Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

Guest Other-in-law

For what it's worth, I don't consider the 'guarding the heir at ToJ' theory to be proven or 100% certain or anything either...just a very solid expanation of some otherwise baffling elements. We obviously don't know everything about what happened there, so we could end up getting new information that changes our understanding of it quite a bit.

Even if they became convinced that Lyanna's child was the PwwP (which they may have) I don't think that would be sufficient to explain their presence at the ToJ instead of with Viserys. As commendable as protecting the PwwP would be, it's not the job they swore to do with an oath...an oath that they are practically bragging about keeping in Ned's dream.

My idea of Rhaegar wanting to keep Hightower out of the way so he could move against Aerys is far more speculative yet, and I'm not insisting that it is so, though I see it as a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it need more support then the conjecture that senior part of the kingsguard stayed at the TOJ at Rhaegar’s order? They both explain why the Kingsguard is at the TOJ.

Simply because we have the evidence that the Kingsguard was at the Tower of Joy. We may not know for certain they stayed there from Rhaegar's trip north to their deaths, but we know they are there at the end. To put them someplace else we need to have something that tells us or at least hints that it is so. The "far away" comment is the only thing that even remotely does so, and this is easily explained as the Tower itself is "far away." I'm not trying to belittle the theory, Enguerrand, I LIKE it, but it has not a lot to support it other than it could have happened and it might have happened. You said it yourself, "absence of evidence is not evidence."

Other-in-law, another great post. I agree, but can you tell me how you keep your post so brief and to the point? Mine wander all over the place. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
I agree, but can you tell me how you keep your post so brief and to the point? Mine wander all over the place. ;)

It's probably because you're more in the thick of this debate and I'm more on the sidelines (at the moment...it may have been different 8 pages back). When people are specifically contesting my own words I tend to make long posts, too. ;)

ETA: Ha, I actually did have a pretty long post back on page 33, though I didn't realise how recent that was. This thread is active as well as gigantic. I wonder how long before it gets to the automatic size-triggered closing again? Is it 50 pages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply because we have the evidence that the Kingsguard was at the Tower of Joy. We may not know for certain they stayed there from Rhaegar's trip north to their deaths, but we know they are there at the end.

Yes all that is certain is that they are at the TOJ when Ned meets them. The “guard†theory has no more support then my “quest†theory. Both are speculation based on possible values and behaviour of the kingsguard.

When I started discussing the kingsguard at TOJ 5-6 years ago I went for the guard theory. But gradually I saw more problem with it because it doesn’t explain why the kingsguard are given such a mundane task in such a decisive time, or why they would accept it for that matter. My impression is that Rhaegar wasn’t a fool and the kingsguard weren’t mindless robots both which the guard theory strongly implies.

You said it yourself, "absence of evidence is not evidence."

Yes, and there is no evidence that they were ordered by Rhaegar to guard the TOJ, just speculation.

I'm not trying to belittle the theory, Enguerrand

I never thought you were, but because your thoughts seem to echo mine I’m interested in the reasons why you don’t go all the way. :)

The basic problem is that Rhaegar and Lyanna’s actions are still unfathomable to me. Whether she went willingly or not they had to know that it would mean war if they didn’t bestir themselves.

Neither Rhaegar or Lyanna seems like people lost to honour and duty, which to me suggests that some tragic form of miscommunication happened along the way. Yet even if Rhaegar had sent missives that he weren’t about to use her like a whore, simply running away with her without leave is a severe insult to both her father and fiancée. It’s obviously going to be messy at best. Yet instead of taking countermeasures, he leaves his crazy father to face the music and disappear from the world to some love nest. It just doesn’t compute. :huh: Even if breeding dragon-head are vital to the future of the world does he need to do that 24 hours a day? Or did love really make them so blind that they ignored the death of tens of thousands of people, among them their closet kin? Seriously, it makes Aerys actions look rational.

If the latter is true and Rhaegar is a monstrum of selfishness I can see him ordering the equivalent of generals to babysit his mistress/junior wife. I just don’t think it match the description of him.

