I wanted to post this new video from the season 6 DVD's, because I not only find it cool that the show decided to give us some background on House Dayne, but also because I find the narrator to be a very interesting one indeed...
It's a young EDDARD STARK.
And to say the least, I find his thoughts and assertions to be quite enlightening. Especially from 3:00 on.
Things I particularly find interesting:
-Ned says, and I quote: "He would never have aided Rhaegar's abduction of my sister if his vows hadn't compelled him.". This is interesting, because it tells me that even after living through the events of the Tower of Joy, Ned STILL felt that Lyanna had been abducted (at least, in the show-universe). So he didn't have any secret suspicions about Lyanna going willingly that he hid from Robert, or anyone else for that matter.
-Ned flat-out admits that he didn't kill Arthur in single combat, but had help from a dagger in the back. Which means that this isn't some politically-correct whitewashed version of the story here. Ned's telling us the straight, honest truth, just as he saw, thought, and lived it. These were his private recollections and feelings, not the ones he told everyone else and let the realm believe in for 15+ years.
-Ned says, and I quote: "I'll never forget the look in his (Arthur's) eyes. He wasn't angry, or betrayed. He'd done his duty to the last, even though he'd found it dishonorable. And even though he knew what awaited me in that tower."
So apparently, Ned got the feeling that Arthur found his duty in following Rhaegar's commands to have been dishonorable. As in, he really didn't want to do them, and had he been given a choice, he wouldn't have done them. It doesn't say anything about Arthur finding them dishonorable from the first, but whatever happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna apparently became something that Arthur felt ashamed to have been a part of. At least, according to the vibes Ned got from him.
Obviously, if true, this turns some things popularly accepted by the fandom to be true completely on their head. The idea of Arthur being 100% in agreement with Rhaegar's plans to the end, for one. The idea that those plans and actions of Rhaegar's were actually noble and honorable, for another.
But most interesting of all, it opens up one other possibility. One that I'd say about 95% of the ASOIAF/GOT fandom has discounted or rejected to at least some extent in the last 20+ years:
Robert Baratheon was NOT mistaken in his belief that Rhaegar Targaryen had abducted and raped Lyanna Stark. Rather, his suspicions were in fact accurate.
I'd be interested to see what you guys think of this video and what Ned has to say here.
Last Edit: Nov 18, 2016 21:26:49 GMT by specterace
This is interesting, because it tells me that even after living through the events of the Tower of Joy, Ned STILL felt that Lyanna had been abducted (at least, in the show-universe). So he didn't have any secret suspicions about Lyanna going willingly that he hid from Robert, or anyone else for that matter.
Yup, definitely some bombshell revelations from this video. Lyanna was indeed abducted by Rhaegar, at least in showverse. There was no elopement, she was kidnapped and what Rhaegar was doing was dishonourable.
While the implications of that are many, the first thing though that comes to my mind then is that Lyanna was indeed definitely going to marry Robert. Who knows if she actually liked Robert (though the show included that detail that Robert used to bring her feathers from rare southern birds he'd hunted whenever he visited her so we know he was trying to charm her and they had dates), but she was going to go through with the marriage. Which is something I feel is also the case in the books given that Ned does say that Lyanna was to have been Robert's bride but she died.
So apparently, Ned got the feeling that Arthur found his duty in following Rhaegar's commands to have been dishonorable. As in, he really didn't want to do them, and had he been given a choice, he wouldn't have done them.
Which becomes interesting too because he's supposed to be Rhaegar's best friend and in an SSM GRRM gave one of his patented "keep reading" responses to the question of how Arthur could stand following the orders of a mad man like Aerys (AKA he didn't like it), yet here he's put in the same problem that Rhaegar wasn't any better.
Arthur neither liked serving Aerys, nor Rhaegar. Very interesting.
But most interesting of all, it opens up one other possibility. One that I'd say about 95% of the ASOIAF/GOT fandom has discounted or rejected to at least some extent in the last 20+ years:
Robert Baratheon was NOT mistaken in his belief that Rhaegar Targaryen had abducted and raped Lyanna Stark. Rather, his suspicions were in fact accurate.
I think no matter what at SOME point Rhaegar raped Lyanna. There's no way a girl would just willingly stay in that tower for as long as she did after her brother and father were horrifically murdered, while her brother and betrothed and everybody she ever knew are fighting a war trying to get her back. Like you would either say something or come back. You wouldn't just stay silent and away. Which tells me that she couldn't, and was therefore there not of her own choice.
