R+L=J v.20

[Summerqueen]

I think both of you capture the complicated nature of the issue.

Do I think that Lyanna was driven by any prophesy?

IMHO, probably not. While she was of the old religion, I have a feeling she was not the most "devout" individual in the world, and tended to focus on the here and now.

Was she driven by honor?

Yes, her actions point to that, so I don't think she would go off with a married man, even if she loved him.

Given what we know of Starks and honor, as well as an expectation of self-sacrifice, she might even feel more inclined to marry Robert, despite what she felt about either man.

(Brandon could very well have loved either Lady Dustin, or even Ashara, but he fully intended to do his duty and marry Caitlyn, and he was the most wild of them all).

Did she love Rhaegar?

I think so, but again, it doesn't mean it didn't come without personal conflict, and of the two of them, my gut tells me she would have been the most saavy of the two in terms of what it could mean for them. And if the promise she made Ned keep was to keep Jons idenity a secret and raise him as his own, then I think that is a sign of her more practical nature.

The kidnapping/abduction.

He could have abducted her knowing her personal conflict and resistance, thereby taking the hit to his honor to preserve hers.

She was taken at swordpoint, at least according to what Dany heard.

What context she heard it in is debatable of course, but since it's dopy Dany and she's viewing it through the prism of a romantic event could mean the opposite, and that it was a violent event, or at least started out innocent and got out of hand.

I think of Lyanna as a sort of Juliet figure. She is always the pragmatist to Romeo's romantic performances. He does a lo-o-o-o-ot of talking to get in her window, and they get married before the Big Event seals their fates.

They are one of the few Houses that did not employ their own Headsman, because they believed if you were going to take a life, you did it yourself instead of passing the dirty work off to someone else.

Also, they don't have the following they do from the North based just on prestige, or fear alone.

Yes, as Sansa concludes when listening to Cersei's ruling philosophy, fear alone does not win loyalty in any degree close to what gaining the love of retainers can bring a ruler. She is a Stark through and through.

[Alia of the knife]

I think of Lyanna as a sort of Juliet figure. She is always the pragmatist to Romeo's romantic performances. He does a lo-o-o-o-ot of talking to get in her window, and they get married before the Big Event seals their fates.

Yes, as Sansa concludes when listening to Cersei's ruling philosophy, fear alone does not win loyalty in any degree close to what gaining the love of retainers can bring a ruler. She is a Stark through and through.

I tend to think the same thing classically, but I also think we take away from the series what we know to be true in life experience which I think any good writer appeals to.

And the same holds true today (perhaps without life and death consequences).

In my "day" job, I am a Supervisor, so people always watch and listen to what I'm doing, and I'm aware of that.

Am I "do as I say, but don't do as I do?"

No. I can't ask others to do what I'm not willing to do myself.

If I don't walk the walk, and talk the talk, then I am not going to motivate them to respect me.

And thats kind of the prism that I view the Starks, and I suppose why I like their particular characters.

[Ashkan Stark]

Are you of the opinion that r+l does = j or just not sure?

Evidence is very strong but you know, GRRM has surprised us before. Personally I don't like it to happen but when you look ate evidence there is a really good chance that it will happen.

[corbon]

Ned was not born in a vacuum. He is not the only one to pass on what are clearly Stark aphorisms and traditions. Do you really believe, for example, that Rickard did not hand out justice first-hand? Maybe a more modern audience would have difficulty grasping it, but ppl in such a society wouldn't be surrounded by fresh and novel ideas, and they uphold tradition and family values. There is nothing to suggest that any Stark has a decadent personality.

I agree that the Stark name seems to have an association with understanding duty and responsibility in particular.

Although I would suggest that there is a reasonable body of evidence to say that Brandon might have had a decadent (or at least arrogant, selfish and entitled) personality.

But I do not agree that we can assume that all Starks are the same and all Starks have the same standards.

"adherence to honor and duty that seems standard to all the Starks"

I'm not saying the Starks are generally dishonourable or anything. Or even that their 'mean' (average) honour level isn't higher than most other families (but it might not be). I'm just saying that it is only fair to assume that like any family they have individuals who vary from the mean.

And traditions do not necessarily equate to honour. Rickard could well have followed all of Ned's Stark 'traditions' wthout having anything like the sort of honour that drives Ned.

Not to mention that Ned spent most of his formative years with Jon Arryn, not Rickard.

