Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

Snake--Ned thought that Rhaegar wasn't the kind of man to go to brothels (he was musing on Robert's brothel-browsing--GoT, 380-81--just a page after he remembers Lyanna saying Robert would never be faithful to her). Ned would see that as a good thing about Rhaegar.

Lyanna was holding withered rose petals when she died (GoT 43-4), . The crown of love and beauty Rhaegar gave her at Harrenhal was made of blue roses ("the moment when all smiles died." Ned POV, p. 631 US. paperback of GoT), but it doesn't say that the roses she was holding were blue. If this isn't that Crown, they're flowers that someone gave her some time ago since they're withered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While nothing is certain in war IMO what little evidence we have suggests that Rhaegar thought he was going to carry the day.

There is difference between believing you can win and being so certain on victory that you leave the most illustrious knights in the kingdom babysitting your girlfriend.

And the reason I doubt that Rhaegar thought he would lose is that he felt that baby Aegon was tPtWP.

Once Rhaegar thought HE was TPWWP.

So if he thought he was going to lose he must have realized that his children's lives were in danger. The fact that he did nothing to remove them from harms way indicates, to me at least, that he thought he was going to win.

Ahum… he had his family in King’s Landing, in the Red Keep, in the absolute centre of the loyalist heartland, with the king, where exactly would he have thought they would have been safer?

And Robert didn't defer to anyone. There were times when he could be reasoned with but if he wanted to do something he did it.

Much in the book indicates otherwise. Jon Arryn is described as the father Robert never had. He was the one who started the rebellion by calling his banner. He secured the Tully’s through marriage. He was the one who made Dorne acknowledge Robert as King. He was the one who secured the Lannisters through another marriage, which Robert was against. He was the one who told Robert not to assassinate Viserys.

Robert seems to have left most of the decision making to other people. As we can see both in matter of economics and his brand of justice. He was most useful as a figurehead I see nothing that indicate that the alliance would have fallen apart without his "leadership".

Jorah for instance doesn’t seem to believe that Robert ideas would be the guiding principle of a war.

“Your khal would tell you that only a coward hides behind stone walls instead of facing his enemy with a blade in hand. The Usurper would agree. He is a strong man, brave . . . and rash enough to meet a Dothraki horde in the open field. But the men around him, well, their pipers play a different tune. His brother Stannis, Lord Tywin Lannister, Eddard Stark . . . †He spat.

To me this indicate that Robert deferred strategical decisions to other people, like Eddard and Jon, while he executed them.

So once a leader is destroyed then the rest falter. That's what happened when Rhaegar fell on the Trident. Once he went down his army scattered. The same with Robb's demise. Cut off the head and the body dies.

When your side is already losing the fall of your leader can have an decisive impact. The difference in your scenario is that that rebels had already won the war and had total control over Westeros. It’s like when Abraham Lincoln was shot, it was no reason for whatsoever for the North to pack their bags and leave.

And it wasn't an elaborate ambush. They were waiting to see who came as they knew someone would. I don't think it's all that far fetched to assume that they were expecting Ned and perhaps Robert as well.

I find it incredible farfatched. The chance that they encountered a search party without any of them should be great. Counting on that they should have so few men that the three of them could take them out (six are incredible few for a great lord let alone two). If their plan was to challenge Robert to single combat they would have stood a better chance by riding into Robert’s camp with as many people as possible witnessing the challenge. But since accepting such a challenge would just be idiocy I doubt it would succeed anyway. And all awhile this happens the last remnant of the Targaryen dynasty could be extinguished at any time.

Unless the White Bull wants to go for broke and get rid of the ENTIRE royal family this just isn't much of a plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shewoman,

Ned probably thought that Lord Tywin never went to brothels as well. That means nothing, IMHO, because I know how he thinks about Lord Tywin.

As for the roses. Well, she was kidnapped a long time. Over a year. Perhaps she asked for flowers and the servants brought them to her. I don't know. But it could have been any roses.

Enguerrand,

Well, Rhaegar had a bigger army and perhaps his belief in his role as the father of the three heads made him over confident.

And where does it say that Rhaegar thought he was tPwwP? I've never considered that one at all.

As for his family. Well, if he were going to die almost anywhere NOT in Westeros would be safer than the Red Keep. At least it's obvious to me. Hell, even Aerys realized that when he sent his wife away and he was a lunatic.

Robert did, for the most part, let others rule the realm but when he wanted something he got it. How else did he manage to beggar the realm? Jon Arryn had no control there. And I realize that Ned and Jon were better strategists than Robert but Robert was the leader. He was the one who rallied the troops. He was the one with a somewhat decent claim to the throne. I really do think that without him the rebellion would have failed.

And the rebels did not have the war won until Rhaegar fell. The battle was going back and forth all day until Robert drove his hammer through Rhaegar's black heart and it was that battle that decided the war.

I kind of realize that you think my idea is farfetched. I, however, do not. :)

And I didn't say their plan was to get Robert in single combat. I don't think they had a plan. They knew what had happened and were somewhat at a loss for what to do. So they wait knowing someone would come. Obviously Ned's dream isn't literally what happened so the gods alone know what was actually said. I just think they wanted to make a final stand against the rebels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where does it say that Rhaegar thought he was tPwwP? I've never considered that one at all.

Aemon AFFC:

“No one ever looked for a girl,†he said. “It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King’s Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet.

So you see the notion that prophecy could be interpreted wrong wouldn’t have been alien to Rhaegar.

