R+L=J v.162

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Just to clarify my position again, my friend, I believe, and there are many clues to support this, that the answer to both of your above questions is "yes." Rhaegar has a powerful self-interest in seeing the rebels defeated. If he wants to become king that is the only way it will happen. If he wants to see his son Aegon succeed him to the Iron Throne it has to happen. If he wants his view of prophecy to have a chance of working out, it has to happen. So, after the loyalist army meets defeat at Stoney Sept, and Connington is exiled, Rhaegar has to decide if he is going to let some lickspittle lord take charge of fighting the rebellion, or he is going to make a truce with his father and rebuild the loyalist army and take on the fight for a Targaryen future. So Rhaegar must look and decide whether it makes sense to unite with his father in order to defeat the rebels, and take a risk that by doing so he strengthens Aerys's hand not only against the rebels, but against Rhaegar himself.

That is pretty good characterization of Rhaegar. The only problem I see with it is that Rhaegar apparently made no attempts to make such a truce with his father. What we see is that Hightower found him and he then returned. Granted, we still lack the details but considering that Hightower would have looked for Rhaegar following Aerys' command I think we can reasonably conclude that the father sent an olive branch of peace to his son not the other way around.

If Rhaegar wanted to be king and see Aegon succeed him on the Iron Throne etc. it is very odd to assume that he would have ever run away with Lyanna. Which is the main reason why I think he did not do this of his own free will. He was forced to do this because Aerys proclaimed him a traitor, disinherited him, and called for his head.

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

For Aerys, his need to consolidate all loyalists behind him is obvious. The defeat at the Battle of the Bells proved the power of the rebels, not just against a local lord, but against the king's own army. To achieve this consolidation, however, Aerys needs his son. Rhaegar can inspire people to the loyalist cause in ways that Aerys never could, and since Duskendale, he too often inspires the opposite reaction. So, unless, Aerys is consigned to motivate only by fear, he needs his son, and his followers. This need is Aerys's incentive to make a truce with Rhaegar.

Could be. I'm less convinced than you that Aerys would have thought in such rational terms or receptive to such reasonable arguments. If Aerys thought his unkempt person and his mad mood swings/emotional outbursts/fits of mad laughter caused problems inspiring loyalty one should assume the man would have overcome his fear of knives and had allowed his servants to shave his beard and hair and cut his nails.

More importantly, there is no hint that Rhaegar's presence at KL brought lords and men to the Targaryen cause that weren't there before. The Darrys were Aerys' men, and as far as we can tell the army Rhaegar led to the Trident was made up of the remnants of the Connington army, new men from the Crownlands, and whatever forces the loyalist Riverlords and Reach lords close by could spare.

I find it more likely that Aerys wanted to reconcile with Rhaegar for emotional reasons rather than political machinations. The fact that he was already looking for Rhaegar by the time he dismissed Merryweather and actually made one of Rhaegar's friends the new Hand supports that idea, I think.

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

But Aerys's state of mind doesn't allow him to see just mutual self-interest or help on the simple principle of honoring one's oaths. He needs people to fear him. He needs his son to fear him.

I don't think there is any evidence that he thought like that after Rhaegar's return. 

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

To do this he threatens to disinherit Rhaegar and replace him with Viserys, but the young, and unstable Viserys inspires no one.

The Viserys thing was on the table prior to the Lyanna crisis. But if Rhaegar fell in disgrace after he took Lyanna then Viserys most certainly would have been Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne until such time as Aerys changed his mind and recalled Rhaegar to court.

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

He can't do what Rhaegar can do for the loyalist cause. So, Aerys is not content to make a truce with Rhaegar based on self-interest alone. He must be able to control Rhaegar. The only way he can do so is by threats to the safety of Rhaegar's family. We know he does this to force Dorne to do as he wishes, and there is no reason to think he wouldn't do same with Rhaegar.

I'm not saying he would be incapable of doing that, just that we lack textual evidence as of yet. However, if he did this I see little reason that Rhaegar would have stomached something like that. And there are hints that Rhaegar actually gave his father good counsel, urging him to write a letter to Tywin to apologize and ask for his help.

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

In fact, by threatening Elia through Prince Lewyn he also informs his son that his family is not safe. The idea that Rhaegar does not recognize the threat or that Aerys is just bluffing is absurd given his past history.

Well, Aerys did not yet burn any blood relations of his, or did he? 

[IceFire125]

Moments of Aerys' insane-back-to-sane lapses may have occurred 3 of times before the Sack.