Benjen has not yet appeared as a deserter. He seems to keep his oaths at least. He also tried to talk realistically about the NW with Jon—also something he didn't have to do, considering that the NW is in desperate need of new recruits. AFAWK, he fulfills his duty, either to remain the Stark at Winterfell or to honor the vows to the NW. Until he turns up otherwise, I think we're safe to conclude that he behaves with honor.

Benjens actions speak of nothing at all. 99% of the Nights Watch keep their oaths as much as he did, and he has it a lot better than most of them.

I think its safe to say that we just don't know what Benjen's standard of honour truly is but that he gets a favourable nod at this stage based on being Ned's brother, a nice enough guy and not doing anything wrong.

Brandon, he wouldn't have made his major error in political judgment if he did not hold his sister to some idea of honor. He has one example of a lady with obviously sour grapes maligning his name. He may even have been a lady's man. But he took LF seriously enough to actually duel with him, and he allowed Cat to sway him from slaughtering the little bugger, even after being challenged. The duel couldn't have brought him any personal glory, so it must have been a point of honor or protocol that made him face LF and treat him like any other challenger.

Brandons actions could speak of careless arrogance or selfish wildness as much as honour. Few men would do less than he does with Littlefinger and the KL thing seems more like being overly offended by something that is not his to be offended by (that is his father's right). That is the sort of 'honour' that I, for one, don't count as honour at all. And his action was not honourable. If rage overrides doing things the right way, then that doesn't point to a person with honour as a core value.

Add to that Lady Dustin's voice which, if it has still yet to beconfirmed as reliable, points only downhill not up.

Basically there is nothing that we know of Brandon that speaks well of his sense of honour, and several things that could well reflect poorly.

If Lyanna did in fact become the KotLT to teach bullies to pick on someone their own size, this is still honor. I'm not sure how a lesson in fairness can fail to touch on honor, actually. Also, Ned still thinks well of Lyanna. He does not seem to think well of people who do not behave with honor. He is absolutely torn up by Robert's more vicious decisions, and Robert is his BFF. He would feel more conflicted, I conclude, if he thought Lyanna behaved in a way that would postively shame him and the family. Instead, he reflects about Lyanna's not caring much for Robert without real heat or blame.

Lyanna's honourable action is a single event and many people (not me ironically enough) argue that they don't believe she would go willingly with Rhaegar because it 'wasn't honourable'. Yet the evidence points to her most likely going willingly. And certainly she was wild and disobedient in certain areas.

Ned thinks generally well of Robert, as much as Lyanna. Yet Robert is quite without honour in certain areas, according to Ned.

Lyanna, a little like Benjen, basically gets a pass as a reflection of Ned. Standing on her own her known actions give off a mixed signal, probably more honourable than not. But the jury is still out.

In other words, I think it is a safe conclusion to draw that the Starks have a code of honor by which they abide. We see enough of the Northmen that we can certainly draw the conclusion that they set themselves apart from southerners who have a less steady code that they follow.

The Boltons have a code of honour that they abide to as well.

Of Rickard we have nothing at all. I would like to think Ned got his own particular version of honour from somewhere (probably largely Rickard and/or Jon Arryn), but that could just as easily have been from his mother as his father, not to mention been expanded almost as a reaction to what he went through during Robert's rebellion (and possibly as a reaction to Brandon being something of a shit). So we shouldn't make too much of an automatic assumption that Rickard was a paragon of honour here (nor that he was not, of course).

I think it is clear that the Starks, and the North, have a different code than the South. But I don't think it is necessarily more honourable, just harder and more personal. The Greatjon was going to ride roughshod over Rob (his liege) and do as he pleased until Rob (and Grey Wind) faced him down. Where was the honour in that? Yet everybody accepted it as 'normal' behaviour.

I think it is fair to say that the Starks have a great deal of tradition and a closer tie to their people than most southern lords do.

But I think it is also fair to say that people are varying shades of gray. And families vary their shades within the family. You seem to be painting the Starks very uniformly white here.

[Summerqueen]

...

I'm not saying the Starks are generally dishonourable or anything. Or even that their 'mean' (average) honour level isn't higher than most other families (but it might not be). I'm just saying that it is only fair to assume that like any family they have individuals who vary from the mean.

