Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

[Julia H.]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I did not talk about King Joffrey. King Robert decided to make Sandor Clegane the sworn shield of the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne.

That symbolism evaporates to more or less nothing if you keep in mind the history of the Kingsguard as an institution. George has by now delivered us that background knowledge.

And the idea that they are doing that to die honorably in combat rather than bend the knee (or have to ask for a proper execution as Larys Strong and Gyles Belgrave did) actually makes more sense to me that they were caring about the safety of the royal family (which was on Dragonstone, not at the tower - Lyanna and her child were not members of the royal family).

After all, they were three men and they had no way of knowing whether Eddard Stark had a vast army hidden across the nearest ridge, only feigning to come with a handful of companions to lure them out. The idea that them risking their lives in killing Ned and his people would help a dying Lyanna and a little infant in any way does not make any sense. If they had wanted to save the child they should have tried to push Ned's emotional buttons, telling him that the child was his nephew, that Lyanna had loved Rhaegar, etc. But they do nothing of this sort.

Yeah, the Kingsguard does not yield, the Kingsguard does not flee, etc. But the Kingsguard does not necessarily protect the king or even a royal prince. That is a fact. You would still expect of a proper Kingsguard to die defending the king's dog, the king's whore, the king's wine, or the king's chamber pot if the king had charged a Kingsguard with protecting any of those things.

Only in this case they are not defending the king's chamber pot. This is a highly symbolic and emphatic scene in the novel, which does not describe some random episode in the life of the Kingsguard. What they actually told Ned or did is, of course, something we don't know, the scene we see being that of a fever dream.  What comes across is the symbolic, the deeper truth and only that much of it as GRRM wants us to know at this point. Yet, it is made clear that whatever happened in Dorne in those days is very significant.   

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Daenerys is learning to be a leader, also having the necessary toolkit and props to do this on a grand scale. Jon is dealing with a limited number of people in a backwater region - he is basically trying how to be a country lord - while Daenerys is literally learning how to rule while conquering the world. It is pretty obvious who is learning how to rule on the grand scale here. Not to mention that she is the one with the unquestioned blood claim. She is the last scion of House Targaryen. Aegon and Jon can be both seen as feigned boys and impostors. But nobody in this series will ever doubt that Daenerys Targaryen is Daenerys Targaryen.

Jon doesn't have a lot of charisma. He is the brooding type who clearly failed to learn one of the most important lessons his father talked Robb - to eat with your men, and gain and keep their trust. That is why his men did (and could) kill him. Drogon saved Daenerys from her would-be poisoners in ADwD. Ghost and Mel tried to warn Jon. He did not listen and paid the price for that. And I don't think being killed is a good lesson in governance. I'd not be surprised if Jon returned from the dead, seeing his murder as his very own Duskendale. Keep in mind that the Mad King is his paternal grandfather. The trauma he suffered (as well as the time he will have to spend in Ghost) could easily enough push him over the edge.

As a leader, Daenerys has made her own mistakes. There is no reason to bury Jon as a leader yet, no matter how much you would like to do it.

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody has said anything about the Beggar King. We are talking about the pretenders in the game, and there Cersei and Euron have much better chances to ever set themselves up as rulers of Westeros than Jon Snow simply because this people have much better starting points. The same goes for Stannis, Aegon, Daenerys, Myrcella, hell, even Arianne Martell (should she end up being the mother of Aegon's son).

Of course, it has never happened in literature before that someone with the worst of chances became the winner.  What was I thinking? 

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It would be a very contrived story where Jon both plays a crucial role in the fight against the Others (which as of yet has nothing to do with the political plots of most of the other stories) while at the same time also conquering Westeros/winning the love, respect, admiration, and loyalty of important men he has as of yet never even met (and who most likely don't know that he even exists).

LOL, and here I'm thinking that those two things may be in direct causal relationship with each other as soon as that obscure danger at the back of the beyond turns out to be the single most important question of the survival of humanity and the obscure guy who's done his best to stop that danger becomes the national hero! Anyway, how do we know who the "important men" will be when it's all over? Something tells me that they may not be the same ones as they are right now. 

But we digress. This has less and less to do with the question presented by the OP. 

[Ygrain]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Nope, it doesn't. That's your confirmation bias again. The one element that might objectively hint at that is the use of the term "usurper" by Oswell.
And that's the problem. You're so biased that you're not able to present your case in an objective way. I end up rejecting this theory not on the basis of its merits, but because I'm annoyed by its proponents...

Well, that's kinda your problem if you let your emotions cloud your judgement.

And as for the "only" element: fine, let's presume that the KG are absolutely in the dark about the events of the last couple of weeks or months. Then how do they know why Ned looked for them at the Trident and that the usurper was present? Why do they believe Ned when he informs them that their sworn brother has done the unimaginable and became a kingslayer? Why don't they wonder what Selmy, Martell and Darry were doing while Aerys was being slaughtered and why Viserys has no KG with him, why don't they ever enquire about the queen and Rhaegar's children? Their responses are completely out of place for people who hear about these events - and what grave, devastating news they are! - for the first time, those are responses of people who know the context of Ned's statements. If the dream relays the events as they happened, i.e. the convo and the fight taking place immediately upon Ned's arrival, then they had known beforehands; if Ned himself brought the news, then the dream's set up for the fight is unrealistic and the circumstances prior the fight were vastly different. Either way, the gist of the dream informs us that they knew what they were doing, and why, when they chose to fight Ned, and what Ned knows about their motives makes him keep them in highest regard. They may have been mistaken or misinformed, but as far as Ned knows, they must have kept their vows and done what would have been the right thing for the KG to do. 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't really have to consider that because we have no good reason to assume the fever dream reflects whatever real conversations there were accurately nor (even if we assume it did) that they received the information they might have had long before Ned's arrival. They may simply have not yet decided what to do after Lyanna's death. And that she was dying was apparently clear. If Rhaegar essentially glued them to her person (and that seems to be the case) then they simply couldn't leave her.

Many years ago when I first posted the idea the Kingsguard trio's actions were strong evidence that Jon was the legitimate son, and heir to the Targaryen throne, I always tried to follow that with two other options. First it was just a matter of timing. The Kingsguard had no time from when they knew of the events in the dialogue to when Ned arrives. If that was the case, however, the Kingsguard should have negotiated with Ned to get at least one of their number to Dragonstone. It doesn't matter what Rhaegar ordered, if they are true to their duty to guard their king.

Second, it has always been possible that the Kingsguard were not true to their vows to guard their king. We assume that because Ned's view of them they would, but that is not necessarily so. If that is the case, then there are a host of reasons why the three men did not send one of their number to Dragonstone. Somehow the other options got dropped by others along the way. I haven't forgotten them.

With the new evidence that Viserys was named Aerys's heir, much of that line of thinking has to reconsidered. There is no way, LV, to just set it aside and not consider it, because it touches on evidence after evidence that the Kingsguard Oath would mandate a first duty to guard their king. It is absurd, my friend, to sweep the question aside as if it didn't exist.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Barristan was never given a chance to go to Viserys, by the way. He had to choose between death and loyalty to the new king, and he chose the latter. Once he had sworn himself to Robert he was honor-bound to stay with him.

Sorry, LV, this is nonsense. A member of the Kingsguard should not put his own sense of honor above his oath to guard his rightful king. Ser Barristan's tells us why he made the choice he does, and he names it worthy of a "traitor's death." Selmy should have tried to escape to Viserys some time during his life as Robert's Lord Commander. He doesn't because of his concerns for Viserys's sanity. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is an important point people usually forget. Kingsguard swear themselves to individual kings, and whenever a king dies and the throne is contested they have to make difficult choices. Kingsguard sworn to Maegor I defected to Jaehaerys I. Others stood by or even supported Maegor's campaign against the rightful king, Prince Aegon, or watched Tyanna of the Tower torture and kill Prince Viserys. Ser Steffon Darklyn feigned loyalty to Aegon II but stayed true to the last will and chosen heir of King Viserys I, and so on.

Does the orders of their king die with them? I don't think so. When Aerys made Viserys his heir, that order stood after his death and should have guided any loyal members of the Kingsguard. Now, for all the Kingsguard who remained loyal to their oaths, there are many a Ser Boros Blunt, or a Criston Cole. What we do then is make a judgement of the character of these men based on their choices. Ultimately, Selmy makes his judgement on his own choices and finds them unworthy. The question is did the three Kingsguard at the Tower make they same judgement as Selmy? Did they seize the opportunity to become new kingmakers? Or was there something else going on here? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But nothing indicates that the men at the tower had any intention of making a new king. If they were aware of Aerys II's decision to name Viserys his new heir (or even of Viserys III's coronation on Dragonstone) then they would have known who the new king and head of House Targaryen was.

And we have no confirmation that they knew anything about the other royal deaths during the Sack. The deaths of Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys do not come up in the fever dream exchange.