Also, can't help but notice that we're still not really getting any info on the supposed baby daddy Rhaegar. The TOJ featured Arthur, and here we get more Arthur exposition. The show keeps coming back to Arthur. Unlike many on this board I'm not much of an A+L=J fan, but these latest histories and lores videos are taking away a few of the "key" pieces of evidence that generally are used to support RLJ and make it more probable than ALJ. Yet Arthur's still there. Someone impregnated Lyanna, and the show really hasn't bothered to give us much on Rhaegar. Everybody keeps saying they're saving him for later, but it's been 6 seasons and no Rhaegar, but we've gotten Arthur. I'm not sure if that means Arthur's the father or what, but I'm finding it interesting that it seems like they're steering away from Rhaegar, and never actually said Rhaegar was the father (yeah I know there's that HBO chart, but like come on lol)
Regardless, finding a lot of the directions the show is seemingly taking to be interesting, and I'm expecting a large portion of the fandom to not like these things the show is doing because it goes against the narrative they've taken as fact.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
Paging voiceSlyWren @superunknown5 and all other Dayne lovers...
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
I keep coming back to this line... why would Arthur be angry or feel betrayed because Ned was about to kill him? They're on opposite sides of the war, and they'd just been furiously dueling. Obviously one of them was going to die. So why would Ned think that there was a chance that Arthur could've been angry or felt betrayed?
All I can think of is because they must've both knew each other before the TOJ, possibly through the Ned and Ashara romance if that was really a thing. Ned was looking for those emotions because he knew Arthur quite well and was killing a friend.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
I keep coming back to this line... why would Arthur be angry or feel betrayed because Ned was about to kill him? They're on opposite sides of the war, and they'd just been furiously dueling. Obviously one of them was going to die. So why would Ned think that there was a chance that Arthur could've been angry or felt betrayed?
All I can think of is because they must've both knew each other before the TOJ, possibly through the Ned and Ashara romance if that was really a thing. Ned was looking for those emotions because he knew Arthur quite well and was killing a friend.
Well, there's also the fact that Ned was about to win the fight only because Howland had put a knife in Arthur's back when he wasn't looking. Maybe Ned thought Arthur would be angry at losing his life to what a lot of people would think was an underhanded act. As in, Ned wouldn't have won the battle fairly otherwise (and he didn't and wouldn't have, to be honest, because Arthur had him dead to rights).
The betrayal part, although it can also fit a bit with the above, could also fit with the interpretation that Ned and Arthur knew each other personally from before (maybe even from a Ned/Ashara romance or something).
Regardless, I find Arthur's feelings to be interesting. He looks like he never would have held anything against Ned, no matter what Ned had done to kill him. It's almost as if Arthur felt that the only way justice would have been truly served that day would have been with his own death. The implications of that, of course, are obvious.
Last Edit: Nov 18, 2016 21:49:07 GMT by specterace
I did find that relatively interesting that it was Arthur's heir, not the sword/titles heir despite the fact that the sword was only essentially given temporarily to Arthur. The next Sword of the Morning need have no real connection to Arthur beyond that they're a Dayne knight too, we don't actually need Arthur's heir. Yet they chose to say Arthur's heir.
Which at least to me possibly suggests that there is an Arthur heir.
Regardless, I find Arthur's feelings to be interesting. He looks like he never would have held anything against Ned, no matter what Ned had done to kill him. It's almost as if Arthur felt that the only way justice would have been truly served that day would have been with his own death. The implications of that, of course, are obvious.
Definitely really liked how this video gave us Ned's own thoughts, and his impression of Arthur's. Because you're right, they're both on the same page really. Which is of course tremendous because the one thing the books has always stayed silent on is Lyanna's own feelings. Which are the only thing that matters in regards to whether she was kidnapped and raped. Rhaegar can love Lyanna as much as he wants, if he ever did, but that wouldn't stop something from being a kidnap or a rape if Lyanna didn't reciprocate. We're being told here that at least in the show it was indeed a kidnap, and at least something extremely dishonourable happened, which does again suggest rape.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
I did find that relatively interesting that it was Arthur's heir, not the sword/titles heir despite the fact that the sword was only essentially given temporarily to Arthur. The next Sword of the Morning need have no real connection to Arthur beyond that they're a Dayne knight too, we don't actually need Arthur's heir. Yet they chose to say Arthur's heir.