Agreed, but that there are varying degrees of honor among family members does not mean that those members who score the lowest are not relatively more honorable than others outside the family group, either. Would you argue that honor seems important to the Starks as a family or not? I argue that it does.

And traditions do not necessarily equate to honour. Rickard could well have followed all of Ned's Stark 'traditions' wthout having anything like the sort of honour that drives Ned.

Not to mention that Ned spent most of his formative years with Jon Arryn, not Rickard.

Robert too. We could conclude that it didn't take, as he does, but I'm betting that the formative years began earlier than a trip to the Eyrie.

Benjens actions speak of nothing at all. 99% of the Nights Watch keep their oaths as much as he did, and he has it a lot better than most of them.

I think its safe to say that we just don't know what Benjen's standard of honour truly is but that he gets a favourable nod at this stage based on being Ned's brother, a nice enough guy and not doing anything wrong.

Unlike most of the NW, he elected to join and is not a criminal. He had somewhere else to go, too. He could have stayed on at Winterfell, become a maester or hedge knight, or married into a smaller house. His choices are important. The idea of duty must have appealed to him in some capacity, or at least I can only suppose so, in lieu of greater detail about what he could be running from to make him do something drastic such as join the NW if it didn't appeal to him as family duty/tradition. Maybe he prefers the company of men. It's possible. But the criminals who come to the NW as a last chance seem uniformly unsavory. :drunk:

Brandons actions could speak of careless arrogance or selfish wildness as much as honour. Few men would do less than he does with Littlefinger and the KL thing seems more like being overly offended by something that is not his to be offended by (that is his father's right). That is the sort of 'honour' that I, for one, don't count as honour at all. And his action was not honourable. If rage overrides doing things the right way, then that doesn't point to a person with honour as a core value.

Add to that Lady Dustin's voice which, if it has still yet to beconfirmed as reliable, points only downhill not up.

Basically there is nothing that we know of Brandon that speaks well of his sense of honour, and several things that could well reflect poorly.

I certainly believe that the wild wolf is the most suspect in terms of having honor, but I read the LF duel differently from you. Brandon could have ignored LF, and many a man would have thought treating him seriously man-to-man would make him a laughingstock. Brandon treated LF like an equal when he chose to duel (he didn't have to, as the deal with Cat's dad and Cat's own wishes made the duel completely unnecessary). That was a lot of consideration. He reaffirmed LF's masculinity and bravery by fighting him. Kind of like how I respect you enough to argue these points rather than dismiss you and say nothing, or like how you respond to me in kind, I'm assuming out of an equal sense of respect. Many another knight/lord/heir would have just laughed and refused.

Lyanna's honourable action is a single event and many people (not me ironically enough) argue that they don't believe she would go willingly with Rhaegar because it 'wasn't honourable'. Yet the evidence points to her most likely going willingly. And certainly she was wild and disobedient in certain areas.

Ned thinks generally well of Robert, as much as Lyanna. Yet Robert is quite without honour in certain areas, according to Ned.

Lyanna, a little like Benjen, basically gets a pass as a reflection of Ned. Standing on her own her known actions give off a mixed signal, probably more honourable than not. But the jury is still out.

I disagree. Ned certainly seemed to be taking the changes in Robert rather hard. I don't have page numbers, but he breaks with him, wants to leave KL behind. That is a bold statement. He will not back a decision that he fundamentally disagrees with. And his POV chapters become full of suspicion of Robert and his decisions.

The Boltons have a code of honour that they abide to as well.

Seriously? The Bolton code hardly seems like one of honor so much as one of covering your ass to me.

Of Rickard we have nothing at all. I would like to think Ned got his own particular version of honour from somewhere (probably largely Rickard and/or Jon Arryn), but that could just as easily have been from his mother as his father, not to mention been expanded almost as a reaction to what he went through during Robert's rebellion (and possibly as a reaction to Brandon being something of a shit). So we shouldn't make too much of an automatic assumption that Rickard was a paragon of honour here (nor that he was not, of course).

You are basically saying that you think we shouldn't automatically give him the credit for installing the values Ned has. I disagree, but I can only speak for myself. My own father's sense of right and wrong is more or less the one I go by, even though I no longer practice his religion and have adapted his ideas from being masculine-centric to something I recognize from my own situation as a woman. I think we would have to hear or see some discord or distance between Ned and Rickard to suppose that he isn't a major factor in Ned's worldview. There's no reason to assume that their relationship wouldn't be the norm unless we were hinted at to take a closer look. Therefore, I argue the opposite: we should give Rickard ample credit until we have reason to believe otherwise. When there is father/son discord, GRRM usually notes it (like with Tywin's father, Tywin himself, Sam's dad, etc.).