Their inaction towards guarding Viserys suggests this as a possibility. Their condemnation of Jaime for his role at King's Landing tells us  they knew of Aerys's death and who killed him. They seem to be aware of that much of the events at King's Landing, the Trident, Dragonstone, and Storm's End. If one accepts the fevered dream as evidence of knowledge on the part of the three Kingsguard, one can't pick and choose what they knew based on one's own wishes. Instead, it is important to look to the dream conversation for if it is supported by evidence outside the dream.

In addition, the assumption of ignorance on the part of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent should be evaluated on the basis of not just what is in Ned's dream, but on the basis of who these men are, and how they would likely act to keep their charge(s) safe. Sitting blind in an isolated tower with no way of getting information about what was going on in the war is completely out of character of these veterans of war.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Well, Ned never mentions possessing this particular bit of knowledge, so if he is anything to go by, the KG may not have known, either. Or, just like Barry did, they picked the king at hand, but a king nonetheless.

Ned expected to find the men in the places he named for important reasons. He expected someone to be with Viserys because Ned thinks Viserys is the Targaryen heir. That could be because he knows of Aerys's selection of Viserys as his heir, or just that he thinks all other heirs are dead. What we should take notice of here is that Ned knows Viserys and Rhaella are on Dragonstone. That implies that he was aware of their flight there from people who knew their destination. He is not just working on putting check marks on the Targaryens he saw dead.

I agree with you, Ygrain, there is a possibility Hightower, Dayne, and Whent did not know. I think it unlikely, but it is a possibility. Given a much more likely scenario that the men had ways in which they received news of the events of the war, then I think it likely that they would know of Aerys naming Viserys their heir.

And, yes, they could have taken the Cole route to chose their own king, for reasons like Selmy did. I find it unlikely Ned would admire such a choice.

[Ygrain]

2 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Ned expected to find the men in the places he named for important reasons. He expected someone to be with Viserys because Ned thinks Viserys is the Targaryen heir. That could be because he knows of Aerys's selection of Viserys as his heir, or just that he thinks all other heirs are dead. What we should take notice of here is that Ned knows Viserys and Rhaella are on Dragonstone. That implies that he was aware of their flight there from people who knew their destination. He is not just working on putting check marks on the Targaryens he saw dead.

I agree with you, Ygrain, there is a possibility Hightower, Dayne, and Whent did not know. I think it unlikely, but it is a possibility. Given a much more likely scenario that the men had ways in which they received news of the events of the war, then I think it likely that they would know of Aerys naming Viserys their heir.

And, yes, they could have taken the Cole route to chose their own king, for reasons like Selmy did. I find it unlikely Ned would admire such a choice.

Their knowledge would really depend on how broadly the change in succession was broadcast across Westeros - unlike the deaths of Rhaegar and Aerys, for which there would have been tens to hundreds of witnesses and the gravity of the news would make them spread like wildfire, Viserys jumping the queue was a relatively minor issue which soon became a moot point, anyway.

I think that in the case sibling versus son succession, even the KG might be inclined to perceive the king's action as not entirely justified and Ned might be inclined to understand  such a choice, given his own strict view of the succession rules.

BTW, have we ever discussed the possibility that Aerys intentionally kept his choice of heir secret, basically making little Aegon a target instead of Viserys?

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Only in this case they are not defending the king's chamber pot. This is a highly symbolic and emphatic scene in the novel, which does not describe some random episode in the life of the Kingsguard. What they actually told Ned or did is, of course, something we don't know, the scene we see being that of a fever dream.  What comes across is the symbolic, the deeper truth and only that much of it as GRRM wants us to know at this point. Yet, it is made clear that whatever happened in Dorne in those days is very significant.

Is it? In what sense. It deals with dead people who are essentially nothing but extras in this story. Whether Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son or not is not highly significant nor even relevant to the plot as of yet since Jon could also be the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch if he was Ned's son by a tavern wench.

If you care about this Jon Snow parentage mystery thing it is an important scene providing clues. But that's it.

15 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

As a leader, Daenerys has made her own mistakes. There is no reason to bury Jon as a leader yet, no matter how much you would like to do it.

I did not bury him as a leader, I just put him into perspective.

15 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Of course, it has never happened in literature before that someone with the worst of chances became the winner.  What was I thinking?

Well, it usually doesn't happen in literature that a person who has a different plot and no intention to win a throne actually wins. That only happens in bad literature.

15 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

LOL, and here I'm thinking that those two things may be in direct causal relationship with each other as soon as that obscure danger at the back of the beyond turns out to be the single most important question of the survival of humanity and the obscure guy who's done his best to stop that danger becomes the national hero! Anyway, how do we know who the "important men" will be when it's all over? Something tells me that they may not be the same ones as they are right now. 

It will be the same class. The lords of the Realm. Men with ambition and much more power than the leader of the North could ever hope to gain in the middle of a fight against the Others.

I'm also not sure why Jon is going to become a national hero if he fails in his task to hold the Wall against the Others. The Wall is most likely going to fall and Jon is not going to be able hold them back all by himself. He may have crucial information on them, etc. but that's not the same as defeating them. Why should anybody look to Jon as their leader in such a scenario? He may know stuff but the people don't know him and he has no means of forcing them to accept as their leader. No food, no men, no dragons, no anything, really.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Many years ago when I first posted the idea the Kingsguard trio's actions were strong evidence that Jon was the legitimate son, and heir to the Targaryen throne, I always tried to follow that with two other options. First it was just a matter of timing. The Kingsguard had no time from when they knew of the events in the dialogue to when Ned arrives. If that was the case, however, the Kingsguard should have negotiated with Ned to get at least one of their number to Dragonstone. It doesn't matter what Rhaegar ordered, if they are true to their duty to guard their king.

Sorry, that is not a given. King Viserys III can make himself his own Kingsguard. He is protected by the garrison of Dragonstone and the royal fleet. Willis Fell presumably also did not ask Lord Borros Baratheon to give him leave to join Aegon II on Dragonstone (or search for the man) after he had delivered Princess Jaehaera to him. He continued to do his duty despite the fact that Aegon II was without Kingsguard protection.

An order given to a Kingsguard (or any loyal retainer of a king) does not die with the king (or prince) issuing that order. We see this when Stannis orders Justin Massey to continue the campaign for the Iron Throne in the name of Shireen in case of Stannis' death, in Arys Oakheart not asking King Tommen whether it is still his duty to guard Princess Myrcella in Dorne after Joffrey's death, etc.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Second, it has always been possible that the Kingsguard was not true to their vows to guard their king. We assume that because Ned's view of them they would, but that is not necessarily so. If that is the case, then their are a host of reasons why the three men did not send one of their number to Dragonstone. Somehow the other options got dropped by others along the way. I haven't forgotten them.

The question of going to Dragonstone simply may not have come because the men thought their duty was now to Lyanna and the child. And if they all promised Rhaegar that they would do what he asked of them then it makes sense that they would all stay. They were not as stupid as to believe that one of their number could help to better protect Viserys. Not to mention that they might have realized that the risk trying to get to Dragonstone was too great.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

With the new evidence that Viserys was named Aerys's heir, much of that line of thinking has to reconsidered. There is no way, LV, to just set it aside and not consider it, because it touches on evidence after evidence that the Kingsguard Oath would mandate a first duty to guard their king. It is absurd, my friend, to sweep the question aside as if it didn't exist.

The thing is, that they have to choose a king in any case. They could choose Robert or Viserys. What I don't think they did is choose a new king of their own (Lyanna's child) simply because that would have been utter stupidity. But a Kingsguard does not automatically recognize a new king just because the old one dies, especially not in the middle of civil war.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Sorry, LV, this is nonsense. A member of the Kingsguard should not put his own sense of honor above his oath to guard his rightful king. Ser Barristan's tells us why he made the choice he does, and he names it worthy of a "traitor's death." Selmy should have tried to escape to Viserys some time during his life as Robert's Lord Commander. He doesn't because of his concerns for Viserys's sanity. 

Selmy hasn't sworn an oath to King Viserys III. He never was his king. And Robert Baratheon was the crowned and anointed king of Westeros. That you think Selmy's king should have been Viserys III doesn't make it so. I also think Rhaenyra Targaryen was Criston Cole's rightful queen but that doesn't make it so.

The Kingsguard doesn't decide who should be king, and they usually accept the rulings on the succession. No Kingsguard tried to murder the false king Aegon V after the Great Council of 233 AC, trying to establish the true kings Maegor II or Aemon I. No Kingsguard challenged the ascension of Viserys I or Viserys II, either.

Wars also decide who is king. A war toppled Maegor the Cruel and another Aegon II. The Kingsguard swore fealty to the new king in each of those cases.

I find the idea that those three men actually were taking the route of Larys Strong and Gyles Belgrave who gladly followed their king into the grave rather than make common cause with rebels and traitors. The three men could not die at Rhaegar's or Aerys' side but they could at the tower.

And, in fact, it is very odd difficult to believe that Ned and his men should have been so much as a match for those three guys. Jaime alone should have made short work out of them. Howland Reed isn't even a knight, Ned is at best an average swordsman, and Ethan Glover seems to have been rather young. That leaves four possible better swordsmen against three of the greatest knights in the Realm. It is very odd that they all died.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Does the orders of their king die with them? I don't think so. When Aerys made Viserys his heir, that order stood after his death and should have guided any loyal members of the Kingsguard.