1. Accepting Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna via the old gods -- sends Hightower to find Rhaegar (with the knowledge that R+L is legit man & wife)

**Hightower stayed at the tower instead of going to King Aerys (if he didn't yet hear about the sack) or going to Prince Viserys (who should be the next King in line since hearing about the sack and the royal heirs are dead), because the baby boy that was born to Lyanna is seen as royal/legitimate, thus heir to the throne.  Made the decision, maybe even ordered the remaining 2KG that there's no need to go to Dragonstone at all.

2. Accepting his son's plea to swallow his pride and send for help from Tywin, who is still neutral.

**It's still logical and a good back up plan to reinforce the defense in Kinglanding with the Lannister army if the royal army were to pursue and meet the rebels, but a possible splinter rebel force may go straight to Kinglanding.  If the Targaryens study history, Rhaegar of all people, would have understood what happened during the Dance.

Then the horrible news at the Trident, the lapse end and the king went back to his usual strong suspicions that the Martells have betrayed him.

3. Then the news that Tywin's forces have reached the outskirt of Kingslanding.  

**The logical thought of his continued madness/suspicions is to not trust Tywin at all.  But the trigger of hope and feeling of being saved by his old friend, the reminded history that Rhaegar probably shared during the war meetings, are still logical for him to have the moment of sane thoughts and to order the city guards to open the gates.  

Only when he sees that the Lannister forces are killing the city guards that he again felt betrayed and then the moment of madness arrived, ordering Rossart to ignite the wildfires and then ordered Jaime to kill Tywin.

[MtnLion]

15 hours ago, Kal-L said:

Firstly I never said, I consider it to be true, I just couldn't understand Lord Varys reasoning. Now to respond to your question Aerys might have not trusted Dayne and Whent to be close to him and leave them under Rhaegar's command until the end of the war. The other possibility would be that they outright chose to obey Rhaegar over Aerys.

That does not explain how Rhaegar can order Jaime . . .  The point is that the conversation between Jaime and Rhaegar as Rhaegar is leaving for the Trident shows us that there is no split between Rhaegar and Aerys.  To say that Aerys doesn't trust Whent and Dayne, who are his Kingsguard is an exaggeration at the least.  Aerys trusted Jaime to abide by his vow and bring his father's head.  Things didn't turn out so well for Aerys, but Jaime would be the least trusted of the Kingsguard under those conditions. 

[Jon Snow Nothing]

5 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

Moments of Aerys' insane-back-to-sane lapses may have occurred 3 of times before the Sack.

1. Accepting Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna via the old gods -- sends Hightower to find Rhaegar (with the knowledge that R+L is legit man & wife)

**Hightower stayed at the tower instead of going to King Aerys (if he didn't yet hear about the sack) or going to Prince Viserys (who should be the next King in line since hearing about the sack and the royal heirs are dead), because the baby boy that was born to Lyanna is seen as royal/legitimate, thus heir to the throne.  Made the decision, maybe even ordered the remaining 2KG that there's no need to go to Dragonstone at all.

2. Accepting his son's plea to swallow his pride and send for help from Tywin, who is still neutral.

**It's still logical and a good back up plan to reinforce the defense in Kinglanding with the Lannister army if the royal army were to pursue and meet the rebels, but a possible splinter rebel force may go straight to Kinglanding.  If the Targaryens study history, Rhaegar of all people, would have understood what happened during the Dance.

Then the horrible news at the Trident, the lapse end and the king went back to his usual strong suspicions that the Martells have betrayed him.

3. Then the news that Tywin's forces have reached the outskirt of Kingslanding.  

**The logical thought of his continued madness/suspicions is to not trust Tywin at all.  But the trigger of hope and feeling of being saved by his old friend, the reminded history that Rhaegar probably shared during the war meetings, are still logical for him to have the moment of sane thoughts and to order the city guards to open the gates.  

Only when he sees that the Lannister forces are killing the city guards that he again felt betrayed and then the moment of madness arrived, ordering Rossart to ignite the wildfires and then ordered Jaime to kill Tywin.

Hmmm... the fact that he was indeed killed by a sharp sword... I have forgotten that Aerys was paranoid about knifes.

Could it be that Aerys was mad because he had visions? Wasn't one of the Targaryens who visioned Valyria's doom? Could it be that Aerys' madness was driven by some sort of clairvoyance?

[Lost Melnibonean]

I usually don't come here 'cause, hey, RLJ is more solid than evolution. I noticed this when I was rereading The Prophet, Feast...

