Howland Reed = Knight of the Laughing Tree?

[Stratonice]

When I read the story the first time I assumed it refered to Ned to explain his friendship with Howland Reed but I'm now convinced it must be Lyanna.

As to the training part, I interpreted that quote to mean that she DID train and since lord Rickard couldn't stop her he let her go on so long as it was clear that she would behave properly in public (i.e. not carry a sword or any other kind of weapon). And it also indicates that Ned was very well aware of this.

There is, however, NOTHING to suggest that Ashara Dayne had any kind of training what so ever (formal or informal). It's clearly stated that the Sand Snakes are exeptions and that Oberyn was a very unusual father. Besides, they are his bastard daughters and not ladies. Their cousin Arianne is not allowed any weapon training and neither are her noble female friends (at least not that I recall, please point out if I'm mistaken on this). So the evidence for Ashara having sufficent training is a lot weaker than the evidence for Lyanna having training.

The story and the Reed childrens reactions makes no sense at all if the story is about anyone other than Ned or Lyanna and a lot of the evidence rather supports Lyanna.

[Artanaro]

One thing I don't like about message boards is if you spend a few days away, the conversation passes you by. Well, just so people don't walk away thinking they're right.

"Lyanna might have carried a sword, if my lord father had allowed it." AGOT, US PB, p. 221.

There's the quote. I don't agree that it's undeniable evidence against anything.

Thank you for the quote, oba. You earn my undying gratitude. Now, onto the deductive analysis.

What does this quote mean. Bullet point time.

1. Since a) father did not allow her to carry a sword, then she did not carry one. That's the meaning. Anyone who says differently is wrong. There's no "Ned helped train her behind her father's back." This is what Ned means. That's the proper interpretation of the grammatical phrasing.

2. Nevertheless

a) It is a logical assumption that Ned is not omniscient.

So here's the question. Could Lyanna have been trained behind Rickard's back and without Ned knowing. Very possible, but there are major shortcomings with this explanation. Why isn't Ned trustworthy enough to be told by Lyanna, Brandon, Benjen, or whomever assisted her? Siblings tell siblings personal information and like to brag about avoiding authority. Ned has proven very capable of keeping secrets, as seen by Jon's mother. Is it possible he has changed over the years? Definitely. Does any evidence support this? Not in reference to his faithfulnes.

It is also possible he can lie.

Response 1: What motive does Ned have about lying to Arya about his sister not wielding a sword. Well, here's one possibility. If he wanted to make Arya to give up her dream, that's an appropriate response. But Ned doesn't do this. He in fact gives her needle and hires a trainer. Motive stricken from the record until someone supplies me a better reason.

Response 2: Ned blames Lyanna's death on her desire to fight with a sword, so he'd rather lie to himself than say the truth. This makes more sense, but still suffers from problems. Why did he even make the comment? It wasn't in response to a question about Lyanna. Also, if Ned helped train her, there's definitive proof against that lie. Even the lies we tell ourselves need some grey area for us to believe them. Also, I find it hard for Ned to blame everything Lyanna did on whether she picked up a sword or not. Some people will lay the blame for a person's behavior on alcohol, a bad boyfriend/girlfriend, money, etc. But training with a sword? Not impossible, but fairly farfetched.

3. Rickard's reasoning behind refusing to let his daughter wield a sword applies to refusing her to train with a morning star, spear, or lance. Girls aren't meant to be fighters, it is an embarassment, or the risks outweigh any possible benefit may be reasons. I don't know Rickard's. But given the possible list, let's apply the most common ones. If there is a specific reason that applies to wielding swords, but not lances, please tell me. I'm quite interested, but let's look a little deeper. Perhaps the phrasing "have carried a sword" is a little ambigous. Perhaps Ned is only implying that she couldn't train with a live opponent, but could train alone. Training with quintains but not using a sword against Brandon is met by this criteria. But can she become a good jouster if she never challenges a live opponent? Especially for learning how to shield herself from lance points? I don't think so. She wouldn't become champion worthy without jousting against quality opponents.

So, to sum up, is this undeniable proof that Lyanna didn't train. No. Is it good evidence that she didn't? Yes. To say she is the best candidate, when there is good proof against that position, means that statement is inaccurate. Neither Ashara, Benjen, or Ned have this problem. Lyanna does. "Story evidence" does not trump contrary facts.