Not if they had received other orders. We usually think they got such orders from Rhaegar but it is actually also not impossible that Aerys II himself commanded them to guard that tower and/or Lyanna. I don't believe that but if that was the case they sure as hell had no right to abandon it and run to a new king. At least not if they felt bound by those orders which they apparently did to the degree that they let both their king and prince die without helping them.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Their inaction towards guarding Viserys suggests this as a possibility. Their condemnation of Jaime for his role at King's Landing suggests they knew of Aerys's death and who killed him.

Ned actually tells them that in conversation. They seem to know about the Trident and that Robert usurped the throne, but that's it. They might very well have heard first about Jaime's deed as well as Viserys and Rhaella's flight to Dragonstone from Ned. The text allows that interpretation.

If we take it as having happened literally in that fashion.

7 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

In addition, the assumption of ignorance on the part of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent should be evaluated on the basis of not just what is in Ned's dream, but on the basis of who these men are, and how they would likely act to keep their charge(s) safe. Sitting blind in an isolated tower with no way of getting information about what was going on in the war is completely out of character of these veterans of war.

We don't know how long they were at that place, though. That is a mystery in itself. Why the hell where they there of all places.

[Sansa Snow]

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If Jon wasn't legimate Viserys would  had been the King and they as the KG would had to be with the King. They knew that Aerys was dead and Viserys was away and they still were with Jon, meaning that in the line of succession Jon was before Viserys.

 

5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Out of masochism, my friend...

There were three of them. It was perfectly within their capacity to protect Lyanna and Jon and fulfill their KG vows by sending one of them to DS. They didn't, and they didn't even acknowledge that this is what they should be doing.

 

The king is dead, long live the king. Viserys lived and they should have gone to him. Vows don't bother with technicalities like crowning or power and the like, the moment Viserys is the first in the succession line, he is king, just like Joffrey is after Robert's death.

Look at the context at which they said that KG doesn't flee: Willem Darry fleeing with Vis and Rhaella to DS, while the KING remained in KL. That's what they cannot flee from, their duty to be with the king. 

If you swear to protect someone, you have no right to put your selfish wishes for honourable death above your duty. The vows don't include a caveat "not valid when the realm falls, war is lost etc.". Their swore to protect the king or die trying. At the time of the ToJ showdown, they are definitely not protecting king Viserys.

 

Well, yes, at the time when Rhaegar departed from ToJ, their reason to stay was apparently different. Like, following Rhaegar's order, as GRRM said they would if they liked it or not. But after the Sack and death or betrayal of all the other KG, they are the only ones who can fulfill their primary duty to protect the king, and Rhaegar's order is no longer a valid excuse for them not to be with the king. If there is no king at ToJ, they are all in dereliction of that primary duty and have no right to go proudly about being Kingsguard.

 

Well, if their plan was to keep Jon secret until they can move to another safe location, it worked - no-one found them except Ned to whom the information was somehow leaked. 

I know the arguments for Jon's legitimacy and I'm not insisting that Jon is a bastard. I am just trying to explain why I don't think the kingsguards presence at the TOJ is proof of his legitimacy. I honestly don't think it matters at all. Why would it matter? To have Jon end up on the iron throne because it was lawfully his from the moment he was born? I hope not. Jon is obviously an important world savior, not because he is a secret prince, but because of who his parents are. I don't know, maybe they were secretly married but if they were then it's probably just to make Lyanna appear a little bit more virtuous woman who doesn't give birth to bastards. Even if Jon was just a bastard, they would not have gone after Viserys because who was next in line for the throne that they had lost was not their concern anymore. I think they were guarding Lyanna simply because that's what they were ordered to do not because they thought their king was in the tower. The king they had sworn their oaths to was dead and when Ned confronts them at the tower they are still Aerys's kingsguard and they died as Aerys's kingsguard.

 

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

I know the arguments for Jon's legitimacy and I'm not insisting that Jon is a bastard. I am just trying to explain why I don't think the kingsguards presence at the TOJ is proof of his legitimacy. I honestly don't think it matters at all. Why would it matter? To have Jon end up on the iron throne because it was lawfully his from the moment he was born? I hope not.

Proper little fan girls buying into the dreadful medieval feudal  'bastards are bad' and the even worse 'true kings are born' routine can't have any way else - the second is right now a ridiculous opinion because we have learned that there is no fixed line of succession, so it is essentially impossible that Jon Snow was born a king or even had a good claim to the Iron Throne. Little Prince Maegor also had a good claim to the Iron Throne, being the grandson of a king, yet the Great Council didn't give a fig about that.

That kind of interpretation is actually a disgrace to the series because while a lot of the characters are biased people ruled by the bad social constructs of this world the readers should not sink to their level. You should not feel the need that one of your beloved characters must not possibly be a bastard. 

If you do that you can also applaud Selyse blaming Robert's lust and the existence of Edric Storm for her loveless marriage or Catelyn for seeing her husband's bastard as a threat to her own children.

George is actually trying to give us a much more complex picture with telling us about great bastard characters like Orys Baratheon, Bloodraven, Benedict Justman, etc. Being born on the wrong side of the blanket doesn't have to condemn you to life of insignificance. 

3 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Jon is obviously an important world savior, not because he is a secret prince, but because of who his parents are. I don't know, maybe they were secretly married but if they were then it's probably just to make Lyanna appear a little bit more virtuous woman who doesn't give birth to bastards. Even if Jon was just a bastard, they would not have gone after Viserys because who was next in line for the throne that they had lost was not their concern anymore. I think they were guarding Lyanna simply because that's what they were ordered to do not because they thought their king was in the tower. The king they had sworn their oaths to was dead and when Ned confronts them at the tower they are still Aerys's kingsguard and they died as Aerys's kingsguard.

The idea that Jon was born a king was essentially already refuted by ADwD. If we assume that it was proper procedure for the Kingsguard at the tower to pick a new king by their own (very much non-existing) authority then it is very odd that Jon Connington, Haldon Halfmaester, Septa Lemore, and the men of the Golden Company do not refer to Prince Aegon as King Aegon VI Targaryen in ADwD.

If Connington stuck to some fixed line of succession (which doesn't exist but let's assume for the sake of argument that it did, in his mind) then Viserys III wouldn't have been a true king in his eyes, instead Prince Aegon would have been King Aegon since the moment his royal grandfather died. And even if they had accepted and counted Viserys III as a crowned and anointed rightful king the man was dead for over a year by then. Sure as hell that should have made Prince Aegon to King Aegon.

But, no. In Westeros kings are made, not born. And whoever denies that isn't really reading the books properly. I'm willing to believe that the knights at the tower were dying defending a royal prince and his mother (and they might even have believed that this prince should be king one day or has a good blood claim to the Iron Throne) but the idea that they actually thought he was the king simply makes no sense. Kings are not made in the middle of nowhere. And even if they had been in KL at the foot of the Iron Throne with all the trappings of power around it is still exceedingly unlikely that this boy would have been made king if his father and grandfather and elder half-siblings had died in some freak accident because he was just a newborn infant and nobody in Westeros wants infant kings with a regency stretching over sixteen years.

And even going through the motions and rituals isn't enough. Is Stannis a king right now (he was proclaimed and crowned and actually runs around wearing a crown)? Or just a pretender? What about Viserys III? Renly? Robb, Balon, Euron? What about Daenerys right now? What about Joffrey and Tommen? Are they kings or just pretenders (due to the fact that they are not Robert's seed)?

What about Daemon Blackfyre and the 4-5 other Blackfyre pretenders? What about Rhaenyra Targaryen? What about Maegor the Cruel in comparison to his nephews Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys?

Those questions are not easily answered.

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

I know the arguments for Jon's legitimacy and I'm not insisting that Jon is a bastard. I am just trying to explain why I don't think the kingsguards presence at the TOJ is proof of his legitimacy.

Then why did GRRM write the Kingsguard at all? Why establish a sworn order whose main purpose in life is to protect the king, why write a scene where they emphasize so much their status?

Would it make you feel better if the KG presence was called a strong hint instead of proof?

11 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

I honestly don't think it matters at all. Why would it matter? To have Jon end up on the iron throne because it was lawfully his from the moment he was born? I hope not. Jon is obviously an important world savior, not because he is a secret prince, but because of who his parents are.

Well, if one wants to undermine the secret prince trope, he needs to make him secret and a prince ;-) And then, perhaps, the legitimacy won't matter at all because Jon will become a king in his own right. Or perhaps, some usurper will sit the throne and the rightful heir never will. Who's to know? This final purpose remains yet to be seen. But from what has been written, it is apparent that some purpose is being followed.

11 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

I don't know, maybe they were secretly married but if they were then it's probably just to make Lyanna appear a little bit more virtuous woman who doesn't give birth to bastards.

