R+L = J v 62

[Ghost's Shadow]

No by that point Rhaegar had already acknowldeged that he wasn't TPTWP, remember he tells Elia that he thinks Aegon was TPTWP.

I don't exactly think that what I said excluded that?

[Han Snow]

A quote from a SSM: http://www.westeros....w_in_Barcelona/ that was posted in the Heresy thread:

"Brandon died before he had sons, and Lyanna is also dead, and Benjen joined the Night's Watch which means he doesn't have descendants either."

The wording here drew my attention. He says Brandon died before having sons, then just says Lyanna is dead, no mention of her not having offspring.

Just a stray observation. Carry on.

[Maxpey]

A quote from a SSM: http://www.westeros....w_in_Barcelona/ that was posted in the Heresy thread:

"Brandon died before he had sons, and Lyanna is also dead, and Benjen joined the Night's Watch which means he doesn't have descendants either."

The wording here drew my attention. He says Brandon died before having sons, then just says Lyanna is dead, no mention of her not having offspring.

Just a stray observation. Carry on.

And if we want to read more intrigue into that passage, it suggests that Brandon has a bastard daughter or two out there. After all, GRRM says that "Brandon died before he had sons." He doesn't say that Brandon died before he had children. ;)

[Ygrain]

And if we want to read more intrigue into that passage, it suggests that Brandon has a bastard daughter or two out there. After all, GRRM says that "Brandon died before he had sons." He doesn't say that Brandon died before he had children. ;)

Hence, Allyria can still be Ashara and Brandon's supposedly stillborn daughter.

BTW, is it just me, or does the phrasing allow for a posthumous son?

[Maxpey]

Hence, Allyria can still be Ashara and Brandon's supposedly stillborn daughter.

BTW, is it just me, or does the phrasing allow for a posthumous son?

Yes it does (at least IMO).

[ShaggyCat]

Hmmm. The plot thickens!

[MtnLion]

Chipping in my two cents:

1. Yeah, I don't understand the military logic of fighting at the Trident either. Unless it was just where their forces happened to meet.

2. One of the benefits of reading this series after/at the same time as devouring forums and wikis like this (because I have no worries being spoiled!) is that you see the clues you might otherwise have missed. Reading the books after reading the R + L = J theories.... It's just SO obvious! It has to be canon. I would bet my house on it.

The really intriguing factors for me are not who Jon's mother is, because I think this is all really obvious but:

- did Lyanna run off with Rhaegar or was she seized? Were they married or is Jon really as Targ bastard?

- what, if anything, is the significance of Rhaegar "seizing"/marrying Lyanna wilding style?

- if Dany and Jon are two heads of the dragon, who is the third?

I think it is a given that Dany or her dragons will be the final part of the fight against the Others. It just has to happen. It's logical and an awesome climax to the story. Jon and his knowledge as LC of NW would be invaluable. But who is the third rider? Tyrion? Aegon/FAegon? Stannis?

That's the more interesting question.

The convincing clues are all contained in one scene. There are tidbits scattered around to clarify meanings, but it is pretty straightforward when one really delves deeply into motives for the phrasing:

"I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

Ned expected the majority of the Kingsguard to be present at the major battle. We know that three of them were present, and only Ser Barristan (barely) survived.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

Ser Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent are with Rhaegar when Lyanna enters the company of the prince. The Lord Commander of the Kingsguard answers this, so none of previous comment can be directed at Arthur or Oswell directly, and Gerold is accepting responsibility for their actions. There is no surprise about events on the Trident expressed by Gerold or Oswell in the next line.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

This states that Robert is considered a usurper by these Kingsguard, or at least by Oswell. He does use the term "we" and implies that Robert could not have won the battle if these three had been allowed to enter into it.

“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”

Ned relays that King's Landing has fallen and Aerys is dead. Again, Ned expresses his surprise to not see these three Kingsguard doing their duty of protecting and defending the king.

