The Latest News
Connect with Us

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

Jump to content


Photo

R+L=J v.35


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

#1 Angalin

Angalin

    Queen of the Night

  • Board Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,361 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:07 AM

Continued from the last thread.

If I may be so bold as to say this is total and complete nonsense.

I won't try to speak for others who have argued for years that the most likely scenario for who Jon's parents are is that they are Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen, but I know I have spent many, many hours since I first came to this site in 2007 arguing just this point. If you had read the 33 versions of this thread previous to this one you would know that, but perhaps that is too much to ask of new people to this site. What isn't too much to ask is that people don't make categorical insulting remarks about people they obviously don't know anything about.

On numerous occasions I have pointed out that the variation of "Aegon at the TOJ" I find most plausible - wherein it is Rhaegar, not Varys, who is responsible for the baby switch Young Griff tells us about in ADwD - and how it has little to no direct evidence to show it happened. What evidence it does have, the actions of the Kingsguard trio at the Tower of Joy for instance, is better explained by a legitimate Jon's presence there than Aegon's. Why? Because we have numerous clues pointing to Lyanna and Rhaegar being lovers, the manner of Lyanna's death hinting at childbirth complications, and a timeline that fits amazingly with Jon's conception and the window for his birth. Any of the Aegon at the Tower of Joy scenarios lack this pile up of clues to support it.

That doesn't mean this theory has no value. Part of what I find of value is a process of sorting the wheat from the chaff. An example of this is the exercise I did earlier with just using references in the text to show that it is not possible for Jon to have been conceived after the events at the Tower of Joy when Ned goes to Starfall. It is helpful to understand what is not possible in order to consider what is possible.

So when people raise legitimate questions about some of the variations of Aegon at the Tower and the theory is refined to deal with those objections, or we can throw out variations as impossible, it helps us all in considering what is possible and what is likely. It is a process that shouldn't be dismissed.

Moreover, I think it misses a huge, huge development with the publication of A Dance with Dragons. For the first time we have a character who claims to be Rhaegar's hitherto assumed dead heir. Whatever one thinks of that claim it is stupid to ignore its implications on many aspects of this story. One of which is that a baby-switched Aegon at the Tower of Joy would explain the Kingsguard trio actions in much the same way the legitimate Jon as the son Lyanna and Rhaegar does. It needs to be explored, not shouted down.

Having made these points before, let me introduce the "but." Or perhaps I should say "buts." Aegon at the ToJ is not a competing argument to R+L=J. It is an addition to, or can be, to R+L=J. As such, to place the straw man argument that all people who support the one oppose the other is clearly false.

Moreover, the implication that this is some kind debating war over who supports R+L=J and who doesn't misses the entire point of these threads. It seems to me this should be a place to disscus Martin's work and collectively shed some light on them. Debating wars only shut people up who grow tired of reading them. They win nothing. I have no problem with occasionally heated arguments by people who strongly believe something. I have little patience with people only seek to prove themselves a superior debater. There are other places for those kind of exercises, this shouldn't be one of them.



#2 J. Stargaryen

J. Stargaryen

    Kingsguard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:42 AM

@SFDanny,

You may be so bold as to say whatever you want, even though you once chastised me when you incorrectly assumed I was being snarky towards you. It doesn't change the fact that Aegon at the ToJ is a so called theory that uses evidence from another better theory to try and justify its existence.

Btw, When I say fan fiction I mean stuff exactly like this:

On numerous occasions I have pointed out that the variation of "Aegon at the TOJ" I find most plausible - wherein it is Rhaegar, not Varys, who is responsible for the baby switch Young Griff tells us about in ADwD..."


You made that up. There's no evidence suggesting that Rhaegar was behind the alleged baby switch. None. In fact, it contradicts the version given in the books. So, not only did you have to invent that scenario, you had to ignore the official story. Since you're a fan, and you made that up, I call it fan fiction.

Edited by J. Stargaryen, 27 November 2012 - 03:05 AM.


#3 Cornishman

Cornishman

    Sellsword

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:55 AM

Fight Fight!

#4 SFDanny

SFDanny

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,191 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:56 AM

LOL, that's what I call an educated guess. I look at what is in the books and see that there is evidence to support the idea that Rhaegar had motive to do so. His statement to Jaime at their last meeting and the statement about the Harrenhal tourney being a meeting of Rhaegar with lords who want to supplant Aerys (as told to the king by Varys) points to Rhaegar wanting to call a great council like the one that put Egg on the throne. It isn't certain that that is what these things mean, but it is clearly meant to make the reader think it is. We know from Martin that all is not well between Rhaegar and Aerys. If this is true, Rhaegar has a very good reason to try to get his family out from his father's control. I call that a clue, or if you want evidence. Evidence for motive.

I look at the books and see that Rhaegar has the means to do this. He has members of the Kingsguard who seem to be there on his orders (as evidence by a certain SSM that has Martin saying that they would obey Rhaegar's orders if he told them do be there.) These knights and Ashara seem likely candidates to bring a smuggled child to a hideaway, one that we know was at least at one point unknown to Aerys. We know that one of the knights of the Kingsguard is described as his closest friend. All of which tells us, based on the text of the book, none of which I made up, that Rhaegar has the means and the place to make this baby switch happen and hide his child.

I look at the books and see that Rhaegar has the time to make this happen. We know this because we can see that Rhaegar goes north to take up command after the Battle of the Bells and based on the timing of both Robb and Jon's conception we can tell this somewhere close to the four month mark or so of a year long war. So we are talking about perhaps six months between when Rhaegar takes command and his death. That's an educated guess based on the books and what Martin says. That's all evidence of, again, Rhaegar having the time to bring this about.

I look at the story Young Griff tells us in A Dance with Dragons and think that something about it is wrong. Specifically, I think that Varys has very little reason to be helping Rhaegar or Elia out. Up to this point he has been working against Rhaegar, if we are to believe what we have been told about Harrenhal, and by the simple fact that after Tywin was dismissed it was Varys who seemed to have the most control over Aerys. Why should he then undermine Aerys control over his son by helping secret Rhaegar's child away, and how did he know how to get to the Tower of Joy in the first place. No, that part of the story is wrong, it seems to me.

Then I look to see that the actions of the Kingsguard trio strongly point to the presence of the Targaryen heir being at the tower with them when Ned shows up, which means either Aegon or a legitimate Jon or both and I say this is possible, if not yet likely. It fits the story as we know it in its understanding of the timeline, motives of the players, etc. Which might just be a good topic to discuss with others who love this story. And most of the time it is, because there are some people in this community who know an awful lot about these books through years of discussion. Others seem to be more obsessed with scoring the debating points I alluded to in my last post.

btw, fan fiction is something totally different from what you are talking about. Guessing, educated or otherwise, about what the author is doing and where the story is going is not fan fiction. If so, every person whoever wrote a post in support of R+L=J, myself included, is guilty of writing fan fiction. But slurs about others are a form of debate, if not a particularly honorable one.

#5 J. Stargaryen

J. Stargaryen

    Kingsguard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:57 AM

Yes, I get it. Your theory is nothing but speculation. And?

I feel like my use of "fan fiction" was a pretty clear case of hyperbole.

#6 dragontamer

dragontamer

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:00 AM

Do you insinuate that before taking place, all major events ought to be hinted in some way? Why exactly? How was it hinted that Stannis would travel to the Wall and try to win the support of the North? How was it hinted that Tyrion would kill Tywin? How was it hinted that a boy would appear to claim he is Aegon? How was it hinted that Doran had made a pact to marry Arriane with Viserys? Do you imply that the author doesn’t have the right to withdraw information and to surprise his readers with completely unexpected events?

I respect the popular belief that Jon is Rhaegar’s legitimate son with Lyanna but I find it extremely surprising that there are people who deny Aegon’s presence at the ToJ due to lack of hints…. But there is no hint that Jon is legitimate other than the presence of the KG. So if this single information is enough to support Jon’s legitimacy I assume it’s enough to support the theory that Aegon was there too. It’s even more logical in this case because if Aegon was there all along it doesn’t matter when the KG learnt about the sack, why none went to Viserys and most importantly why the 3 KG members fought Eddard and his companions. It also explains perfectly Eddard’s decision to go to Starfall first.

And if we must talk about fan fiction what about a secret polygamous marriage before a white tree and Elia supporting it? Where is the slightest hint in the books of this? And please don’t say the presence of the KG. It only counts if there is no other plausible explanation, but there is.

As to Eddard’s last thoughts and the absence of the “other baby” as others have said there is no thought of “the baby” so there is no thought of the “other baby” too. Also keep in mind that we didn’t actually read Eddard’s last thoughts since his execution was given through Arya’s pov.

#7 MadFox

MadFox

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:02 AM

Ok, from what I have read so far, I truly find on key fault with SFDanny theory about Aegon and the Tower of Joy. John, basically on this I feel you are jumping the gun, we really do not know how or when Jon was conceive. We do not know how lon Ned stayed at Starfall, nor do we have any idea as to what occured their.

#8 J. Stargaryen

J. Stargaryen

    Kingsguard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:19 AM

Do you insinuate that before taking place, all major events ought to be hinted in some way? <snip>


If Aegon had been at the ToJ there should be some evidence of it by now. There are plenty of dots to potentially connect, but none of them do. That is not how a theory works.

Regarding the potential marriage of R&L, there are actual clues and hints that point to them being married. The presence of the KG, indicating Jon's legitimacy, which would mean R&L were married. Bael the Bard is another. Then we have precedent for Targaryen polgamy. In fact, I'd say this particular theory holds up quite well in comparison to most others. So, no, this does not fall under my hyperbolic definition of fan fiction.

#9 dragontamer

dragontamer

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 06:41 AM

If Aegon had been at the ToJ there should be some evidence of it by now. There are plenty of dots to potentially connect, but none of them do. That is not how a theory works.

Regarding the potential marriage of R&amp;L, there are actual clues and hints that point to them being married. The presence of the KG, indicating Jon's legitimacy, which would mean R&amp;L were married. Bael the Bard is another. Then we have precedent for Targaryen polgamy. In fact, I'd say this particular theory holds up quite well in comparison to most others. So, no, this does not fall under my hyperbolic definition of fan fiction.


You still don't answer the question why there should be evidence. You consider as a prerequisite the existence of hints or evidence but that's not a canon just your opinion.

A logical assumption that it's not contradicted by anything written in the books counts as valid theory and should be under debate as any other in this forum.
Also you chose to ignore several points of my previous post that this particular theory imo addresses better than the R+L=J legitimate.

Bael the Bard is hardly a clue. Bael was a scorned man who kidnapped Lord Stark's daughter, impregnated her and returned her to her father with a bastard child. There is no evidence that the daughter consented to an elopement or that there was a marriage. I can think of a man who fits that description much better than Rhaegar and even his name is a major clue.

Edited by dragontamer, 27 November 2012 - 06:43 AM.


#10 Bear Island Bruiser

Bear Island Bruiser

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 07:56 AM

If Aegon had been at the ToJ there should be some evidence of it by now. There are plenty of dots to potentially connect, but none of them do. That is not how a theory works.

Regarding the potential marriage of R&L, there are actual clues and hints that point to them being married. The presence of the KG, indicating Jon's legitimacy, which would mean R&L were married. Bael the Bard is another. Then we have precedent for Targaryen polgamy. In fact, I'd say this particular theory holds up quite well in comparison to most others. So, no, this does not fall under my hyperbolic definition of fan fiction.


Sorry but you can't say that the presence of the KG at the ToJ is proof of Jons' legitmacy but doesn't work as proof of Aegon being there. It works at least equally well for both. Bael the Bard is not evidence just a hint, Targ polygamy does have precedence but hasn't been seen in Westeros for quite a while. Essentially your marriage is as much 'fan fiction' as Aegon being at the ToJ. There is no 'evidence' for the marriage just hints as with all the things we get in the books.

Personally I find the presence of the KG more of a hint that Aegon was there than Jon being legitimate (or even there). The only way that the marriage would be legal would be if the KG accepted Targ polygamy. It hasn't been seen for a while and there is certainly a chance that it would be questioned by some people. Equally even if they had accepted it they'd need to see if the child was a boy before it was the rightful heir. It also raises the question of why the KG would defend Jon against Ned. They know who he is, that Ned is honourable and that the 'king' would be his nephew.

Now if Aegon was there it would be natural for the KG to be there and equally why they stayed there. Plus they're more likely that they'd defend Aegon against Ned.

Finally I'd say with all theories, even R+L=J, is speculation and any 'evidence' is based on hints rather than facts. I mean look at R+L=J most of the 'evidence' behind it can be explained away by other reasons
  • Lyanna giving birth. OK it sounds a lot like she died from a fever after giving birth BUT she equally could have died for another disease that could cause her to bleed e.g. the Westeros version of consumption. She could of developed a fever after being injured, as in the Hound's injury. Also Ned see's a bed of blood in a fever dream, he could just see this as a reflection of her dying there and she could have just been ill.
  • Jon's birth timings fit. As would a lot of other kids in Westeros.
  • The presence of the KG. As has been pointed out could be evidence for the presence of Aegon, who we have been told was smuggled out of KL at some point. Another theory is they were sent there by Aerys, after discovering the location of the ToJ, to hold Lyanna hostage against any possible treacherous actions from Rhaegar.
Now I'm not saying I believe all the other examples above just pointing out that there would be other explanations behind each point and it wouldn't be beyond GRRM to stick a load of evidence and pull a complete switcheroo on us. Arguably he's done this with Dany being AA.

#11 Bear Island Bruiser

Bear Island Bruiser

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:00 AM

Do you insinuate that before taking place, all major events ought to be hinted in some way? Why exactly? How was it hinted that Stannis would travel to the Wall and try to win the support of the North? How was it hinted that Tyrion would kill Tywin? How was it hinted that a boy would appear to claim he is Aegon? How was it hinted that Doran had made a pact to marry Arriane with Viserys? Do you imply that the author doesn’t have the right to withdraw information and to surprise his readers with completely unexpected events?

I respect the popular belief that Jon is Rhaegar’s legitimate son with Lyanna but I find it extremely surprising that there are people who deny Aegon’s presence at the ToJ due to lack of hints…. But there is no hint that Jon is legitimate other than the presence of the KG. So if this single information is enough to support Jon’s legitimacy I assume it’s enough to support the theory that Aegon was there too. It’s even more logical in this case because if Aegon was there all along it doesn’t matter when the KG learnt about the sack, why none went to Viserys and most importantly why the 3 KG members fought Eddard and his companions. It also explains perfectly Eddard’s decision to go to Starfall first.

And if we must talk about fan fiction what about a secret polygamous marriage before a white tree and Elia supporting it? Where is the slightest hint in the books of this? And please don’t say the presence of the KG. It only counts if there is no other plausible explanation, but there is.

As to Eddard’s last thoughts and the absence of the “other baby” as others have said there is no thought of “the baby” so there is no thought of the “other baby” too. Also keep in mind that we didn’t actually read Eddard’s last thoughts since his execution was given through Arya’s pov.


/agree.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':agree:' />

#12 Little Wing

Little Wing

    Wicked Witch of Whispers

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:22 AM

No longer pinned? /ohmy.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />

#13 J. Stargaryen

J. Stargaryen

    Kingsguard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

You still don't answer the question why there should be evidence. You consider as a prerequisite the existence of hints or evidence but that's not a canon just your opinion.


Where did the theory come from if there is no evidence for it?

A logical assumption that it's not contradicted by anything written in the books counts as valid theory and should be under debate as any other in this forum.
Also you chose to ignore several points of my previous post that this particular theory imo addresses better than the R+L=J legitimate.


This isn't true. There is a burden that falls with the person making the argument, to assert something. You can't prove it didn't happen is not a valid argument, logically speaking.

Bael the Bard is hardly a clue. Bael was a scorned man who kidnapped Lord Stark's daughter, impregnated her and returned her to her father with a bastard child. There is no evidence that the daughter consented to an elopement or that there was a marriage. I can think of a man who fits that description much better than Rhaegar and even his name is a major clue.


Hardly a clue is still more clue than Aegon at the ToJ is able to provide.

Bael the Bard connects to R+L in multiple ways: 1) 'stolen' Stark daughter*; 2) impregnated; 3) Blue rose; 4) the story is told to Jon Snow.

*In marriage, the men are expected to be quite forceful with women, going so far as stealing them from their home or clan.

#14 Budj

Budj

    the Bard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

Sorry but you can't say that the presence of the KG at the ToJ is proof of Jons' legitmacy but doesn't work as proof of Aegon being there. It works at least equally well for both. Bael the Bard is not evidence just a hint, Targ polygamy does have precedence but hasn't been seen in Westeros for quite a while. Essentially your marriage is as much 'fan fiction' as Aegon being at the ToJ. There is no 'evidence' for the marriage just hints as with all the things we get in the books.

Personally I find the presence of the KG more of a hint that Aegon was there than Jon being legitimate (or even there). The only way that the marriage would be legal would be if the KG accepted Targ polygamy. It hasn't been seen for a while and there is certainly a chance that it would be questioned by some people. Equally even if they had accepted it they'd need to see if the child was a boy before it was the rightful heir. It also raises the question of why the KG would defend Jon against Ned. They know who he is, that Ned is honourable and that the 'king' would be his nephew.

Now if Aegon was there it would be natural for the KG to be there and equally why they stayed there. Plus they're more likely that they'd defend Aegon against Ned.

Finally I'd say with all theories, even R+L=J, is speculation and any 'evidence' is based on hints rather than facts. I mean look at R+L=J most of the 'evidence' behind it can be explained away by other reasons

  • Lyanna giving birth. OK it sounds a lot like she died from a fever after giving birth BUT she equally could have died for another disease that could cause her to bleed e.g. the Westeros version of consumption. She could of developed a fever after being injured, as in the Hound's injury. Also Ned see's a bed of blood in a fever dream, he could just see this as a reflection of her dying there and she could have just been ill.
  • Jon's birth timings fit. As would a lot of other kids in Westeros.
  • The presence of the KG. As has been pointed out could be evidence for the presence of Aegon, who we have been told was smuggled out of KL at some point. Another theory is they were sent there by Aerys, after discovering the location of the ToJ, to hold Lyanna hostage against any possible treacherous actions from Rhaegar.
Now I'm not saying I believe all the other examples above just pointing out that there would be other explanations behind each point and it wouldn't be beyond GRRM to stick a load of evidence and pull a complete switcheroo on us. Arguably he's done this with Dany being AA.



1. The phrase was her bed of blood. Not her bloody bed. Bed of blood is used commonly and consistently in reference to birthing.
2. What other child relevant to the story fits the timing and placement?
3. The first part is 'possible' - the second part has already been argued to death.

Dany potentially being an AA red herring can't really be used as a solid argument for Martin changing his mind because you don't know for certain he ever intended on her being AA.

You can argue that Aegon being at the ToJ explains the KG presence...of course it could....he was the crowned prince, but using this same shaky speculation (which I'm fine with btw, it just doesn't make for a convincing argument) I'm fairly certain that Jaime would have noticed an Aegon switch up until the point where the Lannisters entered KL and he was too busy killing pyromancers and letting Gregor Clegane climb the tower to notice a switch... which would be the perfect timing for Varys to step in and do it. I find it much more likely that Aegon is actually Aegon and Varys is telling the truth than it is for Rhaegar to somehow have smuggled his son to the ToJ...but I'm not convinced Varys is being truthful here either. In either event this scenario leads to no Aegon at ToJ.

Also - Ned was not going to pull a change up on Robert - the new King / Usurper - because Robert hated the Targ's and Ned had just finished removing the Targ's from power - not just Aerys. Not to mention the high lords had just finished bending the knee / swearing fealty to him because he was the new King? On his deathbed he felt like an anus for allowing / attempting the slaughtering of children, but at the end of the rebellion anyone like minded with the lannister's would have killed a legitimate Jon to win favor with the new King. The KG knew Ned would not let Jon be king and I think you could argue that threatening the King's rule is just as egregious as threatening his life to an honorable man sworn to protecting his King and his reign.

#15 Budj

Budj

    the Bard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:45 PM

Do you insinuate that before taking place, all major events ought to be hinted in some way? Why exactly? How was it hinted that Stannis would travel to the Wall and try to win the support of the North? (Davos learning to read and bringing the letter from the Wall to Stannis) How was it hinted that Tyrion would kill Tywin? (At least a couple interesting quotations hinting at foreshadowing, the rocky relationship between them, the important story you were sure to know about how Tywin royally screwed Tyrion's first love? Tyrion's trial at least gave you an inkling of some kind of revenge - essentially the writing was on the wall) How was it hinted that a boy would appear to claim he is Aegon? (There wasn't any, however, combined wit the dragon sign that washed ashore a different color that hints that a blackfyre will be making appearance and due to the lack of foreshadowing I am more inclined to believe he is NOT Aegon) How was it hinted that Doran had made a pact to marry Arriane with Viserys? (Arianne was never matched with anyone, it is consistent with Illyrio and Varys trying to keep Viserys at Illyrio's abode... - you are right no outright hint, but on reread it is consistent with things we know of prior to this happening) Do you imply that the author doesn’t have the right to withdraw information and to surprise his readers with completely unexpected events? No - I'm just saying that typically there is a hint or surprising revelations can be tied to and are consistent with things he has already written in the story. When something comes out of left field it is highly suspect to me. To insert Aegon in the ToJ requires taking some liberties with things we know to be true. Sure, Martin could say "surprise! Aegon was at the ToJ loooool" but I doubt it. However...I will accept this if Jon is actually Arthur Dayne and Lyanna's son which would be pretty awesome.



#16 J. Stargaryen

J. Stargaryen

    Kingsguard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:08 PM

Sorry but you can't say that the presence of the KG at the ToJ is proof of Jons' legitmacy but doesn't work as proof of Aegon being there. It works at least equally well for both. Bael the Bard is not evidence just a hint, Targ polygamy does have precedence but hasn't been seen in Westeros for quite a while. Essentially your marriage is as much 'fan fiction' as Aegon being at the ToJ. There is no 'evidence' for the marriage just hints as with all the things we get in the books.


Actually I can, because there are multiple clues that apparently place Jon Snow at the ToJ. The complete lack of clues regarding Aegon at the ToJ means that you're not even asserting that Aegon was at the ToJ, by noting the presence of the KG. You're just telling me that I can't prove he wasn't, which is logically unsound.

Jon as Rhaegar's legitimate offspring is an actual theory. If Jon was born legitimate, then R&L were married.

Personally I find the presence of the KG more of a hint that Aegon was there than Jon being legitimate (or even there). The only way that the marriage would be legal would be if the KG accepted Targ polygamy. It hasn't been seen for a while and there is certainly a chance that it would be questioned by some people. Equally even if they had accepted it they'd need to see if the child was a boy before it was the rightful heir. It also raises the question of why the KG would defend Jon against Ned. They know who he is, that Ned is honourable and that the 'king' would be his nephew.


False. The KG does not pass judgement. Not to mention, but I feel like any theory that wants to suggest that Ser Arthur Dayne and co. were going to commit treason against Rhaegar has some explaining to do.

#17 dragontamer

dragontamer

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

@Budj

Davos learning to read and bringing the letter from the Wall to Stannis

SOS chapter 63 Davos VI : Davos shows a letter to Stannis.
SOS chapter 73 Jon X : Stannis arrives at the Wall.
Do you consider foreshadowing this? Davos shows a letter to Stannis that could be anything and only ten chapters later in the same book, Stannis shows up at the Wall. Where are the hints or the long build-up? Davos learning to read could hint at anything, that he reads a secret paper or delivers a secret letter, there was no build-up leading to Stannis going North.

At least a couple interesting quotations hinting at foreshadowing, the rocky relationship between them, the important story you were sure to know about how Tywin royally screwed Tyrion's first love? Tyrion's trial at least gave you an inkling of some kind of revenge - essentially the writing was on the wall

What you are describing is the reason and the motives, no hints or foreshadowing. Tyrion’s trial gave no hint of possible revenge. Tyrion genuinely thought he was about to die and if Jaime hadn’t told him about Tysha he would have left without ever visiting his father, only after Jaime’s confession he swears revenge.

There wasn't any, however, combined wit the dragon sign that washed ashore a different color that hints that a blackfyre will be making appearance and due to the lack of foreshadowing I am more inclined to believe he is NOT Aegon)

It’s fine by me whether you think Aegon is Targaryen or Blackfyre (to me it’s all the same) but still there was no foreshadowing of Aegon reappearing or someone claiming to be Aegon. A lost Blackfyre could pop out but didn’t have to claim that he is Aegon so no foreshadowing of this particular event.

Arianne was never matched with anyone, it is consistent with Illyrio and Varys trying to keep Viserys at Illyrio's abode... - you are right no outright hint, but on reread it is consistent with things we know of prior to this happening

As you said, no hint. Only a logical explanation after the whole story was revealed. The whole story about the ToJ hasn’t been revealed yet.

No - I'm just saying that typically there is a hint or surprising revelations can be tied to and are consistent with things he has already written in the story. When something comes out of left field it is highly suspect to me. To insert Aegon in the ToJ requires taking some liberties with things we know to be true. Sure, Martin could say "surprise! Aegon was at the ToJ loooool" but I doubt it. However...I will accept this if Jon is actually Arthur Dayne and Lyanna's son which would be pretty awesome.

Aegon being at the ToJ doesn't mean Jon's story is necessarily false. They could both be there, brought there under different circumstances. IMO Lyanna is the mother but Rhaegar is not the father, nor Arthur Dayne.

Edited by dragontamer, 27 November 2012 - 01:35 PM.


#18 DaeneryStormBorn

DaeneryStormBorn

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:47 PM

LOL, that's what I call an educated guess. I look at what is in the books and see that there is evidence to support the idea that Rhaegar had motive to do so. His statement to Jaime at their last meeting and the statement about the Harrenhal tourney being a meeting of Rhaegar with lords who want to supplant Aerys (as told to the king by Varys) points to Rhaegar wanting to call a great council like the one that put Egg on the throne. It isn't certain that that is what these things mean, but it is clearly meant to make the reader think it is. We know from Martin that all is not well between Rhaegar and Aerys. If this is true, Rhaegar has a very good reason to try to get his family out from his father's control. I call that a clue, or if you want evidence. Evidence for motive.

I look at the books and see that Rhaegar has the means to do this. He has members of the Kingsguard who seem to be there on his orders (as evidence by a certain SSM that has Martin saying that they would obey Rhaegar's orders if he told them do be there.) These knights and Ashara seem likely candidates to bring a smuggled child to a hideaway, one that we know was at least at one point unknown to Aerys. We know that one of the knights of the Kingsguard is described as his closest friend. All of which tells us, based on the text of the book, none of which I made up, that Rhaegar has the means and the place to make this baby switch happen and hide his child.

I look at the books and see that Rhaegar has the time to make this happen. We know this because we can see that Rhaegar goes north to take up command after the Battle of the Bells and based on the timing of both Robb and Jon's conception we can tell this somewhere close to the four month mark or so of a year long war. So we are talking about perhaps six months between when Rhaegar takes command and his death. That's an educated guess based on the books and what Martin says. That's all evidence of, again, Rhaegar having the time to bring this about.

I look at the story Young Griff tells us in A Dance with Dragons and think that something about it is wrong. Specifically, I think that Varys has very little reason to be helping Rhaegar or Elia out. Up to this point he has been working against Rhaegar, if we are to believe what we have been told about Harrenhal, and by the simple fact that after Tywin was dismissed it was Varys who seemed to have the most control over Aerys. Why should he then undermine Aerys control over his son by helping secret Rhaegar's child away, and how did he know how to get to the Tower of Joy in the first place. No, that part of the story is wrong, it seems to me.

Then I look to see that the actions of the Kingsguard trio strongly point to the presence of the Targaryen heir being at the tower with them when Ned shows up, which means either Aegon or a legitimate Jon or both and I say this is possible, if not yet likely. It fits the story as we know it in its understanding of the timeline, motives of the players, etc. Which might just be a good topic to discuss with others who love this story. And most of the time it is, because there are some people in this community who know an awful lot about these books through years of discussion. Others seem to be more obsessed with scoring the debating points I alluded to in my last post.

btw, fan fiction is something totally different from what you are talking about. Guessing, educated or otherwise, about what the author is doing and where the story is going is not fan fiction. If so, every person whoever wrote a post in support of R+L=J, myself included, is guilty of writing fan fiction. But slurs about others are a form of debate, if not a particularly honorable one.


That's why I follow your post /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

#19 Bear Island Bruiser

Bear Island Bruiser

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

Actually I can, because there are multiple clues that apparently place Jon Snow at the ToJ. The complete lack of clues regarding Aegon at the ToJ means that you're not even asserting that Aegon was at the ToJ, by noting the presence of the KG. You're just telling me that I can't prove he wasn't, which is logically unsound.

Jon as Rhaegar's legitimate offspring is an actual theory. If Jon was born legitimate, then R&L were married.


Hmmm there are multiple hints that Jon is there but they can still all be answered by other ways. There are also a number of questions the straight theory raises. Again why does the KG fight Ned if Jon's there? They know he's not going to do him any harm so why fight? To kill your King's Uncle? Hardly going to set you up in his good books when he finds out.

Equally we know that Aegon was smuggled out of KL (well if you believe Varys anyway) so where did he go? If the KG knew about it then they have to head to him. Plus why not tell them if you've done it? You instantly pick up 3 tough bodyguards. If it's Varys or Rhaegar that smuggles Aegon out (does Varys actually say it was him that smuggled or just that Aegon was? genuine question there) they'd both know Dayne, Whent and Hightower well enough to know they could be trusted.

Taking the kid straight to Essos is pretty hard and Varys didn't leave Westeros as he's around to swear loyalty to Big Bob. Sure he can get someone else to take him but he'd need someone who he can trust not just anyone. It will take time to find that person. Equally we know Rhaegar isn't getting him out of the country. So where's Aegon in the mean time? Pretty dangerous secret to have lying round KL.

False. The KG does not pass judgement. Not to mention, but I feel like any theory that wants to suggest that Ser Arthur Dayne and co. were going to commit treason against Rhaegar has some explaining to do.


Actually true. The Kings Guard doesn't pass judgement on the actions and decisions of the legitimate king, as to who that legitimate king is yes they decide. For example Barristan decided that Big Bob was the King and swore service to him rather than go after Viserys. So for the KG to be there they have to have accepted that Jon is legitimate and the marriage was good (assuming it took place this is absolute conjecture as far as I'm concerned). I can't see when the last polygamous marriage was so it's a bit of a step for them.

Not sure what you mean about the KG committing treason against Rhaegar so can't answer that.

#20 theguyfromtheVale

theguyfromtheVale

    Kill the boy and let the man be born.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:03 PM

@Budj

Davos learning to read and bringing the letter from the Wall to Stannis

SOS chapter 63 Davos VI : Davos shows a letter to Stannis.
SOS chapter 73 Jon X : Stannis arrives at the Wall.
Do you consider foreshadowing this? Davos shows a letter to Stannis that could be anything and only ten chapters later in the same book, Stannis shows up at the Wall. Where are the hints or the long build-up? Davos learning to read could hint at anything, that he reads a secret paper or delivers a secret letter, there was no build-up leading to Stannis going North.

At least a couple interesting quotations hinting at foreshadowing, the rocky relationship between them, the important story you were sure to know about how Tywin royally screwed Tyrion's first love? Tyrion's trial at least gave you an inkling of some kind of revenge - essentially the writing was on the wall

What you are describing is the reason and the motives, no hints or foreshadowing. Tyrion’s trial gave no hint of possible revenge. Tyrion genuinely thought he was about to die and if Jaime hadn’t told him about Tysha he would have left without ever visiting his father, only after Jaime’s confession he swears revenge.

There wasn't any, however, combined wit the dragon sign that washed ashore a different color that hints that a blackfyre will be making appearance and due to the lack of foreshadowing I am more inclined to believe he is NOT Aegon)

It’s fine by me whether you think Aegon is Targaryen or Blackfyre (to me it’s all the same) but still there was no foreshadowing of Aegon reappearing or someone claiming to be Aegon. A lost Blackfyre could pop out but didn’t have to claim that he is Aegon so no foreshadowing of this particular event.

Arianne was never matched with anyone, it is consistent with Illyrio and Varys trying to keep Viserys at Illyrio's abode... - you are right no outright hint, but on reread it is consistent with things we know of prior to this happening

As you said, no hint. Only a logical explanation after the whole story was revealed. The whole story about the ToJ hasn’t been revealed yet.

No - I'm just saying that typically there is a hint or surprising revelations can be tied to and are consistent with things he has already written in the story. When something comes out of left field it is highly suspect to me. To insert Aegon in the ToJ requires taking some liberties with things we know to be true. Sure, Martin could say "surprise! Aegon was at the ToJ loooool" but I doubt it. However...I will accept this if Jon is actually Arthur Dayne and Lyanna's son which would be pretty awesome.

Aegon being at the ToJ doesn't mean Jon's story is necessarily false. They could both be there, brought there under different circumstances. IMO Lyanna is the mother but Rhaegar is not the father, nor Arthur Dayne.


1) We have read that very same letter in the preceding Davos chapter. Reading both Davos chapters after another, it's absolutely clear that the letter in question is the Night Watch's call for help.

2) But Jaime's Tysha reveal was foreshadowed ("Loved by one for a kindness I never did"). As was Tywin's hypocrisy regarding Tyrion's whoring (the tunnel to Chataya's built by a hand who didn't want to be seen as a John could only be one in Chataya's lifetime, and who had a tenure of some years - and the only two hands in questions are Jon Arryn or Tywin). The combination of these two indicated an explosive issue.

3) Mummer's Dragon does refer to someone fraudulently claiming to be a Targ. That's back from ACoK.

4) That's your only real point though, and the marriage pact was inconsequent, as we found out.

5) Who would be the father then?
Also, most of these hints regarding Jon being at the tower also hint at Rhaegar being the father...

Edited by theguyfromtheVale, 27 November 2012 - 03:03 PM.