As for his family. Well, if he were going to die almost anywhere NOT in Westeros would be safer than the Red Keep. At least it's obvious to me. Hell, even Aerys realized that when he sent his wife away and he was a lunatic.

Rhaella was pregnant. Weren’t you on the track that Rhaegar was sublimely confident? Even if he lost there should have been ample time to evacuate the family to Dragonstone. There is also the morale factor, sending away the royal family from the capital at this juncture smacks of defeatism.

Anyway, it was Aerys wish that Elia should stay in King’s Landing as a safeguard for Dorne’s allegiance, Rhaegar had no say in it.

Robert did, for the most part, let others rule the realm but when he wanted something he got it. How else did he manage to beggar the realm?

Yes Robert had no economic sense and became difficult to restrain as Jon Arryn faded into his dotage, this makes him crucial to the rebel alliance exactly how?

And I realize that Ned and Jon were better strategists than Robert but Robert was the leader. He was the one who rallied the troops. He was the one with a somewhat decent claim to the throne. I really do think that without him the rebellion would have failed.

Robert was charismatic, well-liked, a gifted fighter and apparently an excellent field commander, had his claim, was unmarried and young enough to reign for a long time and he looked like a king. These are the reason he became the rebel pretender. They look mostly cosmetic to me.

And the rebels did not have the war won until Rhaegar fell. The battle was going back and forth all day until Robert drove his hammer through Rhaegar's black heart and it was that battle that decided the war.

Actually the war wasn’t over until until King’s Landing fell and the Tyrells changed sides at Storm’s end.

But all this has happened when your kingsguard are planning their bold counterattack. There are no loyalist forces in the field, Dragonstone’s fall is imminent and only Dorne have not yet acknowledged the regime change.

I don't think they had a plan. They knew what had happened and were somewhat at a loss for what to do.

Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of the Kingsguard, but I would have thought it pretty self-evident how they should respond to the fact that the king is in mortal danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“No one ever looked for a girl,†he said. “It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King’s Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet.

So you see the notion that prophecy could be interpreted wrong wouldn’t have been alien to Rhaegar.

This doesn't prove that Rhaegar thought he was going to lose and his comments to the Kingslayer indicate that he felt otherwise.

Rhaella was pregnant. Weren’t you on the track that Rhaegar was sublimely confident? Even if he lost there should have been ample time to evacuate the family to Dragonstone. There is also the morale factor, sending away the royal family from the capital at this juncture smacks of defeatism.

Anyway, it was Aerys wish that Elia should stay in King’s Landing as a safeguard for Dorne’s allegiance, Rhaegar had no say in it.

Rhaegar was confident as noted above. That's why he kept his family at the Red Keep.

Yes Robert had no economic sense and became difficult to restrain as Jon Arryn faded into his dotage, this makes him crucial to the rebel alliance exactly how?

Robert's description of Jon was not of a man in his dotage. He was still strong and healthy before he took "sick". What Robert's actions show is that he could not be "controlled" by Jon Arryn or anyone else for that matter.

Robert was charismatic, well-liked, a gifted fighter and apparently an excellent field commander, had his claim, was unmarried and young enough to reign for a long time and he looked like a king. These are the reason he became the rebel pretender. They look mostly cosmetic to me.

Cosmetic or no it was why people rallied to him much the same way people rallied to Renly. They had charm and charisma. Plus Robert was valiant, merciful and strong. As Ser Barriston says, he was a good knight. For a lot of people his traits were obviously enough. I somehow doubt Eddard or Jon could have rallied people to the cause as Robert did. Sure they had loyalty among their own but they didn't have what it took to bring others into the fold. Jon was too old and Ned too rigid.

Actually the war wasn’t over until until King’s Landing fell and the Tyrells changed sides at Storm’s end.

But all this has happened when your kingsguard are planning their bold counterattack. There are no loyalist forces in the field, Dragonstone’s fall is imminent and only Dorne have not yet acknowledged the regime change.

The war was won on the Trident. The rest of the "battles" were nothing more than a formality. And I don't recall saying anything of a counterattack. Just that they were waiting. Undoubtably they would have liked to have been at Kingslanding but they were too far south and once word reached them of what happened Robert was already crowned.

Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of the Kingsguard, but I would have thought it pretty self-evident how they should respond to the fact that the king is in mortal danger.

I would say Aerys was burning in the seven hells when they heard what happened on the Trident. They probably did curse the fact that Rhaegar ordered them to stay but it was something they had to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't prove that Rhaegar thought he was going to lose and his comments to the Kingslayer indicate that he felt otherwise.

Huh? When did I say otherwise? It was only a rebuttal of your notion that Rhaegar was so certain of victory that he left the heavy artillery at home because the outcome was fortold.

Rhaegar was confident as noted above. That's why he kept his family at the Red Keep.

That isn’t what Jaime says. Source please.

I somehow doubt Eddard or Jon could have rallied people to the cause as Robert did. Sure they had loyalty among their own but they didn't have what it took to bring others into the fold. Jon was too old and Ned too rigid.

Well your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.

The war was won on the Trident. The rest of the "battles" were nothing more than a formality.

If you arguing that everything were settled at the Trident why would your Kingsguard make a futile surprise attack on the rebel leaders at the TOJ? Poor judgement?

And I don't recall saying anything of a counterattack. Just that they were waiting.

Call it what you like. Trying to change the verdict of the war in one stroke, after the war is over. Counterattack seems to be as good word as any.

I would say Aerys was burning in the seven hells when they heard what happened on the Trident. They probably did curse the fact that Rhaegar ordered them to stay but it was something they had to deal with.