I think it is clear that the Starks, and the North, have a different code than the South. But I don't think it is necessarily more honourable, just harder and more personal. The Greatjon was going to ride roughshod over Rob (his liege) and do as he pleased until Rob (and Grey Wind) faced him down. Where was the honour in that? Yet everybody accepted it as 'normal' behaviour.

I think it is fair to say that the Starks have a great deal of tradition and a closer tie to their people than most southern lords do.

But I think it is also fair to say that people are varying shades of gray. And families vary their shades within the family. You seem to be painting the Starks very uniformly white here.

To me, it seems normal to test an untried boy whom you plan to follow into battle. I am not sure that I would describe that as dishonorable. Are you? I mean, do you think the Greatjon was behaving in a dishonorable way? And it seems obvious to me that Selmy is an honorable man, for example. This is not the point, though.

Yes, people do not all feel the same amount of duty, honor, etc. No one claimed people were all the same. :bang:

But family members are indeed more uniform in their beliefs than random individuals not related through family ties, in my experience. I said:

I feel she has the same adherence to honor and duty that seems standard to all the Starks.

I am merely remarking that honor, and family honor especially, seems to rank highly among the Starks. And I think of an honorable Stark as the standard (though we see that Arya already pushes that idea of honor out of her way. This is not to say that I think Lyanna is feral!girl like Arya, though I think Arya would have been nothing less than honorable if she had made it through her youth without losing everyone and everything she holds dear—her family and friends. Her remarks about Joffrey seem to indicate she sees injustice and ethical weakness fairly well before Ned dies).

You are welcome to think about the Starks differently, but I already conceded in the post you jumped in on that I was going with my instinct, so I'm not sure what more you'd have of me now you have a better outline of my interpretations and suppositions.

[Summerqueen]

I wasn't able to edit my post for some reason. Sorry for the double post then.

I want to clarify:

By my last comments, I simply mean that I could go round and round here, because I'm just talking mainly about what seems like the correct conclusion to me. Could/would/necessarily does not really factor, as I'm not making definitive arguments but only expressing what feels right based on the scanty info we have.

[Gala]

I would like to get involved here!

First of all, about the North: I've always liked how GRRM described the North through Dunk's words - something like "In the North you get what you deserve, not because of status, money or the side you'd been fighting before (I presume it was reference to the Blackfyre rebellion sides)". I hope it will become true in the next Dunk and Egg's story.

Secondly, the Starks: they're seem to share a lot of in common, all of those we know. IIRC Lyanna wasn't the only one Stark furious about the squires' behavior. The story about tKoLT emphasizes that the wolf girl's two older brothers were defeated earlier and couldn't fight that day, while the youngest wolf was too small. It seems that they wanted to, but couldn't do that. Well, it is how I saw the story. Therefore, the sense of justice is a common feature among those kids (as we can see among Ned's as well).

Honor. Well, honor of Starks is a tricky question, because it is not clear whether it is famous because of Ned or Ned is just an example of famous Stark honor. I'm prone to think the second. Because Ned, even being him the way he is, wouldn't be able to create that imagine alone (he became Lord only 17 years ago)! And episodes, like Catelyn telling "as a Stark" seem to speak for itself, actually. It is a family name, but not specifically Lord Eddard's name that gives an image (don't get me wrong here, I admire Ned).

As for Ned being brought up by Jon Arryn: well, Robert was also brought by him, so what?! I'm prone to think that Jon Arryn just added more to what Ned already was. Plus, Ned prefer the Old Ways and that thing (looking into eyes of a person, you are going to execute) is definitely came from Rickard, I suspect he taught Ned that lesson the way Ned taught Bran at the GoT. Starks prefer to take responsibility for their actions (killing people in the name of law) as their personal duty, because they are responsible as Lords, rulers.

Brandon is an arguable question, as he was always describe wild and hot-tempered, and now as a lady-man, but it doesn't mean he was dishonorable.

Benjen is seem to be a little copy of Ned: dutiful, honorable and cold-witted (if there is such a word in English, I hope you understand what I meant).

