u/Low-Car-7043

The good ol' question was:

What if Arya had given Jaqen different names for her three free kills?

In this scenario, for example, she chooses Tywin, Joffrey and Tommen as a way to try to end the war and give Robb a better fighting chance.

With Tywin gone, Kevan would've taken over control of the Lannister hosts,

With Joffrey and Tommen gone in maybe one night, Cersei would've fallen more and more into paranoia and unwise decisions but no Tyrion trial would've taken place, most likely.

Without Tyrion facing trial he doesn't leave and remains at the Red Keep, as new possible candidate as Lord of Casterly Rock depending of Jaime's current situation in his Kingsguard role, probably shielded also by Kevan,

Cersei tries to keep Myrcella closer still and perhaps raise a claim, but without two male heirs the Crown and Small Council would've most likely decided to find and name another male one and, if underage, a regent that is not Cersei.

Who would be the new heir?

Who would be the regent?

Would the war had ended completely or the Lannisters would've kept it going until absolute defeat, or absolute victory?

Would have Varys seen the need to intervene now and kill Kevan or Cersei or even Tyrion?

And, ultimately, would have Arya made things better or worse for the Stark-Tully faction?

The Targaryen Dynasty had Queens from many houses beyond theirs.

We had Queens coming from the Arryns, the Velaryons, Harroways, the Costaynes, the Hightowers, the Martells, the Penrose, the Daynes and the Blackwoods.

The bottom line of this what if is which House could've made offers of marriage, and had another Queen coming from them, had Robert and Jon Arryn not accepted Cersei and kept him single for a while.

There were probably more than one lady of marriagable age among the many Vassal Houses under the Starks, the Arryns, the Tullys and the very same Baratheons that fought in the rebellion and would've expected great rewards from their new King.

Ladies that would've been way better candidates, again, than Cersei.

Yes, slighting or rejecting Tywin's offer would've been dangerous since he "secured" Robert's victory, however debatable that can be, but rewarding like that a faction that joined at the last second should've been taken as an insult for those that were with you from day one and actually risked, and bled and died at your side.

A "Late Lord Tywin" to match "the Late Lord Frey".

But beyond that the point is:

How different would've Robert's reign have been had he had another Queen at his side, and would've Tywin still plotted to overthrow him and give the crown to a Lannister?

Without diminishing Robert's many flaws as a man and person, pairing him with a woman like Cersei who was already a-ok with keep having sex with her brother from day one and, at least in the books, never really cared for a second to be a good wife for him or Queen, was only going to breed disaster.

Another woman, one at least intending to fulfill her duties as Queen from a different angle than Cersei, and actually trying to fill the position without her lifelong resentments, give Robert heirs and not risk hers and her own children's lives with incest, might've acted as a reinforcement to Jon Arryn's many attempts to solidy the new Dynasty.

So overall, which Houses that fought under the Alliance could've sent likely candidates for the new Queen?

Perhaps stemming from the fact of writing a story retroactively and being constricted by default due to your own timeline (Dynasty only lasting almost 300 years), one of the odd things regarding the Targaryen dynasty is the lack of actual Cadet/Branch Houses coming from royalty as a result of their expanding family.

The Blackfyres were short-lived within Westeros, and there seems to have been some plans to do something with Brightflames coming from Aerion but beyond that, there was nor is anything more.

Had George done it differently and didn't have to force himself to wipe out so many Targs in one or two generations, maybe a version of Lannisters of Casterly Rock and Lannisters of Lannisport would've been made for the Targs beyond those and Dragonstone of course.

During their best years when there are plenty of Targs and abundance of wealth and resources there weren't even attempts to create more seats for princes and princesses.

More castles across the Crownlands for extended family and previous examples of palaces or buildings like Summerhall for royal blood.

With that also comes the oddity of not creating more titles and honors beyond Prince of Dragonstone and Hand of the King that would go directly to royalty considering Brittish history influence on George.

Like Counts, Dukes, Barons or Marquess.

And also special grantings to the keeping of their dragons with at least one Targ being directly charged with managing the Dragonpit with an offical title for it when they had them.

All overall to increase the presence and involvement of Royalty at Court or the managing of important aspects of the Crown and powers within the realm.

Without that time constraint and having to mown Targs like bad weed, he might've allowed them to thrive differently and more.

A constant observation in the last 30 years since AGOT came out is that, out of all the religions and cults and sects and forms of spirituality in Essos and Westeros, the Faith of the Seven is the one that seems to be actually "fake".

No magical elements, portents, signs, unnatural things or undisputed showcases of power attachted to it are apparently shown and recorded. Whether in the history books or in the main story. Or at least that's what some have argued over the years.

The reason for this, unlike the displays of magic by R'hllor followers, warging, greenseeing, the Others and so on, some say has it's roots in GRRM's own relationship and opinions towards christianity or organized religion as a whole that form institutions like the Catholic Church.

Throughout the years that seems to have changed and we get characters in Feast that are more honorable or make for a better representation of the Faith like the Elder Brother and Septon Meribald.

However some would insist that the religion is fake and the Seven are not real.

How would you argue against it?

Are the signs of their existence subtle and non-sacrificial? Like not letting Dunk die by his wounds during his Trial by Seven, for example?

And how do you see the Faith and it's followers acting before the Others and the start of the apocalypse? The renewed order of the Warrior's Sons helping against the icey doom?

Unlike the Baratheons who ended up claiming the Iron Throne and rising to power, the Blackfyres only truly came close to victory during their first attempt to overthrow the Targaryens.

Afterwards Daemon I's descendants didn't truly become that much of... something or anything let's say during their exile in Essos and all their following invasions weren't really that much of an existential threat and depended too much on vassal houses turning on the Crown after landing on Westeros.

By that I mean that we don't have truly stories of them rising to prominance in those lands, marrying this essosi lady or into this X family, gaining power, positions, resources or overall high status after decades there.

Unlike Viserys and Dany they could've done more with the resources they had but it doesn't seem like they truly did.

Yes, the Golden Company became an overall success as sellswords and Bittersteel gained an infamous reputation but beyond that, how come no Blackfyre later on became like him?

Why didn't they, seemingly, try to get inside Essos' nobility and politics or at least establish themselves somewhere to rise in the dominance hierarchy and gain powerful allies that could elevate their possibilities of taking the Iron Throne during a full-scale invasion.

Somewhat, I'd say, like Daenerys in Meeren and Slaver's Bay.

Overall for me giving the amount of time the Blackfyres spent in Essos, it's odd that they didn't establish themselves there and no mention of them are shown after Dany starts to rise to power:

As in "Ah yes, another dragon westerosi exile causing trouble like those Blackfyres".

Although of course there is much we don't know and could be told in the Dunk & Egg novellas, with what we have until now it makes it sound like, in his gardener fashioned way, George just thought about all this fAegon/Young Griff thing way later on and wasn't of course the original plan when it came to Ilyrio and Varys' conspiracies in AGOT.

Having now to add more details and foreshadowing in, maybe, F&B vol. 2 and the Dunk & Egg novellas (and possibly the next AKOTSK seasons).

What do you all think?

Lyonel speaking about the Crown.

Raymun Fossoway to Dunk about being incestous aliens.

Jon Roxton calling Daemon a heathen.

Ormund Hightower's disdain, racial remarks and comments on the magic involved in dragontaming or their very creation.

There are more I might be forgetting, I'm sure, but the adaptations seem to want to insert more Anti-Targaryen sentiment amongst certain nobles from different eras than it exists in the actual books.

Maybe it is a strategy to make it all reach a climax and boiling point with Robert's Rebellion, but nonetheless it seems off.

People in Robert's reign were still nostalgic about Targaryen rule and I can't recall such things even at their weakest points post-Dance.

Anything I'm missing?

So we got word and details and a brand new set of "Is it canon?" questions and inquiries from the Mad King play.

One of the curious ones, don't know if entirely unexpected, seems to be the relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar.

As we know from the history books and words from some characters in the main story, Aerys was of course a different man at the beginning of his youth, then fighting at the War of the Ninepenny Kings, the beginning of his reign and post-Duskendale.