Not just Lyanna, Rhaegar himself, as well. Who has already been said to be honourable, and honourable men don't dishonour the women they love by impregnating them with bastards. Wedding before bedding, or at least ASAP ex post, that's what honourable men do. If Rhaegar wasn't married already, people wouldn't hesitate for an instant that he and Lyanna married secretly. Married men don't have this option, but, miraculously, Rhaegar happened to be one out of two men in all of Westeros whose family precedent allowed for it, and driven by a prophecy that would require him to look for loopholes to conceive his third dragon head. Again, not sure what GRRM's ultimate purpose will be, but can we at least agree that this is one hell of a coincidence?

11 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Even if Jon was just a bastard, they would not have gone after Viserys because who was next in line for the throne that they had lost was not their concern anymore.

Now that's merely your opinion with no textual basis. On the contrary, Barristan Selmy (and Dany as well) believes that he should have gone to Viserys and that he failed his duty when he didn't. By your logic, Lord Manderly shouldn't bother with recovering Rickon because the Starks are goners? Principled men don't abandon their liege because he has lost a war and his seat of power, they attempt to reinstate him, or his heir. Which is exactly what the KG should have done.

11 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

I think they were guarding Lyanna simply because that's what they were ordered to do not because they thought their king was in the tower. The king they had sworn their oaths to was dead and when Ned confronts them at the tower they are still Aerys's kingsguard and they died as Aerys's kingsguard.

Except that we see that the death of the king doesn't relieve the KG of anything. The moment Robert died, Barristan said that his place was with the king - Joffrey, and we never hear of the KG renewing their vows to the successor. The moment Viserys became Aerys' only known heir, the KG loyalty should have been transferred to him, just like Ned's bannermen's loyalty was transferred to Robb. That's how the Westerosi society works.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Either way, the gist of the dream informs us that they knew what they were doing, and why, when they chose to fight Ned, and what Ned knows about their motives makes him keep them in highest regard. They may have been mistaken or misinformed, but as far as Ned knows, they must have kept their vows and done what would have been the right thing for the KG to do. 

On this bit at least we can mostly agree.
The problem is about what the "right thing" may be. This is where we disagree. Or to put it differently, this is where I see several possibilities rather than one certainty. I don't think the KG needed a specific plan for them to earn Ned's respect ; just fighting a lost battle despite being offered the possibility of fleeing would have been enough. And it's really not clear to me what KG are supposed to do when a king dies and the succession is unclear, nor do I think it would have been clear to the KG at the ToJ.
Then the chronology really doesn't help figure it out. So originally the KG are guarding Lyanna, presumably because of Rhaegar's orders. Then Rhaegar dies at the Trident. But the Trident actually has several consequences: i) Rhaegar is dead, ii) Viserys and Rhaella flee to Dragonstone and iii) Viserys is named heir. Do the KG back at the ToJ know all this? Just i) ? Maybe more? We don't know but at any rate they don't move. Then there's the Sack. Again several separate elements: i) Aerys dies, ii) he's killed by Jaime, iii) Aegon is killed. Do they know all this? Again we don't know. Our only certainty is that by the time the fight with Ned begins they do know for sure.
Lastly the fever dream doesn't help either because it doesn't say why the fight occurs.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I find it hard to think the KG's presence proves Jon's legitimacy. I'd be ok with anyone saying it might be a hint, but there's too much uncertainty to say it's a definite proof. For all we know Rhaegar's friends may have wanted to protect his last child regardless of his birth.

[Ygrain]

Oh, and one more thing: why exactly should Rhaegar and Lyanna, after disregarding practically every single social norm that forbade them to be together, respect the non-polygamy norm?

[Ygrain]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

On this bit at least we can mostly agree.
The problem is about what the "right thing" may be. This is where we disagree. Or to put it differently, this is where I see several possibilities rather than one certainty. I don't think the KG needed a specific plan for them to earn Ned's respect ; just fighting a lost battle despite being offered the possibility of fleeing would have been enough.

The right thing for the KG is to protect the king and die for him if need be, we are told this repeatedly. Holding one's ground and not fleeing is certainly honourable and admirable but it has nothing to do with fulfilling one's role as Kingsguard; or rather, it is not enough to qualify as an examplary KG if it has nothing to do with the primary duty.

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And it's really not clear to me what KG are supposed to do when a king dies and the succession is unclear, nor do I think it would have been clear to the KG at the ToJ.

If Jon is a bastard, the succession is clear: Viserys is king.

If Jon is legitimate and the KG don't know about Aerys' choice, the succession is clear: Jon is king

If Jon is legitimate and the KG are aware of the change in succession, things get muddled, but right or wrong, the KG apparently made up their mind about their duty and the decision must have had at least some validation in Ned's eyes.

 

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Then the chronology really doesn't help figure it out. So originally the KG are guarding Lyanna, presumably because of Rhaegar's orders. Then Rhaegar dies at the Trident. But the Trident actually has several consequences: i) Rhaegar is dead, ii) Viserys and Rhaella flee to Dragonstone and iii) Viserys is named heir. Do the KG back at the ToJ know all this? Just i) ? Maybe more? We don't know but at any rate they don't move. Then there's the Sack. Again several separate elements: i) Aerys dies, ii) he's killed by Jaime, iii) Aegon is killed. Do they know all this? Again we don't know. Our only certainty is that by the time the fight with Ned begins they do know for sure.
Lastly the fever dream doesn't help either because it doesn't say why the fight occurs.

Honestly, does this even matter when they learned what? It is the mindset with which they started the fight that, IMHO, matters, and Ned's thoughts of them in the retrospect. Somehow, in those murky waters, they navigated with as much honour as they could keep, yet for all their honour, they somehow concluded that it was not Viserys with whom their duty lay.

 

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All this is a long-winded way of saying that I find it hard to think the KG's presence proves Jon's legitimacy. I'd be ok with anyone saying it might be a hint, but there's too much uncertainty to say it's a definite proof. For all we know Rhaegar's friends may have wanted to protect his last child regardless of his birth.

But Hightower was definitely not Rhaegar's man, he is never mentioned as being his friend and has been shown several times as being a stickler for the rules and following Aerys blindly, I don't see him doing such a thing as abandoning duty for friendship. Plus, if those three men put friendship above duty, they don't deserve the praise as exemplary Kingsguard - good men and true for sure, but not good and true Kingsguard. There is no getting out of it - either they are protecting the king, or they are not. There is no-one else to carry out the duty and they know it. If Viserys is king, they are in dereliction of their duty. If Jon is king, they are carrying out their duty, and they are the best KG they can be, dying for their king fighting a lost battle despite being offered a possibility of fleeing. 

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Their knowledge would really depend on how broadly the change in succession was broadcast across Westeros - unlike the deaths of Rhaegar and Aerys, for which there would have been tens to hundreds of witnesses and the gravity of the news would make them spread like wildfire, Viserys jumping the queue was a relatively minor issue which soon became a moot point, anyway.

I agree the replacement of Aegon with Viserys as Aerys's heir is not the earth shaking news of the Battle of the Trident and the death of Rhaegar. It is rather important news, however. It is, if we take the word of Jaime on the subject, a slap at the Dornish when Aerys decides they must have betrayed him and Rhaegar at the Trident. It is Aerys way of punishing the Martells for their perceived treachery, and fits right in with his refusal to let Elia and her children go to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys. Aerys holding them hostage and bypassing Aegon is part of the same paranoid response.

But this is not something to be done quietly. Not only does it make sense to do it publicly in order to show the power Aerys still has, but for it to succeed it has to be done in a way in which his supporters see his wishes.

I think as well that it is important to note that it is not just through the normal spread of news that it is likely the Kingsguard at the tower get their news. Rhaegar fought a factional battle with the lickspittle lords of the small council who wished to replace in favor of Viserys for years. That implies a factional organization on Rhaegar's part as well as those against him. Given the need of the Kingsguard to be prepared for the eventualities of the war, they would need to make use of Rhaegar's friends and of friends of their own to stay hidden, stay supplied, and to stay informed. I take it as fact that military men like Hightower and Dayne know these necessities.

Getting the news of the war and what is going on in King's Landing to the tower is an imperative for their hope of survival. So, when Ned leaves with his army to go to Storm's End from the capital, it is likely such an established network got the news out of the city and on its way to the Tower of Joy. I think it would be a mistake to think that the news of passing over Aegon for Viserys would not be part of that transmission of information. Competent spies would send this news on as a very important part of the developments. Even if that network is shut down by the sack, the news of naming Viserys heir to the throne predates that event.

You are right, of course, that Aerys's action on the succession is a moot point to everyone who believes Aegon dead. It certainly would not be moot to the Kingsguard if they are guarding a pregnant Lyanna or a new born son of Rhaegar.

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I think that in the case sibling versus son succession, even the KG might be inclined to perceive the king's action as not entirely justified and Ned might be inclined to understand  such a choice, given his own strict view of the succession rules.

You could well be right that they would object to Aerys's action, but that would certainly change our view of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent. They become kingmakers, instead of men who follow their oaths to the letter.

