys ordered the Kingsguard to do something that would hurt the innocent, then Arthur would basically sacrifice one vow for another.  Arthur realizes the dilemma, and does the only thing he could, do and still maintain his honor.  Let Eddard kill him.

[Bendric Dayne]

19 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Howland is probably almost as experienced as Ned by this point: Ned fought at Gulltown and presumably Howland didn't, but there's no particular reason to assume that Howland didn't fight in all Ned's other battles. He's no longer as callow as he was at Harrenhal.

I agree: as theories on this topic go, it's pretty sane!

I don't know. I think it's easy to underestimate just how difficult it is to fight 2v1, especially against trained opponents. It's very difficult to guard two directions at once, especially if the two can open up a distance between them or worse, get on either side of you. . The others don't need to be particularly good swordsmen to exploit that advantage, they just need to be competent and don't lose their heads. Defending a chokepoint against multiple opponents is easier because you can narrow the vectors of attack and they may get in each other's way: for similar reasons a 3v7 fight is likely less one-sided than a 2v1. 

Ned may not be an exceptional swordsman, but he knows what he's doing, and he has a Valyrian sword, so Arthur can't rely on his armour to defend him against attacks from Ned in the same way he might usually. Howland obviously isn't a brawler and may not be much of a jouster, but he's still been trained and may be much more dangerous in real combat where he has room to manoeuvre. And we don't know what Howland was armed with but it could have been a spear, or similar polearm (like a trident, not to mention a net) which adds to the complications of trying to defend, because you're now up against someone with what all things being equal is a better weapon with longer range, and attacks in a different way to the swordsman on your other side. Even if Howland would struggle to injure Arthur through his armour with whatever he was wielding, he can still knock him off balance, impede or trip him and give Ned the advantage.

When we say Ned is an "average" swordsman, after all, which I think is an oversimplification of one of GRRM's comments, we're talking about him in the context of the Westerosi nobility, who are all trained swordsmen, rather than in the context of all Westerosi men who might come to wield a sword. So even if only "average" he's probably actually closer to the 95th percentile of swordsmen in Westeros even if he is indeed bang-average.

Point taken about Garlan training against three swordsmen... but then we saw in Gladiator that Commodus trained with something like seven, and that didn't do him much good in the end.

Yeah I get the points that you are trying to make and I would probably have to agree with most of what you're saying. However, we know that Ned claims Howland saved him. So Arthur had Ned in a position in which he needed saving which would imply that Arthur had the advantage in that battle. So even if Ned and Howland should have an advantage in a 2 vs 1, we know that Arthur was in control. Unless it was a 1 vs 1 against Ned, and Howland had just sneaked off somewhere, but I've already stated how I think someone as experienced and renowned as Arthur should not allow someone to sneak up on him. He shouldn't have his back facing the general direction in which Howland would have disappeared in. Also, if Howland used a net, I doubt that Ned would kill a trapped and defenseless foe; so Howland could have saved Ned with a net, but that would still mean that they didn't kill Arthur in combat, at least in my opinion. So the net would be similar to a verbal intervention in which Arthur isn't killed immediately, but maybe later if he chooses he wants to be killed so as to not break his oaths. 

Either way, you've convinced me that the outcome of this battle should be a 50/50 split. We shouldn't be too surprised to learn that Howland killed Arthur in a 2 vs 1 battle. And we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Arthur had the both of them beat, and Howland had to plead for their lives verbally, or use some trick like with the net or something. 

[Alester Florent]

11 minutes ago, Bendric Dayne said:

Either way, you've convinced me that the outcome of this battle should be a 50/50 split. We shouldn't be too surprised to learn that Howland killed Arthur in a 2 vs 1 battle. And we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Arthur had the both of them beat, and Howland had to plead for their lives verbally, or use some trick like with the net or something. 

I agree.

[Bendric Dayne]

20 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't think a maester or a midwife is likely at all. Where would this imaginary person be at the time? Probably at Lyanna's bedside, given her stricken state in that moment. Then Ned would have rushed in and found them there, and not the other way around. Some people say the imaginary person must have been taking a dump or something and came rushing back to the room after Ned entered. If that's the case then I'm just glad it was Howland who took her hand from Ned's.