The "far away" comment is the only thing that even remotely does so, and this is easily explained as the Tower itself is "far away."

Quite possible I make to much of it, but it find it a very peculiar way to express that you have stayed in same place you are presently, the entire time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is that you see the kingsguard vow and ambigiguty as a legal contract, That what it could be interpreted as has any meaning for how it’s perceived. Several people have suggested that the kingsguard asked to be sent to TOJ because they couldn’t bear to fight for Aerys anymore. That Rhaegar obliged them getting them off the hook for guarding the king. This might very well work, but it’s also irrelevant for a man of honour. For a man of honour it’s the spirit of the vow that matters, he would never try to look for loopholes in the contract like a corporate lawyer.

I see what you're saying. The honour isn't in fulfilling your oaths, it is in loyalty to your leige. But if your leige is the son of a madman, and is already showing signs of madness, is loyalty to him still honourable? Recall that nobody wanted to be ruled by Daeron's or Aerion's child, and they ended up overlooking them both. The KG didn't insist on guarding Daeron's child, who was the true heir. If there is no honour in serving your leige because he is a good leige, the honour is only in fulfilling your oath. And if your oath is ambiguous, then it is up to you to decide what it the most honourable thing to do.

It’s abundantly clear that continued support for your liege even against overwhelming odds is what is expected to of a true knight. As Jaime said “That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree.".

You didn’t address my post why is Jaime so reviled? Why doesn’t he get your “get out of jail free cardâ€

Because nobody understands just how mad Aerys was. He was going to burn them all with wildfyre. Brienne is shocked when Jaime tells her what happened the day he slew Aerys, asks why nobody knows this, and changes her mind about him.

Why does Barristan’s decision to support Robert fill him with guilt and shame? Why does Stannis agonize over chosing his brother over his king, blood over honour, despite him being the beneficiary of this ambiguity? because to a man that believes in honour technicalities doesn’t matter.

Barristan said himself that he wouldn't have supported Dany if she showed signs of madness. I find him saying that, and then saying he is ashamed that he served Robert, to be inconsistent, so I don't know what to make of Barristan.

I used the common sense argument before. It went like this: who feels compelled by honour to serve the lord that murdered his liege?

True. But who feels compelled by honour to serve a mad leige who murders good men in the cruelest of ways, and rapes his wife? The KG couldn't justify serving Aerys with the fact that it is honourable to serve a good leige. They could only justify it by the honour in keeping their vow. They could have justified serving either Viserys or Robert in the same way. The only honour left to them was in keeping their vow. Once again this brings us back to the difficulty in determining what is the honourable thing to do when your vow becomes ambiguous.

No, but I have never seen another explanation that even remotely make sense. They claim to be Targ loyalists, to be true knights of the kingsguard, Their supposed king is unprotected and in mortal danger, what else could they be doing and be true to their vows? Carrying out an obsolete pointless order from the former crown prince just doesn’t cut it.

I guess I don't consider it obsolete and pointless. As someone pointed out in another thread, Aerys gave Rhaegar the KG to command. It wouldn't make much sense for Aerys to keep command over the KG, but send them with Rhaegar. I really think when we ask GRRM, he will simply say the KG were following Rhaegar's orders - that was why they were at the TOJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now to your points about the ambiguities of the Kingsguard. My view is based on what we are told of the actions of these men, and what we are told of their character in the rest of the series. I'm not going to argue that it is impossible for the trio at the Tower of Joy to ever have had any doubts, but what I will argue is that we have no reason, in the text or from Martin's statements, to have expected them to have acted in anyway different than they did. These three are presented as Targaryen loyalists to the core. The are also presented as the epitome of what it means to be a member of the Kingsguard. Given that, their response to Ned's questions and their determination to fight to the death make sense. If they were looking for a way to serve Robert in the new "ambiguous" situation, they didn't show it anyway, or in any context we see them in. As we both agree, Jaime and Ser Barristan are different cases.

