UnViserion Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I've addressed this before - That would be a very tight timeline indeed. So that is to say it's possible, but its not the most likely or logical scenario. Lyannas condition indicates that only a few hours to maybe a few days had passed since Jon was born. Its far more likely they had no news, or had the news for a while prior to Jons birth. The reason they stayed during this time is far simpler - they were protecting one of the (potential) Targaryen heirs, under Rhaegars orders, but also because it didn't conflict with any direct order from Aerys and because they thought it was the right thing to do. Or Lyanna couldn't travel and they decided to be chivalrous by waiting out her pregnancy.. then when she has a boy and Ned comes up with his clan they decided "well shit, Viserys is half a world away, and we've got a male Targaryen right here. Might as well die with swords in our hands.." *Protecting possibly the least viable King in the history of the united 7 Kingdoms, I might add. No one's gonna champion that love baby. I mean really, Jon isn't even a blip in the radar as an heir at this point. Rhaegar would most likely have been expecting a female to complete the prophecy, which would mean he was really acting selfishly by spreading the KG so thin to create and preserve the 3 Heads. If he started all of this on his own initiative, creating a situation where his pregnant second lady wife wouldn't be welcome at court and has to give birth in the middle of a desert.. Holy cow that's just an awful plan. If this was the best plan he could come up with I have seriously overestimated him! Additionally, have we determined if Lyanna's 'bed of blood' was a result of having just given birth? Or post birth complications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienarea Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Or Lyanna couldn't travel and they decided to be chivalrous by waiting out her pregnancy.. then when she has a boy and Ned comes up with his clan they decided "well shit, Viserys is half a world away, and we've got a male Targaryen right here. Might as well die with swords in our hands.." *Protecting possibly the least viable King in the history of the united 7 Kingdoms, I might add. No one's gonna champion that love baby. I mean really, Jon isn't even a blip in the radar as an heir at this point. Rhaegar would most likely have been expecting a female to complete the prophecy, which would mean he was really acting selfishly by spreading the KG so thin to create and preserve the 3 Heads. If he started all of this on his own initiative, creating a situation where his pregnant second lady wife wouldn't be welcome at court and has to give birth in the middle of a desert.. Holy cow that's just an awful plan. If this was the best plan he could come up with I have seriously overestimated him! Additionally, have we determined if Lyanna's 'bed of blood' was a result of having just given birth? Or post birth complications? Been there, done this. Still ... I can't help but wonder if that sloppy written scene hadn't caused half of this boards posts in case an editor had reviewed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Arthur Dayne PWNs Barristan. Judging from what we saw at the ToJ, neither he, Whent, or Hightower would have ever switched sides. They were loyal to the Targaryens, not the Iron Throne. Barristan gave everything he had at the trident , killing multiple foes and being wounded multiple times. He would have died had Robert sent his Maester to save him . Dayne could not have done any more then Barristan did . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Been there, done this. Still ... I can't help but wonder if that sloppy written scene hadn't caused half of this boards posts in case an editor had reviewed it? Hehe this probably is the answer, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 *Protecting possibly the least viable King in the history of the united 7 Kingdoms, I might add. No one's gonna champion that love baby. I That doesn't matter to Lord Commander Hightower , his oath is to protect the King on the Iron Throne not judge if the King is viable or not . He's doing his sworn duty by fighting and dying for his King . If Jon isn't king the why would he possibly still be at the tower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnViserion Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Barristan gave everything he had at the trident , killing multiple foes and being wounded multiple times. He would have died had Robert sent his Maester to save him . Dayne could not have done any more then Barristan did . Conjecture. IMO, Rhaegar's close friendship with Arthur Dayne suggests he might have been a bit less willing to let them the two of them duke it out. To rule it out as a possibility entirely is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnViserion Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 That doesn't matter to Lord Commander Hightower , his oath is to protect the King on the Iron Throne not judge if the King is viable or not . He's doing his sworn duty by fighting and dying for his King . If Jon isn't king the why would he possibly still be at the tower? Where's he gonna go? Best case scenario, 99.99% of the time they were at the ToJ was spent safeguarding Lyanna. Jon isn't even born yet. Unless Jon was born a few days before Ned arrives, in which case they only spent like 97% of their time safeguarding Lyanna. They were there because they were told to be there, not to guard their infant King. If Aerys did in fact name Viserys heir, they would only believe Jon is King due to a lack of information. It still doesn't make him King and it still doesn't mean the KG were defending their king before he was born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matchesmcfly Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Who was born (at most) only days earlier and just as likely may have been a girl and hence behind others living in the LOS. How do you explain the weeks prior? Is the idea here that if jon has been female, the KG would have left immediately to find Viserys (they were just waiting to see a