Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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.

What are you talking about? I don't see Daenerys and Jon Snow on opposite sides or even as enemies. They will fuck each other and have fun. Again, there is a reason that Dany is female and Jon male. There is also a reason for the Targaryen incest (a very uncommon practice in a fake medieval world), and there is a a reason that they are aunt and nephew.

It might be annoying if Jon and Dany had the same gender and were set up as rivals and possibly even enemies (as Stannis, Aegon, Dany, Euron, etc. are). But Dany and Jon are not enemies. Dany will marry Jon Snow. That is prophesied in the House of the Undying. It is right there, for everybody to see who actually looks for the real signs.

@Protagoras and I recently discussed the visions and prophecies again. That was very productive. Unfortunately I no longer know if which thread.

Quote

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.

But how do you know that Jon Snow's parentage is actually relevant for his story? Especially the rather irrelevant question whether he was born as a 'trueborn son' within the contingent social constructs of Westerosi society?

Jon is a heroic figure and a young man struggling to do his best irregardless whether he is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Quote

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

If you honestly think that Jon has any chance to come even close to match the strength Dany is marshaling I can't help you. She is uniting people under her rule that number in the millions. Jon has at best starving refugees and war-torn country on his side. Dany may come with millions of Dothraki.

Quote

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.

Actually, no. A king has, at best, a duty to his realm and subjects (and his own lust for power), not 'the realms of men'. Such a duty transcends petty kingdoms which is precisely why the Night's Watch was set up the way it was.

Quote

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.

Where do you detect that message? Robert apparently did not want the throne and got it and kept it his entire life. The only man in the story who professes he does not want to be king is Stannis, and he might actually be lying about that.

Quote

Wars can restructure power and change priorities.

We won't see the peasants running the country. Aside from the sparrows and the High Septon. They are likely there to stay. And they will not suffer a tree hugger and unbeliever as their king. And considering that they really toppled the sons of Aegon the Conqueror these people are not foes that would easily back down.

Quote

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.

Mance wanted to flee the Others, not fight them. He knew he could not fight them.

Quote

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.

It could be bad writing but George has actually set up Daenerys Targaryen to be a (or even the) major opponent to the Others. There is prophetic dream of hers actually foreshadowing her role in that fashion. Right now Archmaester Marwyn is traveling to her to inform her about the true threat that is threatening her kingdom. Why do you think she will come west when she does? Because she things she has to rush? With the Dothraki she could conquer all of Essos. Pretty much nothing connects her to Westeros. Right now all her enemies are in Essos.

And I think if you believe that Dany wants to play the game of thrones you should reread ADwD. She makes it pretty clear that she does not want to play any games. That's why she is nearly killed.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

Aerys II naming Prince Viserys his heir isn't the same as Aerys II commanding the knights at the tower to attend that king. And the knights always have a choice. They can ignore royal commands and even plot against their king. Whent and Dayne clearly were involved in Rhaegar's plots.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

That is not true. We don't know what they considered to be their priority. There is no reason to believe that a KG should always be with a king. Not to mention that we actually have no idea whether they knew that Aerys II did not send at least a KG with Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone. They may have heard news of the Trident and even the Sack but nothing indicates that they knew what happened to all their Sworn Brothers. They may have learned that Ser Willem was with Viserys only when Ned told them. Assuming the fever dream is correct.

They are not men ruled by competing duties. They may have completely taken on the duty to care about Lyanna and the child, simply ignoring everything else.

I really think this is a non-existing problem. As long as we don't know what their priorities were nor when exactly they learned what they knew this is a topic that can't be discussed.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

Is Dorne truly friendly territory to them after what Rhaegar did to Elia? And what Aerys II threatened to do her and her children?

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

They might have had equally good men at that time. What changes things is the destruction of the royal fleet at Dragonstone during the night of Dany's birth. And there was still sufficient time to go to Dragonstone if they wanted to. They were in no hurry.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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."

I can see your final option there. But I really don't think we have to make things overly complicated with the second option or even the first. They may have just been occupied with ensuring that Lyanna can properly give birth to her child, doing everything in their power to keep the boy and the mother alive. Politics might have been as much on their mind as it is with Bran and the Reeds during their travel.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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 not necessarily true. Again, a king is made. The decrees of a dead king may be overturned. As a Kingsguard, subject, courtier, royal official, etc. you should honor your kings wishes but this is not always done. When Maegor the Cruel usurped the throne in place of his nephew Aegon no Kingsguard seems to have tried to stop the usurper. Does this mean the surviving members of the Kingsguard of Aenys I were all traitors? I don't think so.Things are no always easy.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

Even I think you are too harsh against the Cole's brothers who supported Aegon II here (and I'm as clearly in Rhaenyra's camp as you possibly can). The Kingsguard do follow orders, Criston Cole was their Lord Commander, and Otto Hightower was the Hand of the King, speaking with the late King Viserys' voice until the new king was crowned. They were bound to obey these two.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

I'd not be so eager to follow Selmy's assessment of Viserys' mental health. The man wasn't all that stable when we meet him but unlike his royal sire he had no cruel streaks, and a child would always be a better figurehead king than an infant. Even if Aerys II hadn't named Viserys his heir we could be pretty sure that nobody would be as suicidally stupid as declaring an infant king.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

That is our assumption but TWoIaF is actually less explicit about that as our speculations are:

Quote

When King Maekar died in battle in 233 AC, whilst leading his army against a rebellious lord on the Dornish Marches, considerable confusion arose as to the succession. Rather than risk another Dance of the Dragons, the King’s Hand, Bloodraven, elected to call a Great Council to decide the matter.

This is not (necessarily) because Maekar did not name an heir but rather because there factions vying for the throne and many powerful people having doubts about this or that possible heir.

I'm inclined to agree that Maekar might not have named an heir but perhaps he did, naming his grandson Maegor, but Bloodraven, Egg, and many other people in the Realm did not like that. The succession can be contested even if there is clearly named and anointed heir as the first Dance and the struggle after the death of Aenys I prove. Not to mention the avoided succession war at the end of the reign of Jaehaerys I.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

I really don't think that is the case. A royal succession is always a difficult matter. It is a time of crisis, essentially a power vacuum. The king is the state, the source and power of all authority. While a new king is not yet proclaimed, crowned, installed, in charge, etc. he cannot command the Kingsguard or really anyone. He can try but it is not ensured that he can use the same authority people would usually grant and see in him if he was already in charge.

Authority in such medieval societies is still very much personal. A Kingsguard (or any retainer and lord, really) swears a personal oath of fealty to his liege or king, and that fealty only extends until the death of the king or the retainer, not further. It does not encompass the heirs of either unless it is included in such an oath. And we do know that each new king demands new oaths of fealty from his lords. We even see that happening when Joffrey becomes king (and essentially nobody shows up for the ceremony).

In that sense the Kingsguard of Jaehaerys II was only bound to him, and then later chose to accept Aerys II as their king. Upon his death they would have choose a new king, too, either Viserys III or Robert I.

Else we would have to say there was a clear path between black and white when the Dance broke out (or Maegor took the throne) and I don't think that's the message of that story. Sure, the Greens staged a coup, etc. but not all men complicit in that are equally guilty or had a much of a choice in the matter.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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

I think those about Ned and Howland would be pretty accurate. I'm willing to entertain that some of the others were great swordsmen but even then it would been 4-5 (if Ethan was also some great warrior) against three of the greatest knights in the Realm. We see that Garlan Tyrell routinely fights against three men in the practice yard. We can be pretty sure that the knights at the tower all also had experience in that field.

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

I don't consider that idea all that likely, either. But who knows what Aerys might have done if he had found out that Lyanna was important in the prophecy thing? Rhaegar is not necessarily the only one thinking about that. Prophecies were more real in the life of Aerys II than the life of Rhaegar. They ruled his marriage and the most likely the sex life with his sister-wife.

Rhaegar may have inherited his mad obsession about fathering some savior from his father. 

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

But we don't know how long they were there, do we? That has never been addressed in any of the books as of yet. Nor do we know what they original command given to them by Rhaegar was. Protect Lyanna? Or keep her prisoner (say, because she was not willing to allow Rhaegar to ride to war against her brother and former betrothed and saving the throne of the madman who had killed her brother and father)?

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

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.

If it's truly the case that they spend the entire time at the tower then I think the chances that they were gaolers rather than protectors is pretty high.

[teej6]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to see that the KG in their view was protecting the Targ crown prince/king. The timeline or who knew what when does not matter. LV and others like to state that it was fever dream and therefore it should not be interpreted literally. Even if you accept that Ned was dreaming and the events in reality unfolded a bit differently, the basic facts remain which is reiterated by Ned's thoughts that it was a dream he has had many times before. So the events from Ned's dream and others that can be interpreted as facts with a high level of certainty are: (1) There were 3 KG (including the LC who we are told always abided by the KG vows and as far as we know was not a friend of Rhaegar's) who were protecting Lyanna and her baby; (2) The three KG thought they were honor bound and following their vows in protecting Lyanna and her baby; and (3) None of them thought they needed to be with Viserys (here you can even argue that Ned gave them an opportunity to do so) despite knowing that there were no KG with him. 

The above facts are enough for one to conclude with enough certainty that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and Jon is legitimate.  But we also know that Ned, a honorable man who’s always followed the rules, thinks of Arthur Dayne as the finest KG he’s known, which would have been unlikely had Ned known that Dayne had broken his primary KG vow to protect his King. Ned's dislike for Jamie stems from the fact that Jamie killed the king he was sworn to protect. He does not try and excuse Jamie's behavior inspite of the fact that Jamie killed a mad man who had killed Ned's father and brother in the most brutal fashion and would have killed Ned if not for Jon Arryn. Ned is a character who is defined by his adherence to an honor code and in the few instances where he has to break them, he is greatly troubled by it. So I don't think he would have said Dayne was the finest KG knowing that Dayne broke his primary duty and did not protect/or attempt to protect his king, which would have been Viserys had Jon been a bastard. 

It seems to me that GRRM would not go through the whole exercise of having so much invested in that scene if Jon’s birth and identity was not of significance. There are many less elaborate ways he could have written that scene if Jon was just a bastard. He made the scene murky on purpose to reveal as little as possible. It seems odd to me that some of the same posters that long argued against R+L=J have now accepted that as canon and have turned their focus and energy on whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and whether Jon is legitimate. Knowing what we know of the personalities of Rhaegar and Lyanna – a poetic and melancholic prince who everyone thinks well of (except Robert) and a head strong willful high-born lady who is shown to despise infidelity – it is safe to assume that they would not be OK with having a bastard child. 

[Lord Varys]

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

I certainly can. I just did, actually. And it is not just that one about Tyrion, it is also Aemon's words about him at the Wall, also indicating that he was a giant among them, etc. Tyrion was then the technically the heir of Casterly Rock. It wouldn't be surprising if he became that in the end or halfway through the series (his father was an old man) so what is the point of those hints that he might be king.

