R+L=J v.123

[markg171]

So Rhaegar and Lyanna might have been only playing cyvasse all this time when they were hidden?

I think the only question should be: "was sex consensual or not"? Was Robert right? But even this I think is clear: Lyanna died holding dead rose petals. I believe she didn't die only because of child birth, but because she didn't have the strength to fight, her body was weak since she received the news that Rhaegar had been killed.

It should be noted that if blue roses symbolize R+L=J, then the fact that Lyanna was found with black and dead roses would suggest that Lyanna and Rhaegar had broken up and their child was a stillbirth.

[King Tyrion XX]

Agreed. This would be a great thing to highlight in the OP, right at the beginning. And it's more or less what I'm trying to point out: that we should be up front in identifying the sexual relationship as an assumption made for the sake of the theory, while acknowledging the fact that it's not textually supported outside of King Robert's version of history.

Otherwise it seems as if we don't even recognize the key weakness of the theory - or worse, that we're trying to gloss over it and pretend it's not there.

RLJ camp has been playing Jenga with one stick for years. So many people on the main board think of RLJ as written in stone fact cuz the RLJers pretend it is and dismiss any dissenters as trolls who clearly haven't read all 123 versions of the thread.

Yet RLJers back down every single time when asked to present evidence. Especially evidence that actually supports their theory.

[markg171]

And yet, that passage can be read as those lies he has been living for fourteen years, having gotten nothing to do with the story he tells Robert about the Sack. It could be read as a new topic, as Robert starts to talk about troubled sleep, and Ned's thoughts go on about that, leading to the lies of 14 years.

Thanks for quoting, it would seem I had missed it earlier..

Except he continues to go on telling the story of the Sack for another 2 pages. I simply ended the quote there as otherwise it would take further to write everything, and he'd already mentioned wanting to tell the truth and about lies that were 14 years old. It's AGOT Eddard II though if anybody wants to read the passage

[Ygrain]

And yet, that passage can be read as those lies he has been living for fourteen years, having gotten nothing to do with the story he tells Robert about the Sack. It could be read as a new topic, as Robert starts to talk about troubled sleep, and Ned's thoughts go on about that, leading to the lies of 14 years.

They definitely have nothing to do with the Sack, you are right that there comes a sub-topic of troubled sleep and Ned reflects on that.

Also, the conversation is not just about the Sack - the most curious quote comes right after the end of the quote:

“You were not there,” Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. “There was no honor in that conquest.”

“The Others take your honor!” Robert swore. “What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

Note how the promise me doesn't seem to be related to the supposed revenge for Lyanna at the Trident and that Ned doesn't choose to share the memory with Robert this time in any way, unlike when they talk about where Lyanna wanted to be buried. Promise me here apparently has nothing to do with being buried at Winterfell; the topic discussed is currently the lack of Targaryen, namely Rhaegar's honour. As if Ned promised something that concerned Rhaegar's honour and that he couldn't tell Robert - and since lack of honour is not something he would have to keep secret from Robert, I presume that it is the very opposite that he cannot tell. Also, this train of thought ties in quite neatly with the fourteen years old lies.

[Ygrain]

RLJ camp has been playing Jenga with one stick for years. So many people on the main board think of RLJ as written in stone fact cuz the RLJers pretend it is and dismiss any dissenters as trolls who clearly haven't read all 123 versions of the thread.

Yet RLJers back down every single time when asked to present evidence. Especially evidence that actually supports their theory.

It's no use showing a deer track to someone who cannot tell a deer from a pig.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

They definitely have nothing to do with the Sack, you are right that there comes a sub-topic of troubled sleep and Ned reflects on that.

Also, the conversation is not just about the Sack - the most curious quote comes right after the end of the quote:

“You were not there,” Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. “There was no honor in that conquest.”

“The Others take your honor!” Robert swore. “What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

Note how the promise me doesn't seem to be related to the supposed revenge for Lyanna at the Trident and that Ned doesn't choose to share the memory with Robert this time in any way, unlike when they talk about where Lyanna wanted to be buried. Promise me here apparently has nothing to do with being buried at Winterfell; the topic discussed is currently the lack of Targaryen, namely Rhaegar's honour. As if Ned promised something that concerned Rhaegar's honour and that he couldn't tell Robert - and since lack of honour is not something he would have to keep secret from Robert, I presume that it is the very opposite that he cannot tell. Also, this train of thought ties in quite neatly with the fourteen years old lies.

