Howland netting Arthur

[astarkchoice]

Could be any ome of a number of things

1)both howlans and ned are better warriors than they are given credit for!   while.not jamie lannister level we know ned had to survive sparring with prime robert and brandon as a youth and is smaller than both so probably is pretty decent...maybe has an excellent defense. Howland we know from meeras story was bullied by freys thus may habe gone away and trained hard at personal combat...the 2 combined as well as the oddness of howlands weapons mesnt they managed to beat the absolute beast that was ser dayne!!

2)howland simply got the drop in him tossed a net over from behind or a spear/trident into a knee or elbow and ned took a sneaky killshot

3)warging into arthur or the attempt distracted him enough for ned to kill him

4) howland and ned get their asses kicked but just as they are losing/on the ground  howland lashed out at the still moving arthur, the shot lands perfectly as though he knew where the knight would be (greensight) 

[Loose Bolt]

Swamp ninja used kunai, shuriken and ninjutsu when he assassinated AD.

[GZ Bloodraven]

I honestly think they used their words in the end. 

[three-eyed monkey]

I'm a big proponent of the net theory because I feel that's what we are being told in seemingly unrelated parts of the story, where GRRM gives us clues to what happened with Howland and Arthur.

Quote

Meera moved in a wary circle, her net dangling loose in her left hand, the slender three-pronged frog spear poised in her right. Summer followed her with his golden eyes, turning, his tail held stiff and tall. Watching, watching . . .

"Yai!" the girl shouted, the spear darting out. The wolf slid to the left and leapt before she could draw back the spear. Meera cast her net, the tangles unfolding in the air before her. Summer's leap carried him into it. He dragged it with him as he slammed into her chest and knocked her over backward. Her spear went spinning away. The damp grass cushioned her fall but the breath went out of her in an "Oof." The wolf crouched atop her.

Meera, net in one hand and three-pronged frog spear in the other, snares Summer in her net. Summer is watching, watching... that's what kingsguard do when they are not sleeping.

Quote

For every hour of fighting, a Kingsguard knight spent ten thousand hours watching,

Howland taught Meera to fight with a net, so obviously Howland is proficient in the same set of skills.

Quote

"I never knew anyone who fought with a net before," he told Meera while he scratched the direwolf between the ears. "Did your master-at-arms teach you net-fighting?"

"My father taught me. We have no knights at Greywater. No master-at-arms, and no maester."

So I feel that it's safe to assume that is how Howland was armed at the Tower of Joy, and what happened with Meera and Summer is pretty much what happened with Howland and Arthur. We also see the Reeds commitment to protecting Bran, and I think we can assume that Howland had the same attitude towards Ned.

I think there is another hint when Barristan is training his squires in Meereen.

Quote

Larraq had years of work ahead of him before he mastered proper knightly weapons, sword and lance and mace, but he was deadly with his whip and trident. The old knight had warned him that the whip would be useless against an armored foe … until he saw how Larraq used it, snapping it around the legs of his opponents to yank them off their feet. No knight as yet, but a fierce fighter.

Larraq too fights with a trident or three-pronged spear, but in place of a net he has a whip in the other hand. Barristan advised him that a whip would be useless against an armored foe, but Larraq proved otherwise. I feel we can substitute the whip for a net; seemingly useless against an armored foe... until we see how it is used.

Now I agree that Dawn is a very sharp sword and could cut through the net. A light touch on Jaime's shoulder cut through his tunic, sure, but that doesn't mean the net will instantly fly apart and fall at Arthur's feet because... Dawn. It's going to take a little bit of time to get untangled. The sharp blade is the easiest bit to get free, if he can maneuver it enough to part the net, but there's going to be net tangled on the sword's cross-guard, and Arthur is going to have to work his arms free to use the sword in combat, etc. It only needs to obstruct his range of movement and his ability to fight for a few seconds to allow Ned or Howland to gain position and potentially force his submission, or kill him depending on what you think happened.

Personally, I think the whole point of the net as a story device is to allow Ned and Howland to submit Arthur, rather than kill him, in which case a poisoned dart or whatever would have sufficed. Nor do I think we would be waiting for a reveal about how Howland saved Ned if it was just a case of him killing Arthur. But I'm one of those crazies who believes Arthur survived and took the black, so fair warning friends.

[Northern Sword]

I'm totally ok with the net theory. It is all about balance in hand to hand fighting(center of gravity). You wouldn't necessarily focus on the sword. Rather, think of the weighted net tying up his hands/arm and throwing him off balance.

An off balance swordsman, with his sword arm tied up.. even for a couple seconds is in a bad spot. 

And if you consider this happens after he takes a swing, with his sword and hand below his waist. Once that hand/arm/sword is tied up... dead.

[John Suburbs]

On 3/29/2023 at 4:22 PM, Crona said:

A very popular theory about how Howland Reed had saved Ned is that Howland trapped Arthur with a net....

But I don't understand how this would work? Arthur had Dawn, a sharp sword in his hands...why wouldn't he just cut through the net? When Dawn is resting on Jaime's shoulder, it is cutting through and Jaime is bleeding. When the net wraps around the sword, wouldn't it cut through? What am I missing? Did Arthur just get surprised and drop his sword? I know the net gets tangled, but I have yet to see it really work on someone who has a blade in hand. 

Just curious on why its so popular.  My own favorite theory is the dart one. 

Ned: - he would have killed me but for Howland Reed

Bran: What did Howland do?

Ned: (sadly) He shot him with a poison dart from the bushes

Howland would be an expert with his net. He could wrap it around Arthur's sword arm, preventing him from using it, or his feet, bringing him to the ground.

And even if Arthur does have to cut himself free, this is an opportunity for his opponents to pierce a gap in his armor. A split second is all it takes.

[Springwatch]

On 3/30/2023 at 2:50 AM, EggBlue said:

It's weird all over ... it is something that Ned wouldn't share for some reason. the easiest answer is that it's not honorable. But then you've got Daynes all appreciative towards Ned. so, even if it's dishonorable, then: a) they wouldn't know it b)for some reason, Daynes are more than ok with Ned killing their brother and being the reason for their sister's "suicide" .

This! So for me I hope Howland's intervention was with words - somehow he got Dayne talking, and negotiated whatever it was that explains all of the above.

[GZ Bloodraven]

11 hours ago, Springwatch said:

This! So for me I hope Howland's intervention was with words - somehow he got Dayne talking, and negotiated whatever it was that explains all of the above.

Yeah, Ned shows up to Starfall and explains how his friend dishonorably killed Arthur? They eat him alive. All of them recognizing what Rhaegar and Lyanna would want to do with Jon, it potentially not working out or Arthur wanting to die in service of his best friend and king, and then them killing Arthur in a 2v1 works out better than Howland throwing a net on him.

[Crona]

15 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Howland would be an expert with his net. He could wrap it around Arthur's sword arm, preventing him from using it, or his feet, bringing him to the ground.

And even if Arthur does have to cut himself free, this is an opportunity for his opponents to pierce a gap in his armor. A split second is all it takes.

I just imagine Howland Reed as Swamp-Man shootings nets out like Spider-Man. I guess your scenario could work and actually there is a lot of ways Arthur could be killed dishonorably.  However, another issue I do have is, do you think Ned would kill someone that was distracted or incapacitated? Its hard for me to think Ned would kill someone that was defenseless during a fight. Do I think Howland would kill someone dishonorably? Yes I do think he would, but I am not sure about Ned.  The show had it depicted as Howland stabbing him from the back, so maybe that's correct. 

 

50 minutes ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

Yeah, Ned shows up to Starfall and explains how his friend dishonorably killed Arthur? They eat him alive. All of them recognizing what Rhaegar and Lyanna would want to do with Jon, it potentially not working out or Arthur wanting to die in service of his best friend and king, and then them killing Arthur in a 2v1 works out better than Howland throwing a net on him.

I am open to all kinds of explanations and I find the theory that they talked interesting. From my perspective, Arthur is a Targaryen loyalist, so he would want to keep living to help Vis/Jon/Aegon and continue Rhaegar's goals. I was thinking that perhaps Howland may have told something to Arthur and he committed suicide, but what could that be? Or perhaps they had done a negotiation, but I don't see any scenario, where Arthur has to die as a deal. He would want to stay alive to protect those kids. Maybe Howland had threatened to reveal something about Arthur. 

 

[Crona]

On 3/29/2023 at 6:50 PM, EggBlue said:

It's weird all over ... it is something that Ned wouldn't share for some reason. the easiest answer is that it's not honorable. But then you've got Daynes all appreciative towards Ned. so, even if it's dishonorable, then: a) they wouldn't know it b)for some reason, Daynes are more than ok with Ned killing their brother and being the reason for their sister's "suicide" .

while I suspect this part of the story may stay ambiguous even if George does finish the books, I hope it doesn't be something insulting to Dawn like it's the inability to cut ropes! and yes, I care about magical swords' reputations!

