Jump to content

R+L=J v 61


Stubby

Recommended Posts

They didn't. We have Eddard Stark and Edric Dayne. It just so happens that Ned is diminutive for both their names, the same way that in our world Ed may be a diminutive for Edward, Edmund, Edgar, Edwin, etc. They have different names!

I don't have the books on hand...but doesn't Ned Dayne himself imply that he was nicknamed after Eddard Stark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a casual reminder:

"He remembered Rhaegar’s infant son, the red ruin of his skull"

Fourteen years later, Ned believes that Aegon is dead, so, IF there is any truth to Aegon-is-alive, Ned was never privy to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the books on hand...but doesn't Ned Dayne himself imply that he was nicknamed after Eddard Stark?

No, I mean who in Starfall would have nicknamed him after Ned Stark? Certainly not his father. Also, I am not sure Ned was well-known back then by his nickname. I imagine most people called him Eddard, except of those close to him. I think later when he became Lord, he was known as Ned Stark...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyanna was known to have been with Rhaegar at the TOJ and Ned found her there on her death bed. Afterwards he is seen to move around with a baby and claims it's his bastard.

Unsupported by the text. The first time Jon is heard about is after Cat's arrival at Winterfell when she finds him there with his wetnurse. The Winterfell gossip about Ned's adventures in the South never mentions any child, no-one does. Ned's movements after the visit to Starfall are unknown - options are either right North, by ship, or back to his army at SE and KL, by ship or land. I believe the latter is what happened, in which case he would be stupid to take Jon with him, and here enters the option to send an entirely unconspicuous HR with Jon and Lyanna's bones to the North, which perfectly obscures any connection between the child and the events of ToJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying there are alternative theories that, "do work" is stretching it to say the least, just because you personally come up with some speculative theory, doesn't mean it matches R+L=J. The point is, to even come close to challenging R+L=J you have to attempt to use bits and pieces from multiple speculative theories in order to find and or solve the supposed 'holes' you think R+L=J has. But again just because you make up some story in your head that is not supported by the text does not mean it matches R+L=J, at the end of the day, no other alternative theory by itself even comes close to matching R+L=J in terms of textual evidence, textual imagery, and SSM from GRRM interviews, so no matter what speculative arguments you try to cook up, you still won't be able to escape that simple truth.

R+L=J is a complete theory that works for entirety of ASOIAF story past and present, and while I'll admit certain alternative theories might work for specific situations here and there in the story, those same theories still don't work as a whole for the story, they're overall not as complete of theories as R+L=J and leave far to many plot holes in other aspects of the story other than the few specific points in the story they might work for. A lot of R+L=J detractors think just because their alternative theories might work for one or two aspects of the story then that must mean it definitely challenges R+L=J, and completely lose sight of the fact that theory also needs to make sure that it works for all the other aspects of the overall story and has the textual evidence to back it up. R+L=J is by far the closest theory to reach this goal, and I have yet to see one alternative theory that even comes close to matching R+L=J in that regard......Sorry the theory you just posted does not....

The specific situations that are not well explained by the sappy love story are: Politics. Power play. Intrigue. Foreign powers messing things up.

I was not saying that Jon couldn't be R+L, my point was that taking it for granted might cloud your judgement and obscure heavy hints that there was something else entirely going on. R+L brought about the end of the Targaryen rule (at least for the moment). I'm suspicious on account of that fact alone, because Rhaegar wasn't portrayed as stupid. I smell an intrigue at the start of the whole thing.

Actually, it leaves a number of things unexplained:

1) Why does Ned think to himself that he's been living lies for fourteen years? Keep in mind that "living a lie" is not the same as "telling a lie." It has more to do with presenting something about yourself to the world that is false. This quote works perfectly if Ned has been pretending to be Jon's father, but it doesn't really work under your theory.

2) What does the blue rose growing from a wall of ice symbolize, if not Jon?

3) Why would Ned say that Lyanna's wolf blood led her to an early grave, if she was merely the victim of a power play? Or do you think he doesn't know about this angle? I may have missed that in your explanation.