Perhaps 'there was no honor in that conquest' is also referring to the death children laid in front of the throne later.. which would then tie into the safety (or dangerour situation) of Lyanna's child, leading to the "promise me" and the subsequent lies having lasted for fourteen years.

[RumHam]

But Daemon Waters/Blackfyre wasn't a Targaryen prince, now was he? ;)

Wasn't he, once legitimized? Even if he wasn't considered a price that doesn't make a difference when it comes to the legality of polygamy, he still needed the king's permission. Take out the words "for a Targaryen prince" and my point still stands. I'm pretty sure a prince would also need the king's permission. I don't think the whole royal family is above the law, just the monarch. In practice they may be if they have the protection of the king.

I agree that it is unlikely that Aegon had promised Daemon this. The thing is, history sees it as a viable option, that this might have occured. Which should say something, regarding the legality of the whole thing.

History records that some people claim he thought he could do it, and that the king at one time told him he would allow it. Anything is a viable option if you can get the king to say it's ok. In my opinion the wording strongly suggests that it is not generally considered a viable option.

Edit: As an example, history records that fire was used as a champion in a trial by combat. You probably wouldn't call that evidence that using fire as your champion is legal and so anyone can do it.

[Ygrain]

Perhaps 'there was no honor in that conquest' is also referring to the death children laid in front of the throne later.. which would then tie into the safety (or dangerour situation) of Lyanna's child, leading to the "promise me" and the subsequent lies having lasted for fourteen years.

That, as well, but the direct prompt for promise me is that mention of dragon's honour.

[Alia of the knife]

True. The information is scarce. We only know that BS seems reluctant to tell and all points at the misdoer getting away with it, so it had to be very powerful. That makes Aerys suspect in HH. But in KL, the main suspect would be Rhaegar. Thorny.

Not everybody, but there has to be three heads.

We're told about Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys and Daenerys. Of those, Rhaenys is dead without a doubt. Jon doesn't seem to be much of a dragon, he's a northman, no matter who his father was.

The rules are stated in other episodes. A boy can be swapped, as Mance's son was. A prince can go around in disguise, as Egg did, or Jon. A prince can be evacuated, as that one slain in Bitterbridge. Myrcella was both evacuated and swapped during the trip. Viserys fled.

On this basis, you're free to speculate.

I was speaking more of an in-the-moment royal birth as in the theory of Ashara and Elia switching babies if Elia was the one with the stillbirth.

Likely, Elia would be in confinement with not only a few of her ladies, but non Dornish ladies not entirely loyal to her.

[BearQueen87]

RLJ camp has been playing Jenga with one stick for years. So many people on the main board think of RLJ as written in stone fact cuz the RLJers pretend it is and dismiss any dissenters as trolls who clearly haven't read all 123 versions of the thread.

Yet RLJers back down every single time when asked to present evidence. Especially evidence that actually supports their theory.

Maybe you need to see sj4iy's entire list of clues?

Bull crap about not presenting evidence. We present loads of evidence. Just because you don't buy it doesn't mean we haven't done our textual analysis and reading. STOP trying to make us sound like we're just making shit up. We read just as deeply as you do. STOP questioning our intelligence and integrity.

[Kingmonkey]

Great work from Jon Weirgaryen on the trims, but a few points where I think perhaps too much has been trimmed or over simplified.

Don't all Targaryens have silver-golden hair and purple eyes (Valyrian looks)?

Not all of them: Good Queen Alysanne Alysanne had blue eyes. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look (dark hair, olive skin, black eyes).

Do we know that Rhaenys had black eyes? The Wiki links to an SSM just which says "Rhaenys looked more like a Martell, Aegon more a Targaryen." I think that we need to include the "three strong boys" example that @Rhaenys_Targaryen proposed, to specifically address eyes. I also think that Tyrion's thought is well worth keeping in because it's GRRM expressly addressing the issue. Thus:

Don't all Targaryens have the hallmark Valeryian silver-golden hair and purple eyes?

Not all of them: Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Bittersteel, who like Jon was half first men blood, had brown hair. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look, as did Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys. Princess Rhaenyra's "three strong boys" all had brown eyes as well as hair.

It would give the game away if Jon had the Targ looks, but half Targs don't have to. GRRM addresses this when Tyrion thinks: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Ironically it's his mother who's the Stark, and GRRM is telling us not to expect his father's Targ features.

Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as my sons in the very first chapter?

Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. Ned never thinks of Jon as his son. In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon and explicitly excludes Jon from the list.

A small clean-up on this one.

Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as "my sons" in the very first chapter?

In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. Ned never

thinks of Jon as his son. In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children, listing "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon", explicitly excluding Jon.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might. There has been polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so it is not easily ruled out in the case of Rhaegar, Elia and Lyanna. The presence of no less than 3 kingsguard knights at the Tower of Joy may be explained with them defending the heir to the iron throne, or even the new king. That wouldn't work so well if he was an illegitimate child.

One of the things I tried to avoid in the FAQ re-write is confusing matters with the debates that take place amongst supporters of R+L=J. The purpose of this FAQ is to answer doubters, not promote a specific R+L=J scenario, and it concerns me that we undermine that purpose if the answers seem to rely on a specific debatable points such as protect vs. obey. When we have something like "That wouldn't work so well" you're giving ammo to the doubters. So how about:

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy amongst Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. It is argued by believers in Jon's legitimacy that the presence of the three Kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it as an option for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Dany as a viable option. Daenerys said the same about Quentyn Martell. George says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

@Twinslayer brought up the question of Jaehaerys' laws. As this question does get brought up quite often, I think that's something we should address.

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was still considered an option for Targs, whether legal or not: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she later said the same about Quentyn Martell.

George says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Had they been ordered to, their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence. Guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.

Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

I'm strongly opposed to this change. It assumes protect over obey, which is not case proven. My version covers both options, and I think this is essential in the FAQ, because you don't want people throwing GRRM's 'They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."' out there and using that to dismiss the answer. To combine the two versions together:

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was an heir that took precedence(Jon). If you don't accept that and believe they were there under orders, guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.

Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

Nice summary, much better than my version.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. This may even be true if the grandson is yet unborn and might later turn out to be a girl after all. The world book is written with a Lannister bias in hindsight by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories.

Timing is still unclear, so it is worthy to note that we cannot tell if the world book info is correct in which one prince was chosen over another, and we wonder why that has been done.

I think this one is over-trimmed. It doesn't explain why the information might not be correct, and doesn't cover the possibility that it is correct. We can't just assume that it's incorrect, we have to show that it doesn't argue against R+L=J if it is, too.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son predeceasing the king, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (see heir apparent vs. heir presumptive).

The world book is written with a pro-Lannister bias, and may simply be incorrect, either due to poor information or propaganda (undermining Dornish support for the Targs, for example). It is however also possible that it's true. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past dealt with the matter of succession. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Who would have accepted such a change in the succession if it really did happened is an interesting question.

But Ned is dead, who's going to tell anyone about it?

Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and GRRM has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body, silent with grief." shows that there was someone else besides Howland to find Ned.

"They" is a great addition, but here's a small editing tweak:

But Ned is dead, who's going to tell anyone about it?

Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know.

Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and GRRM has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body..." tells us was someone else besides Howland to find Ned.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

How unbelievably passive aggressive.

We have talked to you and others for many many many many threads now. Stop making us sound like we are irrational or mean spirited or anything else.

Not passive aggressive at all. Why would you think that? I'm making this particular suggestion based on the fact that a subset of users here regularly accuse me of being a troll, or treat me as if I were one. And I'm not - or, at least, I don't consider myself to be one.

I'm interested in discussing the topic theory, so I come here to do that, and I try to stay on topic even when others get personal with me over disagreements. None of that seems particularly troll-like to me, so I do sometimes wonder if there were some other definition of "troll" at work here. If so, I think we should be explicit about that in the OP - and if revisions are being made, then this seems a good opportunity to consider it.

I also saw your comment here, BearQueen:

I'm sorry but this thread is PRO RLJ! Can't believe I have to say that.

...and if that is the intention of this thread, then we ought to make it clear up front. I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to be clear, as it seems like it would be helpful for everyone to know coming in.

But maybe your view is the outlier, and most others here consider this thread an opportunity for a more balanced examination of the RLJ premise. If so, then it would behoove us to include some sincere acknowledgement of the deficiencies and weaknesses of the theory in the OP, along with all the reasons given for its support. That way, we're letting everyone know that we are well aware there are both pros and cons when it comes to RLJ, and we're open to discussing both sides.

[markg171]

That, as well, but the direct prompt for promise me is that mention of dragon's honour.

