The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones Distressed Greyjoy Sigil T-Shirt
Greyjoy Distressed Men’s T-Shirt
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

R+L=J v 87


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
420 replies to this topic

#1 Stubby

Stubby

    The night is dark and full of dropbears

  • Board Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,181 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:36 PM

Reference guide

The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory:
Jon Snow's Parents

And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary:
Jon Snow's Parents

A Wiki of Ice and Fire:
Jon Snow Theories


Frequently Asked Questions:

How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?
Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targaryen fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?
Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?
Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?
Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?
The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty.
 For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?
The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option. 

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?
Aerys was sane enough to realize how taking someone hostage works even at the end of the Rebellion, and he would hardly miss the opportunity to bring Ned and Robert in line any time after the situation started to look really serious.
 Furthermore, regardless of on whose order the Kingsguard might have stayed at Tower of Joy, they would still be in dereliction of their duty to guard the new king.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?
The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the A Song of Ice and Fire readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 17 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?
Ned doesn't think about anyone as being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon careWho cares if he's legitimate?
Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Previous editions:

 

Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread.

 

Spoiler



#2 stateofdissipation

stateofdissipation

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:41 PM

 

No, you are trying to twist things.  Ned is not trying to impede the Kingsguard getting to Dragonstone, he is offering to help them get to Dragonstone.  That is why he offers that bit after he has offered to accept their surrender. 

The original post asked:

Is it oathbreaking to fight the king's enemies while enroute the king?

The reply was: no. but added not if the enemies are in the way

you basically established that Ned was not getting in the way.  So fighting the kings enemy not actively impeding the KG enroute to the king is oathbreaking.

 

Is "not accepting the enemy's aid" and "failing to accept the enemy's offer to allow the KG to surrender" intended to be added to "fighting the kings enemies not actively impeding the KG way to the king" as ways the KG can break their vow?

Or did you just add them to show how much Ned was not in the KG's way?



#3 Ygritte

Ygritte

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:58 PM

So right before the end of the last thread J. Stargaryen linked an old thread of his here about the similarities between Ned's ToJ dream and Cersei's Maggy the Frog dream. I literally just reread the two scenes within weeks of each other and didn't notice just how close the wording is. I urge everybody to go read the old thread. I don't know quite what to conclude from it, but my face is kind of like this: :eek: :eek: :eek:



#4 BearQueen87

BearQueen87

    Defender of Bears

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:30 PM

So right before the end of the last thread J. Stargaryen linked an old thread of his here about the similarities between Ned's ToJ dream and Cersei's Maggy the Frog dream. I literally just reread the two scenes within weeks of each other and didn't notice just how close the wording is. I urge everybody to go read the old thread. I don't know quite what to conclude from it, but my face is kind of like this: :eek: :eek: :eek:

 

Wow.

That's...pretty amazing. So dreams are memories that might have elements of something out of the ordinary, but in these cases they can be taken as close to the truth?



#5 Ygritte

Ygritte

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:36 PM

 

Wow.

That's...pretty amazing. So dreams are memories that might have elements of something out of the ordinary, but in these cases they can be taken as close to the truth?

 

I think it's a way GRRM likes to tell us what a character is repressing, but it also has a whiff of prophecy about it.



#6 stateofdissipation

stateofdissipation

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:40 PM

stateofdissipation: I'm going to try to be respectful, but it is exhausting to argue with you because it always follows the same pattern.

 

1. Other poster makes a sensible argument in support of R+L=legit J, perhaps including some slightly ambiguous wording.

2. State attempts to pick apart meticulously any semantic problem "prince" vs "heir," "prime" vs "first" etc.

3. Other poster digs in and tries to make themselves more clear.

4. State finds another semantic problem with their argument.

5. Other poster tries one last time, carefully crafting their argument so as it can't be misunderstood.

6. State demonstrates finally that he actually agrees with the entire meat of the other poster's argument.

7. Other poster addresses the subtle differences that aren't very meaningful, but because they've already invested so much time and energy, might as well be thorough.

8. State talks about how any piece of logical deduction or extrapolation from the text that isn't explicitly spelled out is just speculation and can't be inferred without absolute knowledge.

 

(All of the above happens in an aggressively legalistic manner that makes posting a chore, and usually with variable sized font and bolding that makes it mostly unreadable)

-----AegonDamphair

1.  another poster makes a seemingly reasonable post with deliberately ambiguous wording to attempt to conceal serious logical or factual errors.

