R+L=J v. 36

[Ygrain]

Not what I said at all. But I'd say there are no more Targ kings as there is no more Targ Kingdom. That's the point here. The KG obviously swear an oath to the position of the king not the actual person who is the king as otherwise they'd move on when the old one died. These KG have sworn an oath to the Kings of Westeros. Viserys is not a king as he doesn't rule Westeros, Robert isn't King as he stole the throne. Ergo in their eyes there is no king of Westeros so the honourable thing to do, to fulfill their vows, is follow their orders to the end.

It's a theory and the one that makes the most sense to me as it doesn't require any additional suppositions or actions to be true.

Nonsense. You could argue that they follow the orders of the last king and do not go to his heir only if they stayed at ToJ by Aerys' orders - which would mean that Aerys missed this wonderful opportunity to use Lyanna against Ned and Robert to bring them to their knees and instead wasted the time and resources by having her guarded somewhere out of his reach.

Besides, we already know that Dayne and Whent were at ToJ since the very beginning, i.e. by Rhaegar's orders, not Aerys', and if I remember the quote from the App correctly, so was Hightower - so how were they following Aerys' orders by staying at ToJ?

[Bear Island Bruiser]

Nonsense. You could argue that they follow the orders of the last king and do not go to his heir only if they stayed at ToJ by Aerys' orders - which would mean that Aerys missed this wonderful opportunity to use Lyanna against Ned and Robert to bring them to their knees and instead wasted the time and resources by having her guarded somewhere out of his reach.

Besides, we already know that Dayne and Whent were at ToJ since the very beginning, i.e. by Rhaegar's orders, not Aerys', and if I remember the quote from the App correctly, so was Hightower - so how were they following Aerys' orders by staying at ToJ?

Not sure why you think they'd have to follow Aerys' orders for this? They're following the last orders of the regieme.

[Budj]

Since the North still views themselves as independent I'm hedging a guess that Robb's will has some weight behind it. Technically it could absolve Jon of his vows. The real question will be - will he? And in the eyes of the old gods is he still betraying an oath?

Getting into personal opinion here, but I do not believe the trees will mind. The essence of that oath is protecting the realms of men and judging by that being the only part of the oath a weirwood portal cares about I'm guessing that is the most important aspect. Holding no lands, titles, fathering no sons sounds like something that was added when you had a very strong military force at the wall to keep the LC from 'conquering' other people's lands / tipping wars in a factions favor. To counter the premise that sacrificing the ability to have a family is beneficial to the watch's focus - wouldn't having a family and people you care about be more motivation to fight? If the NW is lightbringer then it needs to be re-forged, perhaps rethinking their vows is a part of that. (Edit: Case in point Sam Tarly - the self proclaimed coward - is able to do things he didn't think he could when he was trying to save Gilly and her baby. His emotions for Jon even pushed him into getting physical with Dareon in Bravoos.)

As King in the North Jon will be in a much better position to save the realms of men from supernatural forces. As we have said before one man will not come in and save the day it is not how the world works... But one man could help unify and stop the self-destructive in-fighting.

Now to tie this in to R+L=J ( B) ) King in the North, Leader of Wildlings, and part Dragon (whether legitimate Targ or not Robb's will makes Jon legitimate on both sides in the eyes of the North) Jon is essentially a perfect fit to quench the wars over the throne at least long enough to get people focused on the right problem that is north of the wall... His heritage covering those bases is something that all of the inhabitants of Westeros would be able to get behind.

[Risha]

Budj wrote:...fathering no sons sounds like something that was added when you had a very strong military force at the wall to keep the LC from 'conquering' other people's lands / tipping wars in a factions favor. To counter the premise that sacrificing the ability to have a family is beneficial to the watch's focus - wouldn't having a family and people you care about be more motivation to fight?... Yes, but I think that, much like the Church in medieval times, the NW was a place to honorably send a younger son (or passed-over son like Aemon Targ), thus the realm would not want that son generating heirs and propagating his own line. It mucks up the succession. [sorry about the wonky formatting--can't get my returns to work in the posting box for some reason...]

[MtnLion]

Catelyn specifically mentions that Jon Arryn married Lysa in part because he had lost his heirs at the Battle of the Bells. Yes, Hoster Tully was present for that battle, but it's entirely possible that he already had some sort of preliminary agreement with them that involved marrying Cat to Ned, but didn't hammer out the details until later.