And what concrete evidence about Jon being king from the first book we are talking about? If you give me a list I might even agree with you on some of them.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

Well, I'm not sure if he inherited anything from him besides an old lightsaber (although there was no will stipulating this). Star Wars has a lot of mythical stuff but the Skywalkers are (thankfully) no feudal nobility so Luke did inherit neither Tatooine nor Naboo.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

Aren't you confusing stuff here with the movies? Aragorn has little to no self-doubt in the novel. It has been awhile but if you think I'm mistaken I'd like quote.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

That is definitely movies. The only thing even remotely resembling this is from the appendices where Elrond makes it clear that he would only give his daughter in marriage to the king of Gondor and Arnor.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

He’s the typical reluctant hero trope. He has a purpose but is afraid to claim it because of self-doubt.

Definitely not. I really urge you to reread LotR.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Dany, on the other hand, has a lust for power and recognition. 

Dany is a young girl who has to fight for her life or die. That is her entire story. Compared to her, Jon Snow's entire arc was a walk in the spring. Jon wasn't raped each night for months in a tent.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

Aragorn runs around with a broken he shoves into everybody's face. And he does like to tell everybody who his father is. And he traveled the world in his youth showing his strength at arms both in Rohan and Gondor.

Aragorn didn't save the realm. Frodo did. Does this mean Jon is not going to defeat the Others?

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

Well, that isn't an argument.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“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.

Why should the son of Lyanna Stark not be welcome in the crypts of House Stark? Is this only a place for Starks through the male line? If so, what kind of crap is that?

That aside, I never saw those dreams as prophetic (unless you think he will one day enter the crypts and those king-spirits will reject him) but rather as symbolizing his (un-)conscious fears that as a Snow he has indeed no place in the crypts of the Starks of Winterfell and should neither visit nor play there with his half-siblings.

I'm actually rather interested in the use of dreams in George's books and those are not all prophetic. The most interesting ones aren't, in fact.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

It is not about having prophetic dreams, it also about being the subject and object of prophecy. Where is the House of the Undying equivalent in Jon's arc? Why is Dany getting the super special treatment in that department? Why is everybody seeking her out instead of Jon? Why is it that Jon is an extra/guest star in Dany's visions (the blue rose, her future consort) rather than the other way around?

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

I hope Bran has better things to do than counsel some youthful king, actually.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

To whom? You? Than good luck with that. Unlike you, I reserve my judgment for proclaiming Jon Snow the greatest hero of all time until such time as I have sufficient evidence for that.

Do you honestly think I don't think about those things as well? I'm aware of the fact that Jon is crucial player in this whole game. But the shining center of it all, the promised princess, the reborn Azor Ahai is Daenerys.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Or GRRM may have several characters fulfilling elements of the prophecy and we can debate this even after the final books are out.

We can say that Dany fulfilled the crucial parts of the prophecy elements we know about as of yet. I think Jon might also do important stuff, though. I actually think he is going to wield a flaming Valyrian sword which he will ignite with his magical blood after he has been restored to his body (which is going to be resurrected by Melisandre's kiss of fire). That will be pretty impressionable. But I don't think a flaming sword is going to defeat the Others. And Brienne will got one such, too.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

He did? When? And what did he tell him?

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“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.

Dany does check all the boxes for the promised princess. But that doesn't mean she is the only savior. The dragon has three heads. There have to be two more. However, it seems clear that these other two do not feature as prominently as Dany in the promised prince prophecy. But that's not my fault, or is it?

I don't know what this means in regards to who does what later on but waking dragons from stone, being born on Dragonstone, and providing the weapons, means, and men to fight the Others has not yet defeated them.

You may perhaps realize that I never said Dany will do the actual defeating part. Certainly not with her own hands (assuming they are defeated in some sort of battle).

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

Great that you see Brienne, Davos, Selmy, Hotah as power hungry (by the way, you do know that Bran is mind-raping an innocent man simply because he can, using him as his pawn to his own ends? And that Arya is essentially a murderess and enjoying herself killing people?). 

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

I think Jon can sacrifice for the entire world. Perhaps to pay back humanity's sins leading to the creation of the Others in the first place. Somebody has to pay for that. Could very well be him. Or not. I actually don't like that but I see it as a consequence of George's rather stupid 'Jon assassination plot'. I prefer him dying for good than as zombie King Jon of the Smoking Wounds.

And again, I never said that Dany should save the world all by herself. But why should everybody not suck up to her if she brought dragons, men, and weapons to help whoever is left to fight? The enemy of your enemy is your friend. And Dany and the Others are not allied. How stupid is it to assume that not everybody is going to stick together once they learn what's going on, especially Daenerys who has been very aptly characterized by Tyrion (who never met her) as a savior?

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

That isn't the point, the point is that this is a story about the historical/mythical Azor Ahai and not the promised prince/reborn version of that guy. No prophecy has ever been cited that the promised prince/Azor Ahai Reborn is destined to draw a burning sword from a fire. That is prop Mel gives Stannis because the guy from the legends has had such a sword and she deems it important.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I doubt the story got so corrupted that a dragon became a sword.

Says the person who apparently sees signs pointing towards King Jon in every corner. Not every prophetic thing has to be literal. Dragons breathe fire. Fire literally brings light (that is why people once had candles in their houses). And Dany basically did something that is very much resembling what Azor Ahai did to get his magic sword. She sacrificed the people closest to her.

The idea that somebody is going to literally reenact the Nissa Nissa story would be rather boring and foreseeable and is thus not likely going to happen. Especially since the whole point of that story as told by Salla is to serve a post hoc explanation that Dany is the person Stannis falsely claims to be. The comet heralded her coming, not Stannis', and she essentially did more or less what the Azor Ahai chap did back in AGoT.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

The Starks as a house were only founded after the Long Night. That is the story we know. I'm not going into some baseless speculation that this is not the case.

However, they certainly would have had ancestor who might have been involved in some of the earlier events. But the idea that the Last Hero was a Stark is supported by basically nothing nor do I see what that would have to do with anything.

Keep in mind that it was not me who decided that the blood of the dragon is an important ingredient into this story. It is what allows you to bond with and claim a dragon. It is also not my fault that the blood of the Starks is apparently less magical than the blood of the Targaryens.

I see no reason to enter into some sort of competition over that.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“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?

Well, I think you know where George most likely moved away from the original outline, right?

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

Then he should be better really dead, don't you think?

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“… 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. 

It is implied by the fact that she is one of the characters who will be part of the grand climax in the end. That means she was never supposed to die during her conquest of Westeros.

It is not difficult to figure that out.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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

Why shouldn't he? They are very close kin. And they are likely to need each other.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

But why then make him even a Targaryen-Stark descendant? Wouldn't a Stark have been enough, then? If it doesn't affect things in any way. He will be still the same but different at the same time. That's the nature if you find out who you really are if you don't are who you thought you were.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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.

That is actually wrong. The original outline only had three books and three titles included - 'A Game of Thrones', 'A Dance with Dragons', and 'The Winds of Winter'. 'A Time for Wolves was the preliminary title for the last book when there were more than three. Now, that certainly means that the Starks will be important in that book (as they have been throughout the series) but how you deduce from that that they will be 'the dominant Westerosi family in the end' I don't understand.

I'd not say a book titled 'A Time for Dragons' means that the Targaryens have to be dominant family in the end. Just that members of that family would like play a huge role in that book.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“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.

It depends how you imagine Jon's great stunt to save the Realm. I've read people who imagine Jon and the Northmen doing all that by themselves. If you don't hold that view then the other people might certainly know that Jon played a huge role and that the Others existed.

But why on earth should a story that builds up Daenerys to play a huge role in the grand finale not have her play a huge role there, too. If Jon was the great hero he could have been Daenerys, finding dragon eggs beyond the Wall, etc. Why does Jon get nothing to do his great heroics and Dany gets everything?

I mean, you are aware of the fact that Jon literally thinks a dragon at the Wall could come in quite handy. Jon is not going to have any problems with Daenerys whatsoever.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“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.

Then you should reread the books or better still join subject yourself to my brainwashing seminars where you will be transformed into a mindless Dany sycophant. 

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

“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. 

Honestly, this is not a competition. I wrote and interpret the series as I see it. I don't have to follow any rules of impartiality between Daenerys and Jon Snow (or any other character). I won't ignore the neon-writing stressing Dany's importance to this story in favor of thinking everything is clearly about Jon. You have to twist around everything to be unrecognizable to make Dany not the person who has fulfilled a lot of prophecy already.

53 minutes ago, teej6 said:

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

Couldn't you have written that at the beginning of that post?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

I don't know why it's so hard for people to see that the KG in their view was protecting the Targ crown prince/king. The timeline or who knew what when does not matter. LV and others like to state that it was fever dream and therefore it should not be interpreted literally. Even if you accept that Ned was dreaming and the events in reality unfolded a bit differently, the basic facts remain which is reiterated by Ned's thoughts that it was a dream he has had many times before.

'Fever dream' are George's words here. And the fact that it is an old dream still doesn't make it an accurate dream of what actually transpired.

Quote

So the events from Ned's dream and others that can be interpreted as facts with a high level of certainty are: (1) There were 3 KG (including the LC who we are told always abided by the KG vows and as far as we know was not a friend of Rhaegar's) who were protecting Lyanna and her baby;

I'm with you there although we cannot say we know Ser Gerold's heart. Telling Jaime to do his duty doesn't mean he was Aerys' greatest fan on earth.

Quote

(2) The three KG thought they were honor bound and following their vows in protecting Lyanna and her baby;

No problem with that, either.

Quote

(3) None of them thought they needed to be with Viserys (here you can even argue that Ned gave them an opportunity to do so) despite knowing that there were no KG with him.

Yeah, because they had accepted the job to protect Lyanna and her unborn child (for some as of yet unknown reasons) months ago.

Quote

The above facts are enough for one to conclude with enough certainty that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and Jon is legitimate.

How does that follow? Can you give me the logical structure of that argument and actually list all the additional presuppositions you would have to smuggle into the argument? I'd try to do it myself, but I'm really getting tired.

Quote

But we also know that Ned, a honorable man who’s always followed the rules, thinks of Arthur Dayne as the finest KG he’s known, which would have been unlikely had Ned known that Dayne had broken his primary KG vow to protect his King.

He does not think of Dayne as the greatest Kingsguard he has ever known but the greatest knight. That is a difference. I've given the relevant quote from ACoK somewhere up the thread.

Also keep in mind that protecting somebody you have been charged to protect is not breaking an oath, even if your king is right now without KG protection. Arys Oakheard can still protect Myrcella even if all other KG die suddenly of a heart attack. He has given a job.

The knights at the tower could even think Viserys III is not their king without then having to believe Lyanna's son is. They could just be undecided on the matter.

Quote

Ned's dislike for Jamie stems from the fact that Jamie killed the king he was sworn to protect. He does not try and excuse Jamie's behavior inspite of the fact that Jamie killed a mad man who had killed Ned's father and brother in the most brutal fashion and would have killed Ned if not for Jon Arryn.

Yeah, oaths do matter in this world. But that is not controversial.

Quote

Ned is a character who is defined by his adherence to an honor code and in the few instances where he has to break them, he is greatly troubled by it. So I don't think he would have said Dayne was the finest KG knowing that Dayne broke his primary duty and did not protect/or attempt to protect his king, which would have been Viserys had Jon been a bastard. 