We know nothing particular about Rickard. But I'm sure enough that he wasn't a bastard like Tywin was.

Lyanna was wild, hot-tempered and disobedient, very much like Brandon, but it also doesn't mean she was dishonorable. I prone to think that she didn't go that willingly with Rhaegar, though she probably truly loved him, i presume that she was resisting that, until he "stole", similar to the Old Ways (as I understood the woman could be stolen (in most cases) only when she wants to be stolen, I do not see all "stealing" thing as a rape interpretation).

So the question about Stark honor is a tough one, but I like (I prefer it/ see it that way) to think that is their family feature rather then the image Ned created.

[The Red Wake]

Was she driven by honor?

Yes, her actions point to that, so I don't think she would go off with a married man, even if she loved him.

Given what we know of Starks and honor, as well as an expectation of self-sacrifice, she might even feel more inclined to marry Robert, despite what she felt about either man.

I very much doubt Lyanna was a person driven by her sense of honor. Why? Mainly because Ned only ever thinks of her personality once, and compared her to Arya. Strong willed,

independent, certainly not bound by the same moral code as the other Starks. She would have worn a sword if Rickard let her.

From this I garner it's pretty likely she'd follow her own desires if they were that strong, especially when faced with an alternative as unappealing as spending the rest of her life as the wife to Robert Baratheon.

[Harimad]

yep, ned's dream sequence about lyanna is after jaime stabs him.

my friends and i recently started the whole series (and by recently i mean december...i'm the furthest into the series -- about 25 % through ADwD). as we read GoT, i totally thought R+L = J, right off the bat. my friends who are reading it, too, thought i was nuts, that it was impossible, that it had to be ashara dayne and/or wylla....i always disagreed.

flashfoward to the others finishing ASoS, and they all now totally agree.

like you i don't know why i immediately thought R+L=J. my friends have said that i probably suspected because a) i'm a mystery buff and pretty good at putting clues together; B) i'm a writer myself and may be more clued into writer's intentions; and c) i'm a careful reader.

i still stand by the theory and i think it makes the most sense out of anything else. (this website does a pretty good job of going through each of the jon snow's mother theories and putting it on a timeline -- i think it might be under the FAQs). if it turns out we're all wrong, and R+L = J is just fan-guessing, i'll eat my hat.

haha yes hats will be in short supply if we are all proved wrong. My thought on it is that GRRM does not put characters in for no reason, even the seemingly "random" prologue POVs usually have major importance even if they only appear the once. Yes, Lyanna gives some basis for the tie between Robert and Ned as well as sets up Robert and Cersei's doomed relationship, but if that were all GRRM could have just said "and Rhaegar raped Lyanna the end." The fact that she crops up so often has more significance than just rounding out OTHER characters, IMHO.

I also just think the whole "promise" that Ned makes to Lyanna is a dead give away...which of course could mean that it is something else that will surprise us all, but like MANY other people have said on this topic/every topic, this is not some sick game GRRM is playing with us. He is telling a story that's up there in his brilliant head and it will go where it goes. if R+L=J ends up being false, there's probably something far more genius he has in mind.

As much as he drives us all mad with the certain things he does to certain characters, the man knows how to keep us all reading and since we are all on this forum I dont think any of us are likely to be dissuaded if one of our pet theories falls through.

Now, if he would just hurry up and finish Winds of Winter.....

[Lady Octarina]

Ned was not born in a vacuum. He is not the only one to pass on what are clearly Stark aphorisms and traditions. Do you really believe, for example, that Rickard did not hand out justice first-hand? Maybe a more modern audience would have difficulty grasping it, but ppl in such a society wouldn't be surrounded by fresh and novel ideas, and they uphold tradition and family values. There is nothing to suggest that any Stark has a decadent personality.

EDIT

Benjen has not yet appeared as a deserter. He seems to keep his oaths at least. He also tried to talk realistically about the NW with Jon—also something he didn't have to do, considering that the NW is in desperate need of new recruits. AFAWK, he fulfills his duty, either to remain the Stark at Winterfell or to honor the vows to the NW. Until he turns up otherwise, I think we're safe to conclude that he behaves with honor.