Precisely what I was hinting at.
Ned spent the first part of the video talking about how the legendary sword Dawn is not bestowed upon a house's heirs the way other house swords are. Rather, it is of course only given to a worthy swordsman.
Then, Ned later states that Dawn will hang above the mantle until Arthur Dayne's heir claims it... Not House Dayne's heir... Arthur's heir.
Very interesting. Arthur Dayne was never a lord, so his heir would be what?
Arthur Dayne was never married, so his heir would be what?
Then there is the whole (very worldbook-like) confession from Ned about wishing he were a Dayne instead of a Stark. A Not-a-Stark Swordsman of sorts, eh Ned?
Which at least to me possibly suggests that there is an Arthur heir.
Seemed rather explicit to me.
As much as I'd like to thump this as evidence for Arthur+Lyanna=Jon, Arthur could very well have a heir that is not everyone's favorite bastard.
But, it is known that I am obligated by the terms of my Last Hearth contract to state the following:
We last saw HBO's Arthur Dayne clearing away Ned's companions like puppets on strings. As easily as Arthur slew Ned's wraiths, one would think he could have struck down Ned as well... particularly when considering the Sword of the Morning had been outnumbered when slaying Ned's wraiths, and had come to face Young Ned mano-a-mano.
Once alone with Ned, rather than strike him down with the same ease he had demonstrated with the wraiths, Arthur Dayne adopted a far more tactful and careful technique... one that seems to have had disarmament, rather than slaying, as the goal. As ever, Arthur Dayne was successful in that goal, and did disarm Young Ned.
Ned's backstabbing friend, Howland Reed, ruined whatever plans Arthur may have had of course. But, I think the idea that Arthur's goal was not to kill Ned has a great deal of merit in HBO's version of events. And, I think book-Ned's sadness re S.A.D. lends that idea far more merit. (See book-Ned's guilt trifecta: Lyanna-Arthur-Jon)
His plans having been thwarted, Arthur Dayne's final living act was to push his family's sword of heroes toward Young Ned. Why?
Unless the show uber-trolled viewers by zooming in on the baby's face only to cut to a shot zooming in on Jon Snow's face... it seems pretty clear that Arthur Dayne wanted Ned to carry that sword to one Jon Snow.
A worthy successor. Now, one might argue that Arthur had no way of knowing Jon would be a worthy successor. But, that way of thinking might be neglecting the elephant in the room: Dawn. What if the Sword of the Morning is created by the previous Sword of the Morning? What if the carriage of Dawn to the cradle of a baby boy somehow makes that child grow into a worthy swordsman?
Wishful thinking, I know. But no less-plausible than the proximity of other ASOIAF power-objects. If it were a dragon's egg or weirwood, instead of a sword, no one would bat an eye at the possibility of it affecting the newborn. Dawn is not a normal sword folks. It is alive with light, and starry. Like the Others.
Interestingly, in my headcanon at least, this motive (Arthur wanting Dawn to be carried toward Jon Sand/Snow) fits very well with the timeline of events in the books:
Showdown at the tower of joy
Ned kills Arthur Dayne with assistance from Howland Reed
Ned and Howland ride away from the tower long fallen, and Ned carries Dawn (not a baby)
Ned brings Dawn to Starfall. Starfall:
where Jon's wetnurse, Wylla, serves
where a maester would be available to aid in childbirth
where multiple people would have been present to accompany Howland Reed into a room to find a desponent Eddard still holding his dead sister's hand.
Wait a minute, that's not headcanon! That's bookcanon!! LOL
Ned spent the first part of the video talking about how the legendary sword Dawn is not bestowed upon a house's heirs the way other house swords are. Rather, it is of course only given to a worthy swordsman.
Then, Ned later states that Dawn will hang above the mantle until Arthur Dayne's heir claims it... Not House Dayne's heir... Arthur's heir.
I'd also mention that you missed a key part too... Ned explicitly said that Arthur was the true steel and that Dawn was nothing compared to him other than a sword. That was the Smiling Knight's mistake in thinking that Dawn was what made him so good and was causing him to lose. It was Arthur that made him so good, Dawn was but an extension of his will. That isn't true in the books as we know that Dawn elevates Arthur above Barristan who's otherwise just as talented a swordsman per GRRM based on its Valyrian steel-like qualities, but in the show Ned's pretty clearly saying that Arthur was the Sword of the Morning regardless of whatever damn sword he was wielding.