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

The Lord Commander says that their duties were elsewhere, too far away to do anything about the events Ned is relating. He condemns Jaime as a Oathbreaker, and implies that he or one of these others would certainly kill Jaime rather than let him slay the king. This reaffirms their loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty.

“I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

Ned tells them that all remaining forces surrendered to him, and pledged fealty to Robert and Ned. He expected to find the last of the Kingsguard with these forces, but again was surprised to note that they were not. This is an invitation for the Kingsguard to surrender to him.

“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Arthur speaks for the group, and says that they will not surrender.

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

This being placed here is important because Ned is now changing his offer. He sees that they will not surrender, but he does not want to fight them, he holds these knights in high regard, even years later. He offers them a chance to leave peacefully and do their duty by guarding the heir to the Targaryen dynasty, or so he thinks.

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

Ser Willem is a brother to Ser Jonothor Darry of the Kingsguard, and known well to these members of the Kingsguard.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

The Lord Commander correctly states that Viserys does not have a Kingsguard with him. He also says that the Kingsguard would not flee from their duty, to guard the king. On the night that news of the Trident arrived at King's Landing Aerys ordered that Rhaella and Viserys be taken to Dragonstone for their safety, as it appeared that King's Landing would be under siege shortly. Jaime was the only Kingsguard, and his duty was with the king, so Willem was drafted to protect the royal family members. If the Red Keep falls, and Aerys dies then Viserys was safe as long as he could stay alive on Dragonstone. The majority of the fighting men had gone with Rhaegar, and mustering enough men to defend the city or just the Red Keep may be difficult. The Kingsguard are stating that they would not flee King's Landing, as their duty was to protect and defend the king, and they would stay to fulfill their vow.

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

Arthur reiterates that the Kingsguard would not have chosen to leave King's Landing to protect the royal family, over doing their duty to protect and defend the king (then). This lends some credance to the curse of Jaime, earlier. But, the meaning of now has a great deal more weight to it. Not only do they point out their vow, later, but this line also says that they are guarding a king at this location, and they are unwilling to take Ned's offer to leave this king and flee to Dragonstone in relative safety to guard another heir.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Now, we should be certain that there is a king present, the Lord Commander has decided that all three would remain to protect the king.

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

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

The final, or most important battle of the Targeyen dynasty.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”

Ned knows the outcome, and he regrets that he had to kill the three finest knights in the kingdom. There is no blame for participating in taking Lyanna, which argues that Lyanna was never dishonored, but more likely freely participated.

[Dio Forel]

I've wondered if the visions that Dany saw in the HotU were pure, or if the warlocks, (who seemed hostile), manipulated them and they actually aren't a reflection of reality?

Perhaps this is setting the reader up for the potentially conflicting visions we might get from Bran regarding R+L.

Exactly, I agree. Like in the matrix.... Showing what needs to be seen to set things in motion. I agree the visions may have been manipulated. Maybe we will learn more since grrm says we will hear of pyat pree again.

[The guy from the Vale]

@MtnLion: I agree with everything, except for the last line. For me it reads "Now it begins" (the reign of "Jon" Targaryen, and their duty to protect him). "No. Now it ends." (With Ned ending up depriving Jon of his birthright)

Still, yes, this one exchange is the main clue that Jon is indeed legitimate. The second most important one (but still subtle) is Bloodraven calling Jon "King Jon Snow"...

[Jon Icefyre]

I don't exactly think that what I said excluded that?

Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure the limited info we've been given on Rhaegar's understading of the TPTWP and the whole three headed dragon thing, seems to suggest Rhaegar believed TPTWP would be the leader of the three heads...I definitely could be wrong though, because again, we haven't been given that much info on the issue yet. :)

[W1NT3RF3LL]

The convincing clues are all contained in one scene. There are tidbits scattered around to clarify meanings, but it is pretty straightforward when one really delves deeply into motives for the phrasing:

"I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

Ned expected the majority of the Kingsguard to be present at the major battle. We know that three of them were present, and only Ser Barristan (barely) survived.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

Ser Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent are with Rhaegar when Lyanna enters the company of the prince. The Lord Commander of the Kingsguard answers this, so none of previous comment can be directed at Arthur or Oswell directly, and Gerold is accepting responsibility for their actions. There is no surprise about events on the Trident expressed by Gerold or Oswell in the next line.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

This states that Robert is considered a usurper by these Kingsguard, or at least by Oswell. He does use the term "we" and implies that Robert could not have won the battle if these three had been allowed to enter into it.