Brandon, he wouldn't have made his major error in political judgment if he did not hold his sister to some idea of honor. He has one example of a lady with obviously sour grapes maligning his name. He may even have been a lady's man. But he took LF seriously enough to actually duel with him, and he allowed Cat to sway him from slaughtering the little bugger, even after being challenged. The duel couldn't have brought him any personal glory, so it must have been a point of honor or protocol that made him face LF and treat him like any other challenger.

If Lyanna did in fact become the KotLT to teach bullies to pick on someone their own size, this is still honor. I'm not sure how a lesson in fairness can fail to touch on honor, actually. Also, Ned still thinks well of Lyanna. He does not seem to think well of people who do not behave with honor. He is absolutely torn up by Robert's more vicious decisions, and Robert is his BFF. He would feel more conflicted, I conclude, if he thought Lyanna behaved in a way that would postively shame him and the family. Instead, he reflects about Lyanna's not caring much for Robert without real heat or blame.

In other words, I think it is a safe conclusion to draw that the Starks have a code of honor by which they abide. We see enough of the Northmen that we can certainly draw the conclusion that they set themselves apart from southerners who have a less steady code that they follow.

I don't think anyone is saying here that the Starks are decadent, just that they don't obsess over honor like Ned (and some of his children). I mean, think about it: honor with Ned is basically the reason of his existence. We know Brandon was more like Robert than Eddard (his fighting LF is not necessarily a matter of honor, but pride - the bride was his anyway). Lord Rickard had his political ambitions to work on. Lyanna and Benjen... well, we don't know that much about them, but nothing indicates they were as driven by honor as Ned.

I don't deny they have a sense of honor, only that other things (practical concerns or, why not, feelings) could occasionally be stronger than that, and command their actions. But why am I saying all this? *looking over the previous posts*

Oh, yes, because I don't agree with you when you say she ran away with Rhaegar because of prophecies or Northern legends. That doesn't mean I think she went with him willingly - might have been, or not. Well, there is mention of fight or abduction in the books, not just from Robert, so maybe Alia of the Knife is right and Rhaegar really kidnapped her because he knew that, even if she wanted it, she wouldn't have gone with him willingly. Whatever Martin decides, I'm sure he'll come up with a good explanation, and I'll probably love to read about it. :laugh:

Edit: just saw this last page, and that corbon said the same things I mentioned much more beautifully :drunk:

[Lady Octarina]

Agreed, but that there are varying degrees of honor among family members does not mean that those members who score the lowest are not relatively more honorable than others outside the family group, either. Would you argue that honor seems important to the Starks as a family or not? I argue that it does.

You see, the thing in Westeros is that it's important to appear honorable before everyone else, including family members, occasionally, but that doesn't mean they actually care about honor. We'll simply never know how much honor meant to Rickard, Brandon and Lyanna, since we'll never be inside their minds in a POV.

Unlike most of the NW, he elected to join and is not a criminal. He had somewhere else to go, too. He could have stayed on at Winterfell, become a maester or hedge knight, or married into a smaller house. His choices are important. The idea of duty must have appealed to him in some capacity, or at least I can only suppose so, in lieu of greater detail about what he could be running from to make him do something drastic such as join the NW if it didn't appeal to him as family duty/tradition. Maybe he prefers the company of men. It's possible. But the criminals who come to the NW as a last chance seem uniformly unsavory. :drunk:

Since Martin refuses to tell us about why Benjen joined the Watch, I believe it had more to do with regret and penance (maybe for helping in the Rhaegar-Lyanna affair?) than a matter of honor.

I certainly believe that the wild wolf is the most suspect in terms of having honor, but I read the LF duel differently from you. Brandon could have ignored LF, and many a man would have thought treating him seriously man-to-man would make him a laughingstock. Brandon treated LF like an equal when he chose to duel (he didn't have to, as the deal with Cat's dad and Cat's own wishes made the duel completely unnecessary). That was a lot of consideration. He reaffirmed LF's masculinity and bravery by fighting him. Kind of like how I respect you enough to argue these points rather than dismiss you and say nothing, or like how you respond to me in kind, I'm assuming out of an equal sense of respect. Many another knight/lord/heir would have just laughed and refused.