I've seen it suggested that the tower must have had cooks and chambermaids and even a rookery, but I don't buy any of that. I think the tower, an old watchtower on the Prince's Pass, was abandoned like Queenscrown, where a small party could take refuge if needed. The fact that Ned pulled it down and used the stones to build cairns suggests to me a tower of unmortared stone. Rhaegar liked to camp in the ruins of Summerhall, so the prince didn't mind such accommodation. And remember, it was Rhaegar who named the tower, so it may have been so insignificant that it was nameless prior.

I don't see anything to suggest there was anyone at the tower besides the people we know about, other than assumptions. The three kingsguard, Ned and his companions, Lyanna and child. We know Wylla from Starfall was Jon's milk nurse, but there's no suggestion she was at the Tower of Joy, whereas we know Ned did go to Starfall afterwards.

Like you I also believe that rather than intervening with a weapon, Howland intervened with words. "They" is a clue, but there are many here who would rather deny a hard truth than face it.

What I meant to say is that a midwife or maester would be logical. Just in general, like when it comes to births in Westeros. But yeah it doesn't mean there was a midwife or maester present. If there was, it seems like a weird omission from GRRM. So I actually agree with most of what you say here. It would be weird for there to be a maester or midwife present, and for that not to be told to us. It doesn't seem like much of a mystery. I agree that any other staff like cooks or maids or anything are unlikely, Rhaegar would have wanted the least amount of random people as possible. It's possible Rhaegar felt that a maester or midwife was necessary, but yeah it would be a weird omission. 

"They found him there..." is definitely pretty mysterious. It would be pretty anti-climatic for "they" to be Howland and some random midwife who isn't really relevant to the story or something. So I agree that "they" should be more relevant people. Which isn't to say that a maester or midwife can't be relevant, but it would be an anti-climatic reveal since they had no setup for this mystery. If we were told there was a maester present, then we would have a mystery; who was he? why was he there? what is he doing now? what will his purpose be for the future of the story? But he would have to be there in the first place to setup that mystery. So, while it is logical for maesters and midwifes to be present during any labor, it doesn't really make sense to omit them from the story, so it isn't all that likely for them to have been present.

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

When they are saying they are good loyal Kingsguard throughout, they mean that they have stayed loyal to their vow to King Aerys throughout.  During the battle of the Trident, during the Sack of King’s Landing, up until Now, when Eddard and company rode to confront them.

Yes, I accept this. They were sworn as kingsguards to King Aerys. That's why I identified them as Targ Loyalists as opposed to rebels. They were not going to bend the knee to Robert.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

For them, it doesn’t matter what Robert wanted or thought.  They were fulfilling the solemn vow they made to the King, King Aerys, they weren’t outlaws they were Kingsguards.

In their minds they were kingsguards, sure. But the political landscape had been altered dramatically and they knew that.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

No it exactly matches up.  They were down to basically two real combatants, Eddard and Arthur.  Eddard couldn’t beat Arthur, and he knew it.  So Arthur was ultimately going to win and thus be able to fulfill the vow he swore to King Aerys.  However, Howland steps in and reminds Arthur that he swore a vow before he ever became a Kingsguard, he swore a vow to protect the innocent. Thus if Aerys ordered the Kingsguard to do something that would hurt the innocent, then Arthur would basically sacrifice one vow for another.  Arthur realizes the dilemma, and does the only thing he could, do and still maintain his honor.  Let Eddard kill him.

I understand how vows can conflict, but I don't see how this applies to Arthur at the Tower of Joy or why it would lead him to let Ned kill him.

Edit: Do you mean Howland pointed out that Arthur was sworn to a bad cause, as Aerys had little concern for protecting the innocent, so Arthur only then realized that and decided that the only thing he could do to maintain his honor was to let Ned kill him?

[Curled Finger]

This bit with Howland reminding Arthur of his knightly vow to protect the innocent over his Knights guard vows to the King is actually really sweet.  Curious so many would have Howland instead of Ned remind anyone of this.  I would think Mr. Honor would be the guy to bring such a thing up.  Ah right, we are matching a line of dialogue to a possible explanation.  Tidy and sweet as it is perhaps that's not it?    Restrainment in a net allowing common sense dialogue.  OK, that works, but I'm still having a problem with Arthur dying here, it this the dying I don't understand.  Are there other examples of knights of renown who gave up their lives for honor, to protect an innocent?  Maybe the Age of Heroes?   I got nothing.  