Take the post being replied to as an example.  "reasonable" and "slightly ambiguous wording"   are conclusions.  This is an attempt to appear to evaluate something when what the poster is actually doing is attempting to make a case.  Were the post have started my beef with ASOD is.... anything.  I would accept it and read on.    

 

2. State successfully identifies deliberately misleading language.  Check 1 for an example.

Now "semantic" is a generally positive term.  It is the study of meaning.   it does not actually fit with the remainder of the point.  "to pick apart meticulously" is associated with "quibble."  I admit this is an effective technique.  Dishonest but effective.  Misuse of the term made what would seem like a conclusion appear to be an evaluation.   It is not an evaluation we established that in point 1.

 

3. Assigning positive value and intent to the "poster" would seem a perfectly reasonable position.

Let's see if the poster assigns positive value and intent to the other side.  If it happens I will bold it and enlarge it to 24 font size.  If you see something bold and in 24 font size I was wrong and I apologize.

 

4.  this is basically a repeat of 2.

 

5.  This is more assigning of positive motive and value,  t It is to be expected.  The poster needs to establish the correctness of one side to showcase the errors of the other.

 

6.  Without "finally" and "actually"  I would have had to enlarge type to 24.  That is not because the posted posted something positive.  I hade given up any real hope of that by 5.  I would have apologized if he was able to get  a neutral point out.

 

7.This is a repeat of 5 including the assigning of positive motive.  It arrived at the conclusion we had in 1.  (had the poster not attempted to conceal it)   The assertion that it was all meaningless and a waste of time is coming from a poster that took 7 points to say what could have been done in 1. open and honest point.  There is Irony on a stick.

 

8.Now this is where, the poster loses any semblence of impartiality,  He finishes up a long and largely pointless list with a strawman argument.

 

 

--You could have condensed it to a single point for readability.  



#7 Aeron_Damphair

Aeron_Damphair

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:44 PM

 

stateofdissipation: I'm going to try to be respectful, but it is exhausting to argue with you because it always follows the same pattern.

 

1. Other poster makes a sensible argument in support of R+L=legit J, perhaps including some slightly ambiguous wording.

2. State attempts to pick apart meticulously any semantic problem "prince" vs "heir," "prime" vs "first" etc.

3. Other poster digs in and tries to make themselves more clear.

4. State finds another semantic problem with their argument.

5. Other poster tries one last time, carefully crafting their argument so as it can't be misunderstood.

6. State demonstrates finally that he actually agrees with the entire meat of the other poster's argument.

7. Other poster addresses the subtle differences that aren't very meaningful, but because they've already invested so much time and energy, might as well be thorough.

8. State talks about how any piece of logical deduction or extrapolation from the text that isn't explicitly spelled out is just speculation and can't be inferred without absolute knowledge.

 

(All of the above happens in an aggressively legalistic manner that makes posting a chore, and usually with variable sized font and bolding that makes it mostly unreadable)

-----AegonDamphair

1.  another poster makes a seemingly reasonable post with deliberately ambiguous wording to attempt to conceal serious logical or factual errors.

Take the post being replied to as an example.  "reasonable" and "slightly ambiguous wording"   are conclusions.  This is an attempt to appear to evaluate something when what the poster is actually doing is attempting to make a case.  Were the post have started my beef with ASOD is.... anything.  I would accept it and read on.    

 

2. State successfully identifies deliberately misleading language.  Check 1 for an example.

Now "semantic" is a generally positive term.  It is the study of meaning.   it does not actually fit with the remainder of the point.  "to pick apart meticulously" is associated with "quibble."  I admit this is an effective technique.  Dishonest but effective.  Misuse of the term made what would seem like a conclusion appear to be an evaluation.   It is not an evaluation we established that in point 1.

 

3. Assigning positive value and intent to the "poster" would seem a perfectly reasonable position.

Let's see if the poster assigns positive value and intent to the other side.  If it happens I will bold it and enlarge it to 24 font size.  If you see something bold and in 24 font size I was wrong and I apologize.

 

4.  this is basically a repeat of 2.

 

5.  This is more assigning of positive motive and value,  t It is to be expected.  The poster needs to establish the correctness of one side to showcase the errors of the other.

 

6.  Without "finally" and "actually"  I would have had to enlarge type to 24.  That is not because the posted posted something positive.  I hade given up any real hope of that by 5.  I would have apologized if he was able to get  a neutral point out.