In the play he taunts, insults and belittles Rhaegar but upon knowing about his ultimate fate at the Trident he seemingly falls into denial and then deep grief.

"My perfect boy", he says.

Wonder if this is one of the things that comes directly from George. A very tormented relationship between father and son with the latter torned between remembering the young man his father was once who might have shown him genuine care and love and then what he ended up becoming.

Yelling at him in mad rage now to not be a coward and kill him.

Very complicated things to write about when it comes to abuse and conflict-ridden families. But might be exactly what George wants and have always wanted about that period and that last generation of the Targaryen Dynasty.

One of the things that has been pretty consistent about George's writing since the very beginning is the way he writes Jon and Dany.

They are most of the time, if not always, written in parallelisms.

Following similar struggles, trajectories, moral dillemmas, identity issues, conflicts, themes and problems as they get more power and influence and grow as characters.

Even their physical positions in the world serve as a heavy contrast, with Jon in one extreme and Dany in another continent.

"The Black Bastard of the Wall" and "The Queen Across the Waters".

That being said, I'm confident that although the timing is off the overall point that we learn from the play comes from George. That being both Dany and Jon also paralleling each other when it comes to the Prince That Was Promised and Azor Ahai's prophecies.

With Dany all the portents, signs and fulfillments are pretty explicit and more easy to pinpoint. Dragons from stone, amidst smoke and salt, red comet and so on.

With Jon, in contrast and again to draw a parallel, all of them would be implicit and more difficult to see.

"Under the snow, Ned!".

Arthur Dayne's fall, Dawn/Starfall, Bleeding Star, Lyanna's death, smoke and salt, crypts of Winterfell and Dragons from stone, Sword in Water (Rhaegar), Sword in Lion (Aegon), Sword in Maiden (Lyanna), Jon's assassination at Castle Black that leads to an actual physical resurrection/born again, Bowen's tears, smoke from wounds, fallen star under Wun Wun and so on and so forth.

All characters are focused on the East. Nobody is paying attention to the North in many ways and at many levels.

Moqorro, Benerro, Marwyn, Aemon, all with their eyes on the Dragon Queen while the Hidden Prince remains with no one. Another parallelisms because nobody expects a hidden Prince.

"Under the snow, Ned!".

So, in short, this is no competition. This is no elevating of one to the diminishing of the other. This is not to take from one to give it to the other.

The Song is a Duet. A Dyad. It was never meant to be a Solo.

Who is Azor Ahai? Who is the Prince? Well, that's the thing. They both are.

Judgement and critcisms involving dreams, prophecies, visions and portents come down to the type of material we're dealing with.

Many a times we have to clarify first our own position regarding whether or not certain things actually exist in this world, and whether or not they are indepedent from human activity and will come to pass regardless of the characters doing something about it or not.

Does R'hllor exist? Does the Great Other truly exist? Are there real entities/forces/things, beyond the power and comprehension of humans, working behind the scenes?

Is it all Bloodraven throughout the ages? Or Bran?

The answers to that will than influence the judgement, because characters being "obsessed" by prophecies are doing so because of heavy evidence that they are true.

In that sense one key thing about prophecies (and magic) in this world is that they are both true and can be sometimes independent from the actions or inaction of those who learn from them.

Dangerous because through wrong interpretations or actions/inactions you make them happen, or make things worse before the prophecy is fulfilled or when it is fulfilled independently of you.

The two main examples are those of more existential weight and involve global/regional destruction:

The Doom, we can assume, was going to happen whether or not the Targaryens believed Daenys and took action.

And now the return of the Others, who regardless of the reason for their comeback are not going away simply because you choose to ignore the prophecies pertaining them. They are still coming.

So what are the characters ought to do with the latter when, indeed, the world is actually approaching it's end?

The characters that get knowledge from this whether it is as greenseers, red priests, valyrian magic and so on, many a times can't even go to sleep and have a good night rest without getting visions and dreams and portents of doom.

Their daily life haunted by this in some way, shape or form.

So of course that's going to mess you up a little and that seems to be part of George's point.