[LongRider]

On 2/27/2023 at 3:40 PM, Curled Finger said:

  I doubt we will get the whole of it ever, but I sure would like to know a few things.  So much of it just doesn't flow or click or or or it's missing pieces and doesn't make sense.  I hate missing pieces.  

I think Ned in his dream state is quite the unreliable narrator and have alot of skepticism about the accuracy of the details of this dream.   He has such clarity of the dream state for a man just badly injured with lot's of milk of the poppy on board and who slept straight for six days.  In my view things don't add up because the dream is not the recording of what happened, but more about Ned's guilt about Jon and not being able to save Lyanna.  Was Lyanna really at the TOJ without a midwife?  Quite a bad situation for the woman birthing the Crown Prince's child.  Alot is off because this is a dream that didnot capture all the details and mixed up some too.  

[Curled Finger]

11 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I think Ned in his dream state is quite the unreliable narrator and have alot of skepticism about the accuracy of the details of this dream.   He has such clarity of the dream state for a man just badly injured with lot's of milk of the poppy on board and who slept straight for six days.  In my view things don't add up because the dream is not the recording of what happened, but more about Ned's guilt about Jon and not being able to save Lyanna.  Was Lyanna really at the TOJ without a midwife?  Quite a bad situation for the woman birthing the Crown Prince's child.  Alot is off because this is a dream that didnot capture all the details and mixed up some too.  

Indeed.  There is a great deal of room for skepticism and speculation here.  With Bran's recollections of Ned's stories as well.  Bran is but a small boy and smaller still when his dad has related the stories.  All he says is the story made Ned sad.  This is the same boy who thought Jamie and Cersei were wrestling.  Bran's not a liar, he just may not have understood what he was seeing and hearing.  Gads I sure hope he gets a clear weirwood vision of what exactly happened at the TOJ.  

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Bran's not a liar, he just may not have understood what he was seeing and hearing.  Gads I sure hope he gets a clear weirwood vision of what exactly happened at the TOJ.

I'd like to hear the details of the TOJ from Howland himself.

[Corvo the Crow]

10 hours ago, LongRider said:

I'd like to hear the details of the TOJ from Howland himself.

You better start climbing up Visenya's Hill then, before High Sparrow flies away, either taking wings or as a result of explosion due to wildfire's cached all around the city!

[three-eyed monkey]

10 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

This bit with Howland reminding Arthur of his knightly vow to protect the innocent over his Knights guard vows to the King is actually really sweet.

I really don't think Arthur needed reminding of this. The conflict caused by the actions of Aerys did not escape Jaime or indeed Barristan, who admits that it was difficult in the final years of the Mad King's reign and regrets that he stood by and did nothing. All it takes for evil to persist is for good men to stand by and do nothing. We see this in the rape of Rhaella and the murder of Rickard and Brandon.

The point about kingsguard vows is this. As knights they are sworn to protect the innocent and weak, and as kingsguard they are sworn to obey, protect, and serve the king. If the king is a good king who protects his people then there is no problem. However, once the king starts doing bad things, then the conflict arises. That's when we get good men sworn to bad causes.

Some kingsguard like Ser Gerold or Ser Barristan believe they must continue to uphold their vows to the king for the sake of their honor. But honor is defined as the quality of knowing and doing the right thing. The true meaning of honor has been lost in Westeros. People like Cersei think chivalry, which is a set of qualities that includes being honorable, is a naive idea that belongs in fairytales and songs of old. So when Jaime learned of Aerys wildfire plot, he forswore his kingsguard vows and killed the king to protect the smallfolk of King's Landing, and in the process became a man with shit for honor in the eyes of Westeros. But Jaime did the right thing, it was actually the honorable thing by true definition, whereas Gerold and Barristan, who are widely considered to be honorable, turned a blind eye to Aerys's misdeeds, which is not the honorable thing by true definition.