I'm inclined to think Ned knows none of the Kingsguard thinking on this. They are very unlikely to have told Ned on their own, and I think Lyanna was dying when she got Ned to promise to protect Jon from Robert and all those who would hurt him. To raise him as his own son. I lean to Ned thinking Jon is a bastard, even though I agree with you it is likely he is not.

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

BTW, have we ever discussed the possibility that Aerys intentionally kept his choice of heir secret, basically making little Aegon a target instead of Viserys?

I don't know that we have, but I've already tried to explain my thinking on why it wouldn't be kept secret in the first part of my response in this post. I'd only add that any Targaryen is a target - Rhaella, Viserys, Aegon, and Rhaenys. It's not like Robert and the rebels are going to ignore the threat any claimant to their rule poses.

[SFDanny]

46 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Oh, and one more thing: why exactly should Rhaegar and Lyanna, after disregarding practically every single social norm that forbade them to be together, respect the non-polygamy norm?

Not only is it likely they disregarded all the social norms you indicate, they also have reason to think their child is needed to recreate the three headed dragon. That dragon refers to Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys, the three trueborn children who won the battle for Westeros. Not Aegon,  Rhaenys and Orys Baratheon.

Rhaegar has this powerful reason to buck tradition and marry Lyanna as his second wife, and Lyanna is unlikely to accept being a mistress and her child the life of a bastard. Add to this, the strong indications they loved each other, and it is hard to see why they wouldn't get married. To hell with what Aerys said.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Plus, if those three men put friendship above duty, they don't deserve the praise as exemplary Kingsguard - good men and true for sure, but not good and true Kingsguard. There is no getting out of it - either they are protecting the king, or they are not. There is no-one else to carry out the duty and they know it. If Viserys is king, they are in dereliction of their duty. If Jon is king, they are carrying out their duty, and they are the best KG they can be, dying for their king fighting a lost battle despite being offered a possibility of fleeing. 

Except people in Westeros don't know about Jon.

So by your own logic, people should not see these men as exemplary KG but be wondering why in the seven hells they threw away their lives in Dorne instead of doing everything they could to do their duty and protect king Viserys.

You see, this is the problem. You have to bear in mind that the KG's presence in Dorne and their fight with Ned is common knowledge. This means you can't argue that it proves beyond a doubt that Jon is legitimate.

Of course, a simple way out of this is to assume that a KG's vows include a duty to slay his king's enemies whenever possible, or something similar, which would explain why the KG standing their ground at the ToJ is viewed as honorable.

3 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

But Hightower was definitely not Rhaegar's man, he is never mentioned as being his friend and has been shown several times as being a stickler for the rules and following Aerys blindly

Hightower's presence at the ToJ is problematic anyway. He should have traveled back to KL with Rhaegar.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

On this bit at least we can mostly agree.
The problem is about what the "right thing" may be. This is where we disagree. Or to put it differently, this is where I see several possibilities rather than one certainty. I don't think the KG needed a specific plan for them to earn Ned's respect ; just fighting a lost battle despite being offered the possibility of fleeing would have been enough. And it's really not clear to me what KG are supposed to do when a king dies and the succession is unclear, nor do I think it would have been clear to the KG at the ToJ.

Don't let yourself get confused.

This is the relevant quote here:

Quote

Something his father had told him once when he was little came back to him suddenly. He had asked Lord Eddard if the Kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. “No longer,” he answered, “but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world.”

"Was there one who was best of all?”
“The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

Bran asked his father 

(1) whether the Kingsguard were once actually the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. He did not ask whether the Kingsguard was once better than it is now.

Ned's answer is that they were once 'a marvel, a shining lesson to the world'. Presumably they were a shining example in knighthood, what it meant to be a knight, not what it meant to be a good bodyguard. Sandor Clegane clearly is a better watchdog than many of Aerys' Seven (who all failed to protect either Aerys or Rhaegar and his children).

Ned also does not make it clear that he particularly admired Aerys' White Swords. He does not specify what Kingsguard he thought were so great (making it also possible he is including men like Ser Duncan the Tall, the Dragonknight, Ryam Redwyne, etc. among those exemplary men) but we can be reasonably assume that the reason why he thinks they are no longer a shining example is because Jaime is still alive and a member of Robert's Kingsguard. Nothing indicates that Ned had any clue how bad/rotten Robert's other Kingsguard were until he met them in action during this time as Hand.

(2) When asked who was the best knight [of the Kingsguard] of all, Ned points out Ser Arthur Dayne, specifically, never mentioning either Gerold Hightower or Oswell Whent. That is an important fact. What is so special about Ser Arthur that lets him stand out. Didn't the other two men do the same stuff at the tower? What sets him apart? Just that he nearly killed Ned?

There is a rather strong chance that Ned has much intimate connections with the Daynes aside from the tower of joy business, thanks to the entire Ashara affair. Whatever made Ned admire Arthur as much as he did does not necessarily have anything to do with the tower of joy episode (although it certainly could be part of it).

The important part, though, is that nothing indicates that it the three knights dying for Jon Snow/Lyanna or anything the three knights did that made the Kingsguard a shining example to the world. People easily overlook that.

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

For all we know Rhaegar's friends may have wanted to protect his last child regardless of his birth.

That is the important thing.

Does anybody truly believe it is impossible or even highly unlikely that if the men at the tower really loved Rhaegar (and two of them are confirmed to have been very close to him) would not also gladly die for his bastard son, his mistress, or just a person he really likes very much?

What kind of friends and loyal retainers would they be if they would not do this?

It is a phantom debate to ask why on earth they didn't go to Viserys III because we have no good reason to assume that this was even an option. 

And even if they chose not to go to Dragonstone this is by no means proof or even evidence that they were rejecting Viserys III as king and choose a rival king (Lyanna's son) instead. Just as Willis Fell and Rickard Thorne chose to protect Prince Maelor and Princess Jaehaera instead of King Aegon II.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure Bran is going to be a Frodo-like character. He is neither on a quest nor is he likely to do a lot of things personally. He is more set up to be a mentor-like figure, putting him perhaps into in the sphere of Gandalf-like characters (the wise guys helping the heroes along rather than doing everything for them).

The Jon-Aragorn comparison does not make a lot of sense in my opinion because Aragorn clearly is the rightful king from the start. This is never questioned in the story. There are some obstacles on his way to the throne (Sauron, Denethor) but his ancestry and the claim coming with it is only continuously reinforced by various important signs and portents rather than being critically examined or discussed.

Dany's claim is not as rock solid as Aragorn's but it gets pretty close to it. The Targaryens created the Iron Throne and scions of that lineages always said on that throne (the Targaryen-Baratheons included). Daenerys is the last scion and head of House Targaryen.

Aegon might no question this and even usurp her place for a time but it is pretty likely that she will take it back eventually.

Nothing in Jon Snow's story gives so much as a hint that he actually intends to be king or would try to be king if he learned of his true parentage. We could all see him thanking the old gods and the new that Aunt Daenerys has arrived to take that stupid throne because he wants nothing to do with it. And if he still wants a share in power he can marry Daenerys. Again, there is a reason for the Targaryen incest custom.

It would make for a very contrived story where a man from the periphery of power is forced by events to develop an ambition and pursue a goal that he does not actually have. This is A Song of Ice and Fire and not Dune. Jon Snow is not Paul Atreides. Not to mention that the setup of political events does not favor Jon Snow acquiring much power, being trapped between the Southern blocs and the Others, only being able to draw upon the support of a people which depleted its military strength in a pointless war. All of that as the worst winter in living memory is going to begin.

That is an important point and if we look at Dying of the Light (as I've recently done) then old warriors who lost everything they lived for searching for a good way to go is a very strong theme in that book.

It could also have been a strong point behind the knights at the tower going down in a good fight, no longer caring what happens to the woman and the child in their care, and/or never expecting that Eddard Stark would harm them. They go down with a fight and give their life for their late king and prince as they wanted and were expected to.

Just as men like Lord Larys Strong and Ser Gyles Belgrave chose to be executed rather than taking the black after the death of Aegon II. They did not want to survive the king they has served and sworn to protect and die for. The way events unfolded wanted it that these men, too, could not save their king but this doesn't mean they have to live with that stain on their honor. They can die an honorable death.

And that's what the knights at the tower did, too.

If they had really cared about what happened to Lyanna and the child (and believed that Ned would kill them) one would have expected them to treat and plead with him, to try to get his permission to go into exile, to hide the child (Ned's own nephew) but as far as we know they did nothing of that sort.

I feel like your inferring way too much into a very simple statement I made. When did I say Jon wanted to, or would become a King? I just said I wouldn't make any direct correlations between any of the ASOIAF characters to either Aragorn or Frodo. However I think certain comparisons can be made. You yourself said Jon will probably not ride a dragon and is set up as a fighter that will lead men into the battle field, in this aspect Jon is closer to Aragorn then Dany is. Frodo went on a quest into dangerous territory in an effort to help save man, in this a comparison can be made to Bran. Just because comparisons can be made between characters I don't think they should be thrown into the same category of character type. 