That yes, it is a tricky business, yes they are subject of manipulation, yes human themselves in their "obsessions" make things worse or actually cause them to become true.

But also there seems to be something still independent, "magical" and un-human, acting.

I don't think George is writing this from a materialistic point of view, in short.

One common trope among fiction is the torment of being granted prophetic knowledge.

Of knowing the future, seeing all the possible roads that things can take, and knowing now that the only one where humanity "makes it" requires you to murder and destroy and maim and inflict suffering and death upon thousands and thousands.

And they resist the role, they don't want to do it, they try to find another way, but the matter is sealed and they have to choose between leaving piles of bodies behind, but humanity lives, or let it all come to an end.

Paul resists, Eren resists, Rhaegar resisted too.

GRRM is no stranger to Herbert, although he probably is to Isayama, but the same themes that are portrayed in Paul and Eren regarding such character that receives or is granted a prophetic role, I think is what he was, or is, trying to do with this Targaryen.

His characterization in the play, leaving creative liberties aside, is probably on point.

Your mother gets burned and traumatized the day you are born, and you come into this world while people are being burned alive inside a building. All your namedays always shadowed by the tales of dragons and dreams and "obessions" of a previous king.

Your own parents get married because a prophecy was uttered over the Chosen One being born from their line. You see your mother go through abuse and pain and it's not unthinkable to assume that Rhaegar must've blamed himself over it. That his own existence was paid with death and misery.

You learn growing up about how your ancestors survive the doom of their people because a woman had a dream. You learn that your other ancestor conquered a continent, and centuries down the line you are born as a prince, because allegedly he also had a dream.

You meet another relative (Aemon) who insists upon prophecies too and retales how the dreams that you yourself are having too led to the deaths of all his brothers.

Then your father, then Lyanna, then your own portents and visions and on and on and on is when I ask: How can you not be "obsessed" with it all?

This is no "Pro-Rhaegar" post, this is just my own current take on Martin's vision regarding his character. That maybe he does, or wanted, to make his own Paul Atreides and his own Golden Path with Rhaegar.

However he succeeds, or people agree, or people like it, or people judge it, or people hate it or love it, is an entirely different discussion.

These are spoilers from the play of the Mad King.

Confirmation of Lyanna going with Rhaegar willingly, Elia being FINE with Rhaegar taking a second wife, and that Rhaegar's letters were intercepted by Varys. Or at least the play confirms one raven that allows Gerold to go and find them.

One of the things many have been saying for years is that Elia was more of a political player than many assumed both in-universe and outside. Helping Rhaegar with schemings to depose Aerys, being interested in having her House remain in power and rise even more.

That she was not this passive character who had no agency and just suffered Rhaegar's "stupidity".

She was in active communication with Lyanna and was ok with it all.

God, no wonder Doran and Oberyn didn't hold grudges against Rhaegar.

This is just too good.

Throughout all Blackfyre rebellions, one common theme or pattern are those who supported them, remained observant of the events to see who would end up winning or tried to land some support, however minor, expecting some reward were they win.

That being the case right from the start and the first attempt to the 5th and, if proven true, perhaps the current sixth one being led by fAegon and JonCon.

That being said, the list of Houses and main supporters for the Blackfyre claim through out the years across all 5 rebellions without dividing by each one, were as follow:

• House Reyne
• House Ambrose
• House Peake
• House Ball
• House Crakehal
• House Lothston (initial support but betrayal)
• House Bracken
• House Hightower (some)
• House Oakheart (some)
• House Tarbeck (some)
• House Butterwell (some)
• House Shawney
• House Costayne
• House Osgrey
• House Strickland
• House Sunderland
• House Yronwood
• House Fossoway (particularly in the War of the Ninepenny kings)

Some other minor ones, or suspected to be thinking about landing support, can be seen in those who attend the Tourney during the Second one. But overall the theme is clear:

Minor houses, considered by some "second tier" or just not as powerful, influential and rich, giving support or trying to have "one foot" on each camp, particularly during the First Rebellion.

