In Game of Thrones season 6, episode 3, 'Oathbreaker', we see that Bran and the three eyed raven are mentally traveling back to a time where Eddard was a young lord.

Now, the memory that Bran and the three eyed raven travel to, is when Bran's father and a group of men take on the Kingsguard Knights to get to Eddard's sister who is locked away in a tower. The significance of this, is that at the end of the fight, Eddard isn't the one who struck the significant blow to beat Arthur Dayne, but apparently Eddard has told the story to his sons saying that he was the one who killed Arthur Dayne, which makes Bran think that the rest of Eddard's stories might also be false.

I might've missed the part where that man was introduced or explained due to the fact that Game Of Thrones has so much going on all the time and me getting up and down from my chair. But who is the man who helped Eddard defeat Arthur Dayne, and what is his significance in this show?

  • 11
    BTW, the old man/three-eyed raven did say, "That's Howland Reed, Meera's Father" at the beginning of the scene. Commented May 9, 2016 at 14:07
  • 1
    @ToddWilcox well I obviously missed that one then.. lol that's why I made that clear in my question.
    – Grizzly
    Commented May 9, 2016 at 14:09
  • 2
    That Kingsguard was Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning. Commented May 9, 2016 at 19:40
  • 1
    @RBarryYoung Or more like Arthur Dayne "The Dual-Wielding Sword of the Morning"!
    – Möoz
    Commented May 9, 2016 at 21:27
  • Um, actually, it was Eddard Stark who dealt the killing blow. Commented May 10, 2016 at 8:44

1 Answer 1


Howland Reed.

Lord of Greywater Watch, father of Jojen and Meera.

He is important because he is the only survivor of that encounter still alive in the present. Which appears to be confirming the fan theory

R+L=J which states Jon Snow's parents are Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark.

If so, Howland Reed will be the only one (who was a firsthand witness) to confirm what was found at the Tower of Joy.

  • 5
    How is his existence alive confirming anything?
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Commented May 9, 2016 at 18:55
  • 8
    @NapoleonWilson Because an in-story secret needs a means to reveal/confirm it. Otherwise it cannot be revealed (in-story) and would thus serve no narrative purpose. That there is still this one peripheral character alive who could reveal it (if true) serves to keep the theory viable. Commented May 9, 2016 at 19:32
  • 4
    Being viable isn't even close to the same thing as being confirmed...
    – Elezar
    Commented May 10, 2016 at 0:42
  • 3
    @rbarryyoung You don't actually need anyone alive since the spoken word of someone there at the time isn't the only way to communicate information. e.g. someone finds a journal kept by Ned in some locked box in a hidden niche. Or Bran sees it in a later episode, and he reveals it (and if it is true, it may well be the way it is revealed to us). In-universe, having someone alive that saw it increases the chance that it is revealed (because there's another way to find out), but it's not the only way to learn something.
    – Glen_b
    Commented May 10, 2016 at 1:51
  • 3
    @Glen_b For this theory, I think that you do need an actual witness, because the points of the whole reveal would be the Jon Snow 1) is a potential heir to the throne, 2) is a potential dragon rider/controller and 3) is a close relative of Danerys, making him a potential suitor under their traditions. For all of that, a mere claim of a vision from his brother or an old journal entry without in-person testimony is not going to be sufficient for a nation at war. It needs someone who will stand up to say "I was there. I saw it." Commented May 10, 2016 at 12:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .