The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones House Sigil Coaster Set, 2nd Edition
Game of Thrones House Sigil Coaster Set, 2nd Edition
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

The Tower of Joy Battle, not as we are led to believe?


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#121 JC Denton

JC Denton

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:43 PM

@denton
Succession laws make Aegon next in line, then Viserys, then, funnily enough, Robert, who as a male has greater claim than Rhaenys and Danaerys


How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna had a male child, he wasn't born before Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were killed. Here's the sequence of events as I understand it:

Rhaegar dies
Aerys dies
Aegon dies
JS is born

The second either Aerys or Aegon (depending on interpretation) breathes his last, Viserys should then inherit I've never heard of an unborn child inheriting a throne, especially while theres an obvious male heir (son of the last King) to claim it, and especially since they don't know the sex of the child until he/she is born.

Thats why it doesn't make sense to me why all the surviving/loyal KG were at the ToJ presumably protecting JS, but not Viserys who should have been king then. I thought the explanation for Lyanna's death was she died soon after giving birth.

Edited by JC Denton, 26 February 2013 - 01:51 PM.


#122 The Dornishman's Wife

The Dornishman's Wife

    Forero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:56 PM

if you are fighting guys 'in a row' [the words I used was having 12 wins in a row, but whatever] that implies that youre taking them one after the other [the words you used was a gauntlet of 1 to 1 battles, but whatever]. you wanna explain why this is false?


Facing a "a gauntlet of one on one battles" as you said, would imply that Barristan fights one guy, the others all wait respectfully and watch on, then he kills his opponent. Then the next one stops twiddling his thumbs, marches up to him and Barristan fights him. Kills him etc. I do agree that this would be quite ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the notion of Barristan singling out the 12 guys he intends to kill, then having them engage him all at once in a 12-to-1, him chopping their heads off them and spending the rest of the battle twiddling his thumbs.

Having 12 wins in a row just means there's a bloody battle going on, Barristan will engage someone, if he's unlucky another guy joins his opponent before he's finished with him, and he has to kill either kill his target and then the new opponent or the other way around, but on the plus side there will be also be easier confrontations if a comrade joins in on his side or if it's Barristan doing the joining. All the while, the players from both sides have to pay attention to random flashes of steel or opportunistic stabs from whereever, but they are both affected by that. In any case, and I fail to see what's so hard about the concept, he has to prevail against 12 people without losing to a single one of them (though admittedly some of the wins might be pretty cheap - perhaps not with Barristan's fighting style, but at least in general). But, and that's the important thing, he won't be going against all 12 at once, as those others have their own confrontations to fight and Barristan is not the only guy in his army.

#123 Dragonfish

Dragonfish

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,573 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:07 PM

The second either Aerys or Aegon (depending on interpretation) breathes his last, Viserys should then inherit I've never heard of an unborn child inheriting a throne, especially while theres an obvious male heir (son of the last King) to claim it, and especially since they don't know the sex of the child until he/she is born.


This has been addressed earlier in the thread, I believe. There is real world precedent for this sort of thing. When a king dies and there may be an unborn child who could inherit ahead of all of the living claimants, the procedure is to wait until the child is born in order to say what its sex will be.

#124 Blackfish Tully

Blackfish Tully

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:19 PM

were going to have to agree to disagree.

Ones from the shit generation and the other isn’t part of the legitimate KG.


My point is that politcs plays a big role in who is in the Kingsguard so you cannot just assume because somebody is in the Kingsguard he must be a legendary knight.

#125 ckal

ckal

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,362 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:31 PM

Pretty sure it's been mentioned that the Kingsguard really lost its 'meaning' or 'reputation' after Aerys' KG and the likes of Dayne, Hightower, etc., and that most in the KG under Baratheon/Lannister reign have been largely unworthy of the title and position.

#126 Sasha Steelsong

Sasha Steelsong

    Patience, Perception, Dominion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna had a male child, he wasn't born before Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were killed. Here's the sequence of events as I understand it:

Rhaegar dies
Aerys dies
Aegon dies
JS is born

The second either Aerys or Aegon (depending on interpretation) breathes his last, Viserys should then inherit I've never heard of an unborn child inheriting a throne, especially while theres an obvious male heir (son of the last King) to claim it, and especially since they don't know the sex of the child until he/she is born.

Thats why it doesn't make sense to me why all the surviving/loyal KG were at the ToJ presumably protecting JS, but not Viserys who should have been king then. I thought the explanation for Lyanna's death was she died soon after giving birth.

That is not how succession has worked. Historically what would happen if a king died and a queen was even potentially pregnant is that the queen would be isolated at the time of the king's death to see if she was pregnant (unless she was obviously pregnant already), and a regent would be appointed until the child was born. Once the child was born they would be declared king. It happened a couple of times in France as well as with Alfonso XIII of Spain. His father died six months before his birth, so Alfonso was effectively King in the womb and was declared one the moment he was born. As all the legitimate children of an older brother (i.e. All Rhaegar's boy children because of Targ male succession) take before a younger brother - Viserys was never king because he was Rheagar's younger brother. There basically was an interregnum after Aegon's death while they waited to see if Jon was a boy. Thus it makes perfect sense for the KG to still all be at the tower as the potential king and then actual king was there.

Edited by atpthornton, 26 February 2013 - 02:55 PM.


#127 eggs

eggs

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,048 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

Facing a "a gauntlet of one on one battles" as you said, would imply that Barristan fights one guy, the others all wait respectfully and watch on, then he kills his opponent. Then the next one stops twiddling his thumbs, marches up to him and Barristan fights him. Kills him etc. I do agree that this would be quite ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the notion of Barristan singling out the 12 guys he intends to kill, then having them engage him all at once in a 12-to-1, him chopping their heads off them and spending the rest of the battle twiddling his thumbs. Having 12 wins in a row just means there's a bloody battle going on, Barristan will engage someone, if he's unlucky another guy joins his opponent before he's finished with him, and he has to kill either kill his target and then the new opponent or the other way around, but on the plus side there will be also blah blah

we actually agree with each other. I used those examples to show that people could multiple opponents since there was no way that Selmy had neat one on one battles on the trident. I didnt think he actually took them all on at once.

#128 The Dornishman's Wife

The Dornishman's Wife

    Forero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:15 PM

we actually agree with each other. I used those examples to show that people could multiple opponents since there was no way that Selmy had neat one on one battles on the trident. I didnt think he actually took them all on at once.


I don't think anyone doubted that you can hold off multiple opponents if you have multiple guys on your side supporting you while you do it, but if that was indeed your point apologize for misunderstanding it.

#129 eggs

eggs

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,048 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:16 PM

My point is that politcs plays a big role in who is in the Kingsguard so you cannot just assume because somebody is in the Kingsguard he must be a legendary knight.

I dont think politics played a big role back in the day, and the previous generation of KG was pretty legendary.

#130 Usrnmhsnomning

Usrnmhsnomning

    mynmismike

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:30 PM

There basically was an interregnum after Aegon's death while they waited to see if Jon was a boy. Thus it makes perfect sense for the KG to still all be at the tower as the potential king and then actual king was there.

Except Rhaegar and Lyanna are only married in crackpot theories without textual evidence, and the three KG are already protecting Lyanna and her unborn bastard while Aerys and his heirs are alive. The actual king was living, the potential king was living, and the potential kings real heir was living. Lyannas unborn child was and is not an heir nor does it make sense to protect him because he might be the "potential" king when Aegon is alive.

#131 Dragonfish

Dragonfish

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,573 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:44 PM

Except Rhaegar and Lyanna are only married in crackpot theories without textual evidence, and the three KG are already protecting Lyanna and her unborn bastard while Aerys and his heirs are alive. The actual king was living, the potential king was living, and the potential kings real heir was living. Lyannas unborn child was and is not an heir nor does it make sense to protect him because he might be the "potential" king when Aegon is alive.


There were other Kingsguard protecting Aerys at the time. As long as there is at least one Kingsguard with the king, the others are free to be dispatched elsewhere.

Before accusing people of promoting crackpot theories, you should acquaint yourself with the actual arguments. The one you've just offered has been proposed and rebutted a thousand times before.

#132 Sasha Steelsong

Sasha Steelsong

    Patience, Perception, Dominion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:49 PM

Except Rhaegar and Lyanna are only married in crackpot theories without textual evidence, and the three KG are already protecting Lyanna and her unborn bastard while Aerys and his heirs are alive. The actual king was living, the potential king was living, and the potential kings real heir was living. Lyannas unborn child was and is not an heir nor does it make sense to protect him because he might be the "potential" king when Aegon is alive.

Crackpot according to you because you seem to want to have something that is intentionally a mystery created by the author spelled out specifically right from the beginning. Perhaps you do not write a lot, but if a mystery is going to play out throughout a story, generally only hints are given in the beginning and it is not stated outright till the end, so attentive readers can see the clues before the reveal.

The textual evidence comes from the fact that the KG were still at the TOJ after they get the news that Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were dead, when you yourself say they should be guarding the King at that point. When Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were alive they were protected by other members of the KG, so the KG at the tower had no need to be in KL or at the Trident because the primary vow of protecting the king was covered by other brothers. Jaime was in Kings Landing watching over Aerys and Aegon and 3 KG were with Rheagar at the trident. It is only after the deaths of all three Targs, two of the KG, and the betrayal of Jaime and Barristan, that a Targ King not at the TOJ would require them to go to him. But the three most upstanding of the KG didn't go anywhere. Even if their orders from Rheagar were to protect Lyanna, one of them would have to go to Dragonstone to the new King, unless of course he was not the new King. Two things were made perfectly clear in their conversation with Ned 1) they knew that Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead before Ned got there and 2) they were fulfilling their vow by staying at the TOJ. Thus it makes perfect sense for them to stay at the TOJ once they got news of the deaths, because as I said above when a queen is pregnant they do wait and see if the child is an heir before crowning anyone. Their actions make perfect sense if Jon is legitimate, but make no sense if he is not.

#133 Ygrain

Ygrain

    One who prefers walking around unlabelled

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,636 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:59 PM

Except Rhaegar and Lyanna are only married in crackpot theories without textual evidence, and the three KG are already protecting Lyanna and her unborn bastard while Aerys and his heirs are alive. The actual king was living, the potential king was living, and the potential kings real heir was living. Lyannas unborn child was and is not an heir nor does it make sense to protect him because he might be the "potential" king when Aegon is alive.

Those are different instances. After Rhaegar leaves for KL and the three KG stay, they most possibly stay on his order to protect Lyanna and her unborn baby. If Aerys didn't explicitely order them back, they are free to follow Rhaegar's order in this as the highest ranking member of the royal family available and they are not in dereliction of duty as their primary duty to guard the king is done by the remaining four and finally by Jaime when Rhaegar takes Martell, Darry and Selmy to Trident.

Then, however, Rhaegar dies and not much later also Aerys and Aegon. From that moment on, if Viserys is king, Dayne, Whent and Hightower are in dereliction of duty because their new king is without protection of his Kingsguard. No matter what orders they had from whoever, by remaining at ToJ, they are breaking their vows - only they claim very resolutely that they keep their vows and they emphasize their KG status. These are contradicting fact, so if they claim that they are not breaking their oaths, then Viserys is not king. The only way Viserys may not be king is if a legit male child of Rhaegar's is alive (and present at ToJ, so that the KG stay there). A child is legit either by his parents' marriage or by the king's decree, so either Aerys must have issued a decree, or Rhaegar and Lyanna got married. As for the decree, there is not a single hint at the existence of anything like that; the option cannot be entirely ruled out but given the relationship between Rhaegar and Aerys, it is not very plausible. As for the marriage, there are established precedents which make it possible, and it is never stated that the practice became illegal (there is not even a mention of it being a sin against the gods - unlike the incest, which is very much perceived as abominable, yet currently tolerated in the royal family without much fuss).
Now, can you point me to the part of argumentation which seems crackpotty to you?