I never said they were looking for a way to serve Robert. I said they were wondering what was the right thing to do according to their vows in this new situation. And that because their vows were not clear, they had to decide what to do. They could have decided to serve Viserys but they obviously chose not to do. They could have chosen to to serve Robert but they obviously chose not to do. They could have chosen to serve Jon which we don't know whether or not they did. They could have chosen to follow Rhaegar's orders, which we don't know whether or not they did. They could have decided the most important and honourable thing they could do was guard the child in the TOJ, which we don't know whether or not they did.

Their vows did not clearly state they must guard the Targ heir. They therefore were not bound by their vows to guard the Targ heir. Whatever reason they decided to stay at the TOJ, it was not because their vows specifically told them to. I think because their vows didn't cover the situation, they had to decide what was the most honourable thing to do. Was it to flee with Viserys? No. Was it to serve the usurper? No. Was it to stand guard over Jon Targaryen? Maybe. Was it to guard Rhaegar's bastard son who (1) they were ordered to guard and (2) could be the PWWP? Maybe.

I am not convinced that guarding Jon Targaryen is more likely than guarding Jon Snow: potential PWWP.

The former would mean that Rhaegar and Lyanna must have wed at some stage, and that GRRM would make Jon the true Targ heir. I find both of these ideas hard to swallow. As I've said, most readers will be shocked enough to find out L+R=J. Then it would be just like GRRM to say "too bad, he's still a bastard, ha ha!". I think it would be too much for the reader to find out L+R=J AND Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar because she loved him AND that the reason Rhaegar named Lyanna queen of love and beauty was because she was the KotLT AND Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. Too much for the reader to take on board, sickeningly romantic, and inconsistent with GRRM's writing.

The latter I find more convincing because we know that (1) Rhaegar was obsessed with the prophesy, (2) Hightower, Dayne and Whent would have been of better use on The Trident or with the majority of the royal family in KL than at the TOJ even if Lyanna was Rhaegar's wife and her child would be trueborn, so there must have been a reason for them to be at the TOJ other than guarding the prince's second wife, and (3) HT, Dayne and Whent were "far away" doing something, which I agree with Enquerrand doesn't mean "right here". It would also be more consistent with GRRM's writing, and wouldn't involve a R & L marriage on top of the plethora of other R & L information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not convinced of almost anything even if R+L=J theory is true. GRRM is too unpredictable to be convinced. Yet R+L marriage explains present and behavior of Kingsgurd at TOJ the best. Other possible explanations are too tenuous and imply something we don’t know.

About Rhaegar supposed coup. The best indication that his plans were legal is that he speaks of them openly. Jaime never was Rhaegar’s close confident yet Rhaegar reveals to him that he has plans for changes for no better reason then to reassure him. This could only mean that other knowing about Rhaegar’s plans wasn’t a danger for them and this means that Rhaegar planned no coup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said, most readers will be shocked enough to find out L+R=J. Then it would be just like GRRM to say "too bad, he's still a bastard, ha ha!". I think it would be too much for the reader to find out L+R=J AND Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar because she loved him AND that the reason Rhaegar named Lyanna queen of love and beauty was because she was the KotLT AND Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. Too much for the reader to take on board, sickeningly romantic, and inconsistent with GRRM's writing.

I'll respond to the rest later, Sarella. It's late here and I'm exhausted, but I find this idea that a Rhaegar and Lyanna romance is "sickeningly romantic, and inconsistent with GRRM's writing" to be amazing and I have to respond. You're not the first to express this idea, but when I read it I can't help but wonder if I'm reading the same books as others. Martin's series is shot through with romance. Forget Rhaegar and Lyanna for a moment and consider Jon and Ygritte, Daenerys and Khal Drogo, Robb and Jeyne, Ned and Catelyn, Ned and Ashara, Tyrion and Tysha, Tyrion and Shae, Jaime and Cersei, Renly and Loras, Sam and Gilly, the story of Bael the Bard, etc. etc. On and on, Martin brings romance into his story, so why is the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna being in love somehow crossing the line into sappy romance novels? I just don't understand the objection and I don't understand how Rhaegar and Lyanna loving each other is not in keeping with what we see throughout the series. It also shares with almost every other romance the simple fact it is doomed. If anything Martin repeats the theme of romance leading to the death and destruction of those involved - and often others as well - and he repeats it over and over again. There is nothing "inconsistent" about it - in fact it is one of the most consistent themes in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying. The honour isn't in fulfilling your oaths, it is in loyalty to your leige.