No, it was Viserys III in any case (according to your logic that these men must be about protecting the king at all times) because Aerys II made Viserys III his successor.

You also fail to understand that Ned certainly could not read the minds of those knights. Perhaps he falsely believes that Arthur was such a great guy?

Or: Him dying for stuff he apparently believed in could clearly be enough to make him a great knight in Ned's eyes. He doesn't have to add stupid additional baggage like not judging Arthur for not going to Viserys III while he had the chance. How does Ned know that the man even intended to do that? Why would the deciding factor not him dying for a cause he believed in? He does not have to know what exactly that was to consider it a good thing.

Do you think Ned cares whether is person is at the right place when doing something that clearly qualifies as their duty, irregardless what's going on elsewhere? The knights at the tower did an honorable thing when they died for Lyanna and her child irregardless whether that child was a bastard, a royal prince(ss), or the king.

And we can't determined what was the case with the textual evidence we have. Saying anything is either dishonest or stupid.

Quote

It seems to me that GRRM would not go through the whole exercise of having so much invested in that scene if Jon’s birth and identity was not of significance. There are many less elaborate ways he could have written that scene if Jon was just a bastard. He made the scene murky on purpose to reveal as little as possible.

Oh, come on, the purpose of this scene is to give us clues about Jon's parentage and Lyanna's death. 

Quote

It seems odd to me that some of the same posters that long argued against R+L=J have now accepted that as canon and have turned their focus and energy on whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and whether Jon is legitimate. Knowing what we know of the personalities of Rhaegar and Lyanna – a poetic and melancholic prince who everyone thinks well of (except Robert) and a head strong willful high-born lady who is shown to despise infidelity – it is safe to assume that they would not be OK with having a bastard child. 

I've been an adherent of the idea that Jon is Rhaegar's and Lyanna's son for over ten years, since before I even visited those boards. And I basically had figured out the standard version of this argument right down to Jon being 'the rightful king' upon his birth by using my simplistic views on the succession. But since then we have gotten additional information changing and broadening our views.

At least mine own.

We no longer live in a world where a king's grandson by his eldest son is automatically said king's heir even if he has younger sons of his own body. TWoIaF saw to that. Repeatedly.

[IceFire125]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

????

They didn't choose, they were commanded by Lord Larys.  King Aegon II was so drugged he probably had no idea where he was going.  And the command was to protect the "heirs" of King Aegon II, not to protect bastards, Maelor and Jaehaera.

It was Lord Larys who decreed the fugitives should part company as well, so that even if one were taken, the others might win free. Ser Rickard Thorne was commanded to deliver two-year-old Prince Maelor to Lord Hightower. Princess Jaehaera, a sweet and simple girl of six, was put in the charge of Ser Willis Fell, who swore to bring her safely to Storm’s End. Neither knew where the other was bound, so neither could betray the other if captured.
And only Larys himself knew that the king, stripped of his finery and clad in a salt-stained fisherman’s cloak, had been concealed amongst a load of codfish on a fishing skiff in the care of a bastard knight with kin on Dragonstone. Once she learned the king was gone, the Clubfoot reasoned, Rhaenyra was sure to send men hunting after him … but a boat leaves no trail upon the waves, and few hunters would ever think to look for Aegon on his sister’s own island, in the very shadow of her stronghold.

Noticed GRRM used elipses [...] and added that "a boat leaves no trail"

I'm of the opinion Ned have Jon, the king that the 3KG just died for, with Howland and a wet nurse, on a boat back to the North.

It struck him suddenly that he might return to Winterfell by sea. Ned was no sailor, and ordinarily would have preferred the kingsroad, but if he took ship he could stop at Dragonstone and speak with Stannis Baratheon. Pycelle had sent a raven off across the water, with a polite letter from Ned requesting Lord Stannis to return to his seat on the small council. As yet, there had been no reply, but the silence only deepened his suspicions. Lord Stannis shared the secret Jon Arryn had died for, he was certain of it. The truth he sought might very well be waiting for him on the ancient island fortress of House Targaryen.

And when you have it, what then? Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust.

Passage above clips closely with Jon's thoughts in Dance... and maybe, GRRM's subtle intent for readers to connect "Stannis", "secret" with "truth" and "Jon".

Whether the wrong-way rangers would return was another question. Knights they might be, but they did not know the north. There will be eyes along the kingsroad, not all of them friendly. It was none of Jon’s concern, though. Let Stannis have his secrets. The gods know that I have mine.

 

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Snip

I know I said I would end this debate with you as it is pointless but I can't help myself  

I haven't read LOTR in a long time, and you are probably right Aragorn's self-doubt may have been Jackson's interpretation but he definitely didn't want the throne of Gondor (which by the way he only had an indirect claim to) or else he could have staked a claim long before the events of the books. Either he didn't want it or thought his claim wasn't good enough. If you remember, even in the last book he did not enter Gondor as king because he didn't want to offend anyone. And Argorn did identify himself as his father's son but not as a king or from the line of Numenor as Dany has been doing from early on in the series. One of his more important characteristics was his humility or that's how I remember the character from the books. And yes he did fight in wars in Rohan and Gondor but under the pseudonym of Thorongil and did not boast of his victories.  

“To whom? You? Than good luck with that. Unlike you, I reserve my judgment for proclaiming Jon Snow the greatest hero of all time until such time as I have sufficient evidence for that.” And in the same vein, I reserve judgment for proclaiming Dany (as you do) the greatest hero of all time until such time as I have sufficient evidence for that.

“He did? When? And what did he tell him?” You know very well I was talking about Bran appearing in Jon’s wolf dreams.

“Great that you see Brienne, Davos, Selmy, Hotah as power hungry…” I was talking about GRRM’s central characters as stated in his initial outline. And even in the present series I doubt anyone would describe Brienne, Davos, Selmy, Hotah as central characters.

“I think Jon can sacrifice for the entire world. Perhaps to pay back humanity's sins leading to the creation of the Others in the first place…” And I think perhaps Dany should make this ultimate sacrifice since as you pointed she is the one who’s been gifted with the special gifts.

“…But why should everybody not suck up to her if she brought dragons, men, and weapons to help whoever is left to fight?” Because GRRM’s writing skills are far superior to your sycophant fanfic.

“…And Dany basically did something that is very much resembling what Azor Ahai did to get his magic sword. She sacrificed the people closest to her.” Yes, Dany sacrificed her dead fetus and brain dead husband. That is some sacrifice.

“…It is also not my fault that the blood of the Starks is apparently less magical than the blood of the Targaryens.” Again another of your opinions you state as fact. The family that has wargs and greenseers don’t have magical blood. That’s rich.

“I see no reason to enter into some sort of competition over that.” Again, you are the one who enters every Jon thread to diminish his importance in the story. And most posters who’ve been long enough on this site recognize that by now.

“Well, I think you know where George most likely moved away from the original outline, right?” And yet you keep quoting this original outline when it suits you. Can you really not see how hypocritical your statements are?

“It is implied by the fact that she is one of the characters who will be part of the grand climax in the end.” Proves my above point.

“That is actually wrong. The original outline only had three books and three titles included - 'A Game of Thrones', 'A Dance with Dragons', and 'The Winds of Winter'. 'A Time for Wolves was the preliminary title for the last book when there were more than three.” I know A Time for Wolves wasn’t part of the original outline but I was using your modus operandi of quoting GRRM’s original ideas to lend credence to your theories.

“But why on earth should a story that builds up Daenerys to play a huge role in the grand finale not have her play a huge role there, too. If Jon was the great hero he could have been Daenerys, finding dragon eggs beyond the Wall, etc. Why does Jon get nothing to do his great heroics and Dany gets everything?” Really!! Is this an argument?

“Then you should reread the books or better still join subject yourself to my brainwashing seminars where you will be transformed into a mindless Dany sycophant.” I don’t need to reread the books to know that your arguments on and interpretations about Jon's role in the story are mostly self-serving and subjective to your views and fanfic.

“Honestly, this is not a competition. I wrote and interpret the series as I see it. I don't have to follow any rules of impartiality between Daenerys and Jon Snow (or any other character).” Reading your posts it seems to me it is a competition between Jon and Dany for you and your habit of diminishing Jon’s importance in the story is reflective of that. No one is asking you to follow any rules but it becomes very hard for me to read your posts as anything but the subjective interpretations of a Dany fan.  

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

I haven't read LOTR in a long time, and you are probably right Aragorn's self-doubt may have been Jackson's interpretation but he definitely didn't want the throne of Gondor (which by the way he only had an indirect claim to) or else he could have staked a claim long before the events of the books. Either he didn't want it or thought his claim wasn't good enough. If you remember, even in the last book he did not enter Gondor as king because he didn't want to offend anyone. And Argorn did identify himself as his father's son but not as a king or from the line of Numenor as Dany has been doing from early on in the series. One of his more important characteristics was his humility or that's how I remember the character from the books. And yes he did fight in wars in Rohan and Gondor but under the pseudonym of Thorongil and did not boast of his victories.

This is perhaps the single thing I can agree on with LV, that the self-doubt is solely Jackson's insert. The book Aragorn doesn't doubt himself or his claim but as a highly determined and responsible person, he is honing his skills and waiting for the right time. He does never boast of his heritage until that time has come, and for all his victories as Thorongil, he never used them as a stepping stone to power through which he could depose Denethor. He never put his personal gain (the kingship over Gondor and restored Arnor, which Elrond made a condition for allowing him to marry Arwen) above the main goal, the defeat of Sauron. - Makes one think, if Jon was offered IT or continue to fight the Others, we know what he would choose, right? :-)

 

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

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.

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

And you have to bear in mind that the KG knowing is not common knowledge. All the reports of the fight come from Ned, the oh-so-honourable-lord-Stark-who-never-lies, does he? The general knowledge is that the KG were left behind by Rhaegar to guard his secret love nest or something like that, and that after the war was won, Ned Stark fought them and recovered his sister's body. News spread slowly even with ravens, news spread unreliably. If Ned Stark said they hadn't known a thing prior his arrival, why should anyone doubt his word? It's entirely plausible. Also, men of honour like those wouldn't be away from the king if they knew, right? So they can't have known. Polygamy is three hundred years old history, after all, just like KitN. There were more important things to consider at that time than reviving old history.

Furthermore, did Ned even say that the showdown took place where he recovered Lyanna? To my best knowledge, the show gets closest by stating 

Spoiler

that he fought AD in the mountains of Dorne

If he claimed that he encountered the KG on the road, it's again a perfectly plausible explanation - they received the news with some delay, and set out to reach Viserys as they should. Nothing that should anyone give a pause.

Yeah, Hightower is problematic. I'm sure he would have wanted to go back to KL, so something must have prevented him. IMHO, if Aerys didn't give him a direct order to come back, Rhaegar's order to stay would have been enough because, as GRRM tells us, KG don't get to choose which orders they want to follow. If there were clashing orders, though, Rhaegar would have an upper hand - Aerys needed him more than he needed Hightower, and Hightower didn't possess any means to make Rhaegar go back if he was unwilling. So, if Rhaegar made Hightower's stay the condition for his own return to KL, poor Gerry would have no choice but to grit his teeth and stay.