Quote

That was the way of this cold world, where men fished the sea and dug in the ground and died, whilst women brought forth short-lived children from beds of blood and pain. 

And it made me recall this...

Quote

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

Eddard X, Game 39

And this...

Quote

Promise me, Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood. 

Eddard XV, Game 58

I suppose this has been discussed ad nauseum, but what the heck... Does anybody seriously believe that Lyanna had not very recently given birth to the special snowflake when Ned arrived at the Tower of Joy? 

[SFDanny]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is pretty good characterization of Rhaegar. The only problem I see with it is that Rhaegar apparently made no attempts to make such a truce with his father. What we see is that Hightower found him and he then returned. Granted, we still lack the details but considering that Hightower would have looked for Rhaegar following Aerys' command I think we can reasonably conclude that the father sent an olive branch of peace to his son not the other way around.

I agree the truce if probably initiated through Hightower's arrival at the Tower of Joy. Up to that point, it seems that Rhaegar and Lyanna are hiding from Aerys. The question is what terms does the White Bull arrive with at the Tower? Is it just a peace pact between father and son to fight the rebellion, or is there also a threat that comes with the "olive branch"? The fact Prince Lewyn is already on his way to the 10,000 Dornish troops on the kingsroad with the reminder to Prince Doran that Aerys "held" Elia makes me believe that Aerys had already decided to hold Rhaegar's family against Dorne and Rhaegar's good behavior. I don't see how he can do so against one and not the other.

The interesting thing here is that the Lord Commander seemingly does not come back to King's Landing with Rhaegar. Why not? Others have suggested it is simply because Rhaegar gave him an order to stay. I don't buy this. The Lord Commander should absolutely follow Rhaegar's order - IF, and kindly note the big "IF," it doesn't contradict his duty to his king. Unless something has changed in the relationship between Hightower and the king. I think that change comes in the form of the threat Aerys has decided to use towards Elia and her children. Is Hightower told to inform Rhaegar, "gracelessly" or not, that Elia and her children's fate are now within Aerys's grasp in King's Landing? I think the reason Hightower doesn't return is that Hightower delivers the king's message and transfers his loyalty to Rhaegar at the same time. There is a difference between standing by while Aerys murders people he considers traitors, and standing by as the Prince's family is threatened.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Rhaegar wanted to be king and see Aegon succeed him on the Iron Throne etc. it is very odd to assume that he would have ever run away with Lyanna. Which is the main reason why I think he did not do this of his own free will. He was forced to do this because Aerys proclaimed him a traitor, disinherited him, and called for his head.

That would be the first we have heard that Aerys's had done any of those things. I would be very surprised if that is the case. Aerys seizes the opportunity Brandon presents to him to do away with his enemies, but he does so under the presumption that Brandon has committed a crime against the Crown Prince when he and his party call for Rhaegar to "come out and die." It seems very unlikely that at the same time he is disinheriting Rhaegar, calling for his head, and branding him a traitor for an action he - according to you - wants to happen and is for some reason forcing his son to do. I don't see, LV, with all respect, how that makes any sense. And, so far, there isn't a hint any of it took place.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Could be. I'm less convinced than you that Aerys would have thought in such rational terms or receptive to such reasonable arguments. If Aerys thought his unkempt person and his mad mood swings/emotional outbursts/fits of mad laughter caused problems inspiring loyalty one should assume the man would have overcome his fear of knives and had allowed his servants to shave his beard and hair and cut his nails.

More importantly, there is no hint that Rhaegar's presence at KL brought lords and men to the Targaryen cause that weren't there before. The Darrys were Aerys' men, and as far as we can tell the army Rhaegar led to the Trident was made up of the remnants of the Connington army, new men from the Crownlands, and whatever forces the loyalist Riverlords and Reach lords close by could spare.

I find it more likely that Aerys wanted to reconcile with Rhaegar for emotional reasons rather than political machinations. The fact that he was already looking for Rhaegar by the time he dismissed Merryweather and actually made one of Rhaegar's friends the new Hand supports that idea, I think.

Aerys is certainly paranoid in that he sees plots against him that are not real. The supposed attempts by Tywin to kill him at Rhaegar's wedding is a likely example of this madness. Certainly the blaming of Tywin for Steffon's death qualifies as a paranoid delusion.He is also a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain and death on others. Combined with his pyromania, this sadistic trait becomes a sexual arousal for him in the burning deaths of others. The man is seriously mentally disturbed, but we shouldn't confuse that with an inability to have rational thoughts.

