Maybe R+L=J is not true?

[Prince of the Green]

I think regardless who his father is, Lyanna Stark is Jon Snow's mother. I don't think Ned could allow, given the traditions of the First Men and especially the Stark's, Jon to polish Ice as a youth. That greatsword is the ancestral Valyrian Steel sword of House Stark, only to be handled by a true Stark. If Lyanna is his mother, then it only stands to reason that Eddard would almost be compelled to let Jon privilege with such a treasured heirloom. It is (or was, I guess) indicative of House Stark, at least in the recent (last few hundred years) history of that house.

[summer_stark]

I hate R+L=J so I will always argue against it, even if I do think at the end of the day it is probably true. It still irritates me, so all counter-theories are welcome. I haven't seen a great explanation for why the current then king viserys would trump the unborn possible future heir jon snow (see timeline)

Timeline (leaving most events out):

Lyanna in ToJ -- 3 KG sent to protect her by R

R leaves -- ends up in Trident.

R Dies

At this point: Aerys successor is Aegon

Aerys Dies

Aegon is King

Aegon Dies

....Jon Snow has not yet been born:

1) Ned is in KL for the sack, and then goes to ToJ

2) after traveling to ToJ, which takes him some time, he finds Lyanna in her bed of blood (roughly a month after the sack)

3) for Ned to have found Lyanna in her bed of blood=she gave birth very very very very very very recently -- i.e., after Aegon died.

Therefore: Viserys is king for roughly a month before Jon Snow is born -- so we're supposed to buy that the 3 KG didn't find that out for a month? That they didn't hear about the sack? I know the ToJ is isolated, but I doubt it's that isolated. Also, the KG can't know the unborn child will be a boy, so for that time period, they have abandoned their king on the idea that the child is probably a boy and will definitely survive.

So, that raises the question -- does the next in line give up the throne when an heir of the previous line is born? Even if the answer is yes, Viserys' claim and his Regent's decisions would likely trump (see, e.g., Selmy's reaction to Cersei tearing up Roberts letter -- he ultimately sides with the new king).

I guess succession could work like this, but let's assume that R, Aegon, and Aerys all die immediately after R impregnates L. Let's also age up Viserys so he is "of age" -- so for 9 months you have Viserys ruling, then Jon Snow is born. Viserys is king for nearly a year before Jon is born -- what does Viserys do? He just gives up his claim? Or says I'll just be regent? Or more likely, he says Jon Snow is a bastard born from a marriage we don't recognize in Westeros anymore (hey, he's King now, he can outlaw polygamy effectively disinheriting Jon Snow). So...why would 3 KG just decide that a dead R and an unborn J trump a current king V?

Moreover, the KG doesn't exactly hang out with people other than the King unless the king (or his regent) orders them to do so (see, e.g., Myrcella). What precedent do we have for the KG taking orders from the heir? This is akin to Myrcella or Tommen saying, during a war, that 3 KG should go do this other task, that has nothing to do with the war. Moreover, why wouldn't Aerys call the 3 KG back at some point during that time? The argument that others were around and 1 KG was there is not an argument against why, during a time of war, a king -- and a paranoid king at that -- wouldn't want as many members of his KG as possible by his side at all times.

The reason Jaime could kill Aerys is b/c no other KG were there -- so they did not do their duty -- they failed their king. Even if you say that Aerys wouldve been killed during the sack, it still doesn't give the KG the right to abandon their king in favor of an unborn probably bastard (I don't buy the marriage theory -- there's absolutely no proof except the KG are there -- but they're not protecting a king when they're there except for during the last oh 5 minutes? They don't even know it's going to be a boy!) So, the 3 most prominent, honorable KG abandon their king on the orders of their prince, who is not yet nor will he ever be king (if they are in on the whole R overthrows Aerys idea, then why don't people in Westeros think of them as kingslayers too--I know I know, b/c no one knew). And they just stop protecting the one person they are bound to protect?