[SFDanny]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aerys II naming Prince Viserys his heir isn't the same as Aerys II commanding the knights at the tower to attend that king. And the knights always have a choice. They can ignore royal commands and even plot against their king. Whent and Dayne clearly were involved in Rhaegar's plots.

No, it's not the same. I don't think I said it was. Aerys naming Viserys is a command to all his loyal subjects to accept Viserys as their king after he dies. It isn't a direct order to only his Kingsguard, but to a loyal Kingsguard it should be treated as if it was. Again, there is indeed a difference between accepting Viserys as their king, and attending him. In that much you're right. It isn't directly the succession order that commands them to attend Viserys on Dragonstone. It is the succession order in combination with their oaths as members of the Kingsguard that mandates that at least one of their members attend the new king. It is their first duty as members of that order that tells them to go to their new king and make sure of his protection. Both Jaime and Ser Barristan tells us this is so. Selmy tells us it was treason he did not do so.

Certainly they have a choice. They have a choice to be loyal to their king and to their oaths or not to be loyal. I think the discussion is all about the evidence whether or not Hightower, Dayne, and Whent were loyal to their old king's orders and their new king's needs, and their own Kingsguard oaths, with their actions at the Tower. My own belief is the three men set aside their oaths and obligations to instead lay down their lives for the protection of Lyanna and her child. To me this is not the same as Selmy's choice, or Criston Cole's choice, but rather is most akin to Ser Duncan choice to defend Tanselle Too Tall from a royal prince at the Ashford tourney.  They do it for the love of their dead prince, and perhaps for the love of his beloved wife or paramour, and certainly for the protection of Rhaegar's and Lyanna's innocent child. While I respect the choice they made, I also note it put them at odds to their orders from their old king and their obligations to their new king.

And they certainly also can ignore royal commands and plot against Aerys. We see the young Jaime struggle against his oaths and what he sees as right when he must stand by and see Rickard cooked in his armor and Brandon strangled. We again see Jaime struggle with what he should do when Aerys rapes and brutalizes Rhaella. In both situations there is a member of the Kingsguard who tells Jaime his oaths tell him not to interfere, and to not even judge their king's actions. So, no, it is no surprise that Dayne and Whent helped Rhaegar in his plots to set aside his mad father. It is important to note, however, they did so in contravention of what their oaths told them they must do. Otherwise we cannot understand the real motives of the men's actions at the tower.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not true. We don't know what they considered to be their priority. There is no reason to believe that a KG should always be with a king. Not to mention that we actually have no idea whether they knew that Aerys II did not send at least a KG with Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone. They may have heard news of the Trident and even the Sack but nothing indicates that they knew what happened to all their Sworn Brothers. They may have learned that Ser Willem was with Viserys only when Ned told them. Assuming the fever dream is correct.

These are straw man arguments, LV, and you're better than that. No one is suggesting their oaths mandate that a member of the Kingsguard is always with the king. Their oaths mandate their first duty, above all else, is to protect their king. In some instances it is not possible for that to mean always being at the king's side Certainly the men of the Kingsguard are human and some time they must sleep, attend to private needs, or leave the king because of the needs of his safety or his orders. But even when they can't be there with the king they are responsible for his safety and must do what they can to make sure he is safe in their absence. Apply that standard to Hightower, Dayne, and Whent as they learn the news of the Trident, King's Landing, and Dragonstone. There is no other conclusion than the oaths and Aerys's order of succession mandate they see to the protection of their new king. The question is did fate and timing prevent them from doing so, or did they make a decision not to send at least one of their number to Viserys? I think the evidence points to their making such a decision.

LV, I will respond to the rest later, but it is beyond my bedtime, and this old body needs its sleep as much as any kingsguard does. Until later.

[teej6]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I've been an adherent of the idea that Jon is Rhaegar's and Lyanna's son for over ten years, since before I even visited those boards. And I basically had figured out the standard version of this argument right down to Jon being 'the rightful king' upon his birth by using my simplistic views on the succession. But since then we have gotten additional information changing and broadening our views.

At least mine own.

We no longer live in a world where a king's grandson by his eldest son is automatically said king's heir even if he has younger sons of his own body. TWoIaF saw to that. Repeatedly.

Am I understanding you correctly in that you believed Rhaegar and Lyanna to be married and Jon to be their legitimate child until you read TWOIAF? Coz that's what it sounds like you are stating. If so, I don't understand how the TWOIAF disproves the theory that R and L were married. The only additional information we got from TWOIAF on the subject of Jon's claim is that Aerys removed Aegon from the line of succession and named Viserys his heir (something we do not know was widely disseminated at the time). Also, we get information about the difficulties the Targs faced with their line of succession in the past. So how does this additional information change your mind on whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married? The only point from the TWOIAF information that merits scrutiny is whether the 3 KG knew if Aerys had named Viserys his heir when they confronted Ned and if so, why did they continue to stay with Lyanna and Jon.

[Protagoras]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

@Protagoras and I recently discussed the visions and prophecies again. That was very productive. Unfortunately I no longer know if which thread.

Not sure either - maybe this one: 

Or this one?

 

[Julia H.]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But how do you know that Jon Snow's parentage is actually relevant for his story? Especially the rather irrelevant question whether he was born as a 'trueborn son' within the contingent social constructs of Westerosi society?

Jon is a heroic figure and a young man struggling to do his best irregardless whether he is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

If you can recall my first post on this thread - and it is something I often say - I said that in the end, the question whether Jon is trueborn or a bastard will be irrelevant because it will be Jon's deeds and personality that determine who he will be, yet I can imagine that GRRM will create a situation (e.g. through a polygamous marriage) where you can argue both ways - because GRRM seems to like ambiguous situations. Jon Snow will not be a leader because he turns out to be a trueborn son of Rhaegar, but he may be accepted as such by those who find these things important because of his achievements (while not accepted as such by those who remain his enemies). If it happens, it will be ironic, of course, because all these seemingly important things (such as birth and legitimacy) will turn out to be totally secondary in comparison to deeds, but people may still want to stick to their illusions, thus they may take a chance to explain away (or to keep nagging about) a less-than-impeccable origin for a great hero. I truly wouldn't mind if Jon turned out to be Ned's bastard with a peasant girl, but the text is not going in this direction, as I see it.

As for Jon's parentage being the central mystery, I think that is so because of all the direct and especially symbolic references to it throughout the books (like the Bael the Bard story and the various ways it is "replayed"; "Corn King Jon Snow"; the fact that the title is A Song of Ice and Fire and a Targaryen - Stark union is the union of ice and fire; and so on). In addition, in Jon's story, there is a clear identity problem partly due to the reason that he has never been told who his mother was, thus he doesn't know half of his heritage and he continually struggles with who he is: a Stark, a true (not trueborn!) son of Eddard Stark, just a bastard with no mother and no name, a man of the NW who has left behind everything else (but how can you leave behind what you have never known?), and so on, and these questions have shaped his character and influenced his decisions. What exactly the importance of this mystery will be remains to be seen.

Quote

If you honestly think that Jon has any chance to come even close to match the strength Dany is marshaling I can't help you. She is uniting people under her rule that number in the millions. Jon has at best starving refugees and war-torn country on his side. Dany may come with millions of Dothraki.

Dany will be coming as a conqueror, with dragons and a foreign army of savages, which will only bring more havoc and suffering to the realm. Jon is, luckily, not a conqueror, that is true, and he may or may not become a king, but he is trying to protect the people, and he is exactly what the realm needs. 

Quote

Actually, no. A king has, at best, a duty to his realm and subjects (and his own lust for power), not 'the realms of men'. Such a duty transcends petty kingdoms which is precisely why the Night's Watch was set up the way it was.

Yet, it is specifically said in the novel that a king who cannot protect his people is no king at all. The king of Westeros has a huge realm that includes several former kingdoms and lots of different people. But I'll grant it to you that I can also imagine that in times when the whole humanity is threatened, the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is meant to become a "King of Winter", a sort of wartime leader whose responsibility is to protect the people and whose authority transcends that of the petty rulers of Summer (even if he wears no crowns). This may easily be a rule that the people of Westeros have forgotten in the past centuries, but they may rediscover it soon. Perhaps. 

Quote

Where do you detect that message? Robert apparently did not want the throne and got it and kept it his entire life. The only man in the story who professes he does not want to be king is Stannis, and he might actually be lying about that.

Well, Robert's example does not contradict what I said at all. But yes, all major players want the throne (Stannis most definitely does), and that is why they can't see anything beyond their ambition and perhaps their family's immediate interests - certainly not the needs of the realm they want to rule. (Stannis only discovers that he may need to do something for the realm when he loses the battle for power at the Blackwater, and even then he needs Davos to point out the idea to him). Those who have managed to sit the iron chair or rule the realm from the background in the story so far have all proved to be unworthy and infinitely selfish leaders (with the exception of poor Tommen, who is just a puppet). 

Quote

We won't see the peasants running the country. Aside from the sparrows and the High Septon. They are likely there to stay. And they will not suffer a tree hugger and unbeliever as their king. And considering that they really toppled the sons of Aegon the Conqueror these people are not foes that would easily back down.

We'll see what these important people will do when the threat of the Others becomes apparent.

Quote

Mance wanted to flee the Others, not fight them. He knew he could not fight them.

Sure, but he at least tried to protect his people against them, he at least fought in order to get his people to a safer place, we have to give him that. But yes, Jon Snow is really the only major character who means to fight the Others and is looking for ways to defeat them

Quote

It could be bad writing but George has actually set up Daenerys Targaryen to be a (or even the) major opponent to the Others. There is prophetic dream of hers actually foreshadowing her role in that fashion. Right now Archmaester Marwyn is traveling to her to inform her about the true threat that is threatening her kingdom. Why do you think she will come west when she does? Because she things she has to rush? With the Dothraki she could conquer all of Essos. Pretty much nothing connects her to Westeros. Right now all her enemies are in Essos.

Well, there is a dream that foreshadows Jon Snow fighting an army of the dead all alone. There is also foreshadowing for Jon to be king. However, Daenerys also sees a (prophetic?) vision which apparently features her son Rhaego as a conqueror. Or else it may feature Dany (symbolically) as the real "stallion that mounts the world". The first interpretation means you shouldn't take dreams and visions too literally. The second one is no good news at all, if you ask me.

The single character that has truly been set up to be the major opponent of the Others is Jon Snow - not by a single dream but by most of what he has done and by what he has been through. 

Quote

And I think if you believe that Dany wants to play the game of thrones you should reread ADwD. She makes it pretty clear that she does not want to play any games. That's why she is nearly killed.

 

Dany clearly wants to be a Queen in Westeros because ... why exactly? Because that's her birthright. Wanting to rule is probably the single surest indicator that someone is a player in the game of thrones (and mind you, I don't think being a player should be a problem by definition, it depends on the character's further goals and motivations).