Or, its possible that Catelyn is misremembering, if what you say is correct. I just don't recall offhand that Catelyn ever suggested that she was not married before Ned left for war.

[MtnLion]

Not what I said at all. But I'd say there are no more Targ kings as there is no more Targ Kingdom. That's the point here. The KG obviously swear an oath to the position of the king not the actual person who is the king as otherwise they'd move on when the old one died. These KG have sworn an oath to the Kings of Westeros. Viserys is not a king as he doesn't rule Westeros, Robert isn't King as he stole the throne. Ergo in their eyes there is no king of Westeros so the honourable thing to do, to fulfill their vows, is follow their orders to the end.

It's a theory and the one that makes the most sense to me as it doesn't require any additional suppositions or actions to be true.

Why was Robert put on the Throne? He had the greater claim, due to his grandmother being . . . TA-DA, a Targaryen.

[MtnLion]

Not what I said at all. But I'd say there are no more Targ kings as there is no more Targ Kingdom. That's the point here. The KG obviously swear an oath to the position of the king not the actual person who is the king as otherwise they'd move on when the old one died. These KG have sworn an oath to the Kings of Westeros. Viserys is not a king as he doesn't rule Westeros, Robert isn't King as he stole the throne. Ergo in their eyes there is no king of Westeros so the honourable thing to do, to fulfill their vows, is follow their orders to the end.

It's a theory and the one that makes the most sense to me as it doesn't require any additional suppositions or actions to be true.

We have the occasion of the king's death, when Robert dies, and the Kingsguard's Lord Commander tells Ned, "my place is with Joffrey." Does that sound like he is following orders of any kind? No, his place is with the new king. In the case of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon dying, who is next in succession? Viserys, unless Jon is a legitimate son of Rhaegar. That is what we see in the conversation at the tower.

[Dragonfish]

Not what I said at all. But I'd say there are no more Targ kings as there is no more Targ Kingdom. That's the point here.

Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure rulership? A person can be the "true" ruler of a country without actually controlling the territory he claims to rule over. This has happened plenty of times throughout history. Even today, the government of Taiwan claims control over all mainland China, despite the fact that they actually control none of it. The point being, it is never the case that a king ceases to be king simply because he is not actually sitting over the throne he claims to hold, at least not in the eyes of his supporters.

ETA--Moreover, Barristan believes that he is absolutely duty-bound to guard the last Targaryens, and his failure to do so over the previous fifteen years is a constant source of shame for him.

[Dragonfish]

Or, its possible that Catelyn is misremembering, if what you say is correct.

Possible, but unlikely. I think she'd remember when her father first rode off to war, and when she was first married, and these events' relation to each other in time.

I just don't recall offhand that Catelyn ever suggested that she was not married before Ned left for war.

The quote comes from ASOS:

"Lysa's match with Lord Arryn had been hastily arranged, and Jon was an old man even then, older than their father. An old man without an heir. His first two wives had left him childless, his brother's son had been murdered with Brandon Stark in King's Landing, his gallant cousin had died in the Battle of the Bells. He needed a young wife if House Arryn was to continue...a young wife known to be fertile."

[MtnLion]

Possible, but unlikely. I think she'd remember when her father first rode off to war, and when she was first married, and these events' relation to each other in time.

The quote comes from ASOS:

"Lysa's match with Lord Arryn had been hastily arranged, and Jon was an old man even then, older than their father. An old man without an heir. His first two wives had left him childless, his brother's son had been murdered with Brandon Stark in King's Landing, his gallant cousin had died in the Battle of the Bells. He needed a young wife if House Arryn was to continue...a young wife known to be fertile."

Time to question GRRM about this. Dammit. Just not enough time for her to birth before the fall of King's Landing if she is not married before the Battle of the Bells.

ETA: Look at the turnover of Hands.

[Dragonfish]

Time to question GRRM about this. Dammit. Just not enough time for her to birth before the fall of King's Landing if she is not married before the Battle of the Bells.

Sure there is. You just have to assume that the Battle of the Bells took place relatively early in the war.

[MtnLion]

Sure there is. You just have to assume that the Battle of the Bells took place relatively early in the war.