The notion of the rebellions being truly an opportunity to rise over the current status quo and take advantage of the potential reality of creating a new order of things after years of boiled up resentment or grudge over being seconds, or just mere opportunism, can be suggested when pretty much all major houses, already at power during centuries even, remained loyal to the Crown.

If the theory over fAegon and the Blackfyres trying one more time to win the throne is true, which other minor houses could give or land support to him after being unhappy with the Tyrell-Lannister hegemony or, simply, as an opportunity to rise in the dominance hierarchy of Westeros?

The time transpired between Rhaegar's death, the siege and taking of King's Landing with Aerys' death, Ned lifting the siege of Storm's End and then his travel with a small group to the Tower of Joy must've taken at least one or two weeks.

News of all that happened of course reached Dragonstone and then, judging by Ned's dream and the dialogue there, also reached Arthur and the rest at the Tower.

Thing is, beyond guarding Lyanna, what were their orders? Just remain there until he returns and if he doesn't go to another place?

If they had succeeded in killing Ned and his group, what comes next? Leave Westeros too?

What did Rhaegar told them? Why not leave immediately after getting news of Rhaegar's death if Lyanna was in a similar position to that of Rhaella and they had time to take Dany and Viserys out?

Were the Daynes as a whole part of the plan, hence why they don't hold resentments towards Ned despite the original story being that two prominent members of their House died because of him?

Something that's fascinating to me is the Others as an entire race in their own right.

I know the popular thing is to think of them as creations of the Children to fight the First Men. A sort of Nuke that acquired conscience and of course went it's own way, but I like to think of them as their own thing.

Beings who existed prior to the coming of humanity in a primordial world where other creatures and species existed alongside them, from the Children, to "sea people", to those lovecraftian creatures tied up to the lore of the oily/fused black stones across the world and so on and so forth.

Now, most of those species are in decline or close to extinction or are just no longer at the top of the dominance hierarchy after humanity arrived to the world. Some left mysterious things behind, others retrited into the depths of the sea or the shadows of the forests, and others refused to let Humanity win.

Those being, pun intended, the Others.

Because unlike the other races, beyond what led to the first Long Night and how were they defeated, the thing is that they were at the same position. Defeated, probably few in number and close to extinction, and are now starting to fight back.

On that regard they are doing what other races are not, or can't do, and is reproduce or grow in number. Because Craster's children are the proof that new Others can be created through humans, and the story of the Night's King might also suggest that they can breed/use sexual reproduction.

Which leads me to the last question and is the hierarchy between them:

Do Others created through human babies are fundamentally different from more ancient, older and perhaps "purer" ones? Those that survived the Long Night and have lived for thousands of years, perhaps?

Are Craster's Children easier or harder to kill than them?

Can dragonglass affect some, but not others, can fire damage some (including dragonfire) but not others, can valyrian steel kill some and not others?

The idea being then, that they are more prepared in the sense that the same weaknesses of before won't be exploited this time.

"We learned".

And seeing Waymar, they laughed.

So on short I'm left with that inquiry, assuming they retain memory from their first defeat, of what sort of plan and contingencies do they have now to ensure victory this time and the answer might rest in what they have seen humanity do across the centuries: adapt, grow, evolve.

From their armors and swords and spears and those things they can do with ice that we "can't imagine and make substances of it", according to George, to their own members now. Different from before and harder to kill.

The key to evolution and to survival and, for them this time, victory.

Given that the Others are described as these creepy ice elves, with their own language and probably their own culture and sense of history, I wonder how are they preparing for this second attempt to end life.

Do they remember the last time? Do they remember how they lost? What did they do wrong? What did they do right? Do they hold records, annals of history, that preserve the memory of that time?

Did the Other that face Waymar Royce, for example, indeed stared at his sword before engaging him to check if it was "dragonsteel"/dragonglass/valyrian steel or Lightbringer?

Are they truly looking specifically for the Horn of Joramun because they know it is true that it can bring down the Wall?

And how aware are they about the events going on in the East? Will Dany be an unforeseen foe just as Azor Ahai himself wielding Lightbringer might've been something unexpected to them as well? Or the Last Hero?