He is not stupid, nor is he incapable of seeing a real threat as it develops. He knows his court has long been split between supporters of Rhaegar and the lords of the council who wish him to make Viserys the heir. His decision to unite those forces, while Rhaegar can't be found, by making Connington his Hand speaks to his understanding of the need to bring all Royalist forces together to defeat the rebellion. Once he exiles Connington, that need doesn't change. He instead does so by finding Rhaegar and getting him, by whatever means, to comeback and take up the command of the loyalist army. Which speaks to some form of rational thought, the fear of knives and his filthy appearance notwithstanding.

I have to differ about what Rhaegar's presence brought to King's Landing. Connington's army is shattered at Stony Sept, and the exiling of the Hand could have destroyed any loyalty by Rhaegar's forces in the rebellion, but when Rhaegar shows up that threat ends. A new army, with greater numbers than the rebel forces is created under Rhaegar's leadership. Whether that is with the Crown Prince as a figurehead, or he is an actually architect of that plan, we don't know, but it would not have been possible without his presence.

What I can't see, is how Aerys threats toward Elia can be done with an eye for some sort of emotional reconnection with Rhaegar. If I'm right that this threat is not only used against Dorne, but against Rhaegar himself, then it makes no sense for Aerys to think such a reconnection is possible. Then again, the father/son dynamics between the two are to say the least ... complex?

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think there is any evidence that he thought like that after Rhaegar's return. 

Don't you think the formulation of the pyromancer plot is the ultimate example of Aerys's need for fear and payback from his enemies? Don't you think his decision to refuse Elia and her children transport to Dragonstone, and his decision to start the fires while they were in the city show just what he thought of Rhaegar's family?

 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Viserys thing was on the table prior to the Lyanna crisis. But if Rhaegar fell in disgrace after he took Lyanna then Viserys most certainly would have been Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne until such time as Aerys changed his mind and recalled Rhaegar to court.

What we have evidence for is that there were attempts to get Aerys to disinherit Rhaegar before Lyanna, and that he finally disinherits Aegon after the Trident, seemingly as a response to what he sees as Dornish betrayal at the Trident. There is no evidence that Rhaegar was ever disinherited.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not saying he would be incapable of doing that, just that we lack textual evidence as of yet. However, if he did this I see little reason that Rhaegar would have stomached something like that. And there are hints that Rhaegar actually gave his father good counsel, urging him to write a letter to Tywin to apologize and ask for his help.

The textual evidence is in his threat to Prince Lewyn.

I think you overestimate Rhaegar's ability to fight with his father with a rebel army poised for action against King's Landing. As I've said, I think Rhaegar has good reason to do as he did. Not only to save his family from his father's threats, but to save the Targaryen monarchy from a very real threat to its own existence. Of course, he gives Aerys good counsel. He doesn't want to lose at the Trident.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, Aerys did not yet burn any blood relations of his, or did he? 

He plans to do so among the many thousands he plans to kill in King's Landing, and he actually gives that order after Rhaegar's death both in his refusal to allow Elia and her children to go to Dragonstone, and in the actual order to Rossart to light the fires while they are in King's Landing.

[SFDanny]

12 hours ago, MtnLion said:

That does not explain how Rhaegar can order Jaime . . .  The point is that the conversation between Jaime and Rhaegar as Rhaegar is leaving for the Trident shows us that there is no split between Rhaegar and Aerys.  To say that Aerys doesn't trust Whent and Dayne, who are his Kingsguard is an exaggeration at the least.  Aerys trusted Jaime to abide by his vow and bring his father's head.  Things didn't turn out so well for Aerys, but Jaime would be the least trusted of the Kingsguard under those conditions. 

The conversation between Rhaegar and Jaime shows us no such thing. There is no split between Rhaegar and Aerys but Rhaegar tells Jaime he wants to call a council when he returns? What is the purpose of the council if it is not to make changes as Rhaegar says? Changes that he had tried to bring about before. Such as at Harrenhal? Please, this conversation shows the huge split that exists between father and son, even as they both wish to stop the rebellion. 

[Lord Varys]

@SFDanny

Until such time as we learn that Aerys actually threatened the lives of Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys to keep Rhaegar in line I'm not going to buy that this was the case. But I'm with you and Rhaenys that the threats he made to Lewyn and Doran definitely would have angered and irritated Rhaegar. But then - there is no hint that they were made while Rhaegar nor do we know if/when he was told about this. The chances that Lewyn and Elia spoke much/at all with Rhaegar after his return (unless they had to) are not very good.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I don't see how he can do so against one and not the other.

