Jump to content

Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.


Damsel in Distress

Recommended Posts

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

Because they are Kingsguard. They can be assigned other tasks but unless some very specific circumstances occur, the rule is that at least one of them should always be with the king.

That is actually not confirmed. We have no reason to believe that if all Kingsguard available have been assigned special missions (like Dayne, Whent, and Hightower clearly had) they have to abandon or abort those missions or change their modus operandi to go to do homage to a newly crowned king.

It is not controversial that the Kingsguard's first duty is to see to the protection of the monarch but that doesn't mean one of their number always has to be with the king. That is essentially just something you want to believe and state as if it was a confirmed fact. The idea that 'normal routines' would be enacted in wartime as well as in peace simply doesn't make a lot of sense.

We have ample evidence that the Kingsguard of Aegon II or Barristan Selmy (when Daenerys disappeared into the Dothraki Sea) did not try everything in their power to ensure that the monarch has KG protection.

And even if this was a general rule we have no reason to believe that Dayne, Whent, and Hightower actually did share your view on that matter.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

When Rhaegar ordered them to stay and guard Lyanna, there were four more KG who could perform the duty, so Rhaegar's order didn't interfere.

Depending on Rhaegar's authority at that time they would have been forced to obey any command he was given to him. Just as Barristan may have been forced to obey Hizdahr zo Loraq in all things if Queen Daenerys had granted him such an authority. A king or prince could certainly also give a Kingsguard the command to consider another person - be he or she a member of the royal family - even more important than the king or queen.

You can tell a Kingsguard to guard the king's horse instead of the royal person if you have the authority. The Kingsguard are servants, not rulers.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

Even after Rhaegar's death the duty is still being carried out by Jaime (though Hightower would probably consider this insufficient) but after the Sack, there are no more KG left and the ToJ trio is in a situation when Rhaegar's order requires them to protect Lyanna, and their duty requires them to protect the king.

There is no indication that the men at the tower thought that King Viserys III and the Dowager Queen Rhaella had no Kingsguard protection on Dragonstone. Nor have they any reason not to assume that His Grace King Aerys II did not everything in his power (including naming new Kingsguard or sending some of the remaining members of the order with his wife and heir to Dragonstone).

You can perhaps convince people that the knights at the tower have received words of the Trident or even the Sack but certainly not the last missions and the itinerary of the Kingsguard. Or would you say that, if His Grace King Aerys II had decided to send all Kingsguard with Rhaegar to the Trident or with Viserys to Dragonstone the knights at the tower would also have been forced to abandon their mission at the tower? Is that the usual modus operandi - whenever a king decides he has more important things to do for the Kingsguard to protect his royal person other Kingsguard having other duties should abandon those to return to their king (who has not asked for their help or attendance) to force him to accept their protection?

That is a silly and unrealistic concept, and there is thankfully not the slightest textual evidence for this.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

And for Kingsguard, protecting the king is supposed to be the highest priority, the very reason their order was established: protect the king no matter what. Of course, the KG are only human and can make a different choice, but then they wouldn't be considered exemplary KG, nor should they proudly emphasize that they are Kingsguard when they are not doing their duty to the king.

Dayne, Whent, and Hightower were never considered exemplary Kingsguard. Ned sees the Kingsguard as once having been a shining example to the world, and Arthur Dayne personally as the best knight he ever met. But Dayne is not Hightower and is not Whent. The latter two men Ned did never praise.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

Curiously, it was fully within their powers to cover both their duty and Rhaegar's order if they split and sent at least one of them (most likely Hightower) to DS, yet they didn't consider this necessary. To me, this can mean only one thing: Viserys cannot be their highest priority, another person is, and that person is being protected by the KG staying at ToJ.

If they felt all bound by whatever vow/promise/whatever motivated them to obey Rhaegar's ridiculous command to protect Lyanna (a woman of no particular significance in comparison to the sacrosanct person of the king of the Prince of Dragonstone - people the Kingsguard at the tower actually helped to kill with their blind obedience).