So that then becomes all the more interesting with the word choice of finding Arthur's heir to claim Dawn. Dawn didn't make Arthur, Arthur made Dawn. If Arthur was the true steel, then looking for his specific heir does kind of make sense.
As much as I'd like to thump this as evidence for Arthur+Lyanna=Jon, Arthur could very well have a heir that is not everyone's favorite bastard.
I've never really understood the point of Arys' chapter in AFFC unless it's to suggest that some (relatively) recent Kingsguard had a secret affair going on too. We already had Jaime and plenty of other ancient Kingsguard who hadn't kept their celibacy oaths so we know it happens, but then therefore why bother giving us this new POV on the matter too? Especially one where the Kingsguard in question actually was a decent guy (Sansa remembers that Arys always tried to be as nice as possible to her despite Joffrey's orders otherwise), and that the Kingsguard in question actually feels guilty about it (unlike Jaime who doesn't give a shit and never once meant to keep that celibacy oath)? Arys' POV is pretty much out of the blue, especially considering we've additionally got Arianna and Hotah in Dorne anyways.
So if it's there to show us his struggle and suggest something, then the question becomes who is it a parallel to. And going over the relatively new Kingsguard we can eliminate quite a few
- Arys himself is banging Arianne - Boros Blount likes whores - Preston Greenfield was banging a draper's wife - Jaime was banging Cersei - Osmund Kettleblack is banging serving wenches and Cersei - Mandon Moore lived only for his sword according to Barristan so he presumably kept his oaths - Barristan wanted to bang Ashara (and we get his POV anyways so why go over this subject twice?) - Lewyn Martell kept a paramour (and again, we get this explicitly mentioned to us anyways)
That only leaves Meryn Trant, Gerold Hightower, Oswell Whent, Arthur Dayne, and Jonothor Darry. Of that list every single one of them is around a woman that gets pregnant in Rhaella, Cersei, and Lyanna. However, we know that Meryn didn't impregnate Cersei as we know it was Jaime so that strikes him out. And we know that Jonothor Darry didn't impregnate Rhaella as he was standing guard duty while Aerys raped her so that strikes him out too.
So when you come right down to it, if Arys Oakheart's POV is supposed to suggest something about another brother, then the only actual (recent) options are Gerold Hightower, Oswell Whent, and Arthur Dayne. Make of that what you will.
Showdown at the tower of joy Ned kills Arthur Dayne with assistance from Howland Reed Ned and Howland ride away from the tower long fallen, and Ned carries Dawn (not a baby) Ned brings Dawn to Starfall.
Interestingly enough, you'll note in the video however that the timeline here instead goes
- Showdown at the TOJ - Ned kills Arthur with Dawn - Ned rides away from the tower with Dawn (and I guess Jon, but that's never stated) - Ned goes to Robert's coronation with Dawn (again I suppose also with Jon, but that's never stated) - Ned goes to Starfall and returns Dawn to House Dayne
That's a lot of time that Ned therefore had Dawn. Also rather changes things in that Ned kept Dawn for awhile instead of immediately returning it as most think happened on the basis that we're told Ned returned Dawn and Starfall is obviously not that far away really. He didn't, he went and witnessed the raising of a new king, carried it likely for months with the travel involved in that, and then eventually got around to bringing it to House Dayne, again months later after all that travel. Ned openly admitted to wanting the sword in the video, and here he is keeping it for months instead of just bringing it to Starfall which was a much closer and easier trip than returning to King's Landing only to come all the way back again.
Ned either thought about keeping the sword as a war prize, simply forgot he still had it on him (unlikely as he's still carrying the same longsword 17 years later in season 1 so he knows which is his sword), or was possibly waiting until Robert was firmly on the throne before he went back into Dorne to tell a Dornish family that he'd killed their son/brother. But he still held onto Dawn for a long time no matter what his reason was for that (which might fit into your whole "Jon was around Dawn" thing).
But this timeline is also interesting as it can still fit the books. You left out some key things in your timeline, and assumed some things that were never actually stated. Mainly that Ned witnessed Robert's coronation, that Ned returned Dawn immediately, and that Ned and Robert grieved over Lyanna's death.