“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”

Ned relays that King's Landing has fallen and Aerys is dead. Again, Ned expresses his surprise to not see these three Kingsguard doing their duty of protecting and defending the king.

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

The Lord Commander says that their duties were elsewhere, too far away to do anything about the events Ned is relating. He condemns Jaime as a Oathbreaker, and implies that he or one of these others would certainly kill Jaime rather than let him slay the king. This reaffirms their loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty.

“I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

Ned tells them that all remaining forces surrendered to him, and pledged fealty to Robert and Ned. He expected to find the last of the Kingsguard with these forces, but again was surprised to note that they were not. This is an invitation for the Kingsguard to surrender to him.

“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Arthur speaks for the group, and says that they will not surrender.

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

This being placed here is important because Ned is now changing his offer. He sees that they will not surrender, but he does not want to fight them, he holds these knights in high regard, even years later. He offers them a chance to leave peacefully and do their duty by guarding the heir to the Targaryen dynasty, or so he thinks.

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

Ser Willem is a brother to Ser Jonothor Darry of the Kingsguard, and known well to these members of the Kingsguard.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

The Lord Commander correctly states that Viserys does not have a Kingsguard with him. He also says that the Kingsguard would not flee from their duty, to guard the king. On the night that news of the Trident arrived at King's Landing Aerys ordered that Rhaella and Viserys be taken to Dragonstone for their safety, as it appeared that King's Landing would be under siege shortly. Jaime was the only Kingsguard, and his duty was with the king, so Willem was drafted to protect the royal family members. If the Red Keep falls, and Aerys dies then Viserys was safe as long as he could stay alive on Dragonstone. The majority of the fighting men had gone with Rhaegar, and mustering enough men to defend the city or just the Red Keep may be difficult. The Kingsguard are stating that they would not flee King's Landing, as their duty was to protect and defend the king, and they would stay to fulfill their vow.

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

Arthur reiterates that the Kingsguard would not have chosen to leave King's Landing to protect the royal family, over doing their duty to protect and defend the king (then). This lends some credance to the curse of Jaime, earlier. But, the meaning of now has a great deal more weight to it. Not only do they point out their vow, later, but this line also says that they are guarding a king at this location, and they are unwilling to take Ned's offer to leave this king and flee to Dragonstone in relative safety to guard another heir.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Now, we should be certain that there is a king present, the Lord Commander has decided that all three would remain to protect the king.

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

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

The final, or most important battle of the Targeyen dynasty.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”

Ned knows the outcome, and he regrets that he had to kill the three finest knights in the kingdom. There is no blame for participating in taking Lyanna, which argues that Lyanna was never dishonored, but more likely freely participated.

I just want to say that this was an awesome break down of the events!

[Ser Creighton]

@MtnLion: I agree with everything, except for the last line. For me it reads "Now it begins" (the reign of "Jon" Targaryen, and their duty to protect him). "No. Now it ends." (With Ned ending up depriving Jon of his birthright)

Still, yes, this one exchange is the main clue that Jon is indeed legitimate. The second most important one (but still subtle) is Bloodraven calling Jon "King Jon Snow"...

Ned didn't deprive Jon of anything except death. His birthright is either the rightful heir of death, or a bastard who will also be killed. I honestly don't think and now it begins and now it ends has as much to do with Jon as it does Ned and his men and the KG. Not every word from everyone is about Jon. At that point it would be like saying he is the king, we guard the king, the king is here, the boy is the King, we didn't leave cause he is the King, long live the king, the king rules now, for the king. At some point the hints about him being a king become a little redundant. It only needs one reference, we guard the King. Ok, message received, I am a lord I understand the implications of that.

Jon has no birthright at that point, no support, no kingdom and a really pissed off Robert. And if you thought Robert was bad before this moment, imagine this little bit of information crossing his ears. This isn't Lyanna's son, this Rhaegars son he raped Lyanna to get. Dude almost went to war with Ned over Dany. I think Ned had a very good grasp of good Robert and bad Robert. This wouldn't be bad Robert, this would be sociopathic insane with rage Robert.

[Jon Icefyre]

I honestly don't think and now it begins and now it ends has as much to do with Jon as it does Ned and his men and the KG. Not every word from everyone is about Jon. At that point it would be like saying he is the king, we guard the king, the king is here, the boy is the King, we didn't leave cause he is the King, long live the king, the king rules now, for the king. At some point the hints about him being a king become a little redundant. It only needs one reference, we guard the King. Ok, message received, I am a lord I understand the implications of that.

I would totally agree with this 100% if not for the fact that there is still a very large percentage of ppl who argue that nothing the KG said to Ned relates to Jon whatsoever. So I mean if GRRM is sly enough to still have some ppl think literally none of what the KG said to Ned relates Jon, then is it really that 'redundant' for him to secretely have most if not all of what the KG said relate to Jon in some way? Because at the end of the day whether only a fraction of what the KG said or all of what the KG said relates to Jon, the point still remain that GRRM still has a fairly large amount of the overall generall fanbase convinced that none of it relates to Jon. So the twist would have the same impact either way right?

Don't get me wrong I'm not completely disagreeing with you, in fact, I thing what you're saying makes complete sense and has a chance of being 100% correct, but I also think the ppl on this specific forum most likely have a greater understanding of the text than the average fan, therefore, what might seem redundant or too obvious to us, might not look the same to the average fan, which is something I also think GRRM is fully aware of. Especially when you consider the fact that the internet was no where near what it is today when GRRM originally wrote the first book, which is where the TOJ reference comes from.....

[The guy from the Vale]

Ned didn't deprive Jon of anything except death. His birthright is either the rightful heir of death, or a bastard who will also be killed. I honestly don't think and now it begins and now it ends has as much to do with Jon as it does Ned and his men and the KG. Not every word from everyone is about Jon. At that point it would be like saying he is the king, we guard the king, the king is here, the boy is the King, we didn't leave cause he is the King, long live the king, the king rules now, for the king. At some point the hints about him being a king become a little redundant. It only needs one reference, we guard the King. Ok, message received, I am a lord I understand the implications of that.

Jon has no birthright at that point, no support, no kingdom and a really pissed off Robert. And if you thought Robert was bad before this moment, imagine this little bit of information crossing his ears. This isn't Lyanna's son, this Rhaegars son he raped Lyanna to get. Dude almost went to war with Ned over Dany. I think Ned had a very good grasp of good Robert and bad Robert. This wouldn't be bad Robert, this would be sociopathic insane with rage Robert.

Yes, but that's not the perspective of the Kingsguard.

You als have to take into account that the Kingsguard would have had plans of their own what to do with the newborn, none of which included his death. Robert's rule was by no means assured at that point, and Rhaegar's son would have been an easier rallying point than already half-mad Viserys.

[MtnLion]

@MtnLion: I agree with everything, except for the last line. For me it reads "Now it begins" (the reign of "Jon" Targaryen, and their duty to protect him). "No. Now it ends." (With Ned ending up depriving Jon of his birthright)

It is not impossible that GRRM intended both interpretations.

Still, yes, this one exchange is the main clue that Jon is indeed legitimate. The second most important one (but still subtle) is Bloodraven calling Jon "King Jon Snow"...

[Ser Creighton]

I would totally agree with this 100% if not for the fact that there is still a very large percentage of ppl who argue that nothing the KG said to Ned relates to Jon whatsoever. So I mean if GRRM is sly enough to still have some ppl think literally none of what the KG said to Ned relates Jon, then is it really that 'redundant' for him to secretely have most if not all of what the KG said relate to Jon in some way? Because at the end of the day whether only a fraction of what the KG said or all of what the KG said relates to Jon, the point still remain that GRRM still has a fairly large amount of the overall generall fanbase convinced that none of it relates to Jon. So the twist would have the same impact either way right?