So your position is that the dead crown prince order to keep his love slave captured take precedence over safety of the living breathing king?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enguarard, generally agree with your analysis except this point.

Robert was charismatic, well-liked, a gifted fighter and apparently an excellent field commander, had his claim, was unmarried and young enough to reign for a long time and he looked like a king. These are the reason he became the rebel pretender. They look mostly cosmetic to me.

I think these are exactly the traits that most people of such an era look for in a King. And just the type of person that can inspire the masses, raise an army, and lead it into battle. Call it cosmetic if you like, but these traits are probably equally as important as being capable and competent, if not more so. (you can always put capable people around you). For alot of people, being strong and likeable is enough. Hell, you rememer the 2000 elections, first debate. Everyone thought Gore came off much smarter and capable of answering the questions beyond the talking points, but the common consensus was that Bush won because he was more likeable and people could relate to him. (Didn't help that Gore came off as condescending at times with his routine eye-rolling) Hell, few people in Westeros are more capable (arguably) than Littlefinger, but even a moral and honorable littlefinger with a legit blood claim wouldn't be able to rally the people and get close to the thrown.

I agree with Snake in that Jon or Ned would be much less likely to be able to rally the kingdom to their cause. I don't think you can overstate the importance of having charisma and looking the part for these purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? When did I say otherwise? It was only a rebuttal of your notion that Rhaegar was so certain of victory that he left the heavy artillery at home because the outcome was fortold.

Why would he leave them there then? To protect a bastard child? Hell a few loyal soldiers could have done that if Rhaegar felt that the Kingsguard were so needed at the Trident. He left them there to make sur Lyanna stayed put, or at least that's what I think.

That isn't what Jaime says. Source please.

Didn't he tell the Kingslayer that changes would be made when he returned from dealing with Robert? That's why I assumed that he felt they were safe enough where they were at. I know Aerys used Elia as leverage over Prince Lewyn, as if he even needed to, but I cannot recall ever reading he did the same to his son.

Well your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.

Thank you. :)

If you arguing that everything were settled at the Trident why would your Kingsguard make a futile surprise attack on the rebel leaders at the TOJ? Poor judgement?

I cannot really say. Perhaps trying to strike one last blow for the Targaryens. Perhaps trying to wash out the stain of the Kingslayers actions since they felt guilty because they were far away from their king. Could be any number of reasons but the two I've given are what stick to my mind.

Call it what you like. Trying to change the verdict of the war in one stroke, after the war is over. Counterattack seems to be as good word as any.

If you insist by all means call it a counterattack. :)

So your position is that the dead crown prince order to keep his love slave captured take precedence over safety of the living breathing king?

More or less, yup. If given no orders to the contrary from the king himself the duty of the Kingsguard is to obey the next in line. That would be Rhaegar. So if Aerys wasn't around then Rhaegar was the boss and they were honor bound to obey. So I see nothing wrong with them being at the ToJ while the Targaryen dynasty collapsed. They were following orders and by the time they knew what was happening it was too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More or less, yup. If given no orders to the contrary from the king himself the duty of the Kingsguard is to obey the next in line. That would be Rhaegar. So if Aerys wasn't around then Rhaegar was the boss and they were honor bound to obey. So I see nothing wrong with them being at the ToJ while the Targaryen dynasty collapsed. They were following orders and by the time they knew what was happening it was too late.

Except that Rhaegar died before Aerys and so was never the King. Unless baby Aegon somehow survived or Rhaegar had another legitimate child, Viserys became their King when Aerys died. His life was in imminent danger and the duty to keep him safe would have been the primary concern of the KG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...so I haven't been on the board long but I've had an idea that i want to throw out there. It's mostly crackpot. Just keep that in mind while reading this.

What if Jon IS Aegon? What if the whole Arya going to the god of many faces is to lead to a huge conspiracy of how they had a hand in "changing" the look of baby Aegon?

Rhaegar, realizing that his offspring were in danger regardless if he won or lost the war, enlisted Lyanna's help. She selflessly agreed to let others think that she had a child. This child being the "changed" Aegon. Somehow, things went wrong and Lyanna ends up dying but not before she makes Ned promise to take Jon and protect him.

And if some one's already brought this up, I'm sorry. I promise to read EVERY thread before I die...just not today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EHK,

I’m not disputing that Robert played an important part or that his death wouldn’t have been a blow for the rebel faction. Just that I don’t see his death as the end of the rebellion. Most especially not after Aerys has been killed and the Tyrrells had gone over.

Why would he leave them there then? To protect a bastard child?

I don’t think he did. And the child cannot be a bastard in my scenario.

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

Hightower says “far away†which is pretty strange if all he has done is stayed in this same spot throughout the war.

My theory is that they went on a quest relating to the prohepcy when they returned Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon and Rhaenys were dead and then they naturally moved to the next heir in succession, which would Lyanna’s child if he/she were a trueborn offspring of Rhaegars.

This would also explain their arrogance, and the “I have a secret†attitude not only are they keeping faith and doing their duty without fail, they are the only ones who knows who the king actually is.

Didn't he tell the Kingslayer that changes would be made when he returned from dealing with Robert? That's why I assumed that he felt they were safe enough where they were at.

You stated that:

Rhaegar was confident as noted above. That's why he kept his family at the Red Keep.

You statement is in absolute form, as if you had heard GRRM state this as a fact.

Perhaps trying to strike one last blow for the Targaryens. Perhaps trying to wash out the stain of the Kingslayers actions since they felt guilty because they were far away from their king.