If they were likely to send a man of their own to Dragonstone they could also have come up with the idea to secretly send two of them to KL to attend Aerys or even Rhaegar. Neither of them would have been likely to chastise them if they had insisted that they would rather protect them instead of some woman who may or may not give birth to a living child. Surely Lyanna stark could also have been protected by some men-at-arms.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

As I wrote above, they could cover both their duties. Plus, even if they received the news before Lyanna gave birth, it would make no sense to wait if the expected offspring was not legitimate because a bastard baby would always be the last in the line of succession, right? So actually, even them waiting during Lyanna's pregnancy still means that the child must have been legitimate.

Not if they were actually loyal men who know how to follow orders, especially given to them by friends. Whent and Dayne may have given essentially nothing to keep Aerys' favor but everything to suck up to and please their dear friend Rhaegar.

Hightower is more of a mystery but we essentially know nothing about his motivation to stay at the tower. There are some compelling theories but they are basically all speculation. We simply do not know.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

You're right, a KG is not the same thing as a Lord. The KG are held to higher standards than anyone else and their vows require the sacrifice of love, family, everything, including their very life. Because the KG are sworn to defend the king and give their lives for his if need be. You might be surprised how often this requirement is mentioned throughout the series.

Every retainer of a king is expected to die for him. That's no privileges of the Kingsguard. Else a king would never send knights and men-at-arms to fight wars for him.

On 27.3.2017 at 10:14 PM, Ygrain said:

Age doesn't matter, the claim does, or else baby Aegon wouldn't have to die. Nor does crowning someone else if they are lower in the succession line - besides, it is in no way certain that Rhaella would even crown Viserys if she knew about Rhaegar's son.

Queen Rhaella may actually have given that slut Lyanna a good beating if she had ever met her. The woman sent Joanna Lannister (allegedly also a slut) and other ladies-in-waiting that had become the whores of her royal husband from court. The idea that she had any positive inclination towards the woman who led her eldest son astray and had any positive feelings towards a child from that 'union' is not very likely. She did her duty, married her brother, and was ever faithful to him. She gave up the love of her live and would have expected others to do the same.

And Viserys was her own son, most likely the last joy she had in life. It is not even a question whom she would have favored.

On 28.3.2017 at 0:58 AM, SFDanny said:

It is very clear that Dany's vision has Rhaegar tying the birth of his son, who he calls the "prince who was promised," to the existence of two others. One of which he tells his wife, in the context of talking of Aegon's birth, must also be born, because "the dragon has three heads."

Whether the concept of bastardy was known in Valyria or Asshai when some of these prophecies were born is also beside the point. It existed in the time of the conquest and it existed in Rhaegar's time. We are trying to figure out what Rhaegar thought, not ancient societies.

When we are informed of the origins of the Targaryen sigil of the three headed dragon and it's tie to the time of the conquest and the three monarchs who founded the Targaryen dynasty, it becomes clear the evidence is pointing to both Aegon and his sister-wives, and to a new generation of siblings that Rhaegar believes will bring back the power of those days and fulfill the prophecy of the prince who was promised and the war for the dawn. Once again, Rhaegar is wrong in his belief - we know Rhaenys is dead - but that doesn't change the fact the evidence points to him believing his children, including a third child yet to be born, would be key to the prophecies.

That is actually not the case. We have the Undying also stating 'three heads has the dragon', most likely not referring to the Targaryen sigil but the prophecy of the promised prince (or whatever is behind that). And Rhaegar would also have focused his intentions on the prophecy, not the sigil. The fact that his children are named Rhaenys and Aegon seems to just as a historical accident. Those are the most common Targaryen names.

Rhaegar did not try to recreate the Conqueror and his sister-wives, and thus would also not necessarily have had a reason to produce only a legitimate (or sort of) legitimate child. After all, polygamy was uncommon in Valyria, and we have no idea whether the son of a secondary wife had the same status as the son of the first wife.

On 28.3.2017 at 0:58 AM, SFDanny said:

There is absolutely no evidence that polygamy was illegal for the Targaryens.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the Faith simply did not recognize polygamous marriages as valid, period. We have to precedents for First Men kings having multiple wives, and two Targaryen kings, that's it.