O.O

Amazing how different people read the same thing in such different ways. I always saw Brandon accepting LF's challenge was more a way to increase his sense of importance and humiliate Petyr than anything else. Maybe look good for the lady too. :stillsick:

You are basically saying that you think we shouldn't automatically give him the credit for installing the values Ned has. I disagree, but I can only speak for myself. My own father's sense of right and wrong is more or less the one I go by, even though I no longer practice his religion and have adapted his ideas from being masculine-centric to something I recognize from my own situation as a woman. I think we would have to hear or see some discord or distance between Ned and Rickard to suppose that he isn't a major factor in Ned's worldview. There's no reason to assume that their relationship wouldn't be the norm unless we were hinted at to take a closer look. Therefore, I argue the opposite: we should give Rickard ample credit until we have reason to believe otherwise. When there is father/son discord, GRRM usually notes it (like with Tywin's father, Tywin himself, Sam's dad, etc.).

True, but Ned barely thinks about his father. It seems clear to me that Jon Arryn is more a fatherly figure to him than Rickard. Maybe because he wasn't Rickard's heir, so his father would give more attention to Brandon? Not impossible, we saw that happen before with Robert and Stannis - which might be the reason why Jon Arryn's influence over Ned was greater than over Robert.

So, basically what I'm trying to say is: I don't think "honor" is the best parameter to judge the rest of the Starks, which doesn't mean they are as bad as Walder Frey, for example.

[PoorLollys]

R&L=J?

For sure.

Maybe.

I have long held to the belief that this makes the most sense. There are too many hints dropped along the way, like Ned's "you may not have my name, but you have my blood." Easy to interprut that as Ned acknowledging Jon as his bastard, but the statement is just as true if Lyanna is his mother.

it also seems very logical to me, very simple. Why else have this otherwise strange arc with so much circumstantial evidence?

Here's my theory, which I'm sure others share and is by no means groundbreaking, but I believe it is supported by the text.

So...

Lyanna and Rhaegar fell in love at Harrenhal and ran off together to Dorne for some alone time, leaving Robert to assume she had been abducted. Why else would she leave him?

He rebels and Rhaegar leaves Dorne to quell the rebelion...and leaves Lyanna with a baby in her belly.

Robert kills Rhaegar at the Trident and Lyanna dies in childbirth (or suicide) in Dorne, just as Ned is arriving to "rescue" her. But before she dies, she swears him to secrecy so the child won't suffer the same fate as his father (presuiming Rhaegar is dead at this time, not sure on that score).

So Ned claims the babe as his own (the family resemblence will hold true) and Robert, who couldn't even tell the children he was raising weren't his own, doesn't think to question it. His rage is saved soley for the targs. Why question his most trusted friend about his shameful breach of honor in fathering a bastard? Because Robert is the kinda guy who had plenty of bastards....Ned, on the other hand, doesn't seem the type to screw around while away at war.

Jon is then raised in the isolation of Winterfell and pointed toward the wall all his life, so like Maester Aemon, he may live out his days honorably, as Ned would have it. (I won't get into the prophecy stuff here, but I can buy that too, in relation to Lord Snow.)

one thing bothers me tho...

Jon burns his hand in GOT killing the Wight attacking Commander Mormont. Fire can't kill the dragon. Martin put the injury in there just for this purpose, i believe. Viserys is killed by molten gold and was clearly a targ, yet Dany is immune to it. I doubt it's a gender thing. So why one and not the other and what does that mean so far as Jon is concerned? I don't think it rules R&L out, but it doesn't help the argument.

[Ygrain]

one thing bothers me tho...

Jon burns his hand in GOT killing the Wight attacking Commander Mormont. Fire can't kill the dragon. Martin put the injury in there just for this purpose, i believe. Viserys is killed by molten gold and was clearly a targ, yet Dany is immune to it. I doubt it's a gender thing. So why one and not the other and what does that mean so far as Jon is concerned? I don't think it rules R&L out, but it doesn't help the argument.

Welcome :-)

There is this thread you might want to read, concerning the Targaryen fireproofness: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/62101-a-public-service-announcement-the-targaryens-lack-of-immunity-to-fire/page__hl__%20public%20%20service%20%20announcement

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Jon burns his hand in GOT killing the Wight attacking Commander Mormont. Fire can't kill the dragon. Martin put the injury in there just for this purpose, i believe. Viserys is killed by molten gold and was clearly a targ, yet Dany is immune to it. I doubt it's a gender thing. So why one and not the other and what does that mean so far as Jon is concerned? I don't think it rules R&L out, but it doesn't help the argument.

Targaryens are not, as a rule, immune to fire. Dany was immune to fire ONCE and will not be again. You're operating under a misconception.