And lastly, I wonder if there might any indication about how are they preparing, if just as an overall bullet point, in the show. With the lances/spears that could kill a dragon instantly, or a cold so extreme that it could even affect them and their flames.

Overall I just wonder what are they thinking and what are they planning to win this time after thousands of years, I will assume, preparing themselves for their comeback.

One tiny, small and seemingly irrelevant point regarding the chain of events leading to Robert's Rebellion is Brandon Stark's actions.

For some reason, might be the same regarding the opinions of Rhaegar and the power of the official narrative, we just assume that somehow he gets word of Lyanna being kidnapped, somehow he believes it and then goes straight to the Red Keep to ask for Rhaegar's head.

Now, isn't there anything else to say about all this? Who told him, for example?

Who was there who witnessed the events, saw that it was actually the Crown Prince and his buddies and then conveyed the events to Brandon?

A random peasant or someone else?

Some would say that it doesn't matter. That willingly or not Rhaegar is insulting his house, Lyanna doesn't have agency and everything would've led to conflict.

But I partially disagree.

First because on one scenario it's a simple disappearence: "Lyanna hasn't returned, we don't know where she is". Like Arya in AGOT and the Butcher's boy.

The others involve the difference between the following:

1. Someone tells you that they saw your younger sister leave the house and meet a guy that she saw at a party last month, waiting for her outside and driving a BMW. She's all laughs and smiles, gets inside and they leave. You get mad, of course, and try to find the guy to have a word with him because you know he's married with kids and your sister is already dating a family friend. But you don't immediately conclude that she was kidnapped and could currently be getting raped, trafficked to Colombia or murdered or whatever.
2. Someone tells you, screaming and crying and visibly worried and stressed out, that he saw her being intercepted in the middle of the street by a white van, jumped by 3 dudes and that older guy that was at the driver's seat, thrown inside the van while she's screaming and kicking and calling for help before they hit the gas and go straight to the highway.

I can't conceive how you can react the same in any of those scenarios however much you're a noble and would of course take offense regardless.

The conclusions and the implications and the reactions wouldn't be the same, at all.

So the question remains, who told Brandon, how was it told and if maybe, perhaps, was there some manipulation to make him as angry as possible.

Since the discussion over Robert's Rebellion brings up causes and catalysts, let's do another fun thing.

Years later, now a piece of memory and history, what could be said about the catalysts and causes that led to the War of the Five Kings?

Assuming both an official narrative in the in-universe history books, and inner knowledge of the events surrounding it that the public wouldn't know.

Cersei's treason by having bastards from her brother?

Jon Arryn's murder?

Bran Stark's assassination attempt?

Catelyn Stark's kidnapping of Tyrion Lannister?

Robert's death/murder?

Ned Stark's "treason", imprisonment and execution?

All of the above?

Let's see.

It might be the fault of the songs and the biased characters. Or of Robert and his unfathomable hatred for Rhaegar. Or Barristan and his romanticism. Or the World of Ice and Fire. Or the show, or everything else combined.

But this notion that Robert's Rebellion was caused because of Lyanna's "kidnapping" is just wrong.

When you examine the timeline of events, and then the events itself, the war starts for entirely different situation and that was, in short, Aerys starting to pile up heads of nobles so they could all be as tall as the Iron Throne.

News of Lyanna being missing, and then that it was a "kidnapping", had reached Rickard and he did not call the banners. And it also reached Ned and Robert in the Vale and no declaration of war was made.

News, on top of that, of Rickard's own son and heir having been made captive by the King reached him when he arrived to the Riverlands and he did not call the banners.

News of the whole situation reached the fathers of the men that were originally with Brandon when he demanded Rhaegar's head, and no banners were called.

The Rebellion only starts after Aerys does the following:

Executes a Lord Paramount and his son and heir. Rickard and Brandon Stark.

Executes Ser Elbert Arryn, nephew of Jon Arryn, who was at the time the heir to the Vale.

Executes the entirety of Brandon's original group, which included members of House Royce and Mallister.

Executes the original group that went to King's Landing with Rickard that were originally attending Brandon's wedding, which included squires and minor nobles.