He can do whatever he wants, he is the king, and he is way beyond the need of having to be 'coherent'. Aerys might actually believe he is doing himself and Rhaegar a favor by blackmailing Lewyn/Doran. After all, we don't yet know the full picture of the split between the Targaryens/Rhaegar and the Martells at this point. Perhaps Doran had no inclination whatsoever to have Dornishmen defend the Targaryens or fight alongside Prince Rhaegar after the Lyanna affair? Until such time as the king threatened his sister and her children.

But this doesn't mean Aerys did or had to use the same methods to keep Rhaegar in line.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The interesting thing here is that the Lord Commander seemingly does not come back to King's Landing with Rhaegar. Why not? Others have suggested it is simply because Rhaegar gave him an order to stay. I don't buy this. The Lord Commander should absolutely follow Rhaegar's order - IF, and kindly note the big "IF," it doesn't contradict his duty to his king. Unless something has changed in the relationship between Hightower and the king. I think that change comes in the form of the threat Aerys has decided to use towards Elia and her children. Is Hightower told to inform Rhaegar, "gracelessly" or not, that Elia and her children's fate are now within Aerys's grasp in King's Landing? I think the reason Hightower doesn't return is that Hightower delivers the king's message and transfers his loyalty to Rhaegar at the same time. There is a difference between standing by while Aerys murders people he considers traitors, and standing by as the Prince's family is threatened.

Something like that could have happened. Hightower must have switched to Rhaegar's side else he would have never stayed at the tower regardless what Rhaegar's authority level was. But it doesn't have to be a threat like that, it could have just been the state of mind the king was in and the whole burning and mistreating of the queen thing. That Darry and Hightower tried to prevent Jaime from doing something stupid (like attacking the king, intervening when he was mistreating Rhaella, deserting, etc.) doesn't mean they did not share his thoughts or did enjoy watching Aerys commit atrocities.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

That would be the first we have heard that Aerys's had done any of those things. I would be very surprised if that is the case. Aerys seizes the opportunity Brandon presents to him to do away with his enemies, but he does so under the presumption that Brandon has committed a crime against the Crown Prince when he and his party call for Rhaegar to "come out and die." It seems very unlikely that at the same time he is disinheriting Rhaegar, calling for his head, and branding him a traitor for an action he - according to you - wants to happen and is for some reason forcing his son to do. I don't see, LV, with all respect, how that makes any sense. And, so far, there isn't a hint any of it took place.

This would be 'an argument from the gap', so to speak. Aerys defending Rhaegar's honor when Brandon threatened him made sense up until the point we learned that Aerys should actually have been pretty happy if somebody resolved the Rhaegar problem for him. An Aerys believing Rhaegar was plotting against him wouldn't have a had a huge problem with Rhaegar dying in a duel or something of that sort.

Besides, we never learned that it was Brandon's threat to Rhaegar that got him killed. We just inferred that from the way the story was told. And I see no reason why one guy threatening Rhaegar should lead to a trial against Rickard and a lot of other guys who weren't even with Brandon when he made his threat.

George introduced the whole idea of Aerys and his cronies interpreting the events at Harrenhal as a conspiracy of Rhaegar and the Starks for a reason. With that in mind it makes little sense to assume that Aerys would believe Brandon's claim that Rhaegar had abducted Lyanna against the wishes (and without the knowledge) of Lord Rickard. He also didn't believe that the Starks were actually angry when Rhaegar crowned Lyanna at Harrenhal.

Thus I think Aerys accused Brandon, Rickard, Brandon's companions, and their friends and family of conspiring with Rhaegar against him. That was what led to the trials and executions and to the command to kill Ned and Robert. Aerys would never have gone so far to protect his ingrate son.

If any of this is true then Rhaegar himself must have been the main suspect of the whole thing. And he was only not burned at Rickard's side because he and Lyanna got away in time.

The reason why I think we have yet to learn this story is that it might be intricately connected to the Lyanna-Rhaegar abduction story and its immediate aftermath. And if that involves a marriage or the announcement of a marriage then it is quite clear while George is still keeping those things in the dark. My guess is that Aerys and the court already had word of the marriage by the time Brandon arrived.