But they express no guilt when they encounter Ned and if they wanted to wash out the stain on their honor they could always start by doing their duty. Keeping Viserys alive, championing his claim should supply ample oppurtunties for heroic death and redemption. Instead of making some futile pointless gesture in the middle of nowhere ensuring the destruction of house Targaryen.

More or less, yup. If given no orders to the contrary from the king himself the duty of the Kingsguard is to obey the next in line. That would be Rhaegar. So if Aerys wasn't around then Rhaegar was the boss and they were honor bound to obey. So I see nothing wrong with them being at the ToJ while the Targaryen dynasty collapsed. They were following orders and by the time they knew what was happening it was too late.

First Aerys was king and their oath is to him. If they percieve that Rhaegar’s action is harmful to the king I would think it would be their duty to disobey him.

Second, This make even less sense when Rhaegar is dead. Executing a command that change nothing for a guy that they are not sworn to, endangering the king they are sworn to protect. Viserys and Rhaella are still alive so in what way is it to late?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stratonice,

Except that Rhaegar died before Aerys and so was never the King. Unless baby Aegon somehow survived or Rhaegar had another legitimate child, Viserys became their King when Aerys died. His life was in imminent danger and the duty to keep him safe would have been the primary concern of the KG.

Trye Viserys was next in line but Robert was crowned at this point so the realm had a new king. Which one is legitimate? GRRM noted that the Kingsguard had no mechanisms for dealing with this type of situation so they were in no mans land so to speak. Perhaps they felt like Ser Barriston in that Viserys was like his father and they didn't want to serve another mad king yet they didn't want to serve the Usurper either. I cannot say but I believe that they felt they were doing the right thing.

Enguerrand,

I don’t think he did. And the child cannot be a bastard in my scenario.

I'm of a firm belief that Jon is indeed a bastard. If not Ned and Wylla's then Rhaegar's and Lyanna's but I lean toward the first two.

Hightower says “far away†which is pretty strange if all he has done is stayed in this same spot throughout the war.

My theory is that they went on a quest relating to the prohepcy when they returned Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon and Rhaenys were dead and then they naturally moved to the next heir in succession, which would Lyanna’s child if he/she were a trueborn offspring of Rhaegars.

This would also explain their arrogance, and the “I have a secret†attitude not only are they keeping faith and doing their duty without fail, they are the only ones who knows who the king actually is.

The dream is not a literal interpretation of what happened. GRRM notes that it is a fever dream and what Ned dreams is not the actual events that took place. So far away could mean the ToJ. It is quite far from the Trident and far from Kingslanding as well.

You statement is in absolute form, as if you had heard GRRM state this as a fact.

Well, it wasn't meant to be. Just my theories on what happened and the reasons things turned out the way they did.

And stop quibbling over my poor writing skills. :P

But they express no guilt when they encounter Ned and if they wanted to wash out the stain on their honor they could always start by doing their duty. Keeping Viserys alive, championing his claim should supply ample oppurtunties for heroic death and redemption. Instead of making some futile pointless gesture in the middle of nowhere ensuring the destruction of house Targaryen.

Whether or not they expressed guilt is not known to us at this time. As noted above the dream is not a literal retelling of the events that took place. As for their deaths ensuring the destruction of House Targaryen, well that was already done. Their fleeing with Viserys would have made no difference. Robert had already won and House Targaryen was lost.

First Aerys was king and their oath is to him. If they percieve that Rhaegar’s action is harmful to the king I would think it would be their duty to disobey him.

Second, This make even less sense when Rhaegar is dead. Executing a command that change nothing for a guy that they are not sworn to, endangering the king they are sworn to protect. Viserys and Rhaella are still alive so in what way is it to late?

If you've read THK you will see that the Kingsguard has to obey the royal family. The king being the head of the family takes precedent over all others but if he's not there to issues commands then the commands of others of royal blood are to be followed. And being ordered to stay at the ToJ did not jeopradizethe king at that time. He was safe withing the walls of the Red Keep with four Kingsguard attending him. He had a huge army under the command of his son assembled to deal with Robert. He was as safe as he could be or else he would have sent someone to fetch his three missing Kingsguard.

You know, their remark about Ser Willem, IMO, sheds light upon how the three were feeling at the time.

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out.

"The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained Ser Gerold.

While not a literal interpretation of what was said I'm convinced that it shows how the three were at a lost for what to do so decided to make a stand in order to make up for the fact that they weren't at the Trident or Kingslanding. It's almost like they know they have no hope but they are going to go out fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please pay attention on what language ser Gerold used. He said “we swore a vowâ€. Was it a vow to obey orders? If so why they were different from ser Willem Darry whom they admit as good and loyal man? This must be some vow that was sworn only by Kingsguard. And we actually know what it was – to protect the royal family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stratonice,

Trye Viserys was next in line but Robert was crowned at this point so the realm had a new king. Which one is legitimate? GRRM noted that the Kingsguard had no mechanisms for dealing with this type of situation so they were in no mans land so to speak. Perhaps they felt like Ser Barriston in that Viserys was like his father and they didn't want to serve another mad king yet they didn't want to serve the Usurper either. I cannot say but I believe that they felt they were doing the right thing.

My argument was a reply to your statement that since Aerys was dead they were honourbound to follow any orders Rhaegar may have issued and that's why they were there. Now they were suddenly there, hiding (more or less), because they couldn't make up their minds of what to do?