Don't get me wrong I'm not completely disagreeing with you, in fact, I thing what you're saying makes complete sense and has a chance of being 100% correct, but I also think the ppl on this specific forum most likely have a greater understanding of the text than the average fan, therefore, what might seem redundant or too obvious to us, might not look the same to the average fan, which is something I also think GRRM is fully aware of. Especially when you consider the fact that the internet was no where near what it is today when GRRM originally wrote the first book, which is where the TOJ reference comes from.....

Well I look at it this way, Martin is smart, and he will leave clues, he always does. With the KG Martin is not going to make everything about Jon. In that scene, the dream sequence. It's not just about Jon, it's about Aerys, Rhaegar, Dany, the queen, Vis, Ned. A lot is left unsaid, but there is a very simple break down of everything that going on or has happened. Parts of the scene are about Jon, but other parts are not. Jon is part of the story being related to the reader, if left unsaid it doesn't really matter. The scene is also open for interpretation for a reason. Now if people want to disagree about Jon that's fine, I don't really care. I disagreed with the scene for a long time, remember? I was one of the most steadfast opponents. But my opinion changed and I got some help with that.

There is an entire story of subtext in that scene, it's very deep, but it's entire use is to relate a story about what has happened, and yes Jon is a big part of that. But not the only part. Neds not there because of Jon, Neds there because of Lyanna.

People always are always going to find a way to disagree about something. But I have this famous quote I use to remind myself about reality. Jon Adams said it. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they can not alter the state of facts and evidence."

What I say or believe or you say or believe isn't always going to be right. People make mistakes. But mistakes can't change facts. What other people think is not going to change the facts of the scene. Now right now it's open to various forms of interpretation, cause we don't have all the facts yet. I am not going to begrudge you or anyone their opinion. The debate here is interpreting the evidence, not the facts, those are set in stone and only Martin actually knows them all at this point.

But the evidence to me suggests it's not just about Jon, but an entire story about the events and Jon is a big part of that story. But so is Ned and so are the KG. I just don't believe the KG is naive enough to think everyone will flock to baby Jon after the entire country just bent the knee and he has little support. I don't think Ned is there to end an attempt to put Jon on the throne. I think he is basically saying this little story is coming to a close. The story is the fall of the House Targaryen, and Lyanna involvment. Although I don't think Ned thought Lyanna was about to die either. I don't just look at that scene as being all Jon, I don't see it as being that limited. If people want to argue it's not about Jon at all go ahead, in the end none of us can change the facts or the evidence and we will all eventually find out.

When something is open to interpretation I always try and remember I could be wrong. And maybe I am, wouldn't be the first time. But right now it's interpreting evidence, and I am not going to lock into one anything until the facts are in. And yeah there are some facts, Ned was there, Lyanna was there, Howland, we know almost all the players to be facts. Just not all of them. One of them can be considered a really strong guess. I still have questions if he was there or Wylla moved him to Starfall, or why they wouldn't do that. Jon being to young as one of the reasons not to move him, though they moved one way or another. So I don't think Martin considers that stuff to much.

And honestly there is a little bit of a bad ass burn in there. We already new the fight was happening, helmets are going on, swords are coming out. It's game on, or game over according to Ned. Martin knows there is going to be fight as well cause he is writing it. At no point was there not going to fight. It has to happen, and I think he gave Ned a bit of a bad ass, yet very sad moment. But life and death bad ass moments tend to be surrounded with a lot more death that life in most cases.

[Alia of the knife]

Exactly, I agree. Like in the matrix.... Showing what needs to be seen to set things in motion. I agree the visions may have been manipulated. Maybe we will learn more since grrm says we will hear of pyat pree again.