The more I think about it, the less it makes sense that they fought. The Kingsguard would use their tower if they were outnumbered. Arthur would probably have a helm, which usually stops darts. I don't think Ned would have killed someone dishonorably either. 

I think they did talk, I always remember in this scene that Arthur had a sad smile, and I always thought it was a hint to something. 

[Springwatch]

8 hours ago, Crona said:

I am open to all kinds of explanations and I find the theory that they talked interesting. From my perspective, Arthur is a Targaryen loyalist, so he would want to keep living to help Vis/Jon/Aegon and continue Rhaegar's goals. I was thinking that perhaps Howland may have told something to Arthur and he committed suicide, but what could that be? Or perhaps they had done a negotiation, but I don't see any scenario, where Arthur has to die as a deal. He would want to stay alive to protect those kids. Maybe Howland had threatened to reveal something about Arthur.

The Targaryen loyalist angle has got to be the key somehow - it's the only motivation we have for the Daynes, and especially for Arthur who is the truest knight and therefore obsessive. I think he's still a death before dishonour guy, but if Ned could promise him something important enough, Arthur might allow Ned to kill him before the dishonour of Rhaegar's enemies taking the tower. This handily explains why Ned isn't particularly proud of killing the famous Sword of the Morning.

So what could Ned promise? It obviously wasn't Jon, because loyalists would want Jon to be a prince in exile, fighting for the Targ restoration.

It must be something about Rhaegar's other son, Aegon. Howland and Ned don't know anything about the Pisswater Prince, but Arthur might - if Lemore is truly Ashara, then the Daynes have been hand-in-glove with Varys from the beginning.

There are a couple of things Ned might have done. He might have persuaded Robert not to send hired knives into Essos (but he never mentions this). He might have promised to keep Jon secret and safe, but raise him as a high lord (probably what Lyanna wanted anyway). There might even have been mention of the Promised Prince.

One thing he did do was allow the world to believe he dishonoured Ashara Dayne, and she killed herself for love of him. Very useful cover for Ashara/Lemore, but very bitter for Ned. He hates it, but only cracked down on the rumour at home in Winterfell. I think he was pushed.

There must be more.

[EggBlue]

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

The Targaryen loyalist angle has got to be the key somehow - it's the only motivation we have for the Daynes, and especially for Arthur who is the truest knight and therefore obsessive. I think he's still a death before dishonour guy, but if Ned could promise him something important enough, Arthur might allow Ned to kill him before the dishonour of Rhaegar's enemies taking the tower. This handily explains why Ned isn't particularly proud of killing the famous Sword of the Morning.

So what could Ned promise? It obviously wasn't Jon, because loyalists would want Jon to be a prince in exile, fighting for the Targ restoration.

It must be something about Rhaegar's other son, Aegon. Howland and Ned don't know anything about the Pisswater Prince, but Arthur might - if Lemore is truly Ashara, then the Daynes have been hand-in-glove with Varys from the beginning.

There are a couple of things Ned might have done. He might have persuaded Robert not to send hired knives into Essos (but he never mentions this). He might have promised to keep Jon secret and safe, but raise him as a high lord (probably what Lyanna wanted anyway). There might even have been mention of the Promised Prince.

One thing he did do was allow the world to believe he dishonoured Ashara Dayne, and she killed herself for love of him. Very useful cover for Ashara/Lemore, but very bitter for Ned. He hates it, but only cracked down on the rumour at home in Winterfell. I think he was pushed.

There must be more.

very very close to a pet theory of mine: the Kingsgaurd were not protecting Lyanna and her unborn child but were supposed to distract Ned and co. from Ashara and her princess's child she had with her. 

we've got some facts that we do not know what to make of:

• Daynes are ok with Ned, despite believing Ned's directly associated with the death of 2 of their siblings. so much so that they name their heir after him.
• after Lyanna's death, they find Ned holding her hand, even though Ned had stated that only two (he and Howland) left the tower.
• somehow, Ned and only 6 high-born companions find a secret watchtower where they face only three men. This seems like they had an appointment or something.
• Kingsgaurd believe they are upholding their duty to the king and House Targaryen. protecting the mistress of the dead crown prince and his unborn prince or princess from the said woman's brother in a hopeless affair, being outnumbered. this won't just do. especially when a pregnant queen and her son are in danger in Dragonstone.
• Ashara Dayne's death is repeated throughout the story, emphasizing her corpse never being found. 
• the Tower is in such a poor state that Ned and Howland can tear it down.
• Lyanna's somewhere that can be attended to after death, and Ned can take her bones home. Unlike that of his companions, all to Barbrey's dismay. 
• Jon Snow's wet nurse had been a loyal servant to Starfall.
• a mysterious, attractive woman with roughly the right age and birthing marks appears alongside a boy claiming to be Aegon Targaryen . all while prickly Jon Connington respects and trusts her, the way he doesn't trust someone like Haldon who's a hired or Varys who's a foreigner. 

 

Conclusion:  I think Ashara Dayne had been in on Varys and Elia's scheme to smuggle Aegon out. she must have been on her way to Starfall , while Ned  and his army were on the search for Lyanna . having communicated with Kingsgaurd , they decide to meet with Ned to stall him from going to Starfall where Lyanna would be, buying Ashara enough time to get there and hide Aegon. Ned and Kingsgaurd fight, and maybe by the end, Arthur trusts Ned with one or two of his secrets. Ned and Howland take some guards and go to Starfall afterward. Ned sees Lyanna die , promises her whatever, and lets the silent sisters or maester in Starfall attend to her corpse. he meets with lady Ashara and the lord/lady of Starfall who would know everything his/her siblings have done. gives them their sword back , apologizes for killing Arthur, claiming that he died a hero and all that noble stuff. in return for their secrecy about Lyanna's child, he promises them to cover for Ashara (whether he knows about Aegon or not), doesn't let Arthur's name sully (which would also especially work if Arthur had been Lyanna's lover, but works all the same if he was just loyal to Rhaegar's orders), and more importantly promises them that house Dayne would not be associated with Lyanna's whereabouts during the rebellion and their part in Rhaegar's plans is hidden. Something that keeps Daynes from the same fate as Darrys or Conningtons, who suffer under Robert's wrath caused by association with Rhaegar, leaving Daynes still rich and respected.  Ashara takes Aegon and leaves for Essos , she'll eventually meet with Jon Connington, who, despite his clear mistrust of Varys, believes Aegon's identity because of Ashara, who would naturally be a close acquaintance knowing they both served at Dragonstone. 

 

Or something close enough to this.

[GZ Bloodraven]

13 hours ago, Crona said:

I am open to all kinds of explanations and I find the theory that they talked interesting. From my perspective, Arthur is a Targaryen loyalist, so he would want to keep living to help Vis/Jon/Aegon and continue Rhaegar's goals. I was thinking that perhaps Howland may have told something to Arthur and he committed suicide, but what could that be? Or perhaps they had done a negotiation, but I don't see any scenario, where Arthur has to die as a deal. He would want to stay alive to protect those kids. Maybe Howland had threatened to reveal something about Arthur. 

Yeah I don't know what happens post-conversation: maybe Arthur didn't die instantly and they talked afterwards? Or maybe they took a break to try to convince Arthur to stand down but he didn't so they finished the fight (maybe with the net). I don't know how they all didn't realize that it was in everyone's best interest to not fight each other, but men of war do men of war things I guess.

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

we've got some facts that we do not know what to make of:

It's only the assumption that Arthur died at the tower that confuses the issue. I know 99% of the fandom believes this, and I suspect I won't change your mind but please, humor me for a moment. This is how I see it.

Ned, Howland and Arthur were the last three combatants at the Tower of Joy. Arthur would have killed Ned but for Howland Reed. Howland intervened and snared Dayne in his net, saving Ned and reversing the position. The entangled Dayne is now at the mercy of Ned.

Submitted, Dayne now has two choices. He can die for his king, like Gerold Hightower. Or he could surrender, be pardoned, and bend the knee to Robert, like Barristan Selmy. To understand how he might choose, we need to understand a little of Dayne's character.

Dayne is characterized as the exemplary honorable knight. The finest knight Ned ever saw. So like Barristan and Jaime, the conflict of oaths would have been difficult for Dayne in the final years of the Mad King's reign. It is difficult to keep his oath as a knight, to defend the innocent and protect the weak, when the man you swore an oath to serve, obey, and protect is descending into madness. Dayne, like his sworn brothers, had become a good man sworn to a bad cause.