But to adress your argument, they don't come off as indecissive, lost or confused. They seem to be exactly where they want to be, as if they have a very good reason for being where they are. I don't buy that they would act so superiour if they were there for the reason you give, especially after no less than four members of the royal family they were sworn to protect were killed, three of them murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Kyp, "the god of many faces" is death, the one who comes to all people. Clearly one thing his servants can learn to do is to change their faces (as the Kindly Man has started teaching Arya), but we so far have no reason to think that they can change OTHER people's faces. I really doubt that baby Aegon could have learned the technique. Martin has said Aegon was roughly a year old at the time of the Sack; within a year he'd look so different from the way he did then that I don't know that changing his face would be necessary even if it were possible.

If Lyanna didn't give birth, why is her bed so bloody? What does she die of? Ned is with her; she seems to have been hanging on just long enough to get him to agree to the promises she asks of him. And surely she and Rhaegar didn't run away together--or he didn't kidnap her--so she'd be able to pretend later on that his Aegon was her child. We still need to know why R and L were together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trye Viserys was next in line but Robert was crowned at this point so the realm had a new king. Which one is legitimate? GRRM noted that the Kingsguard had no mechanisms for dealing with this type of situation so they were in no mans land so to speak.

For a man that has served the Taragaryen for generations and took Jaime aside with 'You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.' That is a remarkable personality shift.

Nothing in their bearing suggest that they for a moment consider Robert as anything but an usurper and so do they name him.

Perhaps they felt like Ser Barriston in that Viserys was like his father and they didn't want to serve another mad king yet they didn't want to serve the Usurper either.

And what about Rhaella and all their comrades in arms didn’t they deserve any consideration? Barristan defection dishonoured him of course. Which is why he ask Daenerys pardon on his knees.

The dream is not a literal interpretation of what happened. GRRM notes that it is a fever dream and what Ned dreams is not the actual events that took place. So far away could mean the ToJ.

Yes, if the most moving scene in the series is just a figment of Ned’s imagination my theory has not much to recommend it. Then again the discussion of the Kingsguard s whereabouts become rather pointless as well.

What can the odds be for that though? Martin is simple far to good an author for this to not mean anything IMO. But on this point I can understand disagreement.

Well, it wasn't meant to be. Just my theories on what happened and the reasons things turned out the way they did.

And stop quibbling over my poor writing skills.

I’m not quibbling about your writing but how you pose your argument. Jaime claims that Elia was kept at the Red Keep as a safeguard for the Dornish allegiance, yes you dismiss it in absolute terms without any textual evidence. AFAIK we haven’t had a Rhaegar POV so we don’t know why he did anything. Some people have told things about his character but that is all. Barristan that seemed to have known him best, characterize him as melancholy and brooding which mix badly with your picture of him as the self-confident fated victor. Not that this is conclusive or anything.

Whether or not they expressed guilt is not known to us at this time.

Well if you are going to dismiss what the book says about it, no.

As for their deaths ensuring the destruction of House Targaryen, well that was already done. Their fleeing with Viserys would have made no difference. Robert had already won and House Targaryen was lost.

And on this board the targhaters are crying about the unfairness of Daenerys Targaryens imminent victory. If the snivelling Ser Artur Dayne had only known huh?

If you've read THK you will see that the Kingsguard has to obey the royal family. The king being the head of the family takes precedent over all others but if he's not there to issues commands then the commands of others of royal blood are to be followed.

I’ve read THK, thank you. And I'm aware that the kingsguard obeys the royal family(duh). But what happens when the kingsguard percieve that a royal command conflict with the kings will?

And being ordered to stay at the ToJ did not jeopradizethe king at that time.

In your scenario it’s the reason why the kingsguard werent present where the war was decided or when the king was murdered, so it manifestly did.

He was safe withing the walls of the Red Keep with four Kingsguard attending him. He had a huge army under the command of his son assembled to deal with Robert. He was as safe as he could be or else he would have sent someone to fetch his three missing Kingsguard.

Jaime was the only kingsguard guarding the king, surely you must know that?. I’m sorry, but weren’t you the one in the last post who claimed that the least safe place in Westeros were the Red Keep? That leaving them there were a sign of Rhaegar’s confidence? Yet now it’s a really safe place for the king.

You know, their remark about Ser Willem, IMO, sheds light upon how the three were feeling at the time.

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out.

"The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained Ser Gerold.

While not a literal interpretation of what was said I'm convinced that it shows how the three were at a lost for what to do so decided to make a stand in order to make up for the fact that they weren't at the Trident or Kingslanding. It's almost like they know they have no hope but they are going to go out fighting.

Yes lets talk about Ser Willem “a good man and true†that in your theory shows fidelity and perserverance that puts these supposedly illustrious knights to abject shame. He doesn’t mill around in Dorne bawling about going down fighting, He does his duty as best he knows. I’m firmly convinced that that the white bull and the sword of the morning ( that Ned calls a shining lesson to the world) aren’t the gutless pathetic emo kids that this would make them out to be.

The vow Ser Gerold swore was to give his life before the king’s, I have not seen any reason to believe that wasn’t the way he went down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Snake in that Jon or Ned would be much less likely to be able to rally the kingdom to their cause. I don't think you can overstate the importance of having charisma and looking the part for these purposes.
Let's not forget Robert's blood claim to the throne.

It's Aegon's conquest that unites the 7 kingdoms under one king, so any claim to that throne will be compared against Aegon's in the minds of people who care about such things. To be sure, House Baratheon's blood claim was inferior to all of Aery's descendants, but it was better than the claims of House Stark, Lannister, Martel, Dayne, Arryn, etc. There are some people (e.g. Ned Stark) who want to believe that their new king is not a usurper, but has a legitimate claim to the throne. Robert's admittedly tenuous blood claim was, I think, useful in getting those people to sign on.