 

[Julia H.]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Is it? In what sense. It deals with dead people who are essentially nothing but extras in this story. Whether Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son or not is not highly significant nor even relevant to the plot as of yet since Jon could also be the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch if he was Ned's son by a tavern wench.

If you care about this Jon Snow parentage mystery thing it is an important scene providing clues. But that's it.

Oh, yes, and if you only care about the glory of a certain silver princess, then the presence of Jon Snow in the story must be really annoying. But he is there, and his parentage is one of the central mysteries in the story, which is referred to in many ways. The scene that you describe as "dealing with extras" actually deals with the origin of one of the main characters.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I did not bury him as a leader, I just put him into perspective.

Well, not in a convincing way, sorry. I'll wait for what GRRM has to say on this.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it usually doesn't happen in literature that a person who has a different plot and no intention to win a throne actually wins. That only happens in bad literature.

Bad literature is what is badly written. From where we are, it is perfectly possible for Jon to end up as King or to die as Lord Commander or to become a noble deserter if he finds that the NW does not help him achieve his goals any more and so on. His role is to be the shield that protects the realms of men - and that is exactly the main duty of a king. As for that throne, I can detect a strong message that those who want to win it do not deserve it and / or cannot keep it. Jon will not fight to win a throne. Yet, the realm may need him as a leader. 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It will be the same class. The lords of the Realm. Men with ambition and much more power than the leader of the North could ever hope to gain in the middle of a fight against the Others.

Wars can restructure power and change priorities.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm also not sure why Jon is going to become a national hero if he fails in his task to hold the Wall against the Others. The Wall is most likely going to fall and Jon is not going to be able hold them back all by himself. He may have crucial information on them, etc. but that's not the same as defeating them. Why should anybody look to Jon as their leader in such a scenario? He may know stuff but the people don't know him and he has no means of forcing them to accept as their leader. No food, no men, no dragons, no anything, really.

 

Yet, Jon is set up as the only major character (besides Mance Rayder perhaps) whose purpose is to fight the Others, the only one who wants to protect the realm against the real danger. His whole story arc is about this vocation. I'm surprised that you think that winning a throne for someone who does not seek power for selfish reasons is necessarily bad writing but you also seem to be convinced that someone who has never heard of the Others throughout five books, someone who has never fought a war and doesn't even know what truly cold climate means, someone who wants only to play the game of thrones will be the one to defeat the Others and to save the realm, and you don't seem to worry that it will be bad writing.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I feel like your inferring way too much into a very simple statement I made. When did I say Jon wanted to, or would become a King? I just said I wouldn't make any direct correlations between any of the ASOIAF characters to either Aragorn or Frodo. However I think certain comparisons can be made. You yourself said Jon will probably not ride a dragon and is set up as a fighter that will lead men into the battle field, in this aspect Jon is closer to Aragorn then Dany is.

Oh, I think Jon will become a dragonrider, but I also think he will lead people into battle and personally participate in it. Aragorn also led people into battle but his entire campaign was just a diversion for Frodo. I don't think Jon Snow is going to cause a diversion for Dany, Bran, or anybody else.

He will play a very crucial role in the fight against the Others, perhaps even the most active role of all. Bran can't walk (and may never leave the cave), Tyrion is smart but a dwarf, and Dany is a girl and no warrior. Jon and Brienne are likely to do the physical stuff.

5 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Frodo went on a quest into dangerous territory in an effort to help save man, in this a comparison can be made to Bran. Just because comparisons can be made between characters I don't think they should be thrown into the same category of character type.

Yeah, in that sense Bran is also somewhat like Frodo. But that's a much less striking parallel than there is with Jon and Frodo due to that whole Sam parallel. That is no coincidence. And I think we are already feeling that the burden is starting to tear Jon down. The Pink Letter really caused him to break down. I don't think it is going to get easier for him after he is dead.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, that is not a given. King Viserys III can make himself his own Kingsguard. He is protected by the garrison of Dragonstone and the royal fleet. Willis Fell presumably also did not ask Lord Borros Baratheon to give him leave to join Aegon II on Dragonstone (or search for the man) after he had delivered Princess Jaehaera to him. He continued to do his duty despite the fact that Aegon II was without Kingsguard protection.

An order given to a Kingsguard (or any loyal retainer of a king) does not die with the king (or prince) issuing that order. We see this when Stannis orders Justin Massey to continue the campaign for the Iron Throne in the name of Shireen in case of Stannis' death, in Arys Oakheart not asking King Tommen whether it is still his duty to guard Princess Myrcella in Dorne after Joffrey's death, etc..

The question of going to Dragonstone simply may not have come because the men thought their duty was now to Lyanna and the child. And if they all promised Rhaegar that they would do what he asked of them then it makes sense that they would all stay. They were not as stupid as to believe that one of their number could help to better protect Viserys. Not to mention that they might have realized that the risk trying to get to Dragonstone was too great.

To the bolded part, the prince is not a king. It was the wish and order of their king that Viserys would be his heir after Rhaegar's death. Any orders from the dead Rhaegar do not counteract those orders from their king.

But, of course, the three men are not likely confronted with a conflict of duty. All they have to do is send one of their number to Dragonstone. They have a responsibility to do so. Their first duty demands it, and their oath to follow their king's orders demand it. Yet they don't do it.

It is not because it is too hard to get to Dragonstone. They would travel south to Starfall and from there by ship to Dragonstone. All friendly territory and at a time the royal fleet is still a force, for at least a part of which the Redwyne ships would be still blockading Storm's End, and the way to Dragonstone is open to them.

And let's be clear, it is not just a question of one sword coming to guard Viserys and Rhaella. It is likely the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and his knowledge and expertise that should be with the new king on Dragonstone. If there is one advisor that could have helped the eight year old Viserys train to be a new king it is Ser Gerold Hightower. The fact none of the three men or Ser Barristan decides to go to Viserys changes his, and his soon to be sister's lives dramatically.

That all leaves us with a few possibilities of why they don't.

• They believe they have the heir to the throne with them at the Tower. This presumes they did not receive the news of Aerys's naming Viserys his heir.
• Ned surprises them at the tower before they can do anything about sending one of their number to Dragonstone, and they see no way of getting by Ned and his party save through a unequal battle.
• Or the motives of the Kingsguard are something other than fulfilling their first duty to guard their king. They want to kill every rebel they come across, they want to kill Ned in particular, they want to disobey Aerys's orders and put Rhaegar's last child on the throne, or, as I have suggested in the series of posts in my signature that they refuse to surrender their charges to the fates of Elia and her children and they die protecting the innocent Lyanna and Jon from Ned bringing them to Robert's "justice."

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The thing is, that they have to choose a king in any case. They could choose Robert or Viserys. What I don't think they did is choose a new king of their own (Lyanna's child) simply because that would have been utter stupidity. But a Kingsguard does not automatically recognize a new king just because the old one dies, especially not in the middle of civil war.

Selmy hasn't sworn an oath to King Viserys III. He never was his king. And Robert Baratheon was the crowned and anointed king of Westeros. That you think Selmy's king should have been Viserys III doesn't make it so. I also think Rhaenyra Targaryen was Criston Cole's rightful queen but that doesn't make it so.

The Kingsguard doesn't decide who should be king, and they usually accept the rulings on the succession. No Kingsguard tried to murder the false king Aegon V after the Great Council of 233 AC, trying to establish the true kings Maegor II or Aemon I. No Kingsguard challenged the ascension of Viserys I or Viserys II, either.

Wars also decide who is king. A war toppled Maegor the Cruel and another Aegon II. The Kingsguard swore fealty to the new king in each of those cases.

I find the idea that those three men actually were taking the route of Larys Strong and Gyles Belgrave who gladly followed their king into the grave rather than make common cause with rebels and traitors. The three men could not die at Rhaegar's or Aerys' side but they could at the tower.

No, unless the Kingsguard decide to play the role of kingmaker like Criston Cole, they do not choose a king. They follow the orders of the last king as to who their new king is. That is if they are true to their oaths. Some Kingsguard would choose to disregard their oaths and follow which way the wind blows, but one who follows his oath does not. Those who followed Viserys's orders and supported Rhaenyra in the Dance of the Dragons were true to their oaths.. Those like Cole who did otherwise did were not truthful to their oaths. That is not a judgement on who was the better king or queen, it is simply a statement of what their oaths tell them they must do.

Morally, one can, and I think should, consider the impact of putting a mentally unstable child like Viserys on the throne, but one cannot argue that is not what their oaths told them to do.