Possible explanations:

1) Ned has supported Robert's claim all those years. If he had information that the reason for the rebellion was somewhat fabricated, it would certainly weigh on his conscience. Imo, Ned might have been highly conflicted about the whole thing. He resented Rhaegar, he might have blamed him for Lyanna's fate and the death of his brother and father despite some extenuating circumstances, but he also knew that Robert's story wasn't 100 % true. At the very least we know that he knew that Lyanna wasn't too keen to marry him.

2) I'd suggest sacrifice. Lyanna was a victim who rebelled against being victimised.

3) She had gotten herself in a position where it was possible that she became a victim of power play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skip

You don't need so many assumptions. Answers flow easily by pure logic. Let's see Wylla.

Even though there's not actual "textual" evidence, there are enough clues to accept that Lyanna gave birth and died soon after at ToJ. Most probably, Jon's her son.

That stated, Jon had the pressing need of a wet nurse if he was to survive. Logic says Wylla was at ToJ, and went to Starfall with Ned and Jon.

Ppl at Starfall thought Wylla was Jon's mother. We can infer they met her when she arrived there with Jon at her breast. Common people were not told, and they had no reason to think her a wet nurse. There was no other to be the mother, since Lyanna was dead.

Instead of the truth, the rumour of Wylla being Jon's mother was spread.

Wylla knew about Jon, so the Daynes took her in their service, and kept her close. She knew too much to let her go away telling tales.

Pure logic. The characters act as they should.

I think it's the GRRM's way: he depicts situations and doesn't bother to write the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just took my breath away.

These new angles you always catch just go to show it's not a good idea to think inside the same box when it comes to Martin.

:blushing: Thanks Alia-- you honor me! I agree though (and it was a point made early on in this thread by Ser Creighton and often by others in previous versions) there's always something new to find. It would never do to get complacent around GRRM :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The specific situations that are not well explained by the sappy love story are: Politics. Power play. Intrigue. Foreign powers messing things up.

I was not saying that Jon couldn't be R+L, my point was that taking it for granted might cloud your judgement and obscure heavy hints that there was something else entirely going on. R+L brought about the end of the Targaryen rule (at least for the moment). I'm suspicious on account of that fact alone, because Rhaegar wasn't portrayed as stupid. I smell an intrigue at the start of the whole thing.

I'll correct it for you:

there was something yet else entirely going on

Aye, there are some missing pieces at the beginning of the whole affair and others which do not fit, namely why Brandon goes after Rhaegar to KL when Rhaegar is not there and all it takes is to ask. That, however, doesn't disqualify R+L in any way, as there is plenty of room for misinformation or malicious intent of other involved parties (FYI, Varys is a hot candidate around here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of condescending laughter is what people do when they have no other way to challenge an argument, as if to say..."You're so wrong it's hilarious."

The irony is that their actions are hilarious, so we can still all laugh! :lmao:

It's quite odd to imply that you need every piece of a puzzle to figure out what the puzzle will be. I guess for some people that is true, but for others common sense, reason, and logic go a long way. It goes against reason, logic, and common sense to deny R+L=J. When the alternative theories require a lot more missingpieces than the challenged theory itself...well, it's a bit challenging to take the alternative theories seriously.

The final twist is sometimes unpredictable. So it's not so odd IMO. And though there is evidence for R+L= J, it's not a smooth theory either. Ignoring the inconsistencies is not making the argument stronger. There are plenty of things we don't know, so at this point, it is still possible that the theory proves untrue. I don't believe so myself, but for all we know, all these subtle clues generations of forum dwellers have painstakingly put together and interpreted to fit R+L=J, might at the end of the day - with more pieces of the puzzle available - fit another theory altogether. Doesn't mean that GRRM has to throw it all and that the foreshadowing and hints are for nothing. Just that these same hints could possibly, hint towards something we have not yet considered.