Dayne was a close friend of Rhaegar. Like Barristan, he surely saw Rhaegar as a better king than Aerys, one who could heal the realm. If Rhaegar had managed to replace his father as king, then Dayne would not have had a conflict in oaths, so long as Rhaegar did not start assaulting his wife or burning Starks alive. He would have become a good man sworn to a good cause. However, it does no good to speak of roads not taken.

Robert killed Rhaegar on the Trident, and the Usurpers dogs killed Rhaegar's wife and children during the sack. Dayne clearly disapproved of this. If he bent the knee to Robert, he would have been swapping one bad cause for another. His knees don't bend as easily as Barristan. That means his only choice was death. Some might consider it an honorable death for a knight of the Kingsguard, except there is really nothing honorable about dying needlessly, especially when the king he swore to protect was already dead.

Ned is not the type to kill a man needlessly. If he had to execute Dayne, then I'm sure he would have done it, but he didn't have to. There is another option, one the Starks of Winterfell are well aware of. Ned could offer him the black. If Dayne felt the new king was not worthy of his oath, then he could take an oath to protect the realm instead. The Watch is a place where past crimes and debts and grudges and allegiances are forgotten, where men who take the oath begin anew. It's not a bad option.

4 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Daynes are ok with Ned, despite believing Ned's directly associated with the death of 2 of their siblings. so much so that they name their heir after him.

The fact that the Daynes named their heir Ned shows that they respected Ned greatly. This may be due to him returning Dawn. They clearly don't blame him for Ashara's death or think he stole her child away. The rumors Cersei heard are wrong on both counts. It's unclear how much he told the Daynes, but I feel he told them as little as possible.

5 hours ago, EggBlue said:

after Lyanna's death, they find Ned holding her hand, even though Ned had stated that only two (he and Howland) left the tower.

They being Howland and Arthur.

And there's another they that's important here. Ned stated that - They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away, Ned and Howland. They had been seven. They being Ned and his companions. Seven against three, not with three, not ten. They is the subject of the sentence and the second clause of the sentence refers to the subject, which is they, who were seven. Two of the seven lived to ride away.

5 hours ago, EggBlue said:

somehow, Ned and only 6 high-born companions find a secret watchtower where they face only three men. This seems like they had an appointment or something.

It might be quite simple. After going to Storm's End and not finding the three missing kingsguard or Lyanna, the next place to go would be Starfall. Probably would have checked Summerhall along the way, given that Rhaegar was known to frequent the ruins, and then proceeded through the Prince's Pass. It's not a secret watchtower, just an old one. If the pass can be seen from the watchtower, then the watchtower can be seen from the pass.

Other than that, there is a bunch of other theories about who told Ned where to go. One of the better theories I've heard is that Rhaegar visited the Black Cells and told Ethan Glover where Lyanna was in case he never returned from the Trident. Ethan was arrested with Brandon and Rickard and thrown in the cells, but was freed after the sack and rode to the Tower of Joy with Ned.

5 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Kingsgaurd believe they are upholding their duty to the king and House Targaryen. protecting the mistress of the dead crown prince and his unborn prince or princess from the said woman's brother in a hopeless affair, being outnumbered. this won't just do. especially when a pregnant queen and her son are in danger in Dragonstone.

Well, that's a big one. Why did they stay at the tower? I could be as simple as they stayed because Rhaegar ordered it.

Personally I think they stayed because they were in Rhaegar's camp when it came to the split in court between Rhaegar and his father, and therefore considered Rhaegar's child to be the true heir. Even as a child Viserys oft seemed to be Aerys son in ways Rhaegar never was, so potentially another Mad King, which pretty much proved to be the case. I don't think the Kingsguard wanted another Mad King, any more than they wanted Robert as king.

I also believe Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, even though Rhaegar never got around to having the marriage recognized or the child legitimized. The main reason I think they were married comes from a conversation between Jon and Qhorin Halfhand.

Quote

Qhorin came and stood over him as the first flame rose up flickering from the shavings of bark and dead dry pine needles. "As shy as a maid on her wedding night," the big ranger said in a soft voice, "and near as fair. Sometimes a man forgets how pretty a fire can be."

He was not a man you'd expect to speak of maids and wedding nights. So far as Jon knew, Qhorin had spent his whole life in the Watch. Did he ever love a maid or have a wedding? He could not ask.