The blood claims are one more thing that goes in the mix with Robert's other assets (recent victories, large armies still in the field, charisma, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong as usual. If Person A beats up Person B in an argument, someone can agree with Person A without feeling the need to reiterate Person A's argument and not be a sheep.

But joining in a discussion with saying anything more than "wow, person A beat you up" is groupthink. It's not different from mob rule, which is a perfect example of groupthink.

Not everyone that agrees with R+L=J, but doesn't vocalize every point when someone comes up with something contrary, is a victim of groupthink. I notice you haven't spent much time debating Nightflyer's "Varys' birds are actually BIRDS" theory.

I hope you're not a lawyer, because I'd feel our nation would be at a great disservice :D . You're analogy doesn't hold. First, silence at no point denotes groupthink. Groupthink requires an active response. If you see a mob going to lynch someone, and you don't participate, you may be wrong in doing so, but you are not part of the mob. Tyrion attacked my position without any evidence or even the semblance of a logical argument. On other cases, I've asked for him to support his assertion. He does not aka groupthink. Google that term, you will learn something.

Now, maybe YOU have never gotten anyone to agree with you. You might then look at it as reasonable to hypothesize that such a feat is impossible on the Internet, some mysterious facet of anonymity. As usual, you miss the more reasonable explanation, which is that your ideas and your arguments suck.

People take things so personally. :D I merely discourse on topics as a matter to practice my own analytical skills. When you base your entire arguement on attacks, you've lost.

First off, I see you still haven't bowed down to the groupthink of how to spell "argument".

Spelling is overrated. Ask Osraven.

Second, the point is central to your so-called "argument" because your argument centers around the "probability" of events as though they were meaningful in and of themselves.

I would describe this in terms of a graph, but I don't think you'll understand. Every event I mention is meaningful. If it doesn't happen, R+L=J cannot work based on the facts we know. That's meaningful.

Stochastic series! A term I haven't heard since college. As I recall, that's just a fancy way of saying "random shit that affects outcomes", and deals with predicting the range of possible outcomes from a function with random elements.

Therefore, I cannot argue with someone who doesn't understand probabiltiy.

And, ooh, there's that meaningful word again ... PREDICT. Your entire argument hinges upon the notion that in order for R+L=J to be true, somebody had to predict that things would go down as they did.

Reading comprehension, Ser Greguh, is a very valuable trait. My arguement has nothing to do with predicting. It's about showing whether something is contrived or not. If events must happen for a particular outcome to exist, and if the probability of those individual events happening approaches zero, the author must force those events to be the case, or they will not happen in a logical series of events. It has nothing to do with predicting. It's about considering whether the theory is reasonable or not. If Martin wanted Jon to be the product a dragon and goat copulating, he could do it, but it is not within the bounds of reason. Reason is all we have to work with.

If someone had spelled out the details of the R+L=J conspiracy prior to it happening, or if any charachter had done anything that required foreknowledge of what would occur at the ToJ, you would have a valid argument.

I still don't understand you're reliance on characteres needing "foreknowledge." Technically, even if the events are contrived to happen, their series is logical. That's not the question. The problem is that events in life don't happen with such "luck." If Lyanna is pregnant, the stars must align for her child to be raised at Winterfell. This isn't reasonable.

from that point forward is strawman - arguing against a version of R+L=J that has Ned planning out everything about taking the kid, passing off Wylla as a mother, and himself as the father, before the events at the ToJ took place.

This is another word you don't understand. I've argued against every R+L=J theory: 1.) Ashara Dayne at ToJ 2.) Wylla, but no Ashara and 3.) No Wylla, and no Ashara. If all the theories for R+L=J don't make sense, perhaps the problem is in the inherent assumptions. At no point do I set up a strawman for the R+L=J side. I simply wait for them to propose their theory, then I shoot it down.

Anyways, cheerio. :P

Artanaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People take things so personally. :D I merely discourse on topics as a matter to practice my own analytical skills. When you base your entire arguement on attacks, you've lost.

It's not an attack. It's empirical observation. And you have put forth nothing of substance except for attacks in your entire discourse with me. You have never addressed an actual argument, and I have made several.

I would describe this in terms of a graph, but I don't think you'll understand. Every event I mention is meaningful. If it doesn't happen, R+L=J cannot work based on the facts we know. That's meaningful.

Here's the fun thing about your so-called argument. Here you are taking "R+L=J" to mean, the theory broken down to a level of specificty that is not important.

Therefore, I cannot argue with someone who doesn't understand probabiltiy.

I do know probability. You saying I don't doesn't make it so.

And it's not your probability that's wrong. It's your reasoning.

Reading comprehension, Ser Greguh, is a very valuable trait.

What did you say about attacking?

My arguement has nothing to do with predicting.

My point exactly. Why then do you mention a series whose solefunction is the prediction of event series with random coefficients?

It's about showing whether something is contrived or not.

The whole point is, as used here, your definition of "contrived" is meaningless. As it always has been. "Contrived" and "improbable" are not synonomous. You have never gotten this. You still fail to get it.

If events must happen for a particular outcome to exist, and if the probability of those individual events happening approaches zero, the author must force those events to be the case, or they will not happen in a logical series of events.

Your standard conflation. You treat R+L=J exactly as it occurred, in all the details, as somehow a unique, singular event, where if you remove one tiny piece, everything comes crashing down.