Knowing that, I would say that the timeline can also look something like this
- Robert is made king upon his arrival after the Sack, but the official coronation hasn't happened (as we know Joffrey wanted a expedited coronation with a timeline of only 2 weeks to prepare for that one so Robert's should be awhile away) - Ned rides south in a fury that day over Aegon and Rhaenys' murder - TOJ showdown - Ned kills Arthur and takes Dawn - Ned and Howland ride away from the TOJ - Ned returns to King's Landing and witnesses Robert's coronation/tells everybody about killing the Kingsguard (as everybody knows they're dead and Dawn would definitely go a long way towards proving that) - Ned travels to Starfall to return Dawn along with Howland - Ned finds Lyanna dying there - Ned returns to King's Landing and informs Robert of Lyanna's death and they grieve over her
That timeline is still acceptable from the books and I'd argue possibly makes more sense. I say that as it's said that Ashara awaited Ned at Starfall when he went to return Dawn. There's no possible way she knew he was coming unless he'd sent word to her, and he presumably couldn't do that from the TOJ. He can do that from King's Landing however, and therefore solve the problem as to how she knew he was on his way (as otherwise she's either a psychic or had been waiting years for him). And then that makes sense as to Robert's coronation and Ned's comments that Robert looked every inch a king that day, whereas otherwise you're instead saying that Robert looked every inch a king while either still wounded from his duel with Rhaegar if his coronation was immediately after the Sack or after he just heard the love of his life was dead and was in mourning if it's after Ned informs Robert that Lyanna's dead. If his coronation instead falls somewhere between then, there's no reason why it wouldn't have been a happy affair and Robert looked as regal as possible (and Jaime remembers Robert telling him a joke about not making kingslaying a habit at the feast afterwords so he's obviously not in a bad mood or anything). That timeline then is the same timeline the show has.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
Hey, specterace. Thanks for posting this video! When I first heard about the Histories and Lore videos for Season 6, this was the one I was most interested in. I’m intrigued by House Dayne because they keep popping up in the text, and I’m of the opinion that the mutual respect that is shared between House Dayne and House Stark may go beyond the return of an ancestral sword. It will be interesting to find out what role they may have played in the past, as well as the role they may play in the future.
Overall, I don’t have much to add, as markg171, specterace, and voice have pretty much covered it. I pre-apologize on the formatting of this post. I’m still new, and have told myself that I will start posting more. Still trying to figure out quick quote. "His plans having been thwarted, Arthur Dayne's final living act was to push his family's sword of heroes toward Young Ned. Why?"
This is a very good point. Perhaps there is some kind of magical implication to killing the Sword of the Morning with his own sword? Maybe it was a type of self-sacrifice from Arthur after he knew he was a goner? Although it is not a perfect mirroring of the situation, it is ironic that Ned is also killed with his own magical sword. Given how Ned cares for and cleans Ice after beheading Gared, seems like there is something more to that procedure than just a ritualistic cleaning. Perhaps both Ned and Arthur had a deeper understanding and reverence for the swords of their ancient houses, as well as any consequences that may arise from being killed with them?
"As much as I'd like to thump this as evidence for Arthur+Lyanna=Jon"
I must say, if Arthur turns out to be Jon’s father, and Jon ends up with Dawn, he will be using the sword that his father used to kill his biological father. That is kind of tragic, but twisted.
"Ned's backstabbing friend, Howland Reed..."
I have a bad feeling you are on the money with this, and I am not just referring to what literally occurred in the fight. I think it is weird Ned didn’t charge Howland with the defense of the Moat. I hope I am wrong, but Howland’s lack of participation after the Rebellion raised a few red flags, at least in my mind. It’s one thing to be reclusive, which is fine, but I’m just surprised he didn’t put forth more of an effort for The North, particularly after Robb raised the banners following Ned’s imprisonment and death.
Also, nice piecing together on some of the timeline aspects, guys. It will be nice when we finally get the entire story, or at least more clues for putting the puzzle together. I think Ashara is a big part of those pieces, at least in the book. It is interesting that she is not mentioned in this video, but I saw she got a name drop in the Harrenhal Video, so maybe a Season 7 appearance?
Regardless, I’m not entirely sure the show story of the tower of joy is over yet, either.
pre-apologize on the formatting of this post. I’m still new, and have told myself that I will start posting more. Still trying to figure out quick quote.