Aegon and his sister-wives did not marry in a sept nor in Westeros. Prince Maegor did take his first wife in a sept (and @The Twinslayer made very poignantly clear how the marriage vow of the Faith defines a marriage), and later had a foreign rite done by his mother which was not accepted by the Faith. How King Maegor later dealt with the Faith when he married Tyanna and then the black brides we don't yet know. However, what we do know is that his many marriages were also a main reason for the continuous rebellions that eventual resulted in his deposition.

And we should keep in mind that Maegor most likely was not exactly diplomatic when marrying Tyanna and the other women while he wore a crown. The idea that septons and women agreeing to marry a man under threat of death was valid and in order is a pretty big stretch, even if we had no reason to assume that polygamy was forbidden in general.

On 28.3.2017 at 0:58 AM, SFDanny said:

None at all. In fact, the evidence is that when the Faith Militant rose in rebellion it was started by what was considered incest by the Faith, and only later was the issue of polygamy brought into contention when Maegor married Alys Harroway.

No, it is both. In fact, it is Maegor's second marriage which starts Aenys I's problems. The incestuous marriage of his children later on only makes matters worse (and relations with the Faith in general should have been deteriorating since Aenys actually granted Goren Greyjoy permission to expel all the septons and septas from the Iron Islands) but it is not the start.

On 28.3.2017 at 0:58 AM, SFDanny said:

When Aenys married his son Aegon to his daughter Rhaena, this was used by the Faith to contest the results of the conquest and again place the Faith in control of all of these questions. But the Faith lost the war, and lost the peace. The Faith Militant orders were slaughtered. It was under the banners of Jaehaerys that Maegor was ousted. It was Jaehaerys that dictated the peace and the terms which emerged with the Faith. The Faith accepted the outlawing of the Faith Militant orders, and they accepted the supremacy of the King's justice over all the members of the Faith. The Targaryen tradition of marriage of brother to sister and other close kin to each other continued on thereafter. The little used tradition of polygamous marriage was never outlawed as we see others try to use it later on through the years. Those are the facts. That is the evidence.

There is no reason to outlaw it if it was already outlawed. Two Targaryen kings having multiple wives doesn't mean everybody can do it. Kings are above the laws of gods and men. 

Incest was probably also never outlawed, it was just a horrific sin and abomination. That this view never changed is quite obvious since nobody but Targaryen kings ever arrange incestuous marriages, even within their own family. The Velaryons and Baratheons never do it unless they are part of a royal match, nor do any of the other noble houses decide to follow the traditions of the royals (as the Valyrian middle class did).

We can be reasonably certain that a Targaryen king could actually have everyone (including close family members whom he disliked) killed if they had entered into an incest marriage without royal permission. All they would need to do is check all codices and revive whatever punishments the Faith used back in the old days against people committing incest.

On 28.3.2017 at 0:58 AM, SFDanny said:

Now, that doesn't mean there would be no objection to a new polygamous marriage. In Rhaegar's case, both from his father, and by those amongst the faith who view these marriages as taboo. The question, however, is not what resistance Rhaegar would face, but did he have reason to do so over those objections? The evidence of his belief in his children fulfilling the role of the new three headed dragon suggests he had a powerful reason for doing so. And that leaves out personal reasons he could have with his relationship to Lyanna.

Rhaegar certainly could have tried (and did try, I think) to get away with polygamy. The question is whether it worked. What little we know about that is that he did not. Even less so if it was a secret marriage. A secret polygamous marriage is essentially non-existent because nobody would have any reason to believe Rhaegar would have be as stupid/mad to pull off such a thing, and everybody suggesting otherwise could easily be discredited as a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow,  a lot of information in this thread. I guess jon was born thinking he was a bastard and he may die thinking he is one, but it is pretty clear that he is not actually born a bastard. I thought his parents married in secret. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Wow,  a lot of information in this thread. I guess jon was born thinking he was a bastard and he may die thinking he is one, but it is pretty clear that he is not actually born a bastard. I thought his parents married in secret. 

No, it's not clear at all. That's why we've got 15 pages of discussion. :D It's actually very likely that he was in fact born a bastard, but it's also entirely possible that he was legitimate.