I just don't get how the fact that 3 KG are there makes RL=J. I mean, I get it. I see how it could be true, see how it is likely true, but still think it is going to take a lot of stupid contrived bs explaining when occams razor says -- they're there on the orders of their king -- Aerys. No friggin idea why and i would stab myself in the face with a pencil if Jon Snow turned out to be Aerys' kid, and I don't believe it for a second -- but it still doesn't lend support to the theory that 3 KG are there for the unborn king (which, if they had no idea that Aegon would be killed, is even more preposterous -- how are they going to leave the protection of their king and heir to one KG).

The fact that there are 7 KG warns against arguing that there were other "people" around to help out -- that's not the point of the KG -- the point of the KG is to have the king protected at all times by the best knights he could have -- i mean, didn't Jaime have to go to the bathroom? Shower? Eat? Sleep? having only one KG in KL for an extended period of time makes no sense, especially if it's not even on the orders of the king, especially in a time of war and rebellion. Isn't protecting the king of Paramount importance?

Ok. rant complete. I just want Jon Snow to be Ned's so, take the rant with a grain (or shaker) of salt...

[Dragonfish]

Therefore: Viserys is king for roughly a month before Jon Snow is born -- so we're supposed to buy that the 3 KG didn't find that out for a month? That they didn't hear about the sack? I know the ToJ is isolated, but I doubt it's that isolated. Also, the KG can't know the unborn child will be a boy, so for that time period, they have abandoned their king on the idea that the child is probably a boy and will definitely survive.

In real-life monarchies, the procedure would be to wait nine months to allow the deceased heir's wife to give birth before passing the crown to a different heir. Presumably things work the same way in Westeros. So Viserys would not have been king during that period of time between Aerys' death and Jon's birth; no one would have, until the child was born and they knew if it was a boy or a girl.

[summer_stark]

In real-life monarchies, the procedure would be to wait nine months to allow the deceased heir's wife to give birth before passing the crown to a different heir. Presumably things work the same way in Westeros. So Viserys would not have been king during that period of time between Aerys' death and Jon's birth; no one would have, until the child was born and they knew if it was a boy or a girl.

hasn't this ever led to problems? like cersei-style problems? it just seems like a crappy way to resolve this issue, especially if the "viserys" is of age -- and especially here where the potential heir is not from the recognized marriage of the king (sure, maybe the KG knew, but then, Selmy trusted Roberts letter...). not saying it doesn't work that way, and i believe your rendition for real monarchies -- since there needs to be a solution. it just strikes me as a particularly bad solution, especially if there is internal strife...

also, who rules during this period of time? if there is no appointed regent from some sort of will, then who decides who is in charge? and who decides who should decide?

[Margar]

I do think Lyanna is Jon's mother, as to why she made Ned "promise" her something, I don't know. I think the "promise" involved raising Jon as his own, because that's what Ned did, but beyond that I'm not certain.

I do want to know why if the KG solemn vow was to protect the king in the tower, why go out in the open and face a numerical disadvantage when they could have hold up in the tower and used it's natural defenses? If their goal was to at some point leave the ToJ with the king that wasn't a very good strategy.

Didn't GRRM say that Ned's dream wasn't a literal replay of the events at the Tower of Joy, but that some of it was symbolic? So they could have had a different strategy and Ned is dreaming of meeting the KG members face to face rather than in a fight?

[Dragonfish]

hasn't this ever led to problems? like cersei-style problems?

You mean in Westeros, or in real-life monarchies? For the first option, I don't think such a situation as occurred yet under the Targaryen dynasty, so it hasn't really been tested. As for the second option, I'm afraid I simply don't know.

also, who rules during this period of time? if there is no appointed regent from some sort of will, then who decides who is in charge? and who decides who should decide?

I don't know. I assume there is some sort of regent. Though with the Kingsguard, they obviously wouldn't have been able to select one.