Those were my thoughts as well. :cool4:

Well I look at it this way, Martin is smart, and he will leave clues, he always does. With the KG Martin is not going to make everything about Jon. In that scene, the dream sequence. It's not just about Jon, it's about Aerys, Rhaegar, Dany, the queen, Vis, Ned. A lot is left unsaid, but there is a very simple break down of everything that going on or has happened. Parts of the scene are about Jon, but other parts are not. Jon is part of the story being related to the reader, if left unsaid it doesn't really matter. The scene is also open for interpretation for a reason. Now if people want to disagree about Jon that's fine, I don't really care. I disagreed with the scene for a long time, remember? I was one of the most steadfast opponents. But my opinion changed and I got some help with that.

There is an entire story of subtext in that scene, it's very deep, but it's entire use is to relate a story about what has happened, and yes Jon is a big part of that. But not the only part. Neds not there because of Jon, Neds there because of Lyanna.

People always are always going to find a way to disagree about something. But I have this famous quote I use to remind myself about reality. Jon Adams said it. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they can not alter the state of facts and evidence."

What I say or believe or you say or believe isn't always going to be right. People make mistakes. But mistakes can't change facts. What other people think is not going to change the facts of the scene. Now right now it's open to various forms of interpretation, cause we don't have all the facts yet. I am not going to begrudge you or anyone their opinion. The debate here is interpreting the evidence, not the facts, those are set in stone and only Martin actually knows them all at this point.

But the evidence to me suggests it's not just about Jon, but an entire story about the events and Jon is a big part of that story. But so is Ned and so are the KG. I just don't believe the KG is naive enough to think everyone will flock to baby Jon after the entire country just bent the knee and he has little support. I don't think Ned is there to end an attempt to put Jon on the throne. I think he is basically saying this little story is coming to a close. The story is the fall of the House Targaryen, and Lyanna involvment. Although I don't think Ned thought Lyanna was about to die either. I don't just look at that scene as being all Jon, I don't see it as being that limited. If people want to argue it's not about Jon at all go ahead, in the end none of us can change the facts or the evidence and we will all eventually find out.

When something is open to interpretation I always try and remember I could be wrong. And maybe I am, wouldn't be the first time. But right now it's interpreting evidence, and I am not going to lock into one anything until the facts are in. And yeah there are some facts, Ned was there, Lyanna was there, Howland, we know almost all the players to be facts. Just not all of them. One of them can be considered a really strong guess. I still have questions if he was there or Wylla moved him to Starfall, or why they wouldn't do that. Jon being to young as one of the reasons not to move him, though they moved one way or another. So I don't think Martin considers that stuff to much.

And honestly there is a little bit of a bad ass burn in there. We already new the fight was happening, helmets are going on, swords are coming out. It's game on, or game over according to Ned. Martin knows there is going to be fight as well cause he is writing it. At no point was there not going to fight. It has to happen, and I think he gave Ned a bit of a bad ass, yet very sad moment. But life and death bad ass moments tend to be surrounded with a lot more death that life in most cases.

I think in terms of Ned, many people have said, (and not necessarily on this board), that he would have had to have had help in defeating Dayne.

Well, what if he actually didn't? What if Howland wasn't using his "greenseer magic," and was in the tower trying to get to Lyanna while Ned was fighting, or was actually fighting himself?

What if Ned did actually defeat Arthur Dayne?

That and the fact that Ned outsmarted all the other "smart" people in the kingdom, (i.e., Varys,) puts Ned in a whole new light.

We now know that according to GRRM that LF had zero to do with the rebellion, and truly was off recovering because Brandon did almost kill him.

Hence, Allyria can still be Ashara and Brandon's supposedly stillborn daughter.

BTW, is it just me, or does the phrasing allow for a posthumous son?

Agreed on the wording, but LOVE the theory of Allyria as their daughter :drool: - a warging Dayne with possible ties to lightbringer?

Could be interesting.

[Ser Creighton]

Who are you and what have you done with Alia? I know what Alia looks like, your pic is totally different from hers. Are you a spy? An assassin? Do you work for homeland security? Are you the return of the whig party? Where is Alia damn it?