Regarding Essos and Westeros, I agree with you that there is nothing to connect Dany to Westeros besides the fact that she was born there, the stories she heard from Viserys and her belief that she is entitled to the Iron Throne (and to her revenge perhaps). She is clearly concerned about the people of Essos the way she is not concerned about the people of Westeros - she feels great sympathy for the slaves of Slaver's Bay and wants to protect them, but she doesn't really worry about all the destruction a Dothraki army might bring to the ordinary people of Westeros even though she has seen what the Dothraki can do to a conquered people. That strongly suggests that her allegiance is most of all to the Essosi people and her true identity is also basically Essosi (even her best idea of a true home connects her to an Essosi city). Besides, she has started a major political reform in Essos with the purpose of putting an end to slavery, which is a worthy goal in itself. I guess if she could finish this huge job and bring stability to those cities, it would be a task for a lifetime. With this, she, "the blood of the dragon", whose true home was in the city founded by those who had fled the dragons and slavery, would also atone for centuries of fire and blood and slavery that her dragonlord ancestors (I mean ancestors in a broad sense) inflicted on the people of Essos. It would be nice poetic justice and a great goal to keep fighting for. To also defeat the Others, who she has never heard of so far (and no "family history" connects her to them either), would be a bit too much for a single character to do.

Having said that, I definitely think that Dany will go to Westeros, I just don't think that she can solve both of these huge problems, so one (or both) of the continents will definitely suffer for her decision. I'm pretty sure that Westeros does not need any more conquerors and pointless bloodshed at the moment. At the same time, there is no one else in Essos who can and wants to solve the problem of slavery, while in Westeros we already have a character whose life-purpose is to protect the realm against the Others. 

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

<snip>

 

Look, there's simply no easy way you can get around the logical problem that if the KG's presence and their fight with Ned was so meaningful everyone would have put 2 and 2 together and realized who Jon has to be.
In order to get out of such a problem you need to pile speculation upon speculation, which brings me back to my original point:

Quote

I'm just pointing out that for the KG's presence to be meaningful you need to start making assumptions, speculations, or interpret the text in a very specific way, which completely invalidates the meaningfulness of the presence that is supposed to be there in the first place.

Is it possible that the KG were there and fought Ned because they believed they had a duty to Jon Targaryen? Yes.
Do we have enough textual support to say there can be no other reason for the KG's presence and their fight with Ned? Of course not, or else half of Westeros would have figured it out by now.

To use the ToJ as an argument in support of your case you have to walk a fine line between what's supposed to be a hint for the reader but not for the in-world characters, between literal and non-literal interpretations of the text, between logical assumption and wild speculation... etc.
Bottom line is, I get what you're trying to say. What I'm saying is that your case is far weaker than you think. Because you're starting from the conclusion rather than from the facts you have dismissed many possibilities and elements that could prove to matter.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

????

They didn't choose, they were commanded by Lord Larys.  King Aegon II was so drugged he probably had no idea where he was going.  And the command was to protect the "heirs" of King Aegon II, not to protect bastards, Maelor and Jaehaera.

Jaehaera was a lackwit girl. It would be a disgrace and a failure if she ever sat the Iron Throne, especially during wartime. She was expendable. King Aegon II was not.

If the first duty of the Kingsguard was to protect the king then Fell would have to have stayed with his king. And we can even entertain the notion that young Maelor was expendable, too. He was two years old and would have been a very bad figurehead during wartime while Aegon II had two stronger and much older brothers. It is quite clear that Aemond One-Eye and not Maelor was effectively Aegon II's heir during the Dance, not any of his own children.

The other point is that the Master of Whisperers actually seems to be given commands to the Kingsguard. That means pretty much any royal official can tell this men what their duty is, making it exceedingly likely that they were at tower following an order given to them not by King Aerys but Prince Rhaegar or somebody else (though most likely Prince Rhaegar).

And we do know that Kingsguard have been assigned to protect royal mistresses and bastards in the past (as well as more distant members of the royal family - for instance, we know Aegon the Unworthy enjoyed Kingsguard protection during the reign of his uncle Aegon III (when he chanced on Merry Meg in the Riverlands) even despite the fact that he was a mere nephew of the king.

I'm with you that Ned may have put Howland, Wylla, and Jon in a boat at Starfall. But that doesn't mean the boy was the king.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

I haven't read LOTR in a long time, and you are probably right Aragorn's self-doubt may have been Jackson's interpretation but he definitely didn't want the throne of Gondor (which by the way he only had an indirect claim to) or else he could have staked a claim long before the events of the books. Either he didn't want it or thought his claim wasn't good enough. If you remember, even in the last book he did not enter Gondor as king because he didn't want to offend anyone. And Argorn did identify himself as his father's son but not as a king or from the line of Numenor as Dany has been doing from early on in the series. One of his more important characteristics was his humility or that's how I remember the character from the books. And yes he did fight in wars in Rohan and Gondor but under the pseudonym of Thorongil and did not boast of his victories.

He waits because it is clear that the Dúnedain kingdoms can't be restored before Sauron has not been overthrown. These people are following divine providence, brought to them by angelic beings from the West (the Istari) and interpreted for them by the greatest of the high-elves. If Elrond Halfelven tells you to wait you do not question that.

Aragorn does not enter Gondor because of proper procedure. He is the rightful king but kings are made and crowned in Middle-earth just as they are in Westeros or our world. That is also the reason why Prince Aegon is no king yet, as I've been repeatedly pointing out.

Daenerys has no identifying herself as a queen from the beginning of the series. She only does so after the death of her brother and her husband, when she has decided she wants now everything that was her brother's by right. She is the daughter and sister of a king, is she not? And that gives you certain claims and privileges, at least in stying. Bran, Rickon, Shireen, Theon, Asha, etc. all suddenly become prince(sse)s once their brother/father crowns himself.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“To whom? You? Than good luck with that. Unlike you, I reserve my judgment for proclaiming Jon Snow the greatest hero of all time until such time as I have sufficient evidence for that.” And in the same vein, I reserve judgment for proclaiming Dany (as you do) the greatest hero of all time until such time as I have sufficient evidence for that.

But you would have to admit that the plot favors her story much more with great gimmicks, gadgets, powerful allies, etc. than it does Jon Snow. I base my judgment mainly on those things - as well as the clear and obvious prophecy stuff - rather than my personal wishes and expectations how the series is suddenly going into another direction.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“He did? When? And what did he tell him?” You know very well I was talking about Bran appearing in Jon’s wolf dreams.

I considered that. But back then he wasn't some tree sorcerer. That got me confused. ADwD has him contact Theon during the tree at Winterfell, not Jon.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“Great that you see Brienne, Davos, Selmy, Hotah as power hungry…” I was talking about GRRM’s central characters as stated in his initial outline. And even in the present series I doubt anyone would describe Brienne, Davos, Selmy, Hotah as central characters.

I'd describe Brienne and Davos as main characters. Selmy and Hotah not, but I thought you were talking about POVs. There are many characters that aren't power hungry. I'd not even think that Sansa falls in that category. She is essentially a pawn fighting for her survival.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“I think Jon can sacrifice for the entire world. Perhaps to pay back humanity's sins leading to the creation of the Others in the first place…” And I think perhaps Dany should make this ultimate sacrifice since as you pointed she is the one who’s been gifted with the special gifts.

But Daenerys actually learns to rule. She does not learn how to sacrifice herself nor is there any hint that she should do that. But who knows? Perhaps she does. I'm not dismissing that possibility. As I've said repeatedly, I don't know whether Dany will survive this whole thing or not. But then, Jon might not actually be comfortable with his new life as some magical 'resurrected person' (if you prefer that term so much to zombie. Hell, even if he was merely magically healed (as I think you would like to see it happen) that might come with a huge cost. You remember Victarion's smoking arm, right? And that was just result of a magically healed festered wound. The idea that magical healing does not come with a huge price attached to the healed person itself isn't very likely.

Was Drogo's brain fried deliberately by Mirri Maz Duur or was that just the price he had to pay for his life?

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“…But why should everybody not suck up to her if she brought dragons, men, and weapons to help whoever is left to fight?” Because GRRM’s writing skills are far superior to your sycophant fanfic.

That is not fan fiction, it is common sense.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“…And Dany basically did something that is very much resembling what Azor Ahai did to get his magic sword. She sacrificed the people closest to her.” Yes, Dany sacrificed her dead fetus and brain dead husband. That is some sacrifice.

Also her elder brother. Who do you think Jon would have to sacrifice what she got? There is only one answer to that: Arya. Just as Stannis would have to sacrifice Shireen (or perhaps even Melisandre, if he loves her more). You don't get your burning sword for free.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“…It is also not my fault that the blood of the Starks is apparently less magical than the blood of the Targaryens.” Again another of your opinions you state as fact. The family that has wargs and greenseers don’t have magical blood. That’s rich.

There are many skinchangers and greenseers in this world. Varamyr and Orell weren't Starks as far as we know. The Targaryens also had one of them, remember? And Daenerys Targaryen is as much half-Blackwood as Brynden Rivers is, the incestuous marriages of her grandparents and parents saw to that. She could be a skinchanger and greenseer, too.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“I see no reason to enter into some sort of competition over that.” Again, you are the one who enters every Jon thread to diminish his importance in the story. And most posters who’ve been long enough on this site recognize that by now.

I don't enter every Jon thread. And I've a right to my opinion. There are very few characters in this series I don't like to read about. I've no favorites. And, quite honestly, I like to see bad stuff happening to all of them. That makes the story interesting. And that includes Daenerys. I'm pretty sure something horrific is also going to happen to her. War is ugly. And there has to be a reason why this Second Dance thing is going to escalate.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“Well, I think you know where George most likely moved away from the original outline, right?” And yet you keep quoting this original outline when it suits you. Can you really not see how hypocritical your statements are?

No, because some things therein are clearly still likely to be the case. Especially in regards to the final climax (it is a trivial thing write that the ending of the story is going to bring everything together - that's happening in every good book (series)). But, you know, the original outline had only one dragonrider, Daenerys, and now there are three dragons and this whole 'the dragon has three heads' plot. We will get three dragonriders, and Jon is going to be one of them, and those three people will work together. That is obvious.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“It is implied by the fact that she is one of the characters who will be part of the grand climax in the end.” Proves my above point.

Nope.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“That is actually wrong. The original outline only had three books and three titles included - 'A Game of Thrones', 'A Dance with Dragons', and 'The Winds of Winter'. 'A Time for Wolves was the preliminary title for the last book when there were more than three.” I know A Time for Wolves wasn’t part of the original outline but I was using your modus operandi of quoting GRRM’s original ideas to lend credence to your theories.

Then you should specify that you are making (bad) analogies. And keep in mind that there might also be a reason why George changed that title.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“But why on earth should a story that builds up Daenerys to play a huge role in the grand finale not have her play a huge role there, too. If Jon was the great hero he could have been Daenerys, finding dragon eggs beyond the Wall, etc. Why does Jon get nothing to do his great heroics and Dany gets everything?” Really!! Is this an argument?