When Qhorin stands over the fire with Jon, whose wedding do you think he's remembering? Do you think this is his own wedding or the wedding of an unknown friend that matters little to the story and is never revisited? Or do you think it is a wedding we will learn about, one that is important to the story, one that is important to Jon, memories brought back to the ranger by Jon's very presence. Sometimes a man forgets how pretty a fire can be? Had Qhorin not seen a fire for a long time, or is this a reference to Rhaegar, who was renowned for his good looks?

6 hours ago, EggBlue said:

the Tower is in such a poor state that Ned and Howland can tear it down.

An old tower of unmortared stone, in the style of the First Men. Relatively easy to pull down stone by stone once you start at the top. Rhaegar used to camp alone in the ruins of the great hall at Summerhall, so he's accustomed to such accommodation.

6 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Lyanna's somewhere that can be attended to after death, and Ned can take her bones home. Unlike that of his companions, all to Barbrey's dismay. 

It's so unlike Ned not to honor his bannermen by returning their bones to their families. He built eight cairns for the dead but never in 15 years did he return or send anyone back to the tower to bring the remains home. When Jory died at King's Landing he sent his bones back north to lie with his grandsire. But he did not do the same for Jory's father Martyn, who was buried at the Tower of Joy. It begs the question, why?

Honestly, I'd expect Ned to do the same for the fallen kingsguard. He returned Dawn to Starfall, why not Arthur's bones. He can't do that because Arthur didn't die. Ned can't return any bones because there are eight cairns, but only seven bodies. One of the cairns is empty. If he can't return all the bones to their families then it's better that he doesn't return any bones to the families. Ned didn't want anyone pulling on threads that might begin to unravel what really happened at the tower. He just wanted to leave the matter lie.

7 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Jon Snow's wet nurse had been a loyal servant to Starfall.

Jon was fed with goats milk until Ned could find a wet nurse at Starfall. We get a clue to this when Jon has Mance's son fed with goats milk until a wet nurse can be sent for, to which Stannis replies that goats milk is "Poor fare for a prince."

7 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Ashara Dayne's death is repeated throughout the story, emphasizing her corpse never being found

7 hours ago, EggBlue said:

a mysterious, attractive woman with roughly the right age and birthing marks appears alongside a boy claiming to be Aegon Targaryen . all while prickly Jon Connington respects and trusts her, the way he doesn't trust someone like Haldon who's a hired or Varys who's a foreigner. 

That's a whole different mystery.

[EggBlue]

Just now, three-eyed monkey said:

It's only the assumption that Arthur died at the tower that confuses the issue. I know 99% of the fandom believes this, and I suspect I won't change your mind but please, humor me for a moment. This is how I see it.

you're right; you don't change my mind. but you do make a fine case.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

8 hours ago, EggBlue said:

you're right; you don't change my mind. but you do make a fine case.

Thank you. The theory has been around since A Clash of Kings, and the vast majority of readers  think it's crackpot, or whatever, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind at this stage. 

There's much more to the theory and it explains a lot of stuff, like they found Ned at Lyanna's bedside. People would rather invent others who might have been there despite no evidence, like servants or a midwife, rather than consider the idea that Ned or Howland did not kill Arthur.

Why we are waiting for a reveal about how Howland saved Ned if it's just a simple case of Howland shot him with a poisoned dart? Bran wished he had asked his father more about that, but of course he didn't. Same way Jon wanted to ask Qhorin about the wedding he was remembering, but of course he couldn't. These questions have been left unanswered at this stage of the story for a reason. People think the big reveal will be that Howland or Ned killed Arthur in some sort of dishonorable way. So what? He was trying to kill them. They were on different sides of the rebellion. Even if it was a sneaky blow, how does that reveal impact the story? And why would it matter if Qhorin had been married sometime?

People wonder why Mance sings about the Dornishman's Wife? I bet there's even theories about which Dornishman's wife he slept with. The Dornishman's Wife refers to the sword of a knight, the same way Areo's wife is his axe. When Mance sings about tasting the Dornishman's wife, he's talking about tasting Qhorin's sword because Mance knows the secret, and while he is honorable enough not to reveal Arthur's secret, he does like to cheekily toy with it in his songs, which are always full of hidden meaning.

Arthur taking the black and becoming Qhorin explains why get clues like Qhorin arrived with the dawn first time we met him. It explains his immediate interest in Jon, his testing of Jon's character when he told Jon to kill Ygritte, his readiness to sacrifice himself for Jon. His line, "our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe," sheds light on his decision at the Tower of Joy, when he gave up honorable Arthur Dayne and became a brother of the Watch instead.

The theory also explains the parallel between Qhorin and Jaime, losing a hand and learning to fight with the other one, considering Jaime wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne but became the Smiling Knight instead. Jaime losing his hand is the point where he begins his path to redemption, back towards man he wanted to be.

And the theory has a point to make when the truth of what happened is revealed, presumably by Howland to Jon as Howland is the only survivor besides Jon, and Jon is the one the reveal about the Tower of Joy will impact most. Jon being Rhaegar's son will give him a claim on the Iron Throne, but Arthur's journey from the white cloak of the Kingsguard to the black cloak of the Watch holds a lesson for Jon. The point is that the realm is more important than the king, and this point will be relevant to Jon and his future decisions.

 

 

[Springwatch]

On 4/1/2023 at 5:01 PM, EggBlue said:

Conclusion:  I think Ashara Dayne had been in on Varys and Elia's scheme to smuggle Aegon out. she must have been on her way to Starfall , while Ned  and his army were on the search for Lyanna . having communicated with Kingsgaurd , they decide to meet with Ned to stall him from going to Starfall where Lyanna would be, buying Ashara enough time to get there and hide Aegon. Ned and Kingsgaurd fight, and maybe by the end, Arthur trusts Ned with one or two of his secrets. Ned and Howland take some guards and go to Starfall afterward. Ned sees Lyanna die , promises her whatever, and lets the silent sisters or maester in Starfall attend to her corpse. he meets with lady Ashara and the lord/lady of Starfall who would know everything his/her siblings have done. gives them their sword back , apologizes for killing Arthur, claiming that he died a hero and all that noble stuff. in return for their secrecy about Lyanna's child, he promises them to cover for Ashara (whether he knows about Aegon or not), doesn't let Arthur's name sully (which would also especially work if Arthur had been Lyanna's lover, but works all the same if he was just loyal to Rhaegar's orders), and more importantly promises them that house Dayne would not be associated with Lyanna's whereabouts during the rebellion and their part in Rhaegar's plans is hidden. Something that keeps Daynes from the same fate as Darrys or Conningtons, who suffer under Robert's wrath caused by association with Rhaegar, leaving Daynes still rich and respected.  Ashara takes Aegon and leaves for Essos , she'll eventually meet with Jon Connington, who, despite his clear mistrust of Varys, believes Aegon's identity because of Ashara, who would naturally be a close acquaintance knowing they both served at Dragonstone. 

 

 

Or something close enough to this.

I like it! And I would much rather Lyanna was being cared for at Starfall, not abandoned in a ruined tower - though to be honest GRRM seems enjoy the tower scenario immensely, and I've no confidence he didn't just go with it.

Still seems to me that Ned got more than he gave. If baby Jon had started to develop purple eyes, Ned would have to grit his teeth and play the Ashara card, dragging her reputation through the mud all over again, to serve his own family's purposes.

[Springwatch]

17 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

When Qhorin stands over the fire with Jon, whose wedding do you think he's remembering? Do you think this is his own wedding or the wedding of an unknown friend that matters little to the story and is never revisited? Or do you think it is a wedding we will learn about, one that is important to the story, one that is important to Jon, memories brought back to the ranger by Jon's very presence. Sometimes a man forgets how pretty a fire can be? Had Qhorin not seen a fire for a long time, or is this a reference to Rhaegar, who was renowned for his good looks?

Lyanna, surely!

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Arthur taking the black and becoming Qhorin explains why get clues like Qhorin arrived with the dawn first time we met him. It explains his immediate interest in Jon, his testing of Jon's character when he told Jon to kill Ygritte, his readiness to sacrifice himself for Jon. His line, "our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe," sheds light on his decision at the Tower of Joy, when he gave up honorable Arthur Dayne and became a brother of the Watch instead.

I do like your thinking, but I stick at this bit - that Arthur would selfishly sell out his honour just for more years of life. It goes against the point that is constantly hammered home - that the truest Kingsguard choose to die doing their job (Brienne wants to die for Renly, Duck for Aegon, Barristan: Other men might wish to die in bed asleep, but that was no death for a knight of the Kingsguard, and other quotes: That was how the white knights of the Kingsguard were supposed to die, giving up their own lives for those they had sworn to protect, and a knight of the Kingsguard was supposed to die in defense of the king and royal family).