Actually the promise me comes after Ned reminds Robert that he killed Rhaegar at the Trident. So it would have to do with killing Rhaegar...

So perhaps Lyanna was making Ned promise her that Rhaegar was dead and could no longer hurt her... which would make complete sense if Rhaegar did kidnap her and rape her...

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

It's no use showing a deer track to someone who cannot tell a deer from a pig.

Perhaps a disclaimer in the OP, stating that you're welcome to disagree and form your own opinions, but we reserve the right to insult you with impunity?

[JonSnow4President]

Can you list everything suggesting Rhaegar loved Lyanna?

I don't even know what lead you to come up with the Jesus line.

Rhaegar loved his lady Lyanna, Rhaegar died with the name of the lady he loved on his lips (later confirmed to be Lyanna via the app), Rhaegar crowning her queen of love and beauty, Rhaegar kidnapping her all suggest at least one way love. Of course, then there's Rhaegar taking a lance (penis) and using it place a crown (king) of blue flowers (blue flowers at the wall.....) in Lyanna's lap (womb). Rhaegar taking Lyanna to his tower of joy, and giving her kingsguard protection. At the very least, Rhaegar loved his sex slave. Lyanna's love of flowers, and crying at his singing (although less so) suggests that she loved him.

Lyanna died in a bed of blood. I don't think any reasonable person on these forums (note the operative word, reasonable) thinks she didn't give birth. If she didn't have sex with Rhaegar, who at least was attracted to her, the other options are really Whent, Hightower, or Dayne. As Ned respects all 3, I find it hard to believe they sexed up Lyanna. So, its either Rhaegar, or divine intervention (hence the Jesus line).

[Kingmonkey]

I think you're right that Rhaegar's death played a role in her own demise. I have proposed that under the impact of the news, she may have gone into labour somewhat pre-timely, before the child got in the right position, hence the birthing went badly.

I'm not an expert on the legend of Tristan and Iseult but in a beautiful story it inspired, Malady by Andrzej Sapkowski, it is said that Tristan's mother Blanchefleur went into labour and died birthing Tristan under the impact of the news of her husband's death, so we might have a parallel here.

The Blanchefleur story is in Thomas of Britain's early version, though IIRC Beroul's omits Tristan's childhood. The Prose Tristan has different parents, but still has Tristan's mother dying of sorrow for her lost (though not dead) husband as soon as Tristan is born. There's a common theme in the French Tristan stories of Tristan being born in sadness -- "sadness" in French is "tristesse", though his name probably originates from a Romano-British name "Drustanus".

There's a similar theme in the Pursuit of Diarmuid and Grainne from the Irish Ulster Cycle, which is often considered an influence on the Tristan & Isolde story, but the broad idea of dying together is a very common one in the romantic/courtly tradition which is an major influence on ASOIAF (see Pyramus and Thisbe and Romeo & Juliet for obvious examples).

[Kingmonkey]

If she didn't have sex with Rhaegar, who at least was attracted to her, the other options are really Whent, Hightower, or Dayne. As Ned respects all 3, I find it hard to believe they sexed up Lyanna. So, its either Rhaegar, or divine intervention (hence the Jesus line).

Whent tried, several times. He even had a blonde wig made up so he could sneak into her bed chamber and pretend to be Rhaegar, the sneaky little weasel.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

If you want the list of Targaryens without the Valyrian look to be more comprehensive, Daeron the Drunken (whose mother was a Dayne and grandmother a Martell), had sandy brown hair. Duncan the Small (with a Blackwood mother) is also depicted as having dark hair in the World Book.

[JonSnow4President]

Perhaps a disclaimer in the OP, stating that you're welcome to disagree and form your own opinions, but we reserve the right to insult you with impunity?

Then stop behaving like one from time to time.

Rheagar and Lyanna having sex is supported by the text. It's not explicitly stated, but it sure as hell is supported. Continually claiming it's not come across as very trollish. Multiple people have posted multiple times, and you haven't raised a single argument towards it that I've seen (only been part of the discussion since v 95 or so). Insisting on putting something in the OP about Aegon potentially being at the ToJ because there's nothing against it is either willfully antagonistic or incredibly hypocritical.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Why is Aerys suspect at Harrenhal? He is aroused by having seen people burn, and we've yet to see anyone having burned at Harrenhal in 281 AC.

He didn't just get aroused by fire...

wildfire is not viagra, people!