In the example of Egg, none of this applies because it is clear Maekar did not leave a named heir. It is not just following custom. It is following the orders of your king that matter. Meagor had no children and the armies that toppled him belonged to the rightful heir anyway. Aegon II's Kingsguard do not set an example for Hightower, Dayne, and Whent. They had no choice but death or service to the new king they did not recognize. They chose death. The Kingsguard at the tower had the choice between what their oaths told them to do - serve Viserys - or violate their oaths by suicide in battle, or join with Cole's example in becoming kingmakers. Selmy, Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are all bound by their oaths to support Aerys's order, decree, or will -whatever you want to call it - to support Viserys, in exile, on Dragonstone, or on the Iron Throne.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, in fact, it is very odd difficult to believe that Ned and his men should have been so much as a match for those three guys. Jaime alone should have made short work out of them. Howland Reed isn't even a knight, Ned is at best an average swordsman, and Ethan Glover seems to have been rather young. That leaves four possible better swordsmen against three of the greatest knights in the Realm. It is very odd that they all died.

Or your assumptions about the skills of Ned and his companions are wrong.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not if they had received other orders. We usually think they got such orders from Rhaegar but it is actually also not impossible that Aerys II himself commanded them to guard that tower and/or Lyanna. I don't believe that but if that was the case they sure as hell had no right to abandon it and run to a new king. At least not if they felt bound by those orders which they apparently did to the degree that they let both their king and prince die without helping them.

It is telling that you don't even believe this idea. If Aerys controlled the whereabouts of Lyanna she would have been under guard as a hostage in the Red Keep. It does him no good to have her locked away in a unknown location in Dorne. What would have Robert or Ned done if Aerys could have threatened Lyanna's life? I'm sure Aerys would have liked to have known.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned actually tells them that in conversation. They seem to know about the Trident and that Robert usurped the throne, but that's it. They might very well have heard first about Jaime's deed as well as Viserys and Rhaella's flight to Dragonstone from Ned. The text allows that interpretation.

If we take it as having happened literally in that fashion.

I'm quite willing to believe Ned's dream represents what he knows of the history and what he thinks the Kingsguard would say in response to his questions if he was able to put them to them. As such it still tells us a lot about the events and his view of the men he fought.

What I'm not prepared to believe is that these men did not have some way of finding out what was going on in the war and hide blind to all the events happening around them. Hightower was the general in command of the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and Dayne was in charge of the battles against the Kingswood Brotherhood. Whent was a skilled go between in the factional fights between Rhaegar and the lickspittle lords of the small council. None of them would sit isolated without information on what the enemy was doing.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know how long they were at that place, though. That is a mystery in itself. Why the hell where they there of all places.

We know that is where Hightower found them and that Ned finds them there months later. Could they have traveled during that time? Sure, but we have no evidence they did.  None of which changes the need of the men to have intelligence reports.

[teej6]

On 3/24/2017 at 9:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

 

On 3/24/2017 at 9:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

On 3/24/2017 at 9:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Some will, others will not. Some already did not.

The idea is that Jon seeing Jaime as kingly was a hint to the original plan (as per the original outline) that Evil Jaime would be king. There are also hints that Joffrey and Robb would clash again later in life (the entire exchange in the practice yard is foreshadowing this).

And then there are the hints that Tyrion will be king one day. Only very few people ever cite those. But 'Tyrion Lannister standing as tall as a king' is a very important scene.

You are not really suggesting George is stealing from Star Wars, right? Luke Skywalker never became a king, anyway. Nor was he anybody's heir.

Nope, if there is an Aragorn character in ASoIaF (which I actually doubt because Aragorn isn't much of a character) then it is Daenerys, not Jon. Jon is a nobody, and Aragorn is a powerful warrior and hero who essentially gives away his identity during his first meeting with the Hobbits (when he shows them the shards of Narsil).

Just as Aragorn Dany is originally without an army, crown, or powerful weapons, but she knows who she is and what that means. The same is true for Aragorn. Neither of them has to prove their worth or their identity to anyone. The truth is in their blood, in their faces, and in their props (special swords; dragons).

But it greatly reduces the probability that the 'Rhaegar's son' ploy is going to convince many people. If you don't see this you are blind. It has already been done in the books once already, when Littlefinger's men spreading the tale about Selyse beat Davos at some places. If the well is poisoned nobody will drink from it. And Aegon sure as hell is going to poison the 'There is a hidden son of Prince Rhaegar out there' well.

That is why you most likely don't like the Aegon plot all that much, no? Because you know where this is, most likely, going to lead.

That isn't the point. The point is that nobody thought that Hugh and Ulf (the former was actually a bastard, too) were hidden Targaryen princes just because they claimed some Targaryen dragons. People don't have to know about these historical figures to not do homage to Jon just because some people spread fancy tales about him and he ends up claiming a dragon (which I think he will). 

But there are so many strong hints that it will be Dany who leads an army against the Others. Back in AGoT where you say are so many hints foreshadowing the future. She has a dream fighting against men in ice armor at the Trident, equating herself with Rhaegar. That may be one of the most crucial prophetic dreams in the entire series. Jon Snow never has such prophetic dreams. Nor is he surrounded by and the obvious object of prophecy.

Dany has already fulfilled all the prophecy surrounding the promised prince. She was born (and reborn) amidst smoke and salt (on Dragonstone and in the pyre), she woke dragons from stone (drawing them from the fire as Azor Ahai did with Lightbringer). She sacrificed three people she loved (Viserys, Rhaego, Drogo) for three ultimate lightbringing weapons.

It can't be much clearer than that.

I'd sing the Jon Snow song all day long if Jon had had a House of the Undying experience. If he had hatched a dragon egg. If he were constantly visited by some masked sorceress in his dreams.

I'm not saying he is unimportant. I think he is one of the three dragon heads and I think there is actually no promised prince(ss) but three. There is not one savior and some companions, but three. And it is not going to work if they are not working together.

Marwyn has warned the gang about prophecies. The huge mistake is going to be to look just for one savior (as the red priests were doing). You have to search for three. 

I don't think they are good enough to justify this narrative or the 'great superhero Jon'. 

It is actually nowhere prophesied that the reborn Azor Ahai (which is the promised prince character) is supposed to have a literal Lightbringer. The mythical hero has such a sword in the stories, and that's why Melisandre thought her Azor Ahai should have such a sword, too. But Benerro and Moqorro's reborn Azor Ahai (Daenerys) doesn't have a burning sword, nor does anything we know about the prophecy of the promised prince indicate that he is supposed to have magical sword.

I'm very much of the opinion that Targaryen blood and Valyrian steel weapons will become important in the war against the Others.

The short version is that Targaryen blood imbued with fire magic - through, say, a resurrection spell done with fire magic - is going to be able to literally ignite Valyrian steel weapons in the same way Beric Dondarrion could ignite common steel using his blood.

I think Beric came back from the dead because he had a drop of dragonlord blood, and with Jon having much more Targaryen blood he might come back in a much better shape.

But that doesn't mean that Jon is going to make himself some super special sword and naming it Lightbringer. That is just ridiculous. The Others won't be stopped because somebody waves a burning sword in their direction.

But we can say that a person like Jon is more likely to die in a physical combat or a battle than Daenerys (who simply is no warrior). Dany can be assassinated, poisoned, fall off her dragon, go down with some ship, die by accident, etc. and in Jon's case we can add to all those possible ways of death also death in battle or single combat,. That is just a fact.

The other aspect is that Jon might also be willing to sacrifice himself for/to save mankind. If there is a heroic kind of character willing to do that it is him - even more so, if his resurrection changes him considerably. And this is not the kind of Hollywood movie where the hero would survive such a sacrifice.

Unless the dragons are all dying before the war against the Others we can reasonably sure they will play a role during that war. The original outline already essentially confirmed that. It would be very odd from a storytelling point of view if those growing dragons played no role in that war. I'm not saying they will decide it. I'm not even sure I think a huge battle is going to decide the war against the Others. But the dragons will play some part.

Bran obviously landed on his feet/legs and back, resulting in him becoming a cripple. He should have been dead had he fallen on his head.

Again, I never said Jon would be zombiefied in any real sense. It is just that I find every character who comes back from the dead qualifies as a weirdo undead creature. He can smell good all day long there would be still something fishy about such a character.

If George had gone down the 'very bad injury' road he could easily enough have given us a version of the Victarion or Drogo story (a wound gone bad) or even something more conventional (him getting infected with a mortal illness). He could even have somebody poison him.

Instead we get a pretty good ripoff of Caesar's assassination, with Bowen Marsh featuring as Brutus. While I agree that Jon may not have been dead when he closed his eyes in ADwD he was dying, and everything indicates that Marsh and his buddies had enough time to finish their work.

I does? Where the dragons dance, people die? It is stretch that this means hundreds of thousands or even millions of people (and we would have to talk about such numbers to refer to significant portions of the population).

I agree that there will be war but it is also effectively already confirmed that Daenerys will conquer Westeros. That was supposed to be the topic of the second book, A Dance with Dragons, in the original outline. So we can safely say that she will lead Westeros against the Others after her conquest of the continent, not somebody else. That she will survive this conquest of hers is also already confirmed because we know she will live until the very end of the series, alongside Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya.

Even if Dorne, the Reach, the Westerlands, the Crownlands, and the Stormlands lost two thirds of their population Dany is still likely to come with millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of Dothraki to Westeros. The people of Westeros can die, it won't affect her power base all that much (even less so if she is also taking her freedmen, sellswords, reformed Ghiscari, etc. with her).