We don't know if Rhaegar and Lyanna married, and further if they did we don't know if it would be legal. 

At the very least, he will learn who his parents were. GRRM has promised us that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The problem with this "rule" as you have stated it is that once you start listing out the "very specific circumstances" when the king is away from all of the kingsguard, the "rule" collapses.

Here are some examples of times when there are no kingsguard with the king:

  • Any time the king tells them all to do something else (Aerys II orders Jaime to leave him and go see to the defenses of King's Landing during the period between the time Rhaegar leaves for the Trident and the time Jaime kills him, which leaves Aerys with no KG).  

That one is actually pretty interesting since we have it on good record that Aerys II only permitted the Kingsguard to carry blades in his royal presence. That means by default that Jaime could not even guarantee a proper protection of the royal person during his (temporal) absence while sleeping or checking on stuff out in the city since any men standing in for Jaime wouldn't have been Kingsguard and thus unarmed in the presence of the king.

Aerys II very effectively undercut and neutralized the attempts of the Kingsguard to protect him. And they could do nothing about that.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:
  • Any time the Hand tells them to do something else (when Robert dies, Joffrey is guarded by the Hound, who is no KG.  Barristan wants to go to Joffrey, Ned tells him not to, and he obeys Ned).

Exactly, because the Hand speaks with the King's Voice, especially while there is no crowned and anointed king (and of course also when the king is still a minor).

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:
  • Any time the Master of Whispers tells them to do something else.  (Lord Larys Strong orders Willas Fell and Rickard Thorne to guard Aegon II's children and leave Aegon with an unnamed bastard knight and they do it).  

That may have been a special situation, though. But I'd agree with you in principle that even the Small Council members do have authority over the Kingsguard. Other examples are when Pycelle and Swyft take over the governance of the Realm - before Tarly, Mace, and Kevan arrived they would have spoken in Tommen's name, and Trant, Blount, and Kettleblack clearly did what they said.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:
  • Any time the king (or Queen Regnant) rides off on a dragon (Dany does it in ADWD and Barristan stays in Meereen.  There are multiple examples in TPATQ, including on long journeys planned on short notice where they could not even arrange for a KG to be waiting for them at the other end of the journey, meaning they would be without KG for several days while the KG caught up to them.  And it is ridiculous to think that Aegon the Conqueror or King Maegor took a KG along every time they flew around on Balerion.

That is pretty obvious. The Kingsguard back in those wasn't all that relevant, anyway. They were bodyguards at court on progresses and in (conventional) warfare, but were completely absent in all the dragon affairs. And even later, there may have been many a king who simply did not care all that much about a lot of guardsmen in their presence. 

And a man like Criston Cole actually did a lot of things to get his king killed. First there is that risky Rook's Rest maneuver that nearly got Aegon II killed (and definitely would have killed him had Rhaenyra sent more dragonriders) and later he abandons the Prince Regent in the Riverlands. Sure, that move actually gets Ser Criston himself killed but Prince Aemond and Alys Rivers had no Kingsguard protection during their time in the Riverlands.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:
  • Any time the 7 KG meet to discuss KG business.  

In that case they hand their duties to other trusted men. The Kingsguard is far to small to actually effectively guarantee the protection of the royal person (let alone the entire royal family, if that's their job). A few of them always run around with the king in shifts, but if they have to protect two people they have to use more than one person.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:
  • Any time the King or Queen Regnant wants to be alone in a room with a lover.  (Barristan doesn't stop Daario from being alone with Dany even though he thinks Daario is dangerous to her).  

Or when a king wants to fight in tourney, ride to war, fight in single combat, or kill a boar. Kings decide whether the Kingsguard can protect them or not.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

To understand the true nature of the Kingsguard vow, you need to look at what Barristan says about it.  The first duty is to guard the king from harm or threat.  Sometimes the best way to do that is to be by the king's side.  Sometimes the best way to do that is to be somewhere else, like when Barristan decides he can serve Dany better by protecting her from the threat to her rule in Meereen than galloping around the countryside looking for Drogon; or when Fell and Thorne decide they can protect Aegon II from threats by guarding Aegon's children.