Not exactly, for someone that values honour, it’s personal thing. How others perceive it is irrelevant as long as your own conscience is clean. Fidelity is one expression of honour. For example some Baratheon retainers rather became executed then swore fealty to Joffery. That there former comrades at arms did so in droves didn’t matter. It was about their own integrity.

Fidelity was the most important virtue in the RL feudal system because it was the cornerstone of it. And it’s seems to mirror Westeros pretty closely.

But if your leige is the son of a madman, and is already showing signs of madness, is loyalty to him still honourable?

The kingsguard is supposed not to judge, but obey. Viserys is the heir to the iron throne by the laws of Westeros. If they could serve Aerys with honour why not Viserys?

Recall that nobody wanted to be ruled by Daeron's or Aerion's child, and they ended up overlooking them both. The KG didn't insist on guarding Daeron's child, who was the true heir.

Sure, but Maekar’s successor wasn’t a traitor in arms, No Great Council was convened to step over Viserys. And after him there would be Daenerys claim to consider. Quite likely they would perceive Robert as attainted for his part in the king’s death.

Because nobody understands just how mad Aerys was.

I think Hightower and his buddies that hovered around him day and night had a pretty good idea.

He was going to burn them all with wildfyre. Brienne is shocked when Jaime tells her what happened the day he slew Aerys, asks why nobody knows this, and changes her mind about him.

She consider it a mitigating circumstance and shocking news as Jaime describes it, I don’t recall her absolving him for the kingslaying.(Which by all accounts wasn’t necessary to stop the wildfire plot.)

Barristan said himself that he wouldn't have supported Dany if she showed signs of madness.

My take, is that it’s a compromise with his previous position, he has been thrown out of the kingsguard and believe he has the right to chose his own destiny, once more. It wasn’t multiple choice option either. If Daenerys was mad, he would never touch a sword again.

True. But who feels compelled by honour to serve a mad leige who murders good men in the cruelest of ways, and rapes his wife? The KG couldn't justify serving Aerys with the fact that it is honourable to serve a good leige. They could only justify it by the honour in keeping their vow.

Huh? Jaime is the only brother of the kingsguard that has expressed concerns over it, (and he is pretty special) All the others express their unhesitating fidelity at every turn, Hightower even does it after Aerys death.

(Btw raping your wife is 20th century notion, the concept didn’t exist before then and in Westeros it goes under marital rights.)

I guess I don't consider it obsolete and pointless. As someone pointed out in another thread, Aerys gave Rhaegar the KG to command.

So why is staying at the TOJ, after the king’s death, not obsolete and pointless? What do they hope to achieve?

I said they were wondering what was the right thing to do according to their vows in this new situation.

I know of nothing in the books that supports this. And plenty that implies unflinching certainty.

I am not convinced that guarding Jon Targaryen is more likely than guarding Jon Snow: potential PWWP.

So why do they take such a fierce pride in their kingsguard membership card, if they had decided to abandon common law, and tradition, by placing a bastard above a true prince of the blood?

They say that Ser William Darry a good man, and true for saving the royal family, yet he isn’t of the kingsguard. (Those that supposedly are responsible for it.) And that the kingsguard doesn’t run. The implication is that they are performing a kingsguard duty more important, and just as true as that nice chump. How else can it be interpreted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the story of Bael the Bard

Just chiming in to say that this one is even more to the point then the rest. The story seems purposefully evocative of the Rhaegar/Lynna story, with the harp playing royalty stealing the lone daughter of Lord Stark, complete with blue roses. Certainly a viable candidate for foreshadowing of Rhaegar and Lyanna having a loving affair that produces a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...