Artanaro

[oba]

One thing I don't like about message boards is if you spend a few days away, the conversation passes you by. Well, just so people don't walk away thinking they're right.

Thank you for the quote, oba. You earn my undying gratitude. Now, onto the deductive analysis.

No problem. I must say I'm a bit disappointed that you added the bold before "might" and "if". It doesn't appear that way in the text. Tsk tsk.

What does this quote mean. Bullet point time.

1. Since a) father did not allow her to carry a sword, then she did not carry one. That's the meaning. Anyone who says differently is wrong. There's no "Ned helped train her behind her father's back." This is what Ned means. That's the proper interpretation of the grammatical phrasing.

As others have pointed out, "carry" and "train with" mean different things. We all pretty much seem to agree that Lyanna is the she-wolf in Meera's story. That means she used a tourney sword to scatter the squires when they were assaulting Howland Reed.

We also know from Harwin's comments to Arya that, in his opinion, Lyanna rides "like a Northman." Harwin adds that Lyanna rode the same way.

So, to sum up, is this undeniable proof that Lyanna didn't train. No. Is it good evidence that she didn't? Yes. To say she is the best candidate, when there is good proof against that position, means that statement is inaccurate. Neither Ashara, Benjen, or Ned have this problem. Lyanna does. "Story evidence" does not trump contrary facts.

Artanaro

You make some very good points, but I think you're reading too much into the quote from Ned, which is extremely ambiguous, and disgregarding a lot of other points within the story.

To sum up:

1. Difference between "carrying" a sword vs. training with or knowing how to use one. (I mean, are we forgetting that Arya's managed to bring a sword from Ned's own forge with her to King's Landing and practice with it under his nose for a couple hundred pages? These Lords of Winterfell don't seem to be the most observant when it comes to their daughters' behavior.)

2. Lyanna used a tourney sword to get Howland Reed out of trouble.

3. Harwin makes a seemingly innocuous comment about how Arya's riding skill resembles that of Lyanna. Is this a throwaway line, or a further hint about Lyanna's possibilities as a jouster. Jaime opines in AFfC that, in his opinion, jousting is 3/4 horsemanship.

I still think Lyanna's the strongest candidate.

[Artanaro]

No problem. I must say I'm a bit disappointed that you added the bold before "might" and "if". It doesn't appear that way in the text. Tsk tsk.

I've found it's a good way to add emphasis to people's quotes. Perhaps it's unethical, but even then, I'll still do it .

As others have pointed out, "carry" and "train with" mean different things. We all pretty much seem to agree that Lyanna is the she-wolf in Meera's story. That means she used a tourney sword to scatter the squires when they were assaulting Howland Reed.

In my list of arguements, I should have added one implication. Rickard forbidding Lyanna applies to Winterfell. Outside of Winterfell, his word has no power, so it's still consistent that Lyanna could carry a wooden sword at Harrenhal, but not one back home. In terms of practical implications, Rickard's word means Lyanna would need to hide all practice from every servant in Winterfell. People who are responsible for polishing armor, cleaning weapons, stabling the horses would need to be avoided. Each problem in this conspiracy adds another reason Lyanna didn't train regularly. The cutoff between Lyanna being unlikely able to train and regular practice being impossible is left to each person to decide.

1. Difference between "carrying" a sword vs. training with or knowing how to use one.

This is taking Ned's statement out of context. The quote was made in response to Arya practicing with her sword. It was not made to her simply having possession of one.

2. Lyanna used a tourney sword to get Howland Reed out of trouble.

And I bet, given her spirit, that she probably jousted with a boy on some occasion as well. What I don't buy is that she practiced to a sufficient level of competancy in order to beat a knight let alone a champion. If she can't train regularly, she won't be good enough to win. Unless you just say the gods had it in for her that day.

3. Harwin makes a seemingly innocuous comment about how Arya's riding skill resembles that of Lyanna. Is this a throwaway line, or a further hint about Lyanna's possibilities as a jouster. Jaime opines in AFfC that, in his opinion, jousting is 3/4 horsemanship.

Riding is not jousting even if some skills overlap. If someone is a great pitcher, and they suddenly pick up a football, they won't suddenly be a great quarterback. The horsemanship in jousting is a different situation from the horsemanship in quintains or riding across country.