Thinking about that: Perhaps Ethan Glover lived because he gave in to torture and actually confirmed all the accusations Aerys laid at the feet of Rickard and Brandon? That certainly would be a much better explanation than merely 'Aerys forgot to burn him' or something like that.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Aerys is certainly paranoid in that he sees plots against him that are not real. The supposed attempts by Tywin to kill him at Rhaegar's wedding is a likely example of this madness. Certainly the blaming of Tywin for Steffon's death qualifies as a paranoid delusion.He is also a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain and death on others. Combined with his pyromania, this sadistic trait becomes a sexual arousal for him in the burning deaths of others. The man is seriously mentally disturbed, but we shouldn't confuse that with an inability to have rational thoughts.

Well, it depends. Even saner Aerys isn't described as a very intelligent man. He is so full of himself that it takes him quite a while to figure out that a lot of people think his Hand is actually much more competent and smarter than he is. In addition, he was always changeable. His many mistresses attest to that as well as all those grand plans that are forgotten a fortnight later.

And I actually don't think he is a sadist. I think both his fascination with fire and the treatment of Rhaella are symptoms of his very special dragonlord blood sickness. Watching fire and people burn resonated with a part of the dragon blood in him and I don't think he knew what he was doing when he visited Rhaella's bedchamber thereafter. The way Jaime is describing it suggests he might have thought he was a dragon in the flesh at those times, and I don't think that was an erotic game of sorts. It was part of his mental illness.  

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

He is not stupid, nor is he incapable of seeing a real threat as it develops. He knows his court has long been split between supporters of Rhaegar and the lords of the council who wish him to make Viserys the heir.

Does he really see that? I'm wondering. Did Viserys I realize that there were any Blacks and Greens at his court? What Aerys would have seen was that there were traitors out to get him (Rhaegar and the men around him) and loyal men defending his royal person and crown.

But the fact that Aerys never moved against his son until the Lyanna affair suggests to me that he himself never truly believed his son was out to get him. Else he would have had him executed.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

His decision to unite those forces, while Rhaegar can't be found, by making Connington his Hand speaks to his understanding of the need to bring all Royalist forces together to defeat the rebellion. Once he exiles Connington, that need doesn't change. He instead does so by finding Rhaegar and getting him, by whatever means, to comeback and take up the command of the loyalist army. Which speaks to some form of rational thought, the fear of knives and his filthy appearance notwithstanding.

We have to wait and see how and why Connington became Hand. He might tell us himself. However, there is little reason to assume that 'the Rhaegar faction' at court was still in existence at this point. Dorne clearly no longer would have been friends with Rhaegar, and a lot of other men might have been appalled by the Lyanna thing, too, regardless whether they knew of a second marriage or not. Abducting the daughter of a high lord isn't something you do.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I have to differ about what Rhaegar's presence brought to King's Landing. Connington's army is shattered at Stony Sept, and the exiling of the Hand could have destroyed any loyalty by Rhaegar's forces in the rebellion, but when Rhaegar shows up that threat ends. A new army, with greater numbers than the rebel forces is created under Rhaegar's leadership. Whether that is with the Crown Prince as a figurehead, or he is an actually architect of that plan, we don't know, but it would not have been possible without his presence.

Sorry, but that is just an assertion. You don't know what would have been possible without Rhaegar nor do you know that Aerys brought him back because if the reasons you give.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What I can't see, is how Aerys threats toward Elia can be done with an eye for some sort of emotional reconnection with Rhaegar. If I'm right that this threat is not only used against Dorne, but against Rhaegar himself, then it makes no sense for Aerys to think such a reconnection is possible. Then again, the father/son dynamics between the two are to say the least ... complex?

Yeah, if we go with Rhaegar being threatened into service by his father then the two would have been mortal enemies at this point. And there is no indication for that. Jaime's memories of his last conversation with Rhaegar don't give a hint that the man was hating or even fearing his father. If Aerys had threatened the life of Elia and the children don't you think Rhaegar would have begged Jaime to protect them with his life?

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Don't you think the formulation of the pyromancer plot is the ultimate example of Aerys's need for fear and payback from his enemies? Don't you think his decision to refuse Elia and her children transport to Dragonstone, and his decision to start the fires while they were in the city show just what he thought of Rhaegar's family?

I think Aerys thought that Elia's traitorous line (remember, Lewyn betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident in Aerys' mind) did not deserve to live if Robert took the city. However, Aerys only gave the command to burn the city down during the Sack. That was a last resort, not something he wanted to do with all his heart. Keeping Elia and the children close was most likely an attempt of his to protect himself against Dornish retribution or perhaps he hoped to force Doran to come up with more men to defend his capital.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What we have evidence for is that there were attempts to get Aerys to disinherit Rhaegar before Lyanna, and that he finally disinherits Aegon after the Trident, seemingly as a response to what he sees as Dornish betrayal at the Trident. There is no evidence that Rhaegar was ever disinherited.