Then executes the fathers of those that went to KL originally with Rickard.

THEN he calls for the heads of Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon, two other Lord Paramounts, to Jon Arryn under threat of also being declared a traitor up to be promptly executed if he refuses.

At that point Houses Stark, Tully, Baratheon and Arryn are all under threat by the Crown, and minor Houses have also been severely hurt.

For less than that Robb declared war on Joffrey.

So in short it was then, and only then, that Jon Arryn decides to declare war and calls the banners.

So no, Robert's Rebellion was never really about Lyanna and Rhaegar, although of course it was an important factor, and even less was "built on a lie".

It was, out of the three times the Targaryen Dynasty faced a serious military and existential threat, the one most justified despite how it ended.

We sometimes forget that R+L=J was going to be one of the biggest reveals of the whole story. Something that was sadly done by the show before the books but that gave support to years of theorizing way before D&D approached George with an HBO contract.

With that in mind, something that tends to be insisted on is that Jon has barely, if ever, thought of Rhaegar at all, even if it's just to recall Westerosi history.

So a sort of exercise when it comes to George leaving hints of Jon's true parentage and the character of Rhaegar is to go back to many internal dialogues and descriptions in his chapters that used to bring up Ned, for example, and replace them now with Rhaegar.

Not always happens, but sometimes when you do it a different picture appears.

Some examples:

>It was only once, and it had to be. Even my father stumbled once, when he forgot his marriage vows and sired a bastard. Jon vowed to himself that it would be the same with him. It will never happen again.

And:

>You were wrong to love her, a voice whispered. You were wrong to leave her, a different voice insisted. He wondered if his father had been torn the same way, when he'd left Jon's mother to return to Lady Catelyn. He was pledged to Lady Stark, and I am pledged to the Night's Watch."

And:

>Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night's Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon's breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady's coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … 

And:

>Even his own mother had not had a place for him. The thought of her made him sad. He wondered who she had been, what she had looked like, why his father had left her. Because she was a whore or an adulteress, fool. Something dark and dishonorable, or else why was Lord Eddard too ashamed to speak of her?

And:

>“Sometimes there is no happy choice, Sam, only one less grievous than the others.”

And:

>"The Others take your honor!" Robert swore. "What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon's honor!" "You avenged Lyanna at the Trident," Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered."

And:

>"Jon did not know that he could tell honor from shame anymore, or right from wrong."

And:

"And he feared for Ygritte as well. He could not take her, but if he left her, would the Magnar make her answer for his treachery? Two hearts that beat as one . . . They shared the same sleeping skins every night, and he went to sleep with her head against his chest and her red hair tickling his chin. The smell of her had become a part of him. Her crooked teeth, the feel of her breast when he cupped it in his hand, the taste of her mouth . . . they were his joy and his despair. Many a night he lay with Ygritte warm beside him, wondering if his lord father had felt this confused about his mother, whoever she had been."

And:

>"Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?" Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? (...) "He would do whatever was right,"

>“...he had left because he was after all his father’s son...”

There could be many more, I'm sure, but wanted to open up the discussion and see what else can be found.

One thing that keeps being a sort of debate, and of course lore to be disclosed, is how come the North ended up as it did.

With that I mean the structure of Freefolk/Wildlings at the other side of the Wall. Northern kingdoms and the Night's Watch.

So many thousands of years ago, right after winning the Battle for the Dawn and putting an end to the Long Night, you would expect humanity would've tried to get along for a while after joining forces against an existential common enemy and winning at last.

The Others have been vanquished, the Wall is going to be built and the Night's Watch has just been founded. What follows after that? Did some northerners willing decided to stay on the other side of the Wall?

Was there some sort of deal that was forgotten across the ages by the time Joramun joined forces with Brandon the Breaker?

Did some form of group chose to remain there to stay vigilant in case the Others returned and they could hold them for a while before they reached the Wall?

It seems confusing to decide to build something right there and keep humans on the other side when you know, if the enemy ever returns and you beat them like last week, you're just giving them more soldiers to their army.

So what do you think? How did things end up like they did?