And one more comment. If you're only 3/4 a jouster, you'll get your ass handed to you by any knight :cool: (couldn't resist)

I still think Lyanna's the strongest candidate.

And I'm free to disagree. Cheerio.

Artanaro

[Jaime Martell]

And I'm free to disagree.

how very diplomatic of you. I gotta disagree though, as is my right.

[Artanaro]

how very diplomatic of you. I gotta disagree though, as is my right.

and I now invoke my right to disagree with you as well. You've been disagreed. How does it feel? Good, huh? :cool:

Artanaro

[oba]

and I now invoke my right to disagree with you as well. You've been disagreed. How does it feel? Good, huh? :cool:

Artanaro

I disagree with both of you. And myself. And everybody else here.

[CelticBrennus]

2. Lyanna used a tourney sword to get Howland Reed out of trouble.

Which, in and of itself, means nothing. Honestly, think about it for a second here. What squire from a small, second or third tier house is going to fight a daughter of a Great House? She would have been wearing some sort of identification, and those squires would have been gutted by Brandon, Eddard and their guards if they harmed her.

So her driving off those squires means nothing by itself - THEY COULD NOT FIGHT BACK!

[lee1026]

Also, right now, if a girl charged into a bunch of guys with fists flying, there is a good chance that the guys will retreat simply from the shock involved.

[Stratonice]

1. Since a) father did not allow her to carry a sword, then she did not carry one. That's the meaning. Anyone who says differently is wrong. There's no "Ned helped train her behind her father's back." This is what Ned means. That's the proper interpretation of the grammatical phrasing.

First of all, as a lot of people have already pointed out, carrying a sword and knowing how to use one is not the same thing.

Secondly, that one sentence taken out of context could easily be interpreted either way BUT in the same conversation Ned also says that Arya reminds him a lot of Lyanna and that if he were to take away Needle he would probably find her with a morningstar next. And it's this that makes me think that Lyanna probably did train and that Ned probably knew about it.

2. Nevertheless

a) It is a logical assumption that Ned is not omniscient.

So here's the question. Could Lyanna have been trained behind Rickard's back and without Ned knowing. Very possible, but there are major shortcomings with this explanation. Why isn't Ned trustworthy enough to be told by Lyanna, Brandon, Benjen, or whomever assisted her? Siblings tell siblings personal information and like to brag about avoiding authority. Ned has proven very capable of keeping secrets, as seen by Jon's mother. Is it possible he has changed over the years? Definitely. Does any evidence support this? Not in reference to his faithfulnes.

Since Ned spent a lot of time in the Vale, this is certainly a possibility but it makes the entire discussion pointless if true. If Ned doesn't know one way or the other if Lyanna had any kind of training, then we can't know about it either at this point. But as stated above, when you put the quote into context it's certainly a possible interpretation that he did know about it.

3. Rickard's reasoning behind refusing to let his daughter wield a sword applies to refusing her to train with a morning star, spear, or lance. Girls aren't meant to be fighters, it is an embarassment, or the risks outweigh any possible benefit may be reasons. I don't know Rickard's. But given the possible list, let's apply the most common ones. If there is a specific reason that applies to wielding swords, but not lances, please tell me. I'm quite interested, but let's look a little deeper. Perhaps the phrasing "have carried a sword" is a little ambigous. Perhaps Ned is only implying that she couldn't train with a live opponent, but could train alone. Training with quintains but not using a sword against Brandon is met by this criteria. But can she become a good jouster if she never challenges a live opponent? Especially for learning how to shield herself from lance points? I don't think so. She wouldn't become champion worthy without jousting against quality opponents.

I don't think Rickard saw any of those weapons as more suitable for his daughter than any other. But based on Ned's conversation with Arya and what we know of Lyanna's personality, I'd say it's likely she wanted to learn the sword, had one of her brothers teach her. Her father found out and told her she couldn't so she chose a different weapon and continued training. So far, Ned's words could easily be interpreted to support my position.

This may even have happened more times until lord Rickard realised that he couldn't keep her from it and so decided to let her train so long as she did it in private and didn't carry her weapons around in public. (Though this paragraph lacks textual support that I know of and is pure speculation on my part.)

So, to sum up, is this undeniable proof that Lyanna didn't train. No. Is it good evidence that she didn't? Yes. To say she is the best candidate, when there is good proof against that position, means that statement is inaccurate. Neither Ashara, Benjen, or Ned have this problem. Lyanna does. "Story evidence" does not trump contrary facts.

Actually Ashara has this problem twice over. As stated in my previous post, there's absolutely NOTHING to suggest that dornish noble women are trained in combat any more than in the rest of the Realm. The only ones mentioned are the Sand Snakes who 1) are bastards and not nobles, 2) are remarked upon as exceptions and 3) have a highly unusual father and a very unusual upbringing. So far, she has the same problem Lyanna has.

But it's clear from the stories and memories of Lyanna that she wanted to train and had the kind of personality that would make her seek it no matter what anyone thought or said about it. There is nothing to suggest this for Ashara (there's nothing to specifically contradict it either, but it takes more than a lack of evidence to convince me she did since it would have been remarked upon).

So in short, there is nothing to suggest that Ashara either had training, wanted it or could have aquired it. Lyanna on the other hand wanted it, had brothers who were around and probably would have thought it fun to teach her (especially Brandon) and we also know that she at least started to train (why else would her father have forbidden her to carry a sword).

[frfa]

ned was sure it was his sister. i think that is why he never told the story to his children, the event itself being the start of many of his losses. but the reeds were surprised when bran said he had never heard it, they could not quite believe him.

maybe it is just that the version with the methaphorical names was what their father told the reeds and they only thought it was not lyanna but their father or benjen. but it might be that howland told them more, explained it to them. so either way they thought it strange that ned kept the story to himself. the reeds are not stupid, they have some magical abilities, so i do not think they took the story too lightly.

but it could still be lyanna, we will have to wait..or maybe ti will remain a secret.

[Artanaro]

First of all, as a lot of people have already pointed out, carrying a sword and knowing how to use one is not the same thing.

But people are twisting this logic to mean that she can train with a sword without ever having "carried a sword." Please explain how Rickard's logic doesn't apply to her training? You do in fact have to carry a sword if you want to train.

Artanaro

[oba]

But people are twisting this logic to mean that she can train with a sword without ever having "carried a sword." Please explain how Rickard's logic doesn't apply to her training? You do in fact have to carry a sword if you want to train.

Artanaro

That's why it's ambiguous.

Does "not allowed to carry" mean not allowed to wear in public. Or does "not allowed to carry" mean "not allowed to train with". I don't think the quote makes it clear which one it is.

Again, as others have pointed out, Ser Rodrik's allowing Robb to "wear" live steel is noteworthy enough for Catelyn to remark upon it, despite the fact that Robb had been training with a sword for most of his life.

I'll borrow a page from your book.

Lyanna might have carried a sword, if my lord father had allowed it.

See, it all depends upon which word you emphasize.

[Stratonice]

But people are twisting this logic to mean that she can train with a sword without ever having "carried a sword." Please explain how Rickard's logic doesn't apply to her training? You do in fact have to carry a sword if you want to train.

There is a very possible explanation (even if it's not conclusive) for this interpretation (as Oba explained very well above). It all depends on how you interpret the word carried. Does it imply "wearing" it, carry it on you wherever you go (more or less) or does it imply ever touching one?! Based on the context of the quote I make the former interpretation.

But either way, there's even less to support the asumption that Ashara Dayne ever trained with or carried or did anything else with a sword or any other kind of weapon. But you haven't commented on any of my arguments regarding her.

As I said in a previous post, my first reaction to Meera's story was that it was about Ned so I could still accept him as the Knight of the Laughing Tree. But I still think Lyanna more likely after really considering it.

[Artanaro]

That's why it's ambiguous.

No, people want to pretend it's ambigous so Lyanna can have a horse to stand on. Look at the context of that scene. Ned finds out about Arya having a sword. There discussion is about her using the sword on Sansa. Ned comes to the conclusion that he will let her train under Syrio. There's nothing about public appearances in this conversation. This arguement is reaching.

Does "not allowed to carry" mean not allowed to wear in public. Or does "not allowed to carry" mean "not allowed to train with". I don't think the quote makes it clear which one it is.

Examine what Ned's comment is in reaction to. It's quite simple. There is no context about Arya wearing a sword in public. This is twisting words to "rationlize" one's position.