Simply highlight the text you want, and then a button will pop up saying "Quick Quote". Click it, and then that section of the text will be quoted down below in the "Quick Reply" section of the bottom of the page.
I have a bad feeling you are on the money with this, and I am not just referring to what literally occurred in the fight. I think it is weird Ned didn’t charge Howland with the defense of the Moat. I hope I am wrong, but Howland’s lack of participation after the Rebellion raised a few red flags, at least in my mind. It’s one thing to be reclusive, which is fine, but I’m just surprised he didn’t put forth more of an effort for The North, particularly after Robb raised the banners following Ned’s imprisonment and death.
Well if you want, I've had plenty to say about the crannogmen over the years, and suffice it to say that I don't at all think that the crannogmen/House Reed are noble and loyal Stark bannermen. It used to all be together in a single essay/theory, but unfortunately that board no longer exists anymore and I've never reposted the theory anywhere. But there was a recent Reddit thread asking about Howland Reed, and I made a bunch of my arguments/observations there in these comments if you want to check it out.
Either GRRM is just a terrible "gardener" and left scattered things throughout the novels he never intended to, or there's going to be a big reveal concerning Howland Reed. I don't at all see him as a loyal Stark bannerman, it's just the unreliable narrator at play again.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
I'd also mention that you missed a key part too... Ned explicitly said that Arthur was the true steel and that Dawn was nothing compared to him other than a sword. That was the Smiling Knight's mistake in thinking that Dawn was what made him so good and was causing him to lose. It was Arthur that made him so good, Dawn was but an extension of his will. That isn't true in the books as we know that Dawn elevates Arthur above Barristan who's otherwise just as talented a swordsman per GRRM based on its Valyrian steel-like qualities, but in the show Ned's pretty clearly saying that Arthur was the Sword of the Morning regardless of whatever damn sword he was wielding.
Didn't miss it, but I must admit I neglected it purposefully. My book-bias...
So that then becomes all the more interesting with the word choice of finding Arthur's heir to claim Dawn. Dawn didn't make Arthur, Arthur made Dawn. If Arthur was the true steel, then looking for his specific heir does kind of make sense.
Well dress me in motley and call me a prancing jackanapes!!!
But that banner has blinded me to the glaring dullification of HBO's Dawn, in favor of Arthur himself being alive with light. And now, even going so far as to require that Arthur himself need a successor (rather than the office or sword).
I've never really understood the point of Arys' chapter in AFFC unless it's to suggest that some (relatively) recent Kingsguard had a secret affair going on too. We already had Jaime and plenty of other ancient Kingsguard who hadn't kept their celibacy oaths so we know it happens, but then therefore why bother giving us this new POV on the matter too? Especially one where the Kingsguard in question actually was a decent guy (Sansa remembers that Arys always tried to be as nice as possible to her despite Joffrey's orders otherwise), and that the Kingsguard in question actually feels guilty about it (unlike Jaime who doesn't give a shit and never once meant to keep that celibacy oath)? Arys' POV is pretty much out of the blue, especially considering we've additionally got Arianna and Hotah in Dorne anyways.
Word. And at this time we must give a nod to @superunknown5's essay:
So if it's there to show us his struggle and suggest something, then the question becomes who is it a parallel to. And going over the relatively new Kingsguard we can eliminate quite a few
- Arys himself is banging Arianne - Boros Blount likes whores - Preston Greenfield was banging a draper's wife - Jaime was banging Cersei - Osmund Kettleblack is banging serving wenches and Cersei - Mandon Moore lived only for his sword according to Barristan so he presumably kept his oaths - Barristan wanted to bang Ashara (and we get his POV anyways so why go over this subject twice?) - Lewyn Martell kept a paramour (and again, we get this explicitly mentioned to us anyways)
Yup. Didn't our Field Hearthers gather some intel regarding Lewyn's paramour from Balticon? I can't remember what it was now. Mojo, @morrigansraven?
That only leaves Meryn Trant, Gerold Hightower, Oswell Whent, Arthur Dayne, and Jonothor Darry. Of that list every single one of them is around a woman that gets pregnant in Rhaella, Cersei, and Lyanna. However, we know that Meryn didn't impregnate Cersei as we know it was Jaime so that strikes him out. And we know that Jonothor Darry didn't impregnate Rhaella as he was standing guard duty while Aerys raped her so that strikes him out too.