Arthur is often held up as the paradigm of honor, something Ned alludes to when he calls him the finest knight he ever saw. A knight without honor is just a common killer, so fine knights need to have honor. In the final years of Aerys's reign, Arthur must have found it difficult for the same reasons as Barristan. We know that there were many who felt that Rhaegar would have made a better king than Aerys, and that two camps were forming in Kings Landing. I think we can feel safe to assume that Arthur was in Rhaegar's camp and was backing him to become that better king and heal the realm. This would solve his predicament of being a good man sworn to a bad cause, but that hope was ended at the Ruby Ford. So I don't think he needed Howland or Ned to remind him of his predicament.

11 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Restrainment in a net allowing common sense dialogue.  OK, that works, but I'm still having a problem with Arthur dying here, it this the dying I don't understand. 

Because he didn't die. He and Howland were the "they" who found Ned at Lyanna's bed. Arthur took the black rather than be executed or bend the knee to Robert, who Arthur obviously felt was another bad king based on what happened during the sack of King's Landing. So he chose to defend the realm instead of serve another bad king. Putting the realm ahead of the throne is really the point of Arthur's arc, and we can relate that point to major characters like Jon, Dany, Stannis and more.

11 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Are there other examples of knights of renown who gave up their lives for honor, to protect an innocent? 

Giving your life to protect the weak and innocent is honorable, but dying for your own honor is folly because in Westeros honor has lost it's true meaning. Take for example Tywin's reaction to Joffrey's dismissal of Barristan. This was a bad political move as far as Tywin was concerned. Barristan would have stood behind Joffrey and lent a veneer of honor to their cause, while Tywin continued to feed his dogs of war under the table. Honor has become little more than a political slogan and the quality of knowing and doing the right thing no longer seems to matter.

Qhorin Halfhand told Jon that honor is worth less than their lives in defense of the realm. Knowing and doing the right thing, like defending the realm, regardless of the personal cost is what's important. That's true honor.

If you believe that Arthur became Qhorin, and I accept the vast majority do not, then you get a direct insight in Arthur's motive. Once trapped in Howland's net, he had three options. Death, bend the knee and be pardoned by Robert, or take the black and defend the realm. Arthur chose the realm over the throne, and that theme holds a lesson for all characters, one that will become very relevant once the Long Night falls.

You need to ask, if Arthur simply died at the tower, then what was the point of his story? He's this white knight with a special sword, and as such we are drawn to him, but he essentially does nothing of importance. He's the paradigm of honor, he swears his oath to defend the king, he sticks to it and he dies. His arc is flat, not that that's a bad thing. His character is very black and white in a world filled with shades of grey. We know he died since book one, so whatever the point of his character was, it was delivered way back then.

If Arthur took the black, then suddenly his story changes. He trades his white cloak for a black one, (well Qhorin's is grey which is a clue) and he chooses to defend the realm rather than the king, etc. He changes as a character, and therefore his arc is no longer flat. And the point of his character, his journey back to the true meaning of honor, will be delivered when Howland eventually reveals what happened. That's why we keep getting reminded of Arthur through every book, by characters like Jaime, Bran, Connington and Barristan. We're supposed to keep Ser Arthur in mind because the point of his character has not yet been delivered.

[the trees have eyes]

On 2/28/2023 at 1:04 AM, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't think a maester or a midwife is likely at all. Where would this imaginary person be at the time? Probably at Lyanna's bedside, given her stricken state in that moment. Then Ned would have rushed in and found them there, and not the other way around. Some people say the imaginary person must have been taking a dump or something and came rushing back to the room after Ned entered. If that's the case then I'm just glad it was Howland who took her hand from Ned's.

I've seen it suggested that the tower must have had cooks and chambermaids and even a rookery, but I don't buy any of that. I think the tower, an old watchtower on the Prince's Pass, was abandoned like Queenscrown, where a small party could take refuge if needed. The fact that Ned pulled it down and used the stones to build cairns suggests to me a tower of unmortared stone. Rhaegar liked to camp in the ruins of Summerhall, so the prince didn't mind such accommodation. And remember, it was Rhaegar who named the tower, so it may have been so insignificant that it was nameless prior.