All that actually needed to happen for R+L=J to occur is for Lyanna and Rhaegar to have sex, for their union to result in a kid, for Ned to be present for the birth, for Lyanna to die in childbirth, and for Ned to claim the kid as his own and bring him back north. All but one of these points you already concede, and the last one is a perfectly reasonable assumption regarding what Ned's reaction might be. Other variables, like Wylla, the child's appearence, and other things you mention, merely change the way that it happens. R+L=J still exists, just in a different form.

How "improbable" R+L=J is is related to what degree of specificity you define "R+L=J". In every last detail, of course it is improbable, as is any event, down to flipping a coin ten times and getting HTHHTHHHTT as your result. In your world, "R+L=J" seems to mean whatever you want it to at that moment, to best argue against.

What's amazing to me, is you use all of these so-called arguments for R+L=J's supposed contrivance to argue against it, and then prop up in its place an argument that requires probably a dozen other variables to be in place, and that would be contrived in truth.

It has nothing to do with predicting.

Exactly my point. If it did -- for example, if your argument showed that someone required foreknowledge of the exact specifics of what would happen at the ToJ -- you would have the means to tie improbability with contrivance. As it is you have nothing, other than your bald-faced conflation. I have conceded that R+L=J is improbable, but only as improbable as anything else, when you plug in all the details. You have never once even began to address this argument, and have instead focused on pathetic and untrue ad hominems. News flash. I am not addressing your probability calculations. I am addressing your egregious logical fallacies that immedietely follow. Reading comprehension. It's useful, don't you know?

It's about considering whether the theory is reasonable or not. If Martin wanted Jon to be the product a dragon and goat copulating, he could do it, but it is not within the bounds of reason. Reason is all we have to work with.

And yet you have done nothing to show how the events leading up to Jon's birth are any less reasonable than any other event that's taken place in the books.

I still don't understand you're reliance on characteres needing "foreknowledge." Technically, even if the events are contrived to happen, their series is logical. That's not the question. The problem is that events in life don't happen with such "luck." If Lyanna is pregnant, the stars must align for her child to be raised at Winterfell. This isn't reasonable.

Do we need to go over the stars that needed to align in order for Arya to wind up in Braavos again? This is only a meaningful observation if Jon being in Winterfell, or Arya being in Braavos, is specifically meaningful. It's not. If R+L had a kid, and Ned was there, the kid needed either to die, or to wind up somewhere. Why not Winterfell? If Jon had wound up in Oldtown instead, would that be any less unreasonable? How about King's Landing? Qarth?

If you wanted to, you could probably go back and calculate all of the variables that led from your birth to your being where you are sitting right now, in front of your computer, every molecule of your ass cheeks spread out, just so. That probability, I'm sure, is very, very, impossibly low. This does not make it a particularly meaningful calculation. If Rhaegar and Lyanna's kid did in fact wind up in Winterfell, how is this any more meaningful than any other potential location he could have wound up at? Why does that particular variation get special treatment?

This is another word you don't understand. I've argued against every R+L=J theory: 1.) Ashara Dayne at ToJ 2.) Wylla, but no Ashara and 3.) No Wylla, and no Ashara.

How about 4.) No Wylla, no Ashara, no Dolorous Edd? Or do you consider that a meaningless subset of group 3? If so, consider that your three categorizations are meaningless subsets of R+L=J. This is the whole point. You seem to be under the delusion that these variables matter.

Your specific arguments against those theories, anyway, are separate from your probabilistic bullshit, and flawed for their own reasons. This doesn't change the fact that your probabilistic objection to R+L=J erects a needlessly specific strawman of R+L=J. If I propose Theory A, and you make the false assumption that Theory A must include Assumption B, and then point out that Assumption B is somehow flawed, you have not in any way addressed Theory A. This is the very definition of a strawman argument, and it is exactly what you are doing here, by attaching meaningless riders to R+L=J and then showing how those riders make R+L=J impossible or contrived.

If all the theories for R+L=J don't make sense, perhaps the problem is in the inherent assumptions. At no point do I set up a strawman for the R+L=J side. I simply wait for them to propose their theory, then I shoot it down.

This is not at all what you do when you bring up a probabilistic objection. Rejecting a specific theory because it is illogical or contradictory is one thing. I am aware that you have done this with regard to some specific R+L=J theories, pointing out how some variations don't fit with the facts that have been presented to us in the story. That's legit, even if I think you make poor assumptions in those arguments. But when someone presents an argument that does fit with the facts as we know them, you attack it as "improbable", and in so doing commit a basic logical fallacy, which I rightly pointed out, and which I have continued to point out. "Improbable" does not equate to "contrived", no matter how much you seem to want it to.

It's amazing how closely your line of argumentation resembles that of some creationists. In case you are unaware, some people use probabilistic objections to evolution, in particular human evolution, by pointing out that if you go back all the way to the pre-biotic soup, the millions and billions of random mutations, random genetic drift events, and other evolutionary happenstances, the probability of that process squirting out an intelligent ape-like noetenous biped is staggeringly, earth-shatteringly infitesimal. This is true. But, so what?

If you think that your existence as an intelligent ape-like neotenous biped is meaningful, then you have to concede that the stars do at times align, else how else could a process with so many random components produce us? In a way, it's the same with R+L=J. Were there random components to R+L=J? Sure. Is R+L=J improbable? Sure. You have never shown how this is meaningful. Jon wound up in Winterfell. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stratonice,

My argument was a reply to your statement that since Aerys was dead they were honourbound to follow any orders Rhaegar may have issued and that's why they were there. Now they were suddenly there, hiding (more or less), because they couldn't make up their minds of what to do?