Sure, because you are following a biased approach where you are greatly emphasizing (alleged) clues that support your reading of the text (apparently on irrational favoritism towards a particular fictional character while pretty much ignoring much more concrete hints in favor of another character.

I'd be totally on your side if Jon had as much prophetic and magical signs and portents on his side than Daenerys. And why shouldn't I?

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“Then you should reread the books or better still join subject yourself to my brainwashing seminars where you will be transformed into a mindless Dany sycophant.” I don’t need to reread the books to know that your arguments on and interpretations about Jon's role in the story are mostly self-serving and subjective to your views and fanfic.

Honestly, what kind of fan fiction am I writing? What is the problem with me, personally, from your point of view? What should I do become 'more objective'? I really want to know. That is neither a joke nor irony. I don't understand this kind of favoritism. This is not a competition. We are not children trying to convince our peers that this sports team or this boy group is better than another.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

“Honestly, this is not a competition. I wrote and interpret the series as I see it. I don't have to follow any rules of impartiality between Daenerys and Jon Snow (or any other character).” Reading your posts it seems to me it is a competition between Jon and Dany for you and your habit of diminishing Jon’s importance in the story is reflective of that. No one is asking you to follow any rules but it becomes very hard for me to read your posts as anything but the subjective interpretations of a Dany fan.  

You don't have to be a Daenerys fan to think she is the most favored by prophecy in this series. Denying that is ridiculous. But that doesn't mean Jon Snow is less of a hero than she is. Dany is no warrior, Jon is. Jon can still be great guy if his aunt-wife spends more time on the Iron Throne than he does.

And quite honestly, I find it ridiculous to have a conversation why I apparently have to choose one character over another. Can I not like Dany and Jon both, each for their different merits?

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

This is perhaps the single thing I can agree on with LV, that the self-doubt is solely Jackson's insert. The book Aragorn doesn't doubt himself or his claim but as a highly determined and responsible person, he is honing his skills and waiting for the right time. He does never boast of his heritage until that time has come, and for all his victories as Thorongil, he never used them as a stepping stone to power through which he could depose Denethor. He never put his personal gain (the kingship over Gondor and restored Arnor, which Elrond made a condition for allowing him to marry Arwen) above the main goal, the defeat of Sauron. - Makes one think, if Jon was offered IT or continue to fight the Others, we know what he would choose, right? :-)

That sums it up pretty nicely. The only thing I'd have to add is that Tolkien's characters add rather irrationally/lack a good deal of realism in the sense that they do not, in fact, actually try to defeat Sauron until the Ring is found and they come up with Gandalf's mad plan.

Elrond's decree that Arwen can only marry the king of Gondor and Arnor is a cruel choice to those lovers because the chances that Sauron will be defeated (in Aragorn's lifetime) are very small, and this whole thing should actually have forced Aragorn into making an attempt to take the throne rather than to meekly wait until divine providence has set everything right for him (by things unfolding as they did during the War of the Ring - Aragorn himself had very little part in the actual destruction of the Ring. He helped the gang to get to Rivendell and then he led them until they split up, but that's it.

I'm pretty sure Jon will have a much larger impact on the Others story. Insofar as the war against the Others is his war (as he himself has declared in his second last chapter) he will play a huge role in all that. But then, that's the role of a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, it's not the same. I don't think I said it was. Aerys naming Viserys is a command to all his loyal subjects to accept Viserys as their king after he dies. It isn't a direct order to only his Kingsguard, but to a loyal Kingsguard it should be treated as if it was. Again, there is indeed a difference between accepting Viserys as their king, and attending him. In that much you're right. It isn't directly the succession order that commands them to attend Viserys on Dragonstone. It is the succession order in combination with their oaths as members of the Kingsguard that mandates that at least one of their members attend the new king. It is their first duty as members of that order that tells them to go to their new king and make sure of his protection. Both Jaime and Ser Barristan tells us this is so. Selmy tells us it was treason he did not do so.

I really don't see it that way. Sure, the Kingsguard should be with the king but there are a lot scenarios imaginable (and actually depicted in the history of Westeros) where other things are more important, especially if those are connected to specific missions given to certain people. The king could sure as hell send all his seven Kingsguard on various missions, expecting them to continue with those even if he dies and a new king is crowned.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Certainly they have a choice. They have a choice to be loyal to their king and to their oaths or not to be loyal. I think the discussion is all about the evidence whether or not Hightower, Dayne, and Whent were loyal to their old king's orders and their new king's needs, and their own Kingsguard oaths, with their actions at the Tower. My own belief is the three men set aside their oaths and obligations to instead lay down their lives for the protection of Lyanna and her child. To me this is not the same as Selmy's choice, or Criston Cole's choice, but rather is most akin to Ser Duncan choice to defend Tanselle Too Tall from a royal prince at the Ashford tourney.  They do it for the love of their dead prince, and perhaps for the love of his beloved wife or paramour, and certainly for the protection of Rhaegar's and Lyanna's innocent child. While I respect the choice they made, I also note it put them at odds to their orders from their old king and their obligations to their new king.

I'm with you there. Our only difference is in the interpretation of the duties they had to a new king. I think this idea that one KG always has to be with the king is not attested by the text. Under normal circumstances they certainly would see to the king's protection but if the king gives them different orders they have to obey. And they also can choose to obey other members of the royal family or the court as the Larys Strong example proves.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

And they certainly also can ignore royal commands and plot against Aerys. We see the young Jaime struggle against his oaths and what he sees as right when he must stand by and see Rickard cooked in his armor and Brandon strangled. We again see Jaime struggle with what he should do when Aerys rapes and brutalizes Rhaella. In both situations there is a member of the Kingsguard who tells Jaime his oaths tell him not to interfere, and to not even judge their king's actions. So, no, it is no surprise that Dayne and Whent helped Rhaegar in his plots to set aside his mad father. It is important to note, however, they did so in contravention of what their oaths told them they must do. Otherwise we cannot understand the real motives of the men's actions at the tower.

The important part in this entire discussion is the internal side of everything. People swearing vows interpret them and find ways how to justify how they kept or broke them (and the same goes for promises, trust, etc.). That is what's happening in Theon's head when he takes Winterfell and brutalizes the Stark people or in Barristan's and Arys' head when he thinks about the vows they kept or broke.

In Arys Oakheart's mind important points leading to his decision to support Arianne's plan is his loyalty to Myrcella, the fact that King Tommen is, in fact, no king he, personally, swore allegiance to. Such ideas would also govern the minds of other men. The reason why Barristan can swear allegiance to Robert is, most likely, because he never swore a vow to King Viserys III. It would be much more difficult for a man like him to break such a direct vow.

And while Whent and Dayne might have been plotting against Aerys they might have done so with the good of the Realm in mind, being unwilling to ever lay hands on their king. The governance of the Realm is one thing and the safety of the royal person another. We can be reasonably certain Rhaegar never planned to kill his father.

But it can still be seen as treason, of course. Despite the fact that there is a precedent for such a regency, with Aegon II. If the king is incapacitated a regent is appointed.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

These are straw man arguments, LV, and you're better than that. No one is suggesting their oaths mandate that a member of the Kingsguard is always with the king. Their oaths mandate their first duty, above all else, is to protect their king. In some instances it is not possible for that to mean always being at the king's side Certainly the men of the Kingsguard are human and some time they must sleep, attend to private needs, or leave the king because of the needs of his safety or his orders. But even when they can't be there with the king they are responsible for his safety and must do what they can to make sure he is safe in their absence. Apply that standard to Hightower, Dayne, and Whent as they learn the news of the Trident, King's Landing, and Dragonstone. There is no other conclusion than the oaths and Aerys's order of succession mandate they see to the protection of their new king. The question is did fate and timing prevent them from doing so, or did they make a decision not to send at least one of their number to Viserys? I think the evidence points to their making such a decision.

They could but I don't think we have evidence they did so. They could have decided that Viserys III was safe anyway. They could have intended to go to Dragonstone together, later. They could have decided that it was too risky to separate and allow the knowledge of the child at the tower reach other regions (because there was always a chance that somebody would capture them). And so on.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

LV, I will respond to the rest later, but it is beyond my bedtime, and this old body needs its sleep as much as any kingsguard does. Until later.

Hope you had a good night's sleep.

[Ygrain]

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Look, there's simply no easy way you can get around the logical problem that if the KG's presence and their fight with Ned was so meaningful everyone would have put 2 and 2 together and realized who Jon has to be.

Heck, how can I say it more plainly?! It's meaningful because the KG know what happened. If they didn't, their presence wouldn't mean a thing. We as readers have access to information that the people of Westeros know nothing about, therefore we can come to conclusions they would never think about. Have you never played DnD, have you never had to distinguish between the knowledge of the player and the knowledge of the character? It's basically the same thing, what we know =/= what the characters know.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, teej6 said:

Am I understanding you correctly in that you believed Rhaegar and Lyanna to be married and Jon to be their legitimate child until you read TWOIAF? Coz that's what it sounds like you are stating. If so, I don't understand how the TWOIAF disproves the theory that R and L were married. The only additional information we got from TWOIAF on the subject of Jon's claim is that Aerys removed Aegon from the line of succession and named Viserys his heir (something we do not know was widely disseminated at the time). Also, we get information about the difficulties the Targs faced with their line of succession in the past. So how does this additional information change your mind on whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married? The only point from the TWOIAF information that merits scrutiny is whether the 3 KG knew if Aerys had named Viserys his heir when they confronted Ned and if so, why did they continue to stay with Lyanna and Jon.

It is a little bit more complicated than that.

My original take on things was essentially more or less @Ygrain's view on things. Perhaps with somewhat less of a focus on smaller details (I'm not all that obsessed with the question because I figured the Jon Snow thing out more or less by myself when reading the books for the first time in 2005).

What changed things for me was first the publication of ADwD and Barristan Selmy's admission that the king decides who is entitled to Kingsguard protection, with there being precedents for Kingsguard protecting more distant royal kin and even royal mistresses and bastards. That opened up the possibility that Lyanna's child was not legitimate. That is possibility that has first to be dismissed conclusively before we can be sure it does.

I think there are reasons to believe that Rhaegar actually married Lyanna, and as many others I looked forward to see other polygamous Targaryens in addition to the already confirmed Aegon I and Maegor the Cruel. There was an SSM indicating that some such could have existed, and especially the Dance could have been a period where Targaryens had taken multiple spouses to secure alliances and the like.

But that was not realized in TWoIaF, making it exceedingly unlikely that polygamy was really a viable option for a mere royal prince. Now, nobody is doubting that anybody could arrange a wedding, irregardless whether he has a lawful wife or not, but in light of the wars against the Faith (and the additional information you all will be able to read in 'The Sons of the Dragon' in October) the legal acceptance of polygamy is more than questionable. You have to keep in mind that the Faith very much defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

This then raises the question what it means if Jon Snow is actually the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? What is he if polygamy is still a vile sin in Westeros, not practiced by anyone in the Seven Kingdoms? Who would (for what reason) think that such a child was as trueborn as Rhaegar's children by Elia? And if there was an annulment would then Elia's children be still trueborn or retroactively have become bastards (that would have rather interesting implications for Aegon, making it exceedingly unlikely that Rhaegar got an annulment)?