So when you come right down to it, if Arys Oakheart's POV is supposed to suggest something about another brother, then the only actual (recent) options are Gerold Hightower, Oswell Whent, and Arthur Dayne. Make of that what you will.
Bingo. This is something that I think stands out to we [HASH]TeamDayne members. We are given reason to believe that one of the three (if not all 3) of the KG at the tower long fallen were, well, men.
And we have Ned's regret regarding only one of them. And we have Ned's admission to killing only one of them.
Now, I may only be a lowly, prancing jackanapes, but if one of the three KG had told me that he had impregnated my 15 year old little sister, I might kill the dude.
Interestingly enough, you'll note in the video however that the timeline here instead goes
- Showdown at the TOJ - Ned kills Arthur with Dawn - Ned rides away from the tower with Dawn (and I guess Jon, but that's never stated) - Ned goes to Robert's coronation with Dawn (again I suppose also with Jon, but that's never stated) - Ned goes to Starfall and returns Dawn to House Dayne
That's a lot of time that Ned therefore had Dawn. Also rather changes things in that Ned kept Dawn for awhile instead of immediately returning it as most think happened on the basis that we're told Ned returned Dawn and Starfall is obviously not that far away really. He didn't, he went and witnessed the raising of a new king, carried it likely for months with the travel involved in that, and then eventually got around to bringing it to House Dayne, again months later after all that travel. Ned openly admitted to wanting the sword in the video, and here he is keeping it for months instead of just bringing it to Starfall which was a much closer and easier trip than returning to King's Landing only to come all the way back again.
Ned either thought about keeping the sword as a war prize, simply forgot he still had it on him (unlikely as he's still carrying the same longsword 17 years later in season 1 so he knows which is his sword), or was possibly waiting until Robert was firmly on the throne before he went back into Dorne to tell a Dornish family that he'd killed their son/brother. But he still held onto Dawn for a long time no matter what his reason was for that (which might fit into your whole "Jon was around Dawn" thing).
But this timeline is also interesting as it can still fit the books. You left out some key things in your timeline, and assumed some things that were never actually stated. Mainly that Ned witnessed Robert's coronation, that Ned returned Dawn immediately, and that Ned and Robert grieved over Lyanna's death.
Knowing that, I would say that the timeline can also look something like this
- Robert is made king upon his arrival after the Sack, but the official coronation hasn't happened (as we know Joffrey wanted a expedited coronation with a timeline of only 2 weeks to prepare for that one so Robert's should be awhile away) - Ned rides south in a fury that day over Aegon and Rhaenys' murder - TOJ showdown - Ned kills Arthur and takes Dawn - Ned and Howland ride away from the TOJ - Ned returns to King's Landing and witnesses Robert's coronation/tells everybody about killing the Kingsguard (as everybody knows they're dead and Dawn would definitely go a long way towards proving that) - Ned travels to Starfall to return Dawn along with Howland - Ned finds Lyanna dying there - Ned returns to King's Landing and informs Robert of Lyanna's death and they grieve over her
That timeline is still acceptable from the books and I'd argue possibly makes more sense. I say that as it's said that Ashara awaited Ned at Starfall when he went to return Dawn. There's no possible way she knew he was coming unless he'd sent word to her, and he presumably couldn't do that from the TOJ. He can do that from King's Landing however, and therefore solve the problem as to how she knew he was on his way (as otherwise she's either a psychic or had been waiting years for him). And then that makes sense as to Robert's coronation and Ned's comments that Robert looked every inch a king that day, whereas otherwise you're instead saying that Robert looked every inch a king while either still wounded from his duel with Rhaegar if his coronation was immediately after the Sack or after he just heard the love of his life was dead and was in mourning if it's after Ned informs Robert that Lyanna's dead. If his coronation instead falls somewhere between then, there's no reason why it wouldn't have been a happy affair and Robert looked as regal as possible (and Jaime remembers Robert telling him a joke about not making kingslaying a habit at the feast afterwords so he's obviously not in a bad mood or anything). That timeline then is the same timeline the show has.
Plausible, and I do defer to you on timelines whenever possible. But in this case, I disagree. I don't find it likely at all that Ned held on to Dawn for any longer than was necessary to return the sword to Starfall. Them Starks are sticklers for protocol, and Ned was even moreso than most.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."