Yeah, but we don't yet know why Rhaegar ran away and hid. There has to be a reason for this, a reason we don't yet know. And this reason could very well include a change in his status as a royal prince.

In fact, if Rhaegar was attainted as a traitor to the Crown this could also explain why the garrison of Dragonstone did not defend Elia and the children when Aerys' men came to fetch her (assuming they did that). There is small chance that Rhaegar's people would have stood up to Aerys after learning what Rhaegar did and how Aerys had punished him.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The textual evidence is in his threat to Prince Lewyn.

That just isn't the same.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I think you overestimate Rhaegar's ability to fight with his father with a rebel army poised for action against King's Landing. As I've said, I think Rhaegar has good reason to do as he did. Not only to save his family from his father's threats, but to save the Targaryen monarchy from a very real threat to its own existence. Of course, he gives Aerys good counsel. He doesn't want to lose at the Trident.

Could be. But then, wouldn't have Aerys still had Elia and the children in his power after Rhaegar's victory. Whatever lofty plans Rhaegar had for his council after the Trident wouldn't have saved his wife and children from Aerys' wrath. And if we take prophecy into account the life of the promised prince (i.e. Aegon) would have been much more important than ending the threat of the rebels. In that sense I really don't see a good reason why Rhaegar would prolong the threat to Aegon's life by taking on Robert first. His father was the main threat to the life of the boy if he made a real threat, not Robert or the other rebels.

[Ygrain]

13 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

I usually don't come here 'cause, hey, RLJ is more solid than evolution. I noticed this when I was rereading The Prophet, Feast...

And it made me recall this...

Eddard X, Game 39

And this...

Eddard XV, Game 58

I suppose this has been discussed ad nauseum, but what the heck... Does anybody seriously believe that Lyanna had not very recently given birth to the special snowflake when Ned arrived at the Tower of Joy? 

This has been duly noted, but, hey, we can't be sure that "bed of blood" in Lyanna's case means the same. Or who the father was. Or whatever. Because, openminded. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

This has been duly noted, but, hey, we can't be sure that "bed of blood" in Lyanna's case means the same. Or who the father was. Or whatever. Because, openminded. 

Oh, come on. Papa was Rhaegar, and Lyanna was waking his dragon. Then dude went off and left her with his two favorite KGs and the White Bull. When the Ned and the little frog eater found her she had just recently given birth to Jon, but she died shortly thereafter in her bed of blood. I mean those are the basics of RLJ, right? We can quibble about the rest, sure, but those basics are pretty much gospel, no? 

In other words, theories that suggest Jon's parents are anyone other than Rhaegar and Lyanna are crackpot, or at least a bit outside the reservation, no? 

And is there a good argument t to suggest that Lyanna did not die shortly after giving birth to Jon? Or do such arguments depend on speculation? 

[Tucu]

8 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

And is there a good argument t to suggest that Lyanna did not die shortly after giving birth to Jon? Or do such arguments depend on speculation? 

Depends on your definition of shortly. Days, weeks and months are valid options depending on the cause of death.

[Lost Melnibonean]

2 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Depends on your definition of shortly. Days, weeks and months are valid options depending on the cause of death.

Days, sure, maybe even weeks. But the further you stretch it, the further you stretch credibility, I think. 

[Tucu]

3 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Days, sure, maybe even weeks. But the further you stretch it, the further you stretch credibility, I think. 

Given the example of Elia being bedridden for 6 months after the birth of Rhaegar's daughter, I would not discount months as a possibility.

Elia was never worthy of him. She was frail and sickly from the first, and childbirth only left her weaker. After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon's birth had almost been the death of her.

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

5 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Given the example of Elia being bedridden for 6 months after the birth of Rhaegar's daughter, I would not discount months as a possibility.

Elia was never worthy of him. She was frail and sickly from the first, and childbirth only left her weaker. After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon's birth had almost been the death of her.

 

But that scenario is unnecessary for the plot, not otherwise suggested in the text (or is it?), and it would have required The Ned leaving his precious sister behind or coolin his heels in the Red Mountains of Dorne for months. So, why even argue it? Just because it is possible, doesn't mean it's a reasonable theory. 

[Lord Varys]

@Lost Melnibonean

Nice find. But George does not have to tell us in multiple unconnected quotes that a bed of blood is connected to the birth of a child. We figured that out all by ourselves just with the mentioning of the thing in connection to Lyanna.