I don't see anything to suggest there was anyone at the tower besides the people we know about, other than assumptions. The three kingsguard, Ned and his companions, Lyanna and child. We know Wylla from Starfall was Jon's milk nurse, but there's no suggestion she was at the Tower of Joy, whereas we know Ned did go to Starfall afterwards.

Like you I also believe that rather than intervening with a weapon, Howland intervened with words. "They" is a clue, but there are many here who would rather deny a hard truth than face it.

I agree with all this except it does seem a huge risk, given the era and medicinal shortcomings, to have a pregnant woman, bearing not only a prince's child but one of the three heads of the dragon required by prophecy, attended by only three knights.

If there is no wet nurse at least then one must be found between the Dornish Marches and Starfall where we know Wylla became Jon's wet nurse and Jon became milk-brother to Edric Dayne.  Unless even that part of events has been obfuscated to keep things impenetrable and Ned really found Jon at Starfall, with the whole story of him returning Dawn being a charade to cover him going to collect Jon, with Arthur telling him where to find him?

So many more problems with that, namely all the Daynes and their castle folk know Lyanna was there - or some woman at least - and Ned collected a child from Starfall.  Plus the mystery of what happened to Ashara also now includes the mystery of what happened to Arthur, assuming he didn't tell Ned with his dying breath and exit, stage left.

3 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You need to ask, if Arthur simply died at the tower, then what was the point of his story? He's this white knight with a special sword, and as such we are drawn to him, but he essentially does nothing of importance. He's the paradigm of honor, he swears his oath to defend the king, he sticks to it and he dies. His arc is flat, not that that's a bad thing. His character is very black and white in a world filled with shades of grey. We know he died since book one, so whatever the point of his character was, it was delivered way back then.

The backstory of the Robellion is littered with characters who were cut off in full flower and whose arcs end abruptly because it's poignant, tragic, enthralling and sets the scene for the main story.  Rhaegar was clearly following prophecy, wherever that might lead him, while trying to be a responsible prince and heal the realm's wounds until GRRM scotched that.

In ASOIAF we have Ned cut down in the middle of his arc to clear the stage for other actors.  Benjen and Mormont shuffle off stage to usher in Jon.  Dayne is an interesting backstory character and there's a mystery here about Dawn and Rhaegar's plans and how much anyone knew but I don't think Arthur Dayne himself has legs beyond the Robellion.  Ned's sad because good men died fighting for a bad cause and he had to kill a man he admired because that man chose to die doing his last duty.

I think GRRM shows us that knighthood is an ideal that can be followed by those who aren't knights and sometimes it's easier for those who aren't as they don't have to swear restrictive oaths to a Lord who lacks honour.  Qhorin can follow an ideal without conflict, Beric and The Knights of The Hollow Hill can defend the realm in Robert's name despite his notorious apathy for governing, and Brienne can follow her conscience.

Dayne, Selmy and the rest of Aerys's KG were all compromised by the man they served.  Whether Dayne found a way to do the right thing at the end is an interesting question, a puzzle muddled all the more by GRRM giving us only a fever dream recollection of events and then telling us not to trust it 

3 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If you believe that Arthur became Qhorin, and I accept the vast majority do not, then you get a direct insight in Arthur's motive

The likes of Alliser Thorne and Jaremy Rykker were forced by Tywin to take the black after the capture of KL.  I think it's impossible for someone as well-known as a Kingsguard like Arthur Dayne to go unrecognised at The Wall by former Targaryen loyalists.

[Curled Finger]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Because he didn't die. He and Howland were the "they" who found Ned at Lyanna's bed. Arthur took the black rather than be executed or bend the knee to Robert, who Arthur obviously felt was another bad king based on what happened during the sack of King's Landing. So he chose to defend the realm instead of serve another bad king. Putting the realm ahead of the throne is really the point of Arthur's arc, and we can relate that point to major characters like Jon, Dany, Stannis and more.

Giving your life to protect the weak and innocent is honorable, but dying for your own honor is folly because in Westeros honor has lost it's true meaning. Take for example Tywin's reaction to Joffrey's dismissal of Barristan. This was a bad political move as far as Tywin was concerned. Barristan would have stood behind Joffrey and lent a veneer of honor to their cause, while Tywin continued to feed his dogs of war under the table. Honor has become little more than a political slogan and the quality of knowing and doing the right thing no longer seems to matter.