We can reasonably say that especially the protection of Princess Jaehaera was a waste or resources and in direct contradiction to that 'first duty' if we should really interpret it so rigidly as @Ygrain and other suggest. She was female, and thus not eligible to inherit the Iron Throne from the point of view of the more extremist partisans of the Greens (iron precedent of 101 AC). She was a lackwit and would thus be a very bad monarch even if she had a good claim to the throne. She was essentially expendable. Yet Willis Fell - who had the choice between following the order of Larys Strong or fulfill his 'first duty' to protect the king at all times chose the girl. Aegon II was given into the charge of some bastard knight (actually Ser Marston Waters, who later was given a white cloak by Aegon II), entirely without Kingsguard protection.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

You make a fair point -- Rhaegar was wrong about the prophecy (more than once), but what the prophecy really meant is less important that what Rhaegar thought it meant if his motive was to fulfill it.  

See above. I think we can safely say that Rhaegar was not influenced by the Targaryen sigil in his attempt to fulfill the prophecy. He might still not have wanted to father a bastard but certainly not because he wanted to recreate Aegon and his sisters or because he did not think a bastard could be a prince.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

But I think you are mistaken to say that "the option of a second marriage was open to him" and that "[t]here is absolutely no evidence polygamy was illegal for Targaryens."  Here is why.

First, there is tons of evidence that polygamy was disallowed for everyone.  The marriage vows of the Faith prohibit it and virtually no-one tries it.  So you would need to establish that there is an exception that would apply to Rhaegar and that would lead to acceptance of children by the second marriage as trueborn members of the royal family.  

The fact that we have no Andal lord or king in Westeros ever trying to have more than one wife is more than telling. There could have been some of those in the history of Westeros. We only have two First Men kings, though.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The exception is said to be that Aegon I and his sisters were able to do it.  That is like comparing apples to pears.  Aegon was married to two women before he arrived in Westeros, the laws of the 7 kingdoms were not unified at the time, he and his wives -- all dragonriders -- conquered Westeros with fire and blood, and his wives were his sisters (born Targaryens), so there was no possibility of a feud between two powerful houses for primacy.  Rhaegar is not similarly situated at all.  He is no king, just a prince; he married a princess from another royal house in a sept in Westeros where he swore a holy vow to remain faithful to her; neither he nor Elia nor Lyanna were dragonriders; and the two women in question are both from powerful houses with no ties to one another such that conflict would have been inevitable.

The important point there is indeed that it has never been tested whether the children a prince has from a second wife would actually be considered legitimate members of the royal family. I think that is out of the question unless the king was backing his son in that decision and had the strength to actually enforce that decision.

There is no indication that either was the case for Aerys II.

Else polygamy would have come up to help resolve some of the major crises earlier kings faced. Daemon would have taken Mysaria or Rhaenyra as a second wife. Viserys I would have married Alicent before Aemma died. Aegon IV would have made Barbra Bracken his second wife rather than send her away. He would also have married other mistresses. Prince Duncan could have married both Jenny and the Baratheon girl, and the same goes for Jaehaerys II and Shaera/Celia Tully. Aerys II could have taken Joanna Lannister as a second wife, in addition to his sister-wife.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

So there is no general exception that says any Targaryen can practice polygamy.  At most, you could say that a king is (in theory) above the law and that he personally could practice polygamy or give permission to someone else to do so if the king had enough power to withstand the reaction that would provoke among the nobles and the Faith -- which Aegon was able to do but which Maegor was not, even though he rode Balerion.  And which is something that Robb Stark knew to be out of the question even though he was a king, which indicates that the followers of the Old Gods would also object.