But to adress your argument, they don't come off as indecissive, lost or confused. They seem to be exactly where they want to be, as if they have a very good reason for being where they are. I don't buy that they would act so superiour if they were there for the reason you give, especially after no less than four members of the royal family they were sworn to protect were killed, three of them murdered.

I didn't say they couldn't make up their minds, as they obviously did. What I'm saying is that they were lost as to what to do so they decide to stay at the ToJ knowing full well someone would eventually show up looking for Lyanna. And I don't think they act so superior. They're just talking trash, so to speak. Not being privy to their thoughts I can only guess that they felt rather ashamed of what happened. I would think they felt that they should have died alongside with Rhaegar or with Aerys but that didn't happen. And because the Kingsguard do not flee, "then or now", they waited at the ToJ.

Enguerrand,

For a man that has served the Taragaryen for generations and took Jaime aside with 'You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.' That is a remarkable personality shift.

Nothing in their bearing suggest that they for a moment consider Robert as anything but an usurper and so do they name him

They might not consider him the true king but they know full well that he is crowned and sits the Iron throne and that the realm has accepted it. So they are kingless in a sense and have entered new territory.

And what about Rhaella and all their comrades in arms didn’t they deserve any consideration? Barristan defection dishonoured him of course. Which is why he ask Daenerys pardon on his knees.

Ah, but those three didn't defect. They didn't serve under Robert so they never dishonored themselves there. And in the dream Ned asks them as to why they were not with the remaining royal family and they answered him.

Yes, if the most moving scene in the series is just a figment of Ned’s imagination my theory has not much to recommend it. Then again the discussion of the Kingsguard s whereabouts become rather pointless as well.

What can the odds be for that though? Martin is simple far to good an author for this to not mean anything IMO. But on this point I can understand disagreement.

The scene is not a figment of Ned's imagination. But it's not actually what happened either. There is no doubt more that was said and done but what we know can be used to interpret what happened. I think GRRM was purposely vague here so that the reader could come to different conclusions as to what really went on, as he is known to do from time to time. :)

I’m not quibbling about your writing but how you pose your argument. Jaime claims that Elia was kept at the Red Keep as a safeguard for the Dornish allegiance, yes you dismiss it in absolute terms without any textual evidence. AFAIK we haven’t had a Rhaegar POV so we don’t know why he did anything. Some people have told things about his character but that is all. Barristan that seemed to have known him best, characterize him as melancholy and brooding which mix badly with your picture of him as the self-confident fated victor. Not that this is conclusive or anything.

I dismiss it because I think if Rhaegar wanted her gone she would have been gone. He was melancholy and brooding but he was also determined and single-minded. IMO, when he set his mind to something there was little that would sway him.

Well if you are going to dismiss what the book says about it, no.

What does the book say about it? I really cannot recall.

And on this board the targhaters are crying about the unfairness of Daenerys Targaryens imminent victory. If the snivelling Ser Artur Dayne had only known huh?

If he would have known then he might have acted differently no doubt. Unfortunately for him and Dany hecouldn't see into the future.

I’ve read THK, thank you. And I'm aware that the kingsguard obeys the royal family(duh). But what happens when the kingsguard percieve that a royal command conflict with the kings will?

I'm not sure what happens in that situation. They could refuse the order but if it wasn't actually against the king's will then they would be in quite a pickle. Besides, Aerys sent Ser Gerold, which was pointed out to me earlier, so he couldn't have felt the need for them at the time. He could have also sent for them when Rhaegar marched but he never did so i guess it can be assumed that he felt no dire need for them then either.

In your scenario it’s the reason why the kingsguard werent present where the war was decided or when the king was murdered, so it manifestly did.

Not at the time they were ordered to stay. Everything was being dealt with accordingly and i'll again stress that Aerys couldn't have felt that threatened because he had ample time to summon the three.

Jaime was the only kingsguard guarding the king, surely you must know that?. I’m sorry, but weren’t you the one in the last post who claimed that the least safe place in Westeros were the Red Keep? That leaving them there were a sign of Rhaegar’s confidence? Yet now it’s a really safe place for the king.

The Red Keep was not strong as was noted in ACoK. So if Rhaegar felt he was going to lose then it wasn't the ideal choice for his wife and children, especially considering the what he thought Aegon's destiny was. So I think he must have been confident of winning and I think his little talk with the Kingslayer confirms this. Also Aerys must have felt secure with his goldcloaks and the Kingslayer which he thought kept him safe from Lord Tywin. they were wrong on all counts, IMO.

Yes lets talk about Ser Willem “a good man and true†that in your theory shows fidelity and perserverance that puts these supposedly illustrious knights to abject shame. He doesn’t mill around in Dorne bawling about going down fighting, He does his duty as best he knows. I’m firmly convinced that that the white bull and the sword of the morning ( that Ned calls a shining lesson to the world) aren’t the gutless pathetic emo kids that this would make them out to be.

The vow Ser Gerold swore was to give his life before the king’s, I have not seen any reason to believe that wasn’t the way he went down.

The Kingsguard doesn't flee. Or at least that's what those three would have you believe. That's why they stayed. They did their duty as best they knew how. Was it right or wrong? I cannot answer that right now but somehow I think they did what they felt was the only honorable thing to do at the time. And that doesn't include dying for a king because the only king around was Robert and they died fighting his men, trying to erase the stain the Kingslayer left upon their order.

IMHO.

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...