It is not until after the Battle of the Bells that Jon Connington is dismissed into exile. We also know that Hoster Tully participated in the Battle of the Bells which required that Jon Arryn and Ned marry his daughters. We know that Catelyn was married before Ned left for war, which presumably would be the Battle of the Bells, because that is the first time Ned makes an appearance in the war. After that battle the army moves north and engages in the Battle of the Trident, then moves to King's Landing, a move that can scarcely be conceived to take more than two to three months.

[Dragonfish]

It is not until after the Battle of the Bells that Jon Connington is dismissed into exile.

Yes, and? There's nothing that says Connington could not have been exiled relatively early in the war.

We also know that Hoster Tully participated in the Battle of the Bells which required that Jon Arryn and Ned marry his daughters.

I've already addressed this.

We know that Catelyn was married before Ned left for war, which presumably would be the Battle of the Bells, because that is the first time Ned makes an appearance in the war.

There were other battles, you know.

After that battle the army moves north and engages in the Battle of the Trident, then moves to King's Landing, a move that can scarcely be conceived to take more than two to three months.

Like I said, there were other battles. We haven't been told about everything that happened during the war.

[Belandra Waters]

It is not until after the Battle of the Bells that Jon Connington is dismissed into exile. We also know that Hoster Tully participated in the Battle of the Bells which required that Jon Arryn and Ned marry his daughters. We know that Catelyn was married before Ned left for war, which presumably would be the Battle of the Bells, because that is the first time Ned makes an appearance in the war. After that battle the army moves north and engages in the Battle of the Trident, then moves to King's Landing, a move that can scarcely be conceived to take more than two to three months.

This article on The Citadel lays out the timelime for the war and states that the Battle of the Bells was followed by this:

With Lord Eddard fulfilling his brother’s obligation to Catelyn Tully, Lords Stark and Arryn became brothers through their marriages to Lord Hoster’s two daughters (I: 21). Lord Eddard stayed with his new bride long enough to see her conceive and then returned to the war (I: 54-55). Following this there seems to be a great, lengthy undocumented period before the Battle of the Trident. This period may have lasted as many as seven months.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion

[Kosh Naranek]

I think Ned goes to Starfall for much more than to deliver Dawn to the Daynes. I think his primary reason for going there is to provide cover for Jon. He does so in that he provides a dual story for anyone who questions Jon is his son. He knows that others will know of his attraction to Ashara Dayne at Harrenhal, and he knows Wylla will claim the child as her own from Ned. The former, always with a refusal by Ned to comment and an angry response to protect her honor, is fodder for everyone who wants "the secret lover story." With the latter, he only tells Robert about Wylla, and Robert is more than willing to believe his friend succumbs to the same temptations he does, if only for one time. The two stories work together where if one didn't exist it would be easier to discount either one. He needs the Daynes to go along with this, and he needs them to provide Wylla with a refuge from those who might come looking to find out more. When the Daynes go along, it works. For most people anyway. I suspect Varys suspects. He just can't prove it, and fighting with Robert without proof, especially about Ned, is a sure road to disaster.

I loved the bolded orange part. I always wondered about Wylla.

Was she already at the TOJ or was she picked up when Ned visited the Daynes? "They" is used for finding Ned with a dead Lyanna still in his arms. Howland + someone found him.

Did Wylla make the journey North with Jon? (Cat remembers finding Jon and his wetnurse installed in Winterfell when she arrives with Robb.)

Ned remembers "making up" with Robert after Lyanna's death. Did he swing by King's Landing with Jon and Wylla in tow or did he just give Robert some info on his movements since they parted bitterly earlier?

I don't think the text ever says if she is still alive. She was alive ~10 years earlier because she nursed Ned Dayne.

Now I am going to go back and read the rest of the thread. That post just hopped out at me.

[Erudain]

I loved the bolded orange part. I always wondered about Wylla.

Was she already at the TOJ or was she picked up when Ned visited the Daynes? "They" is used for finding Ned with a dead Lyanna still in his arms. Howland + someone found him.

Did Wylla make the journey North with Jon? (Cat remembers finding Jon and his wetnurse installed in Winterfell when she arrives with Robb.)