I don't really think Ned was ever suppose to be perceived as stupid, just some fans wanting to hate. I never look at Ned in a different light. A guy who got put in horrible situation after horrible situation. Ned didn't lose in KL because he was stupid, he lost because the deck was stacked totally against him the moment he arrived.

Neds deal was to help Robert, but early on we see that the trust Robert had for anything was gone and he was not listening to Ned. The first thing Robert should of done was place his own people in charge. But he only took half measures in that respect. Renly was a yes man and incompetent, Stannis hated him, and he brought in Jon Arryn his one good move. Leaving Pycelle, and Varys and brining in an unkown in LF were huge mistakes. He didn't know LF and neither did Jon, Varys lies for a living, and Pycelle showed himself to be a Lannister man at the gates of the sacking of KL.

The closest thing Ned had to an ally in KL was Selmy, and Robert was not listening to either of them. His own brother fled (Stannis) and Robert did not read this as a sign. Robert knew who was plotting against him and for some odd reason ignored Neds advice, the man he brought in to advise him because he said he trusted him. Ned gave up on the Job and quit, yet was forced by Robert to remain after Robert said he no longer wanted him.

Renly betrayed Ned, LF who Ned listened to because of advise from his wife betrayed Ned, and Robert screwed up big time. Ned had no network of spies and people he was bribing in KL, everyone else had established Networks years before Ned got there. All Renly had to do was support Ned, but he got greedy and wanted everything. If he supports Ned, then Ned would have had the Tully's, Tyrells, Baratheons, and Starks. Even LF wouldn't go against that combined force.

As for Ned and Arthur Dayne, well generally I think everyone excepts Neds word that Howland saved his life from Arthur. I don't know what he did, but it is generally excepted for that reason.

I guess I will stay one of the few that still thinks Ned had great value and that he was smarter than given credit for. In the age of the over plot armored character Ned was anything but that. Some fans act as if Ned could of gotten out of his situation. No he couldn't, he was going to die, that was the authors plan. Lyanna, Ned, Rhaegar, Robert, Jon Arryn, were marked day one. There was no happy ending there, no "but only if they had." There is no "but only if" there is no life altering choice, they were dead the moment the the author put pen to paper. If a character had just done this or that it would have changed everything. No it wouldn't cause the author wants them dead. Oh if Robb had only not married "And. And. And." he was going to die, no changing that, Martin wanted him dead.

Jon, Jon has one set of parents, from day one those parents have never changed, that's the authors plan. And it's not the most major secret in the books cause the author wants Jon to be the son of a fisher woman or wet nurse. Yes here are the two most anti-climatic mothers I can think of, I have been building up to this moment for over 20 years and as the author I want to make sure it's anti climactic, cause that's every authors dream to build something up for decades and then let it fall flat. OMG he is Wylla's son, OMG, OMG, OMG, and ummm well no place to go with the story from there. Maybe he can meet her and be like so how is he wet nursing going? Do you enjoy your work? Well it was nice to meet you.

[Dead Wolf]

@MtnLion: I agree with everything, except for the last line. For me it reads "Now it begins" (the reign of "Jon" Targaryen, and their duty to protect him). "No. Now it ends." (With Ned ending up depriving Jon of his birthright)

Still, yes, this one exchange is the main clue that Jon is indeed legitimate. The second most important one (but still subtle) is Bloodraven calling Jon "King Jon Snow"...

Bloodraven knows about Robb's will. Him saying king means he knows Jon is now KitN

[Wylla Manderly]

Bloodraven knows about Robb's will. Him saying king means he knows Jon is now KitN

First, how would Bloodraven know about the will. There was no weirwood and no raven nearby when Robb signed the will.

And second, the first mention of king by a raven was long before Robb ever signed his will. It was in the beginning of clash of Kings as far as I know. and the signing of the will was in Storm of swords. So no, I'm fairly sure that the mention of Jon as king by the raven/Bloddraven is referring to Jon as king of Westeros. (Even though i would prefer that Jon stays North as king in the North).