#134 Usrnmhsnomning

Usrnmhsnomning

    mynmismike

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:02 PM

Crackpot according to you because you seem to want to have something that is intentionally a mystery created by the author spelled out specifically right from the beginning. Perhaps you do not write a lot, but if a mystery is going to play out throughout a story, generally only hints are given in the beginning and it is not stated outright till the end, so attentive readers can see the clues before the reveal.

So what I've taken from this is that I'm right in saying that there is no textual evidence that Rhaegar and Lyanna are married and it IS just a theory. Correct?

The textual evidence comes from the fact that the KG were still at the TOJ after they get the news that Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were dead, when you yourself say they should be guarding the King at that point. When Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were alive they were protected by other members of the KG, so the KG at the tower had no need to be in KL or at the Trident because the primary vow of protecting the king was covered by other brothers. Jaime was in Kings Landing watching over Aerys and Aegon and 3 KG were with Rheagar at the trident. It is only after the deaths of all three Targs, two of the KG, and the betrayal of Jaime and Barristan, that a Targ King not at the TOJ would require them to go to him. But the three most upstanding of the KG didn't go anywhere. Even if their orders from Rheagar were to protect Lyanna, one of them would have to go to Dragonstone to the new King, unless of course he was not the new King. Two things were made perfectly clear in their conversation with Ned 1) they knew that Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead before Ned got there and 2) they were fulfilling their vow by staying at the TOJ. Thus it makes perfect sense for them to stay at the TOJ once they got news of the deaths, because as I said above when a queen is pregnant they do wait and see if the child is an heir before crowning anyone. Their actions make perfect sense if Jon is legitimate, but make no sense if he is not.

I simply take everything you've said as a theory without textual evidence. I'm sorry.

There were other Kingsguard protecting Aerys at the time. As long as there is at least one Kingsguard with the king, the others are free to be dispatched elsewhere.

Before accusing people of promoting crackpot theories, you should acquaint yourself with the actual arguments. The one you've just offered has been proposed and rebutted a thousand times before.


No, I'm quite acquainted with the actual arguments. I just openly disagree with them. I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to do so. And no, they haven't been rebutted a thousand times before, two people with differing opinions have argued to a standstill and not given up their opinion on the matter a thousand times before. It's only rebutted in the eyes of those promoting the theory, not to those denying it.

#135 Usrnmhsnomning

Usrnmhsnomning

    mynmismike

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:03 PM

Now, can you point me to the part of argumentation which seems crackpotty to you?

The whole lot

#136 Sasha Steelsong

Sasha Steelsong

    Patience, Perception, Dominion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:10 PM

So what I've taken from this is that I'm right in saying that there is no textual evidence that Rhaegar and Lyanna are married and it IS just a theory. Correct?

No what you've done is twisted what I said to fit your preconceived notions, and actually ignored what I said. I said there is textual evidence it is just not stated out right in a single sentence (Rheagar and Lyanna were married) because it was intended by the author of the books to be a mystery that was uncovered in pieces as the story progressed. What author do you know that states the conclusion of the mystery outright at the beginning? Cause I have to say that is a new way of mystery writing.

I simply take everything you've said as a theory without textual evidence. I'm sorry.

And I take this as proof that you don't have the ability to string clues together to form a big picture and that you need something plainly stated to see it. I'm sorry you miss out on so much in literature because you're unable to see things unless they are spelled out word for word. What I spelled out which this glib reply followed was textual evidence based on what we have learned from the series, where is your argument to counter it? Or is all you have insults and dismissive phrases?

No, I'm quite acquainted with the actual arguments. I just openly disagree with them. I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to do so. And no, they haven't been rebutted a thousand times before, two people with differing opinions have argued to a standstill and not given up their opinion on the matter a thousand times before. It's only rebutted in the eyes of those promoting the theory, not to those denying it.

You're allowed to disagree but I haven't seen any substance to your disagreements that is textually based (you know that thing you keep harping on). All I've seen is you disparaging those who think differently than you without offering a reasoned argument in return.

Edited by atpthornton, 26 February 2013 - 04:12 PM.


#137 Dragonfish

Dragonfish

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,573 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:14 PM

No, I'm quite acquainted with the actual arguments. I just openly disagree with them. I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to do so.