[summer_stark]

You mean in Westeros, or in real-life monarchies? For the first option, I don't think such a situation as occurred yet under the Targaryen dynasty, so it hasn't really been tested. As for the second option, I'm afraid I simply don't know.

I don't know. I assume there is some sort of regent. Though with the Kingsguard, they obviously wouldn't have been able to select one.

hmm...interesting. let's take it one step further btw -- let's assume that since Aerys, Aegon, and Rhaegar are all killed in quick succession, and let's say it's like literally the day after R impregnates L -- then no one knows she's pregnant, least of all her, so for at least a month or 2, V is king -- there's no reason to believe otherwise.

obv, this has no applicability to the current scenario, I just find the potential problems with this solution so staggering and fascinating -- both in real life and in Westeros -- and especially during a less than civil period of time...like during the war of the roses, or Westeros. And again, i totally believe you

[Dragonfish]

hmm...interesting. let's take it one step further btw -- let's assume that since Aerys, Aegon, and Rhaegar are all killed in quick succession, and let's say it's like literally the day after R impregnates L -- then no one knows she's pregnant, least of all her, so for at least a month or 2, V is king -- there's no reason to believe otherwise.

The procedure would still be to wait nine months, regardless of whether or not the deceased heir's wife is known to be pregnant.

[summer_stark]

The procedure would still be to wait nine months, regardless of whether or not the deceased heir's wife is known to be pregnant.

truly? that seems a bit much, no? shouldn't ned have waited then before he went off and told stannis that he was the rightful heir? shouldn't he have waited to see if cersei was pregnant? (yes, she did tell him that she finished the king off in other ways, but still -- if that's proper procedure, then you'd think someone as honorable as ned would follow it). and, aside from ned, someone who is as big a rule follower as stannis would've definitely waited to see if cersei had a little black haired baby, wouldn't he? i kind of think that even if this rule applies in real life, that we have some evidence that it doesn't apply in westeros (though i grant you that it could just be that ned and stannis figured she has 3 who werent his, why start now? still, i think considering who they are, it wouldn't make a ton of sense for them to do that, especially stannis).

[Dragonfish]

truly? that seems a bit much, no? shouldn't ned have waited then before he went off and told stannis that he was the rightful heir? shouldn't he have waited to see if cersei was pregnant? (yes, she did tell him that she finished the king off in other ways, but still -- if that's proper procedure, then you'd think someone as honorable as ned would follow it). and, aside from ned, someone who is as big a rule follower as stannis would've definitely waited to see if cersei had a little black haired baby, wouldn't he? i kind of think that even if this rule applies in real life, that we have some evidence that it doesn't apply in westeros (though i grant you that it could just be that ned and stannis figured she has 3 who werent his, why start now? still, i think considering who they are, it wouldn't make a ton of sense for them to do that, especially stannis).

I think the Cersei situation is mitigated by the fact that Joffrey would instantly inherit unless his claim was immediately challenged. I also think that, given Cersei committed treason by giving the king false heirs, she would essentially be set aside, and any child of hers would be considered illegitimate by default.

[summer_stark]

I think the Cersei situation is mitigated by the fact that Joffrey would instantly inherit unless his claim was immediately challenged. I also think that, given Cersei committed treason by giving the king false heirs, she would essentially be set aside, and any child of hers would be considered illegitimate by default.

maybe, but even if they had challenged joff's rule, and even if she was set aside, a son of robert would still be the heir to the throne -- since robert is dead, it is up to the next in line to determine whether she is set aside for her treason -- and at that point, it seems as though, because she was still married to robert when he died, that if she had a black haired son, he would be the heir unless robert put her aside before the kid was born, so if the rule was in effect, then they still should have allowed for that possibility -- or at least discussed it.

[Dragonfish]

maybe, but even if they had challenged joff's rule, and even if she was set aside, a son of robert would still be the heir to the throne -- since robert is dead, it is up to the next in line to determine whether she is set aside for her treason -- and at that point, it seems as though, because she was still married to robert when he died, that if she had a black haired son, he would be the heir unless robert put her aside before the kid was born, so if the rule was in effect, then they still should have allowed for that possibility -- or at least discussed it.

Well, it's a complicated situation. Personally, I think that if it had been definitively accepted that Cersei's children up until now haven't been Robert's, then any future children she might have would be rendered ineligible do to having Cersei's "traitor's blood."

[Ygrain]

A relatively short period of interregnum is definitely better than skipping a potential heir - not only you damage his rights but you create basis for a dangeours conflict over succession in the future. If Aerys and Aegon died while Lyanna was pregnant, no-one would be king until a clear succession line was established.

Also, Lyanna needn't have given birth immediately befor Ned arrived. He recalls her being feverish when she spoke her last words to him, which might indicate puerperal fever. It can occur up to ten days after chilbirth and the development into mortal sepsis is not immediate, so Jon could easily be about two weeks old. That's still fairly early in the puerperium period and the term "bed of blood" could easily apply.

[Scipio Africanus]

I hate R+L=J so I will always argue against it, even if I do think at the end of the day it is probably true. It still irritates me, so all counter-theories are welcome. I haven't seen a great explanation for why the current then king viserys would trump the unborn possible future heir jon snow (see timeline)

Timeline (leaving most events out):

Lyanna in ToJ -- 3 KG sent to protect her by R

R leaves -- ends up in Trident.

R Dies

At this point: Aerys successor is Aegon

Aerys Dies

Aegon is King

Aegon Dies

....Jon Snow has not yet been born:

1) Ned is in KL for the sack, and then goes to ToJ

2) after traveling to ToJ, which takes him some time, he finds Lyanna in her bed of blood (roughly a month after the sack)

3) for Ned to have found Lyanna in her bed of blood=she gave birth very very very very very very recently -- i.e., after Aegon died.

Therefore: Viserys is king for roughly a month before Jon Snow is born -- so we're supposed to buy that the 3 KG didn't find that out for a month? That they didn't hear about the sack? I know the ToJ is isolated, but I doubt it's that isolated. Also, the KG can't know the unborn child will be a boy, so for that time period, they have abandoned their king on the idea that the child is probably a boy and will definitely survive.

So, that raises the question -- does the next in line give up the throne when an heir of the previous line is born? Even if the answer is yes, Viserys' claim and his Regent's decisions would likely trump (see, e.g., Selmy's reaction to Cersei tearing up Roberts letter -- he ultimately sides with the new king).

The whole problem with R+L=J NOT being true is the whole issue with THREE KGs posted at the ToJ. Three, why in godsname three? If Lyanna was just some skirt Rheagar was chasing or that he kidnapped her, there certainly wouldn't be three KGs present AFTER he left. If Lyanna wasn't pregnant from him why did three KGs stay behind? That's more KGs then the current king Aerys got. What possible reason could they have for that? And if there was any reason other then Lysanne being pregnant from Rheagar, would the three KGs have stayed instead of insisting on traveling with Rheagar?

If you're worried about succession, I don't understand your concern. How old is Viserys at this point? I thought he was a young minor too at the point. He himself would've required a regent or regents. And the regent, upon learning that Jonny had been born, would've been the regent for Jon not Viserys.

But if you're worried about Viserys getting all Octavian and murdering Caesars heirs (too many Caesars is never a good thing) then you must keep in mind that Octavian had won the civil war and was an adult himself already. Viserys, already said, is a minor. And also, Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna to Dragonstone to be anywhere near the rest of his family, maybe Rhaegar did that in case someone got any ideas.

Unless the regents wanted Viserys' (and Dany's) line instead of Rhaegar's line, but those who would regent for them would've been Targ loyalists if the civil war was decided in their favour. So I don't see a regent chosing one line of the direct line of succesion. Plus considering Jon's an infant it would mean a longer stay in power for said regent.

I fear Jon really is R+L=J unless some starteling new evidence pops up next volume whether we like it or not.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I hate R+L=J so I will always argue against it, even if I do think at the end of the day it is probably true. It still irritates me, so all counter-theories are welcome. I haven't seen a great explanation for why the current then king viserys would trump the unborn possible future heir jon snow (see timeline)

Timeline (leaving most events out):

Lyanna in ToJ -- 3 KG sent to protect her by R

R leaves -- ends up in Trident.

R Dies

At this point: Aerys successor is Aegon

Aerys Dies

Aegon is King

Aegon Dies

....Jon Snow has not yet been born:

1) Ned is in KL for the sack, and then goes to ToJ

2) after traveling to ToJ, which takes him some time, he finds Lyanna in her bed of blood (roughly a month after the sack)

3) for Ned to have found Lyanna in her bed of blood=she gave birth very very very very very very recently -- i.e., after Aegon died.

Therefore: Viserys is king for roughly a month before Jon Snow is born -- so we're supposed to buy that the 3 KG didn't find that out for a month? That they didn't hear about the sack? I know the ToJ is isolated, but I doubt it's that isolated. Also, the KG can't know the unborn child will be a boy, so for that time period, they have abandoned their king on the idea that the child is probably a boy and will definitely survive.

So, that raises the question -- does the next in line give up the throne when an heir of the previous line is born? Even if the answer is yes, Viserys' claim and his Regent's decisions would likely trump (see, e.g., Selmy's reaction to Cersei tearing up Roberts letter -- he ultimately sides with the new king).

I guess succession could work like this, but let's assume that R, Aegon, and Aerys all die immediately after R impregnates L. Let's also age up Viserys so he is "of age" -- so for 9 months you have Viserys ruling, then Jon Snow is born. Viserys is king for nearly a year before Jon is born -- what does Viserys do? He just gives up his claim? Or says I'll just be regent? Or more likely, he says Jon Snow is a bastard born from a marriage we don't recognize in Westeros anymore (hey, he's King now, he can outlaw polygamy effectively disinheriting Jon Snow). So...why would 3 KG just decide that a dead R and an unborn J trump a current king V?

Moreover, the KG doesn't exactly hang out with people other than the King unless the king (or his regent) orders them to do so (see, e.g., Myrcella). What precedent do we have for the KG taking orders from the heir? This is akin to Myrcella or Tommen saying, during a war, that 3 KG should go do this other task, that has nothing to do with the war. Moreover, why wouldn't Aerys call the 3 KG back at some point during that time? The argument that others were around and 1 KG was there is not an argument against why, during a time of war, a king -- and a paranoid king at that -- wouldn't want as many members of his KG as possible by his side at all times.

The reason Jaime could kill Aerys is b/c no other KG were there -- so they did not do their duty -- they failed their king. Even if you say that Aerys wouldve been killed during the sack, it still doesn't give the KG the right to abandon their king in favor of an unborn probably bastard (I don't buy the marriage theory -- there's absolutely no proof except the KG are there -- but they're not protecting a king when they're there except for during the last oh 5 minutes? They don't even know it's going to be a boy!) So, the 3 most prominent, honorable KG abandon their king on the orders of their prince, who is not yet nor will he ever be king (if they are in on the whole R overthrows Aerys idea, then why don't people in Westeros think of them as kingslayers too--I know I know, b/c no one knew). And they just stop protecting the one person they are bound to protect?

I just don't get how the fact that 3 KG are there makes RL=J. I mean, I get it. I see how it could be true, see how it is likely true, but still think it is going to take a lot of stupid contrived bs explaining when occams razor says -- they're there on the orders of their king -- Aerys. No friggin idea why and i would stab myself in the face with a pencil if Jon Snow turned out to be Aerys' kid, and I don't believe it for a second -- but it still doesn't lend support to the theory that 3 KG are there for the unborn king (which, if they had no idea that Aegon would be killed, is even more preposterous -- how are they going to leave the protection of their king and heir to one KG).

The fact that there are 7 KG warns against arguing that there were other "people" around to help out -- that's not the point of the KG -- the point of the KG is to have the king protected at all times by the best knights he could have -- i mean, didn't Jaime have to go to the bathroom? Shower? Eat? Sleep? having only one KG in KL for an extended period of time makes no sense, especially if it's not even on the orders of the king, especially in a time of war and rebellion. Isn't protecting the king of Paramount importance?

Ok. rant complete. I just want Jon Snow to be Ned's so, take the rant with a grain (or shaker) of salt...

I always assumed that Jon was born before the Sack of King's Landing, and Ned found Lyanna in a bed of blood because she was still suffering from complications related to child birth. I never accepted the idea that she was giving birth as Ned fought the Kingsguard.

The Kingsguard did their duty! Aerys was safe in the Red Keep, and had Kingsguard protection...there was

no reason to believe that Tywin Lannister was going to sack King's Landing, and that Jamie would kill the king he had sworn to protect. Also, Viserys had already been rushed to Dragonstone.

There is no need for "stupid contrived bs explaining", because it is quite simple to draw conclusions based on the facts. It's when people ignore those facts that things become complicated.

[summer_stark]

I always assumed that Jon was born before the Sack of King's Landing, and Ned found Lyanna in a bed of blood because she was still suffering from complications related to child birth. I never accepted the idea that she was giving birth as Ned fought the Kingsguard.

The Kingsguard did their duty! Aerys was safe in the Red Keep, and had Kingsguard protection...there was

no reason to believe that Tywin Lannister was going to sack King's Landing, and that Jamie would kill the king he had sworn to protect. Also, Viserys had already been rushed to Dragonstone.

There is no need for "stupid contrived bs explaining", because it is quite simple to draw conclusions based on the facts. It's when people ignore those facts that things become complicated.

Umm. the main indicator that lyanna had a child is the bed of blood -- you can't have it both ways. that's the proof 9 out of 10 people use to say that lyanna had a child, myself included. not to mention the fact that most everyone thinks the jon was born after the sack -- mostly because a bed of blood is what a child birthing bed is called. otherwise, you have very little proof of a childbirth at all. or saying that it was from complications a month earlier but that no one bothered to change her bedsheets from the birth? sorry, i disagree.

further, the KG did not do their duty. the duty of the KG is to protect the king. aerys was their king. they protected his sons second wife's unborn child for how many months? and don't tell me that one KG is enough to protect the king -- that's why there are seven. why not just have one KG then? it makes no sense anyway you slice it. the KG's duty is not to the prince, certainly not after he is dead. it's to their king and the king's heir -- aegon. they should have left as soon as they found out rhaegar was dead -- it was not a secret that ned was marching to the red keep, so even if it was a secret that kl would be sacked by the lannisters, there was a war coming to KL. everyone knew that. so yea, i don't think it makes any sense if you look at how the KG act generally, especially with kings who are of age.

[summer_stark]

The whole problem with R+L=J NOT being true is the whole issue with THREE KGs posted at the ToJ. Three, why in godsname three? If Lyanna was just some skirt Rheagar was chasing or that he kidnapped her, there certainly wouldn't be three KGs present AFTER he left. If Lyanna wasn't pregnant from him why did three KGs stay behind? That's more KGs then the current king Aerys got. What possible reason could they have for that? And if there was any reason other then Lysanne being pregnant from Rheagar, would the three KGs have stayed instead of insisting on traveling with Rheagar?

If you're worried about succession, I don't understand your concern. How old is Viserys at this point? I thought he was a young minor too at the point. He himself would've required a regent or regents. And the regent, upon learning that Jonny had been born, would've been the regent for Jon not Viserys.

But if you're worried about Viserys getting all Octavian and murdering Caesars heirs (too many Caesars is never a good thing) then you must keep in mind that Octavian had won the civil war and was an adult himself already. Viserys, already said, is a minor. And also, Rhaegar didn't take Lyanna to Dragonstone to be anywhere near the rest of his family, maybe Rhaegar did that in case someone got any ideas.

Unless the regents wanted Viserys' (and Dany's) line instead of Rhaegar's line, but those who would regent for them would've been Targ loyalists if the civil war was decided in their favour. So I don't see a regent chosing one line of the direct line of succesion. Plus considering Jon's an infant it would mean a longer stay in power for said regent.

I fear Jon really is R+L=J unless some starteling new evidence pops up next volume whether we like it or not.

that's the point i'm making -- that it makes no sense to have 3 KG there -- even if lyanna is pregnant with jon snow (which yes, i believe she was--hate it though i might). to me, it's still totally absurd that in a time of war 3 KG would not be protecting any of the most ready heirs to the throne. see the rest of my post you didn't quote :)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

that's the point i'm making -- that it makes no sense to have 3 KG there -- even if lyanna is pregnant with jon snow (which yes, i believe she was--hate it though i might). to me, it's still totally absurd that in a time of war 3 KG would not be protecting any of the most ready heirs to the throne. see the rest of my post you didn't quote :)

Where are you getting this from? Even with Dayne, Whent and Hightower at the Tower of Joy, Darry, Selmy and Martell were with Rhaegar on the Trident and Jaime was in King's Landing with Aerys and Aegon.

If you accept that Jon was legitimate and an heir to the throne, the presence of the Kingsguard makes every bit of sense.

[summer_stark]

A relatively short period of interregnum is definitely better than skipping a potential heir - not only you damage his rights but you create basis for a dangeours conflict over succession in the future. If Aerys and Aegon died while Lyanna was pregnant, no-one would be king until a clear succession line was established.

Also, Lyanna needn't have given birth immediately befor Ned arrived. He recalls her being feverish when she spoke her last words to him, which might indicate puerperal fever. It can occur up to ten days after chilbirth and the development into mortal sepsis is not immediate, so Jon could easily be about two weeks old. That's still fairly early in the puerperium period and the term "bed of blood" could easily apply.

i agree w/the second part of your post -- it could be that she was sick for a week or so after the birth and it still be her bed of blood -- i don't buy that it's much earlier than that -- certainly not before the sack -- that makes even less sense frankly since jon isn't king at all then when he's born.

anyway, the whole idea of waiting til a woman is possibly pregnant didn't come into play until the 1600s -- a more elegant time than the war of the roses, when it was not in effect. i highly doubt it was in play in westeros either. it's only something that makes sense when succession happens peacefully, and especially if their is a parliment around to help out.

[summer_stark]

Where are you getting this from? Even with Dayne, Whent and Hightower at the Tower of Joy, Darry, Selmy and Martell were with Rhaegar on the Trident and Jaime was in King's Landing with Aerys and Aegon.

If you accept that Jon was legitimate and an heir to the throne, the presence of the Kingsguard makes every bit of sense.

you misread me -- i said that the 3 KG at the tower should have been with the king and more ready heirs -- aegon rhaegar and aerys. not that those other KG weren't with them. my point was one KG in KL is silly -- if you think about it more in the context of the war happening in KL this time around, it makes even less sense.

and as you noted -- there is ONE KG for two heirs -- so after rhaegar dies you have people marching to KL with one kg to protect the king? why didn't aerys think this was problematic? why do we take it as being no big deal that none of them were there protecting their king? it's not a time of peace -- the king was not safe, even w/o knowing about the sack. i just don't buy that it was cool w/everyone that 3 KG were w/lyanna.