penis?). there's nothing to explain. they were following prophecy obsessed rhaegar not the mad king. if rhaegar expected a prince, they would have believed it too. pretty obvious that rhaegar planned on deposing his father and that he was their uncrowned king at that point. every thing else is semantical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 there's nothing to explain. they were following prophecy obsessed rhaegar not the mad king. if rhaegar expected a prince, they would have believed it too. pretty obvious that rhaegar planned on deposing his father and that he was their uncrowned king at that point. every thing else is semantical. Well, everything is semantical. The KGs made it clear that they are loyal to Aerys which is in conflict with your explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnViserion Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 there's nothing to explain. they were following prophecy obsessed rhaegar not the mad king. if rhaegar expected a prince, they would have believed it too. pretty obvious that rhaegar planned on deposing his father and that he was their uncrowned king at that point. every thing else is semantical. Based on the fact that Rhaegar named his first 2 children after Aegon the Conquerer and Queen Rhaenys, I'm pretty sure he was expecting another princess, not prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matchesmcfly Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Based on the fact that Rhaegar named his first 2 children after Aegon the Conquerer and Queen Rhaenys, I'm pretty sure he was expecting another princess, not prince. he thought he was the prince that was promised initially. he was wrong the first time and he was wrong the second time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matchesmcfly Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Well, everything is semantical. The KGs made it clear that they are loyal to Aerys which is in conflict with your explanation. except that it doesn't. if they were loyal to aerys they would have stayed in king's landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnViserion Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 except that it doesn't. if they were loyal to aerys they would have stayed in king's landing. LC Hightower said Aerys would still sit the Iron Throne had he been there. That seems to indicate he at least was loyal to The Mad King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matchesmcfly Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 LC Hightower said Aerys would still sit the Iron Throne had he been there. That seems to indicate he at least was loyal to The Mad King. what was he supposed to say to the rebels? "aerys? yeah we were gonna get rid of him anyway. good on jamie." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I've addressed this before - That would be a very tight timeline indeed. So that is to say it's possible, but its not the most likely or logical scenario. Lyannas condition indicates that only a few hours to maybe a few days had passed since Jon was born. Its far more likely they had no news, or had the news for a while prior to Jons birth. The reason they stayed during this time is far simpler - they were protecting one of the (potential) Targaryen heirs, under Rhaegars orders, but also because it didn't conflict with any direct order from Aerys and because they thought it was the right thing to do. It depends on how long before Ned arrives that Lyanna gave birth. If GRRM is following the "real world" cases of puerperal fever, then Jon was born at least 3 days prior and probably no more than 10 days prior to death. The infection takes some time to spread and kill the mother. Others have suggested that in the series, some character suggested that women who died from childbirth complications die within a "moon" (i.e., a month) of the birth -- but I have not been able to track down the original quote so I am not sure. Either way, given the time it would take for information to get from KL to ToJ, it is not that hard to imagine that Jon would already be born at the time they learn of the deaths of the royals. GRRM is going to make the timeline fit whatever he needs for the story to work -- so given that this timeline is "possible" there is no need to examine its likelihood -- it only needs to be plausible to work, not statistically most likely. How many things in this series have depended on timing that was "just right" (like Tywin arriving at Blackwater at the right moment -- or Stannis arriving at the Wall at the right moment). The likelihood of the timing being just right is not a useful argument in literature -- the author will make the timing work if the story requires it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 what was he supposed to say to the rebels? "aerys? yeah we were gonna get rid of him anyway. good on jamie." No, they would have said Aerys would be alive if they had been there -- no need to say Aerys would still be on the throne if they intended to de-throne him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple-eyes Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 No, they would have said Aerys would be alive if they had been there -- no need to say Aerys would still be on the throne if they intended to de-throne him. World book mentioned one of rhaegar's possible plans is to serve as regent, not king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matchesmcfly Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 No, they would have said Aerys would be alive if they had been there -- no need to say Aerys would still be on the throne if they intended to de-throne him. lol. because they owed the rebels the truth? a kingsguard murdered the aforementioned king. they don't need to explain anything to the rebels. they're not ned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple-eyes Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 lol. because they owed the rebels the truth? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 what was he supposed to say to the rebels? "aerys? yeah we were gonna get rid of him anyway. good on jamie." Why not? The rebels won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.