I never said you weren't allowed to disagree. I said you should familiarize yourself with the arguments, which you clearly haven't done, because, as I said, this particular argument has already been rebutted many times before.

And no, they haven't been rebutted a thousand times before, two people with differing opinions have argued to a standstill and not given up their opinion on the matter a thousand times before. It's only rebutted in the eyes of those promoting the theory, not to those denying it.


No, you misunderstand. I said that this particular counterargument has been rebutted before. You said the Kingsguard were at the ToJ even while Aerys was alive, as if that somehow proved that the Kingsguard don't necessarily have to be with the king. My point was that no one is arguing that every single member of the Kingsguard has to be with the king, just that at least one does. As such, your argument has no merit, because there were Kingsguard guarding Aerys while he was alive, while there were no Kingsguard with Viserys after the Sack. If you were truly acquainted with the arguments at hand, you'd have already seen this point coming.

#138 The Dornishman's Wife

The Dornishman's Wife

    Forero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:22 PM

I simply take everything you've said as a theory without textual evidence. I'm sorry.


Congratulations, you have balls. Not many people would dare to risk making a complete fool of themselves by quoting textual evidence others have brought forth and then instead of either agreeing with it or challenging it just replying that they simply refuse to acknowledge its existence.

Unfortunately, you waste your balls by acting like a jerk in the forum. Of course that's your choice, but think of all the other wonderful things you could use them for instead. (Get your mind out of the gutter everyone, I'm talking about fighting crime.)

Edited by The Dornishman's Wife, 26 February 2013 - 04:25 PM.


#139 Usrnmhsnomning

Usrnmhsnomning

    mynmismike

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:25 PM

What author do you know that states the conclusion of the mystery outright at the beginning? Cause I have to say that is a new way of mystery writing.

Isn't that called foreshadowing? /cheers.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheers:' /> I'm just saying to me it comes across as those 3 KG were in on Rhaegars apparent plan to depose Aerys. Now that has as much textual evidence as your point does; I drew the conclusion from points in the text. It seems to me like those 3 KG were just doing what Rhaegar said, not because the unborn child was a legitimate potential heir, but just because the crown prince and king to be said so.

And I take this as proof that you don't have the ability to string clues together to form a big picture and that you need something plainly stated to see it. I'm sorry you miss out on so much in literature because you're unable to see things unless they are spelled out word for word. What I spelled out which this glib reply followed was textual evidence based on what we have learned from the series, where is your argument to counter it? Or is all you have insults and dismissive phrases?

I'm not the one insulting people for not believing in my theory /dunno.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':dunno:' /> In successive posts you've attacked me personally now just because I don't agree with you. I'm not really bothering with much 'evidence' because it's not factual proof; it's conclusions drawn from what we have and I don't think that is actually proof of anything. I don't take issue with people giving theories, just with people giving theories as fact and acting the way many in this thread are (personal insults, for example) because of a differing opinion.

You're allowed to disagree but I haven't seen any substance to your disagreements that is textually based (you know that thing you keep harping on). All I've seen is you disparaging those who think differently than you without offering a reasoned argument in return.

No argument I give is going to be seen as reasoned by you though. You've made up your mind, and anything I say is "rebutted a thousand times before". And I'm not trying to be disparaging, just trying to point out that without solid evidence this theory shouldn't be shoved down others throats with antagonistic attacks on peoples ability to "read clues".

Unfortunately, you waste your balls by acting like a jerk in the forum.

Refer to the above paragraph about how drawing conclusions isn't evidence (and how I'm being attacked for disagreeing with this theory).

#140 Usrnmhsnomning

Usrnmhsnomning

    mynmismike

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

As such, your argument has no merit, because there were Kingsguard guarding Aerys while he was alive, while there were no Kingsguard with Viserys after the Sack. If you were truly acquainted with the arguments at hand, you'd have already seen this point coming.

By your own logic, if the child turned out to be a girl the true king is now completely undefended by the Kingsguard. If the KG were protecting heirs, why did they not send even one KG member to Viserys on the very real chance that the ToJ baby wasn't a boy?

Edited by Usrnmhsnomning, 26 February 2013 - 04:28 PM.