If every incomplete puzzle could be solved with sense, reason, logic why is history re-written generation after generation? There's not always new findings, but key elements are often re-interpreted along the changing trends of social sciences. Granted, putting clues together from a fantasy book, is a different matter altogether than trying to understand the relationship between Henry the Lion and Frederick Barbarossa or deconstructing the conflicts between House Welf and Staufer...but, all the same, clues can be misleading.

That said, I believe R+L=J, though I do not think it wrong to question it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the books on hand...but doesn't Ned Dayne himself imply that he was nicknamed after Eddard Stark?

As I've just written GRRM not always writes the obvious.

You might think about the scene in the Hand's tourney, when Ned Dayne saw Ned Stark and he wanted to go and tell him something, but he didn't know what to say.(?)

I find it a normal reaction in a boy of ten, before an important person who has had an importat presence at his own home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsupported by the text. The first time Jon is heard about is after Cat's arrival at Winterfell when she finds him there with his wetnurse. The Winterfell gossip about Ned's adventures in the South never mentions any child, no-one does. Ned's movements after the visit to Starfall are unknown - options are either right North, by ship, or back to his army at SE and KL, by ship or land. I believe the latter is what happened, in which case he would be stupid to take Jon with him, and here enters the option to send an entirely unconspicuous HR with Jon and Lyanna's bones to the North, which perfectly obscures any connection between the child and the events of ToJ.

Let the characters act after logic.

Ned took Jon to Starfall with him.

The Daynes helped him to tuck Jon away, they provided the logistics.

Jon was sent by ship from Starfall to White Habor.

Ned gathered his host and went north following the king's road.

Like in a gymkana, they pass all the forced points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Ned has supported Robert's claim all those years. If he had information that the reason for the rebellion was somewhat fabricated, it would certainly weigh on his conscience. Imo, Ned might have been highly conflicted about the whole thing. He resented Rhaegar, he might have blamed him for Lyanna's fate and the death of his brother and father despite some extenuating circumstances, but he also knew that Robert's story wasn't 100 % true. At the very least we know that he knew that Lyanna wasn't too keen to marry him.

I'm still not seeing why this would make it so that he'd been living lies for fourteen years.

2) I'd suggest sacrifice. Lyanna was a victim who rebelled against being victimised.

How so?

3) She had gotten herself in a position where it was possible that she became a victim of power play.

So Ned is blaming Lyanna for being a victim? That doesn't sound like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are enough clues to accept that Lyanna gave birth and died soon after at ToJ. Most probably, Jon's her son.

That stated, Jon had the pressing need of a wet nurse if he was to survive. Logic says Wylla was at ToJ, and went to Starfall with Ned and Jon.

Ppl at Starfall thought Wylla was Jon's mother. We can infer they met her when she arrived there with Jon at her breast. Common people were not told, and they had no reason to think her a wet nurse. There was no other to be the mother, since Lyanna was dead.

Instead of the truth, the rumour of Wylla being Jon's mother was spread.

This is very much the way I see it.

I notice you endorse Lyanna, but not, apparently, Rhaegar. Mayhaps another name could explain. Care to suggest that name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean who in Starfall would have nicknamed him after Ned Stark? Certainly not his father. Also, I am not sure Ned was well-known back then by his nickname. I imagine most people called him Eddard, except of those close to him. I think later when he became Lord, he was known as Ned Stark...

It could just be names like Eddard and Edric, that start with "Ed", are abbreviated to Ned in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blushing: Thanks Alia-- you honor me! I agree though (and it was a point made early on in this thread by Ser Creighton and often by others in previous versions) there's always something new to find. It would never do to get complacent around GRRM :ph34r:

You are easy to honor. :)

And I always look forward to your finds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could just be names like Eddard and Edric, that start with "Ed", are abbreviated to Ned in Westeros.

Most likely... I think we are looking too much into Edric/Eddard thing...

Thank you, and preceding posters, for making me think about this. Finally I begin to have an idea of how my Lem Lemoncloak is Richard Lonmouth theory may be significant ;)

Whatever you find, please let us know... I am also intruiged by this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...