The other thing we got from TWoIaF and the other fake history pieces is the revelation about the succession custom. The Iron Throne does not have a strict and binding system of male primogeniture. Instead, the king very much anoints his heir (Aegon his firstborn son Aenys; Aenys his firstborn son Aegon; Maegor his grandniece Aerea; Jaehaerys I his eldest son Aemon, and so on). It is pretty clear that the eldest son should inherit, that's what people expect. But when such a clear heir dies prematurely it is far from clear that the child of the eldest son is the next in line. Jaehaerys I chose his second son Baelon instead of the only daughter of his eldest son Aemon upon the latter's death - despite the fact that Princess Rhaenys would, most likely, have been Aemon's own heir should he have died as King Aemon I. Upon Baelon's early death the Realm was torn between Rhaenys' son Laenor Velaryon and Baelon's eldest son Viserys.

Later on legal principle of proximity (the closely related relative of a king gets the throne) won again at the Great Council of 233 AC when Maekar's son Aegon V became king instead of one of the grandchildren Maekar had from his two eldest sons.

It is hugely relevant that King Aerys II also favored proximity over primogeniture when his son and heir, Rhaegar, died at the Trident. Instead of his grandson Aegon he chose his own son Viserys (who was then crowned King Viserys III upon his father's death).

This makes it very unlikely that Jon Snow was anything but a claimant to the throne upon his birth. A claimant whose claim was stronger or weaker depending how people interpret it (and even as a bastard without his parents having had some sort of polygamous marriage he would have had a claim - bastards have claims, too, very weak ones but still claims). Things are never easy. The idea that he was 'the rightful king' is a far too easy solution for such a complex and interesting conundrum.

Those are all interesting question with a lot of interesting potential for the story when the truth about Jon's parentage finally ends up on somebody's table.

And answering that with 'he is legitimate beyond a doubt' or even 'he is the rightful king' is just not very constructive. We get in a discussion where people just pronounce that things will happen in a certain way without really explaining how they will unfold.

[Rippounet]

18 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

We as readers have access to information that the people of Westeros know nothing about, therefore we can come to conclusions they would never think about.

That Ned and the KG talked before having their fight to the death is supposed to be extraordinary information that no one in Westeros has?

And for the record, the dwarf I played in D&D was kickass.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

If you can recall my first post on this thread - and it is something I often say - I said that in the end, the question whether Jon is trueborn or a bastard will be irrelevant because it will be Jon's deeds and personality that determine who he will be, yet I can imagine that GRRM will create a situation (e.g. through a polygamous marriage) where you can argue both ways - because GRRM seems to like ambiguous situations. Jon Snow will not be a leader because he turns out to be a trueborn son of Rhaegar, but he may be accepted as such by those who find these things important because of his achievements (while not accepted as such by those who remain his enemies). If it happens, it will be ironic, of course, because all these seemingly important things (such as birth and legitimacy) will turn out to be totally secondary in comparison to deeds, but people may still want to stick to their illusions, thus they may take a chance to explain away (or to keep nagging about) a less-than-impeccable origin for a great hero. I truly wouldn't mind if Jon turned out to be Ned's bastard with a peasant girl, but the text is not going in this direction, as I see it.

I'm pretty much in agreement with that. What I have difficulty to believe is that Jon is actually more groomed/trained/shaped by events to be a monarch than Daenerys, Tyrion, Sansa, or Arianne. Many of these noble/royal characters put in difficult positions are. And since I try to see the big picture I don't try to focus to narrowly on just one character. We just don't know who will be king in the end.

Nobody writes threads on Arianne sitting the Iron Throne in the end, as the regent to her son by Aegon or Dany's son by Jon. But that is not completely impossible.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

As for Jon's parentage being the central mystery, I think that is so because of all the direct and especially symbolic references to it throughout the books (like the Bael the Bard story and the various ways it is "replayed"; "Corn King Jon Snow"; the fact that the title is A Song of Ice and Fire and a Targaryen - Stark union is the union of ice and fire; and so on).

The central mysteries of this series in my opinion are:

1. Who and what are the Others and what they hell do they want for what reason?

2. How can the Others be defeated?

3. What does the prophecy of the promised prince actually say, and what exactly reveals about the stuff that person is supposed to do?

The Song of Ice and Fire is the war between the Others and humanity, in my opinion. The symbolism is certainly also present in the Targaryens and the Starks (and their war during the Rebellion, for instance) as well also in the person of Jon Snow.

I don't think many people would doubt that.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

In addition, in Jon's story, there is a clear identity problem partly due to the reason that he has never been told who his mother was, thus he doesn't know half of his heritage and he continually struggles with who he is: a Stark, a true (not trueborn!) son of Eddard Stark, just a bastard with no mother and no name, a man of the NW who has left behind everything else (but how can you leave behind what you have never known?), and so on, and these questions have shaped his character and influenced his decisions. What exactly the importance of this mystery will be remains to be seen.

But that is also mirrored by a lot of other stories in those books. There are identity crises everywhere. Is Jaime a Lannister or a Kingsguard? How does Cersei deal with the misogyny in her environment? Tyron being torn between his Lannister identity, and whoever he 'truly' might be. For me it is pretty clear that he and Jon are two sides of the same coin - both are secretly the sons of Targaryen fathers.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Dany will be coming as a conqueror, with dragons and a foreign army of savages, which will only bring more havoc and suffering to the realm. Jon is, luckily, not a conqueror, that is true, and he may or may not become a king, but he is trying to protect the people, and he is exactly what the realm needs.

It might necessary to cleanse Westeros with blood and fire to actually get whoever survives to fight against the Others. Do you think Euron, Cersei, Littlefinger, and all the other crows feasting on the continent will care about the common enemy? Even Aegon might not. Things are going to get worse in Westeros, not better, and Jon is certainly not going to have the strength to stop that. He might actually inadvertently help to keep the true threat out of everybody's mind by holding the Wall, giving the various factions time to make the land bleed even more. If the Others struck right now people would still have a decent enough chance to organize some working resistance, especially since the Vale, the Reach, and Dorne are still in pretty good shape.

Holding the Wall is not good training for ruling, by the way. Jon pretty much sucked at being a conciliator (like his famous ancestors was), leading to his assassination. Daenerys was too much of a conciliator in ADwD. Her enemies smelled her weakness and nearly killed her. There is more to be a king than to defend the Realm against some threat nobody believes even exists. And Jon has not really faced the Others in battle yet.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yet, it is specifically said in the novel that a king who cannot protect his people is no king at all. The king of Westeros has a huge realm that includes several former kingdoms and lots of different people. But I'll grant it to you that I can also imagine that in times when the whole humanity is threatened, the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is meant to become a "King of Winter", a sort of wartime leader whose responsibility is to protect the people and whose authority transcends that of the petty rulers of Summer (even if he wears no crowns). This may easily be a rule that the people of Westeros have forgotten in the past centuries, but they may rediscover it soon. Perhaps. 

That is far too much baseless speculation for my part. The point of the NW was to man the Wall and keep the common enemy out of the realms of men. That doesn't give those men command over those realms. They were essentially founded as a border patrol of a coalition of states who have nothing in common but this common enemy they all recognize. That's it. Once the Wall falls there won't be a NW because there is no longer a border/wall.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Well, Robert's example does not contradict what I said at all. But yes, all major players want the throne (Stannis most definitely does), and that is why they can't see anything beyond their ambition and perhaps their family's immediate interests - certainly not the needs of the realm they want to rule. (Stannis only discovers that he may need to do something for the realm when he loses the battle for power at the Blackwater, and even then he needs Davos to point out the idea to him). Those who have managed to sit the iron chair or rule the realm from the background in the story so far have all proved to be unworthy and infinitely selfish leaders (with the exception of poor Tommen, who is just a puppet). 

Jon also struggles with this ridiculous idea of protecting the Realm from the ice zombies even after he knows they exist. He tries to run away to help his brother to avenge his father and he later on declares war on one of the realms of men (the North, ruled by the Boltons). That is neither very grown-up nor kingly. I know he has not much of a choice there but he allows himself to be manipulated and pushed around. Ramsay really knows how to push his buttons.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

We'll see what these important people will do when the threat of the Others becomes apparent.

I can make a pretty good guess. Look for the truth and a savior in their own faith and religion, and interpreting things the way their beliefs and doctrines tell them to. Jon can defeat the Others but for them the Seven will still have saved the Realm. Because the Seven are the true gods. Now, if some of them were actually to see Jon magical stuff some of them might change their minds. Others might conclude he is a demon, too, like Melisandre thinks Bran and Bloodraven are working for the evil god.

The idea that events happening will lead to people reach the right conclusions is somewhat naive on your part. This series includes such uncertainties into the plot. Stannis told people the truth about his sister-in-law and nobody cared.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Sure, but he at least tried to protect his people against them, he at least fought in order to get his people to a safer place, we have to give him that. But yes, Jon Snow is really the only major character who means to fight the Others and is looking for ways to defeat them.

Is he? I think he is merely trying to hold the Wall and keeping them out of the Realm. I don't think there is any indication that he actually has any intention or plan to carry the war to defeat them on their own soil. He certainly wants to find out more about them, who they are, what they want, how they can be killed aside from obsidian, etc. but to construct the idea that he really wants to defeat them is a little bit far-fetched.

He has a pretty good guess that they will eventually attack and that this is going to get ugly as hell, especially if they have a lot of wights but I doubt even he understands what's at stake here. The entire world is in danger, not just Westeros.

And he is making no attempt whatsoever to convince anybody of the danger they are facing. Not the Boltons (as we have discussed) but also, very curiously, not even Tycho Nestoris. A man who most likely would care if he had reason to believe that the eternal winter the Others might bring would freeze the lagoon of Braavos for, well, the next ten thousand years or more.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Well, there is a dream that foreshadows Jon Snow fighting an army of the dead all alone. There is also foreshadowing for Jon to be king. However, Daenerys also sees a (prophetic?) vision which apparently features her son Rhaego as a conqueror. Or else it may feature Dany (symbolically) as the real "stallion that mounts the world". The first interpretation means you shouldn't take dreams and visions too literally. The second one is no good news at all, if you ask me.

That is applying a double standard. Daenerys has had at least one prophetic dream (the hatching of Drogon) that became true, she also had another magical dream of all her Targaryen ancestors urging her on to hatch the dragons eggs. Many of the visions she had in the House of the Undying came true, some of the visions of the past have actually been verified to be true independently.

If you reread the Dany-Rhaego-vision then this is actually a series of visions depicting the prices she paid for to be the one she is. That is the quote:

Quote

Then phantoms shivered through the murk, images in indigo. Viserys screamed as the molten gold ran down his cheeks and filled his mouth. A tall lord with copper skin and silver-gold hair stood beneath the banner of a fiery stallion, a burning city behind him. Rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman’s name. . . . mother of dragons, daughter of death . . .

 

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The single character that has truly been set up to be the major opponent of the Others is Jon Snow - not by a single dream but by most of what he has done and by what he has been through.