 

7.This is a repeat of 5 including the assigning of positive motive.  It arrived at the conclusion we had in 1.  (had the poster not attempted to conceal it)   The assertion that it was all meaningless and a waste of time is coming from a poster that took 7 points to say what could have been done in 1. open and honest point.  There is Irony on a stick.

 

8.Now this is where, the poster loses any semblence of impartiality,  He finishes up a long and largely pointless list with a strawman argument.

 

 

--You could have condensed it to a single point for readability.  

 

Crystallized further. Now to find Ygrain's button.



#8 BearQueen87

BearQueen87

    Defender of Bears

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:47 PM

*sigh* 

 

Is there anyway we could avoid this mind boggling conversation? It's officially nothing to do with R+L = J



#9 Aeron_Damphair

Aeron_Damphair

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:49 PM

I found the button finally, so yes. Sorry for the clutter.



#10 UnmaskedLurker

UnmaskedLurker

    A former Lurker in a Mask

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:51 PM

 

 

[snip]

 

I really am having a hard time following your logic. I agree that at some point in time the KG were at ToJ to guard whatever Rhaegar wanted them to guard (as you put it, something important to R). We never disagreed there, so asking me that question is beside the point. Where we disagreed is whether it is plausible that the reason that all 3 KG were still at ToJ at the time of the showdown is because they were guarding something that was important to R. Yes, it was important to R (i.e., Lyanna and Jon), but by the time of the showdown, R's point of view became irrelevant.  For example, if J had been born prior to showdown as a girl, Lyanna and J presumably would still be important to Rhaegar, but I believe the KG would have left them behind and gone to Dragonstone as soon as they found out V was there and was king. So something of value to R would be at ToJ, but the KG would not care and would leave those things behind at ToJ to go to the new king. So yes, they were guarding something important to R, but by that point in time, the reason they continued to guard the important thing had absolutely nothing to do with whether R valued it or not. Their duty became to guard the king--not to guard what was important to R (although in this case, I believe they happen to be the same thing, as J was both king and important to R--but being important to R had NOTHING to do with why the KG stayed at ToJ at the time of the showdown).

 

You keep saying that KG do not have to reveal their plans to Ned--the enemy. That is true, but they will NOT lie to him--especially not where the lie serves no purpose. I believe it would be a lie to state that they do not flee NOW if V is king (or 50% chance of being king). That would be a lie. It simply would not be fleeing if the king is on Dragonstone--it would be going to the king. So Dayne (the best knight Ned ever knew) simply would not have made that statement unless Dayne knew for a certainty that V was not king--which is only possible if Jon was already born prior to the showdown.



#11 BearQueen87

BearQueen87

    Defender of Bears

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:14 PM

 

I think it's a way GRRM likes to tell us what a character is repressing, but it also has a whiff of prophecy about it.

 

I read the thread as a whole, and it makes me wonder (in regards to the whiff of prophecy) if Lyanna told Ned about TPTWP before she died.



#12 Ellfoy

Ellfoy

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:16 PM

Answering IceFire125 in the precedent thread:

I do believe that Jon was likely legitimate at least in the eyes of the Kingsguards. What I meant is that at this point, it is okay to consider R + L = J as a fact because really we would never progress if not and I think most of the forum members had accepted it, but presenting R + L = J as a fact is going too far IMO mainly because a good part of the forum members still doesn't agree and also because this is not set in stone.

 

I understand that you, old R+L=J forumers (is that a word ?) want to take the next step but the legitimacy of Jon Snow is a far more meticulous point that basic R+L=J and that is a little overwhelming for newcomers who just found out about R+L=J. Presenting legitimate Jon as a fact may be repulsive for them because they most likely think at the beginning that we are overeaching and that we are biased by a Jon Snow fanatism and want to make him the rightful King. They didn't have the time to analyse the KG speech and how KG institution works, the practice of polygamy in the Targs family...

 

I think that the separate thread "rethinking Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage" was a good idea.  You know having two differents threads: one for R+L=J and one for R+L= legitimate Jon.

IMO, the main problem of this thread is the fact that R+L=J and R+L=legitimate Jon seems to be presented with the same pourcentage of likelihood for newcomers.


Edited by Ellfoy, 10 July 2014 - 06:36 AM.


#13 Ygritte

Ygritte

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:17 PM

 

I read the thread as a whole, and it makes me wonder (in regards to the whiff of prophecy) if Lyanna told Ned about TPTWP before she died.