[Screaming Knight]

Targaryens are not, as a rule, immune to fire. Dany was immune to fire ONCE and will not be again. You're operating under a misconception.

Do they just have a higher pain tolerance to heat and/or fire. It seems to me that the targaryens considered " the dragons" are the ones that seem to have a quiet obsession with fire and a fascination about the history of dragons and fire but the ones that are mad are the ones that use it as weapons and for evil. Almost like knowing that they are not the 'true dragons' and are over compensating. So until we see danearys in an inferno using no blood magic well never know the extent if any of their fire resistance. I think it also effects their mental state. The targaryens considered dragons were never really tested to my knowledge. Not sure if any of the ones killed in the summerhall tragedy were labeled as true dragons.

[Screaming Knight]

To me if you have to go around saying you're the dragon i.e. Viserys you're almost definitely not. But I think the true dragons who may have dragons blood in them are the only ones who dragons would be sensitive to. Danearys dragons were also born into magic so their sensitivity to her could be a result of the magic. In reference to the series danerys stepping into the steaming hot water and holdin the hot eggs has some significance to her being not so much immune to fire but definitely something in her blood to repel and protect her from fire. I agree we can't just go around saying "he got burnt he's not a trgaryen" but I think there are targaryens that could survive a bad fire. But like I said if Someone knows if there was a targaryen "dragon" killed at summerhall then we can probably shut the book on this.

[Serie]

So until we see danearys in an inferno using no blood magic well never know the extent if any of their fire resistance.

no need to see that. We have all the proof that we need of. Aerion Targaryen died because he drank wildfire, Viserys died due to molten gold, blah blah blah and the writer himself told us so. Targs are not fireproof.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Do they just have a higher pain tolerance to heat and/or fire. It seems to me that the targaryens considered " the dragons" are the ones that seem to have a quiet obsession with fire and a fascination about the history of dragons and fire but the ones that are mad are the ones that use it as weapons and for evil. Almost like knowing that they are not the 'true dragons' and are over compensating. So until we see danearys in an inferno using no blood magic well never know the extent if any of their fire resistance. I think it also effects their mental state. The targaryens considered dragons were never really tested to my knowledge. Not sure if any of the ones killed in the summerhall tragedy were labeled as true dragons.

1. Aegon V was labeled a "true dragon," the "dragon" who "hatched" at Whitewalls (read The Mystery Knight). He died at Summerhall.

2. Martin himself has said explicitly, in all caps, that Targaryens are not immune to fire.

3. Dany herself has become one of the Targs going around claiming that she's a dragon and blood of the dragon or whatever. So what does that tell you?

[Serie]

1. Aegon V was labeled a "true dragon," the "dragon" who "hatched" at Whitewalls (read The Mystery Knight). He died at Summerhall.

2. Martin himself has said explicitly, in all caps, that Targaryens are not immune to fire.

3. Dany herself has become one of the Targs going around claiming that she's a dragon and blood of the dragon or whatever. So what does that tell you?

It tells me that Dany should definitely stay away from Summerhall... :P

just a joke, sorry for ruining such an interesting conversation.

[Cheese Pudding]

I've never thought of this (L + R = J) before reading this forum thread. Now this theory is going to drive me mad until the next books :(

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Milk_Brothers_Dragons_and_Foreshadowing/

Edric is stretching the term a little... "milk brothers" more usually refers to two infants of different parents who were nursed simultaneously by the same woman, but Jon had long been parted from Wylla's breasts by the time Ned came along.

Lyanna preagnant = 9 months

Jon with Wylla = 3~5 months (?)

Jon without Wylla = that's my question, because "had long been parted" is relative. For a baby 1 month is a long period of time.

So, Ned 'rescued' Lyanna 1 year and 3~4 months after the kidnapping. Is this period the same said at AGoT?

But this quote from GRRM '

corroborates' with the L + R = J theory. Jon was raised by Wylla, and both Ned and Lyanna (probably Rhaegar and Arthur Dayne too) asked her to fake being Jon's mom.

I can totally imagine Arthur Dayne asking Wylla to help Lyanna and Jon. And also, since the Kingsguard was guarding Lyanna after Rhaegar and Aerys died, it's kind of obvious that they were protecting the new king, fantastic. I'm wondering when Martin is going to reveal this to us.