It certainly isn't impossible to have Lyanna die of a miscarriage or stillbirth but it is exceedingly unlikely that this was not supposed to be a pretty big hint that she was pregnant.

However, there is uncertainty about what the bed of blood means. In a more literal sense it could mean she gave birth right around the time of Ned's arrival with the cry of hers Ned remembers from her dream marking the beginning of the birth caused by the stress of the men fighting.

Then something would have gone really wrong during the birth and Lyanna might have died very quickly from complications after the birth. The other take is the puerperal fever thing which allows some days or even weeks to pass between birth and death.

Considering that I think that Tyrion, Dany, and Jon are not only connected by their Targaryen heritage but also by the fact that their mothers died in childbirth I'm leaning more to Lyanna dying a quick death shortly after the birth. Joanna seems to have not survived Tyrion for long, either, and Rhaella also perished either during or shortly after Dany's birth.

It is not very likely that Lyanna died as slowly as Laena Velaryon (who survived the birth of her stillborn Prince Baelon for three days) or even Jeyne Marbrand Lannister (who seems to have died weeks or even months after the birth of Gerion).

[Tucu]

13 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

But that scenario is unnecessary for the plot, not otherwise suggested in the text (or is it?), and it would have required The Ned leaving his precious sister behind or coolin his heels in the Red Mountains of Dorne for months. So, why even argue it? Just because it is possible, doesn't mean it's a reasonable theory. 

GRRM has given himself a very long time between Harrenhal (281), the "abduction" (282) and the encounter with the KG (283). He has also provided examples of mothers dying days, weeks and months after childbirth.

So I see no reason to narrow it down until we get more information.

[MtnLion]

@Tucu We are given that Daenerys was born nine months after her mother fled King's Landing.  We are given that Jon is eight to nine months older than Daenerys.  We are given that it was less than a week (marks still visible on Rhaella) after Rhaegar and Jonothor Darry went to the Trident that Rhaella fled King's landing.  I would say that Jon's birth is firmly placed near the fall of King's Landing.  We are also given that puerperal fever has caused death in three days after birth.  Even with modern medicine the mean after onset of puerperal fever fatality is 7-10 days, with onset up to five days post birth. 

[Tucu]

14 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

@Tucu We are given that Daenerys was born nine months after her mother fled King's Landing.  We are given that Jon is eight to nine months older than Daenerys.  We are given that it was less than a week (marks still visible on Rhaella) after Rhaegar and Jonothor Darry went to the Trident that Rhaella fled King's landing.  I would say that Jon's birth is firmly placed near the fall of King's Landing.  We are also given that puerperal fever has caused death in three days after birth.  Even with modern medicine the mean after onset of puerperal fever fatality is 7-10 days, with onset up to five days post birth. 

The SSM is more ambiguos than that: "All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts."

And we don't know how long before the Sack Rhaella left KL or how long after the Sack Ned found the KG. So I see no point in trying to add more precision than the broad strokes given by GRRM.

[MtnLion]

11 minutes ago, Tucu said:

The SSM is more ambiguos than that: "All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts."

And we don't know how long before the Sack Rhaella left KL or how long after the Sack Ned found the KG. So I see no point in trying to add more precision than the broad strokes given by GRRM.

Eight or nine months older than Daenerys tells us a great deal. 

The night that Aerys roasted the Mace and Dagger Hand was when Aerys paid Rhaella a visit.  While he was doing so, Jaime and Jonothor Darry were at the door.  The following Hand was the Pyromancer, and he had been Hand for a fortnight when Jaime kills him.  Also, the marks from the night that Aerys paid a visit to Rhaella were still visible when she leaves King's Landing (after news of the Trident had reached them).  Bruises and scratches fade, not being readily apparent in one week, and becoming invisible in two weeks. 

If it took Ned more than 2 and a half weeks to get from King's Landing to Storm's End, then on to the tower, then we should start looking for some other father for Daenerys.  It is no secret that Rhaella and Aerys were not even amiable.  Willem Darry is a good candidate . . .

[Lost Melnibonean]

35 minutes ago, Tucu said:

GRRM has given himself a very long time between Harrenhal (281), the "abduction" (282) and the encounter with the KG (283). He has also provided examples of mothers dying days, weeks and months after childbirth.

So I see no reason to narrow it down until we get more information.

Meh, it really doesn't matter, anyway, does it? That's part of my point. What's the point of having her live for more than a few days. And don't just make up stuff for fun. Point to some hint in the text that she lived for a long time and give reason that makes some difference to the plot.