 

She might well have. We really don't know much about that conversation or how lengthy it was. (Dammit.)



#14 BearQueen87

BearQueen87

    Defender of Bears

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:22 PM


 

I understand that you, old R+L=J forumers (is that a word ?) want to take the next step but the legitimacy of Jon Snow is a far more meticulous point that basic R+L=J and that is a little overwhelming for newcomers who just found out about R+L=J. Presenting legitimate Jon as a fact may be repulsive for them because they most likely think at the beginning that we are overeaching and that we are biased by a Jon Snow fanatism and want to make him the rightful King. They didn't have the time to analyse the KG speech and how KG institution works...

 

 

I understand this. I've only been on the forum about a month, and when I first came into the R+L = J thread, I was very confused as to why people were posting about R and L being married. It was eye opening. Caused me to do an entire re-read that, which I hadn't done in a few years. It was very :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

 

She might well have. We really don't know much about that conversation or how lengthy it was. (Dammit.)

 

(write faster George)



#15 King Rhaegar I Targaryen

King Rhaegar I Targaryen

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:34 PM

 

 

The original post asked:

Is it oathbreaking to fight the king's enemies while enroute the king?

The reply was: no. but added not if the enemies are in the way

you basically established that Ned was not getting in the way.  So fighting the kings enemy not actively impeding the KG enroute to the king is oathbreaking.

 

Is "not accepting the enemy's aid" and "failing to accept the enemy's offer to allow the KG to surrender" intended to be added to "fighting the kings enemies not actively impeding the KG way to the king" as ways the KG can break their vow?

Or did you just add them to show how much Ned was not in the KG's way?

 

 

Do you think GRRM sat down and though out the legalities surrounding this to the extent that you have? 

 

Spoiler



#16 jon Rhaegar stark

jon Rhaegar stark

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:34 PM

and not only Lyanna ..there is possiblity that the KG know about the prophecy too 

 

the staements like "now it begins " i think they know more about it 



#17 BearQueen87

BearQueen87

    Defender of Bears

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:36 PM

and not only Lyanna ..there is possiblity that the KG know about the prophecy too 

 

the staements like "now it begins " i think they know more about it 

 

If Arthur of the KG knew the prophecy, then perhaps he found a way to tell his family at Starfall. Now the Dayne's are Targ loyalists who not only willingly help Ned with Rhaegar's last child, but also TPTWP, the Savior figure.



#18 stateofdissipation

stateofdissipation

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:49 PM

 

 

  but by the time of the showdown, R's point of view became irrelevant. Unmaskedlurker

Became is not equal to if.  Became is not equal to I believe.  Became is not equal to could have, should have or would have.

I did not want to do this

 

For example, if J had been born prior to showdown as a girl, Lyanna and J presumably would still be important to Rhaegar, but I believe the KG would have left them behind and gone to Dragonstone as soon as they found out V was there and was king. So something of value to R would be at ToJ, but the KG would not care and would leave those things behind at ToJ to go to the new king.  So yes, they were guarding something important to R, but by that point in time, the reason they continued to guard the important thing had absolutely nothing to do with whether R valued it or not Their duty became to guard the king--not to guard what was important to R (although in this case, I believe they happen to be the same thing, as J was both king and important to R--but being important to R had NOTHING to do with why the KG stayed at ToJ at the time of the showdown).,----unmaskedlurker

Your examples and support do not address your assertion..  Repeating your assertion does not cout as supporting it. I have lined through hypoheticals and underlined repetition.  

What remains is an assertion that the KG duty became  to guard the king.   This is lovely.  However the KG duty to guard the king was present when they remained at the ToJ because something important to Rhaegar was at the ToJ, You assert that what Rhaegar wanted is does not matter because of the duty to guard the king. 

there in no assertion of change in the situation.  You only asserted a change in duty without a cause for that change.  When did the duty change? What caused it to change?

 You keep saying that KG do not have to reveal their plans to Ned--the enemy. That is true, but they will NOT lie to him--especially not where the lie serves no purpose. unmaskedlurker

OK, not reveal plans to the enemy does not equal lie to the enemy.  Is it would not or would not without purpose? It is impossible to have degrees of not doing something.