Also, if you like dreams, ghost Arthur appears to both Ned and Jaime, acting pretty uncompromising - so he probably died uncompromising.

Quote

“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.

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

I still like your theory a lot, and I'm not going to say it's impossible. But maybe Qhorin is a character shadow of Arthur and not literally Arthur himself?

[AryaRegina]

On 4/1/2023 at 5:18 AM, Crona said:

I just imagine Howland Reed as Swamp-Man shootings nets out like Spider-Man. I guess your scenario could work and actually there is a lot of ways Arthur could be killed dishonorably.  However, another issue I do have is, do you think Ned would kill someone that was distracted or incapacitated? Its hard for me to think Ned would kill someone that was defenseless during a fight. Do I think Howland would kill someone dishonorably? Yes I do think he would, but I am not sure about Ned.  The show had it depicted as Howland stabbing him from the back, so maybe that's correct. 

I think an important piece to consider when wondering if Ned would kill Arthur dishonourably is Lyanna.
When his little sister, who has been missing for months, is finally found, and is (presumably, as the source is a dream) screaming for him and he's fighting her captors to try and get to her, and his friend is able to incapacitate one of them, do you believe he'd take the moment to let him get free because killing him then would be in bad form? Or is the sound of his sister's screams and the need to get to her more important than his honour in battle?

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.
"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.
-Eddard X, AGOT
 

I have no particular opinion on Arthur's death, but I do think the books have repeatedly shown that love is a powerful emotion, and can make people to things they otherwise wouldn't

[three-eyed monkey]

9 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I do like your thinking, but I stick at this bit - that Arthur would selfishly sell out his honour just for more years of life. It goes against the point that is constantly hammered home - that the truest Kingsguard choose to die doing their job (Brienne wants to die for Renly, Duck for Aegon, Barristan: Other men might wish to die in bed asleep, but that was no death for a knight of the Kingsguard, and other quotes: That was how the white knights of the Kingsguard were supposed to die, giving up their own lives for those they had sworn to protect, and a knight of the Kingsguard was supposed to die in defense of the king and royal family).

And this is the very point. The point is constantly hammered home that kingsguards are meant to die for their king. This is loyalty not honor. Honor is not loyalty. Honor is the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right. There is no honor in being loyal to and dying for a bad cause, which is what Aerys had become in his final years.

Quote

"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."

All of Westeros agree that the White Bull was a better man than Jaime, but I disagree. Gerold Hightower turned a blind eye to the crimes of Aerys, so that he would not have to violate his oath to the king. So too did Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy. As Barristan said, he watched and saw and heard, yet did nothing. For evil to flourish it only takes good men to look on and do nothing. Barristan wonders how much of the blood is on his own hands and he even thinks it might have been better to leave Aerys die in Duskendale. He did his duty and stayed loyal to the king but it left him with regrets and a bitter taste in his mouth.

The kingsguard remained loyal to the king to the end, but loyalty is not honor. Jaime was the one who did what was right when he killed the Mad King to save the innocent people of King's Landing from the wildfire plot, even though it cost him his reputation as "honorable" in the eyes of Westeros. But it also brought a reward. Jaime has regrets in his life but he never grieves for Aerys. In that matter, his conscience is clear. A clear conscience is always the reward for doing what is right.

The true meaning of honor has been lost in Westeros, but the main characters are in the process of rediscovering it and why it is so important to healing the realm. We can see Arthur as loyal to the king all the way, like Hightower, which makes him an unchanging character with a flat arc, or we can see him as a character with a changing arc, who took the journey from white cloak to black, and solved the dilemma of being a good man sworn to a bad cause by becoming a good man sworn to a good cause instead.

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

Also, if you like dreams, ghost Arthur appears to both Ned and Jaime, acting pretty uncompromising - so he probably died uncompromising.

Arthur definitely began the fight in an uncompromising mood, he was trying to kill Ned after all, but I submit that the situation changed once Howland intervened and he ended up at the mercy of Ned. Cersei says when you play the game of thrones you win or you die, there is no middle ground. But I feel there should be middle ground, because compromise is essential to peace.

As for Jaime and his dream, what his sworn brothers say to him in the dream is simply what Westeros has been saying to him for years. He killed the king he swore to protect, etc. It's Jaime's dream, from his own subconscious or whatever, so it's really about what Jaime thinks Arthur would say, not necessarily what Arthur would say.