Artanaro

[oba]

No, people want to pretend it's ambigous so Lyanna can have a horse to stand on. Look at the context of that scene. Ned finds out about Arya having a sword. There discussion is about her using the sword on Sansa. Ned comes to the conclusion that he will let her train under Syrio. There's nothing about public appearances in this conversation. This arguement is reaching.

Examine what Ned's comment is in reaction to. It's quite simple. There is no context about Arya wearing a sword in public. This is twisting words to "rationlize" one's position.

Artanaro

And Ned could simply have said. "You know, my sister wanted a sword, but my father never let her have one."

THAT would be unambiguous.

Ned is not noted for engaging in sophistry. He's a pretty direct guy. In this instance, his words are open to interpretation.

I think your refusal to acknowledge that, perhaps, Ned's comments are open to more than one interpretation is a bit of a rationalization on your own part.

Particularly because we get a later story which, again arguably, indicates that Lyanna was no stranger to the use of a blade.

[oba]

Which, in and of itself, means nothing. Honestly, think about it for a second here. What squire from a small, second or third tier house is going to fight a daughter of a Great House? She would have been wearing some sort of identification, and those squires would have been gutted by Brandon, Eddard and their guards if they harmed her.

So her driving off those squires means nothing by itself - THEY COULD NOT FIGHT BACK!

Taken on its own, none of the points about Lyanna mean anything.

Taken together, however:

1. Parallels between Lyanna and Arya with respect to personality traits. Ned's comment that Lyanna might have carried a sword if allowed by their father.

2. Lyanna (she-wolf) scatters the squires with a tourney sword. I agree that squires aren't going to fight a daughter of a Great House, but, at least the way the story's told, there wasn't much time for letters of introduction to be exchanged. It says she roared and laid into the squires, scattering every one. Not that the squires spotted her "My name is Lyanna Stark" name badge. In any event, it's as much about her actions as it is about their reaction. It establishes that she's the type to act on her own initiative, and with a weapon, as opposed to running to get her guardsmen or her brothers. It's not meant to establish her as the second coming of Arthur Dayne.

#2 makes a lot of us see #1 in a different light. The same thing with the story about Arya's riding like a northman a la Lyanna. On its own, it's just a throwaway line. Taken together with numbers one and two, I think it establishes her as a candidate for KoLT. At least as much of one as every other character being presented.

[dragon wolf]

I am exploring this site and I have got to say that was one exhausting, but interesting, thread. Thanks for the read.

Have to say, when I first encountered the story of KofLT as told by the Reeds, I thought it was Howland Reed myself. But having the KofLT be Lyanna makes much more sense, not to mention expands upon how special, how unique, Lyanna was. Ashara Dayne's is an interesting tale to be sure, but as the KofLT, kind of of out in left field IMO.

[Shewoman]

Great post, Maia.

I find it hard to see Ashara as the KOTLT. What motive would she have to avenge a crannogman pledged to House Stark? Perhaps she was trying to attract Ned by taking up for Howland, but somehow that doesn't quite fit to me. Aside from the mutual attraction between her and Ned at Harrenhal, the other main thing we know about her is that she may have committed suicide after the war ended. That can, of course, be understood as underscoring the depth of her interest in Ned and her despair when she realized that he was married (although I can't believe it took a year for the news of the wedding alliance against Aerys to reach the Daynes, who were Aerys' supporters). I suppose it's hard for me to imagine that a woman who took such a public risk at a large, well-attended tournament would suicide at the old news of her former lover's wedding. But it could be so.

I find myself agreeing with whoever it was upthread who supported the idea of Lyanna as the KoLt with the suggestion that it was her bravery and willingness to stand up for someone who was treated unfairly that caught Rhaegar's attention in the first place to the extent that he honored her as the Queen of Love and Beauty instead of his own wife. . . and the rest is history (or, in this case, fantasy). I don't think that because of any R+L theory but because it seems reasonable that there had to be something about Lyanna that particularly struck Rhaegar. Perhaps it was her beauty, but I think it would take more than that for him honor her publicly as he did.

[thotk]

As I understand Cranog men are mentioed during Victarion's POV, although none specifically he mentions the bog devils and their poisoned arrows etc.

So I guess its good to remember that even though Victarion's men held Moat Cailin they were constantly being attacking from the swamps also demonstrates that the Reed's are not be passive on the side...