 

I believe it would be a lie to state that they do not flee NOW if V is king (or 50% chance of being king). That would be a lie. It simply would not be fleeing if the king is on Dragonstone--it would be going to the king. --unmaskedlurker

You believe that the honesty of an  assertion that a person will not flee is based on who is king.  This really does not make any sense.  The honesty of a statement is based on a person's intent to stay.  If a person makes an assertion about himself that he knows is not true, that person is telling a lie.    Who the king is does not relate to the honesty of a statement (unless that statement is a statement of who the king is),  

You cant find a way to phrase that I will not flee is honest or dishonest based on the king. It is honest or dishonest based on the speakers intent to flee.

 

So Dayne (the best knight Ned ever knew) simply would not have made that statement unless Dayne knew for a certainty that V was not king--which is only possible if Jon was already born prior to the showdown--unmasked lurker.

I did just mention: You cant find a way to phrase that I will not flee is honest or dishonest based on the king. It is honest or dishonest based on the speakers intent to flee.  It does not work if you just state it a second time.

 

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

1.  By the time of the showdown, "something very important to Rhaegar" would be irrelevant if.

The KG knew

Aerys had called them back to KL

All KG guarding Aerys were dead or incapable of performing their duties

Aerys had died along with his KG and Aegon was not protected

There are too many if's to list.  If the ToJ was swept away by a tornado

I am not suggesting that something did not happen between Raegar leaving and the showdown.  I am saying nothing was shown to have happened in that time.

 

2.  The duty to guard the king gets thrown around quite a bit in here.  It is a lovely piece of fan fiction, that goes on to explain exact details of the KG and their duties and their vows.  Some even throw in the chain of command.  It often includes the KG always and the KG never would.  

These 3 KG had the same duties they did when Rhaegar left them there.  Nothing canged.

If you would like to insist they must have gotten word somehow.  I respect that.  I am pretty sure it is likely.  However, it is not in the text. What the KG knew and when they knew it, is completely speculation outside of the showdown at the ToJ. 

The KG learned of the deaths of Rhaegar; Aerys,and Aegon.  They learned of the flight of Viserys.  They knew their king was alone.  They were faced with seven enemies of their king.  No duty they had can make fighting the enemy of the king breaking a vow,  The KG die in showdown.-- I am not saying that I hold this to be what happened.  I am saying that is all I can show happened.

In that scenario, the KG were still at the ToJ because something important to Rhaegar was there.  The KG died at the ToJ because something important Rhaegar was there.  

They died fighting for their king.  They died at the ToJ because something important to Rhaegar was there.  

 

Something important to Rhaegar explains only the KG's location... it does not attempt to explain their motives.

 

3.  Unless you invent a duty to flee to the king when the KG learns the king has no KG, nobody is telling a lie.   Fighting the enemies of the king is protecting the king.  you can't really spin a vow to cover that.  The KG did not say flee with viserys to dragonstone..  They said Kingsguard does not flee.   They said it, and they did it.  How could that be considered a lie?

 

4. If Dayne was determined not to flee, he could say it honestly.  there is no falseness to it.  Yes the KG must go to the king.  Nothing says they can't kill as many of his enemies as they can on the way to him.  The KG could make it to Dragonstone without fleeing.  They could fight their way there.


Edited by stateofdissipation, 09 July 2014 - 11:18 PM.


#19 jon Rhaegar stark

jon Rhaegar stark

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:50 PM

 

If Arthur of the KG knew the prophecy, then perhaps he found a way to tell his family at Starfall. Now the Dayne's are Targ loyalists who not only willingly help Ned with Rhaegar's last child, but also TPTWP, the Savior figure.

 

like giving a wet nurse to jon and keeping secret of his identity ...yes for sure...i think Daynes would agree that being with crannogmen is more safe then with them ..i dont know why i want some of those ten (especially arthur) to be alive with Howland reed but i cant help thinking that way ...


Edited by jon Rhaegar stark, 09 July 2014 - 09:53 PM.


#20 stateofdissipation

stateofdissipation

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 10:03 PM

 

Do you think GRRM sat down and though out the legalities surrounding this to the extent that you have? 

 

Spoiler

Somebody was going over kingsguard procedures in an attempt to prove the KG must at all times guard the king. (there were actually exceptions to that covered)  You would be amazed by the mythology about the KG. that is floating around on here.

Anyhow.. the poster used KL as an example of what would happen if the KG guarding the king were disabled or killed and the others learned about it.

 

I asked "if the kingsguard is going back to guard the king can he fight the king's enemy without being an oathbreaker?"

Nobody who supports KG equals king present at ToJ, can answer the question without a qualifier.....

So I just started adding up the qualifiers.  No none of them make sense.