Qhorin Halfhand told Jon that honor is worth less than their lives in defense of the realm. Knowing and doing the right thing, like defending the realm, regardless of the personal cost is what's important. That's true honor.

If you believe that Arthur became Qhorin, and I accept the vast majority do not, then you get a direct insight in Arthur's motive. Once trapped in Howland's net, he had three options. Death, bend the knee and be pardoned by Robert, or take the black and defend the realm. Arthur chose the realm over the throne, and that theme holds a lesson for all characters, one that will become very relevant once the Long Night falls.

You need to ask, if Arthur simply died at the tower, then what was the point of his story? He's this white knight with a special sword, and as such we are drawn to him, but he essentially does nothing of importance. He's the paradigm of honor, he swears his oath to defend the king, he sticks to it and he dies. His arc is flat, not that that's a bad thing. His character is very black and white in a world filled with shades of grey. We know he died since book one, so whatever the point of his character was, it was delivered way back then.

If Arthur took the black, then suddenly his story changes. He trades his white cloak for a black one, (well Qhorin's is grey which is a clue) and he chooses to defend the realm rather than the king, etc. He changes as a character, and therefore his arc is no longer flat. And the point of his character, his journey back to the true meaning of honor, will be delivered when Howland eventually reveals what happened. That's why we keep getting reminded of Arthur through every book, by characters like Jaime, Bran, Connington and Barristan. We're supposed to keep Ser Arthur in mind because the point of his character has not yet been delivered.

Got it.  This begins to make sense now.  It's not a bad idea and is admittedly tidy, and so is possible in the light you present.  Bases covered with the Dayne celebration of Ned and the return of Dawn.  Takes a bit of extrapolation afterward, but what idea doesn't?  Would Ned really allow people to believe he killed the finest knight in the realm if he didn't?  This is the stretch for me.  I'm struggling here.  Jon is his own blood and worth dying for, Arthur would be only an accomplice.  Seems to me Ned intended to kill all of them and get his sister back as a matter of honor.  Ned would need convincing every bit as much as Arthur.   Thoughts? 

This mysterious "they" certainly leaves us to believe there are more people involved in a conspiracy to cover up Jon's birth and the events at the TOJ.  I accept this as an open door to speculate upon conspiracy.  I also understand this is an ill man's fever dream and try to glean as much truth as I can from Meera's stories.      

[three-eyed monkey]

11 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I agree with all this except it does seem a huge risk, given the era and medicinal shortcomings, to have a pregnant woman, bearing not only a prince's child but one of the three heads of the dragon required by prophecy, attended by only three knights.

Lots of women die in childbirth in the books, even when attended by midwives and maesters. It's a big risk either way.

16 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

If there is no wet nurse at least then one must be found between the Dornish Marches and Starfall where we know Wylla became Jon's wet nurse and Jon became milk-brother to Edric Dayne. 

Mance and Dalla's son give us a clue to this. He was fed on goats milk until a wet nurse could be found. And what did Stannis have to say about that?

Quote

"I can find another wet nurse. If there's none amongst the wildlings, I will send to the mountain clans. Until such time, goat's milk should suffice for the boy, if it please Your Grace."

"Poor fare for a prince …

I suspect Jon was on goats milk until he reached Starfall.

24 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

The backstory of the Robellion is littered with characters who were cut off in full flower and whose arcs end abruptly because it's poignant, tragic, enthralling and sets the scene for the main story. 

I'm not saying every character mentioned in the series has a fully rounded arc, but Arthur is a character designed to stand out and catch our interest, one we are reminded of in every book, and I think there's a reason for that.

32 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I don't think Arthur Dayne himself has legs beyond the Robellion. 

You may be right, but I think he took the black as his story would then reflect a central theme. Defending the interest of the  realm is more important than defending the interest of whoever sits on the throne.

40 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I think GRRM shows us that knighthood is an ideal that can be followed by those who aren't knights and sometimes it's easier for those who aren't as they don't have to swear restrictive oaths to a Lord who lacks honour. 

I agree. The quality of knowing and doing the right thing, the true definition of honor, is a quality that everyone should aspire to. The Seven Kingdoms would be transformed if that happened. But it must be driven from the top down by a true king or queen who protects their people, puts their duty before their rights, and puts saving the kingdom before winning the throne.

If the king or queen had those qualities, then the kingsguard would never run into conflict regarding their vows. You might even say such a king or queen would truly be worth dying to protect, making the kingsguard meaningful again. I mean, who wants to give their life protecting someone Joffrey? Where's the honor in that?

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

The likes of Alliser Thorne and Jaremy Rykker were forced by Tywin to take the black after the capture of KL.  I think it's impossible for someone as well-known as a Kingsguard like Arthur Dayne to go unrecognised at The Wall by former Targaryen loyalists.

Everyone at the Wall knows the name Arthur Dayne but most would have ever seen the man up close. There are a few who probably did, like Rykker and Thorne, and there was one person at the Wall who I believe worked it out, but I'll come back to them.

Jorah didn't recognize Barristan in Esssos, because he had a beard, despite the fact they had been at tourneys together. Lannister guards failed to recognize Jaime when he returned with Brienne, because he had a beard. Qhorin was clean shaven, but maybe that was because as Arthur, he wore a beard. The text never describes any of his physical features, so we don't know. My point is that a simple change of appearance would be enough to throw off anyone who might have seen Arthur once or twice at say a tourney, but didn't know the man as such.

Then there are the people who would have probably known or at least encountered Arthur often enough to see past something like a missing beard (or maybe a few missing fingers), like Rykker and Thorne. These guys were on the loyalist side, same as Arthur. The question is, if they recognized him would they out him? They would have some motive, possibly a pardon from Robert for selling Arthur out. but we should consider how well-respected Arthur was. If Jon Connington or Jaime or Barristan ended up on the Wall after the rebellion, do you think they would have sold him out? I don't think they would.

Ulmer of the Kingswood Brotherhood rode against Arthur, so he might be a better candidate. But it's not uncommon to have respect for an enemy and Arthur was always someone who commanded respect. As sworn brothers of the Watch, their pasts were washed away, crimes, debts, grudges.

Quote

"At evenfall, as the sun sets and we face the gathering night, you shall take your vows. From that moment, you will be a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch. Your crimes will be washed away, your debts forgiven. So too you must wash away your former loyalties, put aside your grudges, forget old wrongs and old loves alike. Here you begin anew.

And then there is Mance. I think he found out who Qhorin really was before he left the Watch. I don't think Mance could have worked it out himself, having never met Arthur Dayne, so he must have found out from someone who knew, like Ulmer. But I think he knows and that's why he sings about tasting the Dornishman's wife. The Dornishman is Arthur Dayne, and his sword he uses is his wife. (Not Dawn, the one he uses at the Wall as Qhorin.) Mance and Qhorin were once brothers and then enemies, but I feel there was always respect there and I don't see Mance giving up the Halfhand's secret.

2 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Would Ned really allow people to believe he killed the finest knight in the realm if he didn't?  This is the stretch for me.  I'm struggling here. 

Ned never says he killed Arthur, he never thinks about killing Arthur. But as far as the rumours are concerned, only Ned and Howland returned so the obvious conclusion to jump to is it must have been Ned. Ned's uncomfortable with that I'm sure, just as he is with the rumors about Ashara, but he's in a position where he can't deny either rumor because it would only lead to more questions about the tower and Jon's mother, and he doesn't want that. It's part of the price he has paid to keep his promise.

2 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Seems to me Ned intended to kill all of them and get his sister back as a matter of honor.  Ned would need convincing every bit as much as Arthur.   Thoughts? 

I think Ned would rather send someone like Arthur to the Wall rather than kill them. If they refused the offer and he had to kill them, then I think he would do that too.

[Alester Florent]

17 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think Ned would rather send someone like Arthur to the Wall rather than kill them. If they refused the offer and he had to kill them, then I think he would do that too.

"Kill the boy, Jon Snow". Maybe "Ser Arthur Dayne" died at the Tower of Joy, and the man who went to the Wall was someone else.

Qhorin Halfhand is a tempting proposition, although wasn't his hand lost after he joined the Watch?