That doesn't mean he will be the one who will defeat them, though. He seems to be lacking the means to do so.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Dany clearly wants to be a Queen in Westeros because ... why exactly? Because that's her birthright. Wanting to rule is probably the single surest indicator that someone is a player in the game of thrones (and mind you, I don't think being a player should be a problem by definition, it depends on the character's further goals and motivations).

She feels that she and her family were wronged and she also thinks occasionally her people miss her and want her back. She feels responsible for the throne that is hers by birthright.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Regarding Essos and Westeros, I agree with you that there is nothing to connect Dany to Westeros besides the fact that she was born there, the stories she heard from Viserys and her belief that she is entitled to the Iron Throne (and to her revenge perhaps). She is clearly concerned about the people of Essos the way she is not concerned about the people of Westeros - she feels great sympathy for the slaves of Slaver's Bay and wants to protect them, but she doesn't really worry about all the destruction a Dothraki army might bring to the ordinary people of Westeros even though she has seen what the Dothraki can do to a conquered people.

Well, we have to wait and see what they are going to do under her command, right?

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

That strongly suggests that her allegiance is most of all to the Essosi people and her true identity is also basically Essosi (even her best idea of a true home connects her to an Essosi city). Besides, she has started a major political reform in Essos with the purpose of putting an end to slavery, which is a worthy goal in itself. I guess if she could finish this huge job and bring stability to those cities, it would be a task for a lifetime. With this, she, "the blood of the dragon", whose true home was in the city founded by those who had fled the dragons and slavery, would also atone for centuries of fire and blood and slavery that her dragonlord ancestors (I mean ancestors in a broad sense) inflicted on the people of Essos. It would be nice poetic justice and a great goal to keep fighting for. To also defeat the Others, who she has never heard of so far (and no "family history" connects her to them either), would be a bit too much for a single character to do.

That is an irrelevant dichotomy because it seems pretty clear to me that the Others are a universal threat. Every human should fight against them, not just the people of Westeros. A Dothraki, a Ghiscari, a Volantene, an Andal, freedmen, peasant, knight, lord, and prince all could very well stand together in whatever last battle is fought against the Others.

The preparation for this story is Dany's arc and purpose in this story.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Having said that, I definitely think that Dany will go to Westeros, I just don't think that she can solve both of these huge problems, so one (or both) of the continents will definitely suffer for her decision. I'm pretty sure that Westeros does not need any more conquerors and pointless bloodshed at the moment. At the same time, there is no one else in Essos who can and wants to solve the problem of slavery, while in Westeros we already have a character whose life-purpose is to protect the realm against the Others. 

Conquering Westeros won't be all that a great problem for her. And if things unfold as 'The Forsaken' indicates a lot of people will suffer very cruelly long before she ever shows up. We should reserve judgment on Dany's campaign in Westeros until we can reasonably guess how it will work out. Just as we should reserve judgment on Jon's heroic and kingly deeds in the future until after we see him return from the dead.

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a little bit more complicated than that.

My original take on things was essentially more or less @Ygrain's view on things. Perhaps with somewhat less of a focus on smaller details (I'm not all that obsessed with the question because I figured the Jon Snow thing out more or less by myself when reading the books for the first time in 2005).

What changed things for me was first the publication of ADwD and Barristan Selmy's admission that the king decides who is entitled to Kingsguard protection, with there being precedents for Kingsguard protecting more distant royal kin and even royal mistresses and bastards. That opened up the possibility that Lyanna's child was not legitimate. That is possibility that has first to be dismissed conclusively before we can be sure it does.

I think there are reasons to believe that Rhaegar actually married Lyanna, and as many others I looked forward to see other polygamous Targaryens in addition to the already confirmed Aegon I and Maegor the Cruel. There was an SSM indicating that some such could have existed, and especially the Dance could have been a period where Targaryens had taken multiple spouses to secure alliances and the like.

But that was not realized in TWoIaF, making it exceedingly unlikely that polygamy was really a viable option for a mere royal prince. Now, nobody is doubting that anybody could arrange a wedding, irregardless whether he has a lawful wife or not, but in light of the wars against the Faith (and the additional information you all will be able to read in 'The Sons of the Dragon' in October) the legal acceptance of polygamy is more than questionable. You have to keep in mind that the Faith very much defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

This then raises the question what it means if Jon Snow is actually the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? What is he if polygamy is still a vile sin in Westeros, not practiced by anyone in the Seven Kingdoms? Who would (for what reason) think that such a child was as trueborn as Rhaegar's children by Elia? And if there was an annulment would then Elia's children be still trueborn or retroactively have become bastards (that would have rather interesting implications for Aegon, making it exceedingly unlikely that Rhaegar got an annulment)?

The other thing we got from TWoIaF and the other fake history pieces is the revelation about the succession custom. The Iron Throne does not have a strict and binding system of male primogeniture. Instead, the king very much anoints his heir (Aegon his firstborn son Aenys; Aenys his firstborn son Aegon; Maegor his grandniece Aerea; Jaehaerys I his eldest son Aemon, and so on). It is pretty clear that the eldest son should inherit, that's what people expect. But when such a clear heir dies prematurely it is far from clear that the child of the eldest son is the next in line. Jaehaerys I chose his second son Baelon instead of the only daughter of his eldest son Aemon upon the latter's death - despite the fact that Princess Rhaenys would, most likely, have been Aemon's own heir should he have died as King Aemon I. Upon Baelon's early death the Realm was torn between Rhaenys' son Laenor Velaryon and Baelon's eldest son Viserys.

Later on legal principle of proximity (the closely related relative of a king gets the throne) won again at the Great Council of 233 AC when Maekar's son Aegon V became king instead of one of the grandchildren Maekar had from his two eldest sons.

It is hugely relevant that King Aerys II also favored proximity over primogeniture when his son and heir, Rhaegar, died at the Trident. Instead of his grandson Aegon he chose his own son Viserys (who was then crowned King Viserys III upon his father's death).

This makes it very unlikely that Jon Snow was anything but a claimant to the throne upon his birth. A claimant whose claim was stronger or weaker depending how people interpret it (and even as a bastard without his parents having had some sort of polygamous marriage he would have had a claim - bastards have claims, too, very weak ones but still claims). Things are never easy. The idea that he was 'the rightful king' is a far too easy solution for such a complex and interesting conundrum.

Those are all interesting question with a lot of interesting potential for the story when the truth about Jon's parentage finally ends up on somebody's table.

And answering that with 'he is legitimate beyond a doubt' or even 'he is the rightful king' is just not very constructive. We get in a discussion where people just pronounce that things will happen in a certain way without really explaining how they will unfold.

None of the issues with the Targ line of succession is relevant in terms of whether Jon was the legitimate child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, which is the point of this thread. Jaehaerys I skipped his eldest son's line because this line would have continued through a daughter/female. Similarly, Viserys was picked in the end because he came from the male line. Aegon V became king because the other options for the Council were a dim-witted girl, an infant child, and a grown man who did not want the throne. Again, I don't see how any of this is relevant to the legitimacy of Jon's birth. It may arise if Jon is ever a contestant for the IT. And I think I stated upthread that I don't believe it's Jon's Targ heritage that will win him the throne if it happens, although it might provide some legitimacy to those surviving Lords who seek it. If anything the events for the line of succession in TWOIAF diminishes Dany's claim against Aegon's claim as we see male claimants were preferred in the past. Aegon, IMO, is the character in-story who will challenge Dany's claim to the IT or vice versa, not Jon. I believe the addition of Viserys being named heir in TWOIAF is for Dany's benefit, for her to have a stronger claim against Aegon when it comes to second dance. Anyway, my point is the succession conflicts in Targ history in no way affects Jon's legitimacy as Rhaegar's and Lyanna's child. 

In my reading of TWOIAF, it does not state that polygamy was outlawed. It may have been considered a sin by the Faith but not downright outlawed. And Rhaegar probably did not care about polygamy being a sin to begin with, especially if he thought his child with Lyanna was the prophesied savior of Westeros. Now, you can argue as to whether the 3KG viewed the marriage as legitimate based on their beliefs. If Rhaegar convinced them it was legitimate and if he had the blessing of the king -- which IMO is probably what he negotiated with Aerys in return for his participation in the war -- I don't think it would have been their place to dispute it. 

The comment by Barry does not muddy the waters that much as to doubt the KG's motives in protecting Lyanna. Barristan's statement is not some great revelation here. It was always obvious that the king could order the KG to protect anyone who he chose and the KG was under oath to obey their king. It may be that Aerys through Rhaegar ordered Hightower to stand guard for Lyanna. This was probably the only way that Aerys could get Rhaegar to lead his army. Besides, order or no order, after the death of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon, there is no compelling reason for all 3 KG to be guarding Lyanna and her child especially if they believed Viserys was their true king and Lyanna's child was simply a bastard. And if they believed Viserys to be their true king, the question arises why didn't one or more of them travel to DS to protect him? If one is of the opinion (as I am) that in not protecting Viserys, the 3KG did not believe that they were in dereliction of their prime duty, then the logical conclusion is  that they viewed Lyanna's child as the heir to the Targ throne and therefore legitimate. Now, I doubt the 3KG were thinking beyond the fact that Jon was the legitimate child of the heir to the IT. That is to say, they were not considering/debating the past lines of Targ successions and whether the Targ's followed a binding system of male primogeniture. From the statements of the three at the ToJ, it is fair to assume that they concluded, with the information they had at hand, that Jon was the heir to the Targ dynasty, and for that to happen he had to be the legitimate child of Rhaegar. And you yourself said that until ADWD you believed Jon to be true born and therefore I assume the statements by the KG in Ned's fever dream should have convinced you of such then. 

[teej6]

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

This is perhaps the single thing I can agree on with LV, that the self-doubt is solely Jackson's insert. The book Aragorn doesn't doubt himself or his claim but as a highly determined and responsible person, he is honing his skills and waiting for the right time. He does never boast of his heritage until that time has come, and for all his victories as Thorongil, he never used them as a stepping stone to power through which he could depose Denethor. He never put his personal gain (the kingship over Gondor and restored Arnor, which Elrond made a condition for allowing him to marry Arwen) above the main goal, the defeat of Sauron. - Makes one think, if Jon was offered IT or continue to fight the Others, we know what he would choose, right? :-)

 

Yes, I admit I was wrong about Aragorn's self-doubt. In fact, come to think of it, Jackson's interpretation of Aragorn and diminishing the character's importance in the story is why I disliked the movies. Anyway, I still think, in many ways, Aragorn depicts the reluctant hero trope. Granted he's no hidden prince, but his right to the throne of Gondor and Arnor and his lineage is only really known by the high Elves. His identity is not well known and his acts of bravery are definitely not public knowledge. He does not announce himself as king or with a thousand and one titles and even Gimli and Legolas see him as a peer. The only time he acted kingly with them early on in the books was when Gimli questions his right to look through the Palantir.  I'm not denying that he accepted the throne when offered but that was not the central purpose of the character in the story (unlike a certain silver-haired princess) and he definitely did not expect it to become king. Like I said to LV, Aragon to me epitomizes the humble king and Dany, on the other hand, is just the opposite.