The idea that Aegon, Euron, Cersei, Stannis, whoever else is going to play at war before Dany even comes to Westeros won't also continue to deplete the strength of the Riverlands, North, and Vale (not to mention the Vale and the Riverlands actually joining one of the new pretenders, most likely Aegon) also doesn't hold much water. The story has to continue, after all. Dany is not going to come to Westeros soon.

And the Second Dance of the Dragons might also involve all of Westeros, just as the first one did.

As for the North - they have to deal with Stannis, the Boltons and Freys, the Weeper's army, and the Others. They won't have the time to gather enough strength to even think of threatening anybody south of the Neck.

Can you base that on anything besides your feelings?

No, I say that his role and identity as a Targaryen prince is dependent on him being adopted into the Targaryen family by a Targaryen (either Dany or Aegon, I'm not insisting on Dany there - although I find her more likely). That would be necessary for him to be able to play the Targaryen card in the political arena.

Jon certainly can become a hero independent of Dany (he already is) and people can even look to him as some sort of a great military leader and war hero, etc. But those are likely going to be only very few people - people who won't sway an entire continent to see anything more in him than some Stark bastard who did a good job at dealing with (imagined) demons.

But, yeah, Dany really is central to the story. Jon, too, but Dany really looms a feet taller than anybody else insofar as 'prophetic importance' is concerned. I'm not making it so, I'm just seeing that.

I believe this story doesn't have a clear-cut hero. It has an ensemble of heroes. The three core heroes who are the topic of prophecy are Dany, Jon, and Tyrion, but there are many more crucial heroic people like Bran, Brienne, Davos, possibly Jaime, Samwell, Sansa, etc.

I don't think one should play Dany against Jon or vice versa. There is a reason that he is male and she is female. They will hook up. They are not enemies.

And I think you know that there is a reason why the Targaryen incest marriage custom has been introduced to this series.

One can wildly speculate how Jon is going to rule Daenerys as the manly man that he is, etc. but the thing is that Daenerys really is the head of House Targaryen, plain and simple. Aegon could challenge that claim because people will want to believe that he is Rhaegar's son - a son they knew actually existed (unlike Jon Snow, who would be a prince out of thin air, basically). But once he is dealt with she will decide who is a Targaryen and who isn't. And both Jon and Tyrion should (more or less) gladly accept her lead if that leads to them getting what they want in return (which in Jon's case is most likely going to be her assistance in the fight against the Others and a lot of good sex).

 

 

GRRM keeps stating that he’s known the ending for the major characters since 1991. So, even if his original outline has changed, I don’t think the importance of a character like Jon to the story or his eventual destiny has changed. Jamie, Joffrey, and Robb are not as important as Jon wouldn’t you say? As for the line about Tyrion being king, it is stated once in the text. Again, you can’t compare that to all the inferences to Jon being king.

GRRM uses mythical tropes in his storytelling and so did Lucas. They are both recycling various elements of the myths. And yes I see Luke Skywalker as the heir to the most powerful Jedi/Sith in the universe.

Aragorn is very much a character in LOTR. Tolkien gave him more of a personality than many of his other characters. Aragorn is the tormented with his love, purpose, and full of self-doubt. He is probably one of Tolkien’s most fleshed out characters. And yes he knew about his heritage but he did not want to claim it until he was talked into it by characters like Gandalf and Eldron. He’s the typical reluctant hero trope. He has a purpose but is afraid to claim it because of self-doubt. Dany, on the other hand, has a lust for power and recognition. Aragorn is a warrior but apart from the Elves and the Dunedain, no one has heard of his achievements in battle as he wants to keep it as such unlike Dany with her thousand and one titles who wants to proclaim to all and sundry that she is a great queen. Jon is closest to Aragorn in character – the reluctant hero who takes the mantle to save the realm.

Rhaegar’s son ploy as you call it will not matter in the end when Westeros is devastated. People will rally behind the person who saved them, which in IMO, will be Jon.

“Jon Snow never has such prophetic dreams. Nor is he surrounded by and the obvious object of prophecy.” This is such a fallacy, I don’t know where to begin. Jon does not need hallucinatory drugs to have prophetic dreams, he’s been having it since he was a child or have you forgotten his dreams of the crypts where he is not welcome and which is not his place.  As ususal, you state your opinions as fact and expect people to take you seriously.  Why am I not surprised? Prophesy is not exclusive to Dany in the series as you make it out to be. Bran and Jon have prophetic dreams too. If anyone is going to be a prophet/seer in the series, it will be Bran. He’ll probably end up as Jon’s Merlin. In usual mythical/fantasy writing, the prophecy is spelled out first and then the reader is introduced to the events/character of/in the prophecy. In the case, of Dany it is the reverse. But Jon’s is yet to happen or is yet to be revealed by the author and therefore seems more plausible. Or GRRM may have several characters fulfilling elements of the prophecy and we can debate this even after the final books are out. And you are right Jon does not get visits from a masked sorceress, only from a magician in a tree who appears to be moving through time and space.

“Marwyn has warned the gang about prophecies. The huge mistake is going to be to look just for one savior (as the red priests were doing). You have to search for three.” This is a classic example of your double standards. In the same post you make Dany out to be the prophetic savior who checks all the boxes for the promised one and then you go preaching to others. I and many other Jon fans are less married to the idea of Jon ending up the central hero of the story than you are to Dany being the one. I see Jon’s role as crucial in fighting the Others when every other main character (with the exception of Bran and perhaps Arya), including Dany, as power hungry. You are the one who wants to attribute everything to Dany and her greatness. You are the one who wants Dany to save Westeros from the Others (who by the way is no where in her radar), become the promised prince, share her fame and popularity out of her sheer benevolence with the likes of Jon and Tyrion, and then sit her arse on the IT. Oh! I forgot, Jon should also die sacrificing himself for the true hero Dany. This, to me, is the gist of your arguments in every post.  

Whether Mel or Benerro is right about AA, the story about him tempering his sword by inserting it through the heart of the woman he loved is not disputed. I doubt the story got so corrupted that a dragon became a sword. And it’s not just Targ blood but Stark blood that it also central to story. It wasn’t the Targs that signed a pact with the children of the forest. The Starks are first men and they most likely were central to the fight in the first battle against the WWs. The Last Hero was probably a Stark. So enough with the primacy of the Targs and their blood.

“Unless the dragons are all dying before the war against the Others we can reasonably sure they will play a role during that war. The original outline already essentially confirmed that.” Again, a classic example of your double standards. When it suits you, the original outline is cannon and when it doesn’t it’s GRRM has moved away from his original outline. Which is it?

We don’t know that Jon is dead. That is again something you want to see happen. He may well be dead or just injured badly. GRRM has stated that he didn’t want to end ADWD with so many cliffhangers but he had to as the book got too long. So who’s to say that in the next Jon chapter, he’s not being treated for his wounds? That being said, I also think Jon will seem dead in the eyes of others because the classical mythical hero has to visit the dead/underworld to be reborn.

“… Daenerys will conquer Westeros. That was supposed to be the topic of the second book, A Dance with Dragons, in the original outline. So we can safely say that she will lead Westeros against the Others after her conquest of the continent, not somebody else.” There you go again, quoting the original outline when it suits your narrative. And besides, where in the outline does it state that Dany will lead Westeros in the fight against the Others? That's just something you made up. 

And you keep stating that Jon will follow Dany. Can you base this on anything besides your feelings?

Jon may not want to identify himself as a Targ prince or king. He may want to keep his Stark identity. We don’t know. Again, I think that if Jon sits the IT in the end, it will be due to his central role in saving Westeros from the WWs, and unlike you, I think the kingdoms will be devastated by then with the power structure completely upended. You keep referring to the initial outline when it suits your purpose, so I’ll do so as well. The last book was originally called The Time for Wolves not the Time for Dragons or Khaleesi. There was a reason for that. And if George as he keeps stating hasn’t changed his ending for the central characters, I feel it will be the Starks that will be the dominant Westerosi family in the end.

“Jon certainly can become a hero independent of Dany (he already is) and people can even look to him as some sort of a great military leader and war hero, etc. But those are likely going to be only very few people - people who won't sway an entire continent to see anything more in him than some Stark bastard who did a good job at dealing with (imagined) demons.” You really think that by the end of the series the people of Westeros are still going to see the WWs as some imagined demons? This again goes to prove my point that you will literally state anything to suite your narrative.

“But, yeah, Dany really is central to the story. Jon, too, but Dany really looms a feet taller than anybody else insofar as 'prophetic importance' is concerned. I'm not making it so, I'm just seeing that.” Well you can see it so, others like myself don’t.

“I don't think one should play Dany against Jon or vice versa.” That’s good advice that you can try and follow yourself. You are the one who attempts to diminish Jon’s importance in the story in every Jon thread. And please don’t deny it. It’s so transparent at this point. 

Anyway, I'm ending this debate as we are not going to agree and this has digressed from the OP.