Ned remembers "making up" with Robert after Lyanna's death. Did he swing by King's Landing with Jon and Wylla in tow or did he just give Robert some info on his movements since they parted bitterly earlier?

I don't think the text ever says if she is still alive. She was alive ~10 years earlier because she nursed Ned Dayne.

Now I am going to go back and read the rest of the thread. That post just hopped out at me.

Wylla? and Jon were at Winterfell when Cat and Robb arrived, so I can pretty much guess they took a boat from Dorne to White Harbour while Cat and Robb took the land route from Riverrun to Winterfell.

I imagine also Howland went with them, is not safe for a wetnurse and a newborn to travel alone.

So most likely Ned was alone when he stopped at KL to tell Robert the news about Lyanna death.

[MtnLion]

We have been told that Robert raised his armies at Storm's End, and then moved west and fought the Battle of Summerhall. Then he moved further west and fought the Battle of Ashford. Robert was wounded and fled north to the Stoney Sept, where Connington went house to house looking for him. Ned arrives just in time to prevent Connington from taking Robert. Then they take their combined armies to the Trident where they fight Rhaegar. After that fight they move south to take King's Landing. Admittedly, GRRM has slipped up on movements in the past, but Storm's End is put to siege after Robert leaves for Summerhall, and the siege is lifted by Ned when he comes from King's Landing, and this is less than one year. Plotting those battles on a map will be revealing.

During Robert's Rebellion, almost a year into the Siege of Storm's End, Davos took it upon himself to run the Redwyne blockade to smuggle onions and other foodstuffs into the castle. The food allowed Stannis Baratheon's men to hold on until Eddard Stark arrived to break the siege.

[MtnLion]

This article on The Citadel lays out the timelime for the war and states that the Battle of the Bells was followed by this:

With Lord Eddard fulfilling his brother’s obligation to Catelyn Tully, Lords Stark and Arryn became brothers through their marriages to Lord Hoster’s two daughters (I: 21). Lord Eddard stayed with his new bride long enough to see her conceive and then returned to the war (I: 54-55). Following this there seems to be a great, lengthy undocumented period before the Battle of the Trident. This period may have lasted as many as seven months.

http://www.westeros....berts_Rebellion

The bolded part cannot be true, because the siege of Storm's End is less than one year.

ETA: there are long side and short side events that bracket the war, referenced to Harrenhal, they cannot tolerate anything outside of 24 +/- 3 months to the fall of King's Landing. Everytime I work out my timings, I come back to 21 months.

The wiki can and is wrong about many things. People who have updated data have done so with incorrect or biased data. The timeline suggests that Lyanna was abducted before Aegon was born, and this is just not true. Rhaegar only approaches Lyanna after being told that Elia cannot have any more children. So, Brandon and Rickard cannot die before Aegon is born, things are really messed up.

[Belandra Waters]

The bolded part cannot be true, because the siege of Storm's End is less than one year.

Yeah, I find the timeline of the battles hard to reconcile with the other storylines too. I guess the only loophole in the whole timing thing is that it says the siege at SE lasted "roughly" a year, which give or take a month or two, allows enough wiggle-room...?

ETA: there are long side and short side events that bracket the war, referenced to Harrenhal, they cannot tolerate anything outside of 24 +/- 3 months to the fall of King's Landing. Everytime I work out my timings, I come back to 21 months.

That's about the same that I come out with but I use Harrenhal and the kids' ages more in figuring out the timeline, as I suspect you do too. The battles are too difficult for me to place in the timeline, and I don't have a huge interest in the details of them. What I'd really like to know is what Rhaegar was up to in the 5-7 months that he was in KL between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident!

The wiki can and is wrong about many things. People who have updated data have done so with incorrect or biased data. The timeline suggests that Lyanna was abducted before Aegon was born, and this is just not true. Rhaegar only approaches Lyanna after being told that Elia cannot have any more children. So, Brandon and Rickard cannot die before Aegon is born, things are really messed up.

Completely agree with you. I thought The Citadel was more reliable than the Wiki but maybe not. I hope it is because I refer to it a lot!

[SFDanny]

One has to remember that not only the siege of Storm's End last for about a year, just as the war does, but the war and the seige don't start at the same time. The seige starts some time after Robert comes home a fights battles at Summerhall, Ashford, etc. so there has to be a lot of wiggle room in that "about"