Robb apparently married Jeyne in a sept (or through a septon). He was bound by the same vows that bound Rhaegar. We don't know if the ancient Starks ever practiced polygamy - if they did that clearly is no longer done for a long time. But Robb was also King of the Trident and the men there (the Freys included) most certainly wouldn't have liked such an arrangement. Else somebody would have brought it up. I mean, Black Walder suggested murdering Jeyne. Polygamy would have been a less radical way to resolve this.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

On the specific question of legality, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that polygamy is outright illegal.  We know that after the Faith Militant uprising, Jaehaerys I made peace with the Faith, swore to protect it, and then implemented a unified system of laws for the 7 kingdoms.  While we have not been told in detail what those laws included, there are only two activities that were practiced before the new laws but which weren't (at least, not openly/legally) after:  polygamy and first night.  The fact that polygamy occurred before the new laws but did not occur after is evidence that it was outlawed.  And that makes sense:  Jaehaerys had no interest in engaging in polygamy, he knew the Faith objected to it, and he was trying to unify the 7 kingdoms after a civil war.  Because he was successful, he went down in history as the Conciliator.  You don't engage in conciliation by dictating terms, you do it by offering your former opponent something he or she values.  In this case, a commitment that House Targaryen would forego polygamy in the future, and formally outlawing that practice, would be enormously valuable to the Faith but would cost Jaehaerys nothing he cared about.  It would also make it easier for the Faith to accept that House Targaryen would continue to practice incest.  That was valuable to Jaehaerys so that he could stay married to his wife and because the Targaryens apparently believed it was important to their ability to control their dragons.  But there is no reason to think that Jaehaerys was conciliating by forcing the Faith to accept something they despised and which neither he nor anyone else in his family was planning to do.    

That is a good argument but I actually doubt that Jaehaerys I ever changed the religious laws that rule marriage. As a legal institution it is still in the hands of the Faith and not the Crown. He just made sure they could no longer prosecute any people.

I also don't think he ever made incestuous marriages legal. He just ensured that the Faith would no longer dare to openly object to that. There is no indication that everybody named Targaryen can now suddenly marry his sister. The kings do arrange those matches and without royal permission they do not happen. The only objection are Rhaenyra-Daemon and Jaehaerys-Shaera (both of which were later accepted by the king).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No, it's not clear at all. That's why we've got 15 pages of discussion. :D It's actually very likely that he was in fact born a bastard, but it's also entirely possible that he was legitimate.

We don't know if Rhaegar and Lyanna married, and further if they did we don't know if it would be legal. 

At the very least, he will learn who his parents were. GRRM has promised us that.

Wow. That is good news of George says that. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You're welcome. We're also going to see certain characters like Howland Reed, and see the return of others like Gendry and Rickon. 

Oh wow Gendry. I hope he is legitimized too so he and Arya can finally be together. I guess if Aegon was to be the king then he could legitimize Jon as something and he could legitimize Gendry as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Oh wow Gendry. I hope he is legitimized too so he and Arya can finally be together. I guess if Aegon was to be the king then he could legitimize Jon as something and he could legitimize Gendry as well. 

Yes Aegon could do both, though I don't know how eager he would be to legitimize any of Robert's children. Dany would be a better bet.

Gendry's already moving up in the world. He's been knighted, which puts him on the path to potential nobility if he survives the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes Aegon could do both, though I don't know how eager he would be to legitimize any of Robert's children. Dany would be a better bet.

Gendry's already moving up in the world. He's been knighted, which puts him on the path to potential nobility if he survives the series.

That is what I am hoping for because he seems like one of the only really good people in the series. I need a little hope sometimes. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2017 at 4:42 AM, Lord Varys said:

That is true, but it seems as if 'the dragon has three heads' is a reference to the prophecy of the promised prince, not the sigil of House Targaryen.

No, we are told it is a reference to Aegon and his sisters.

Quote

To preserve the blood royal and keep it pure, House Targaryen has often followed the Valryian custom of wedding brother to sister, Aegon himself took both his sisters to wife, and fathered sons on each. The Targaryen banner is a three-headed dragon, red on black, the three heads representing Aegon and his sisters. The Targaryen words are Fire and Blood.(AGoT 692) bold emphasis added

We are also told when it was adopted as the sigil of House Targaryen, and not surprisingly for something that represents Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys, it was created while they were alive, not contemporaneous with the ancient prophecy.

Quote

Heraldic banners had long been a tradition amongst the lords of Westeros, but such had never been used by the dragonlords of old Valyria. When Aegon's knights unfurled his great silken battle standard, with a red three-headed dragon breathing fire upon a black field, the lords took it for a sign that he was truly one of them, a worthy high king for Westeros. (TWoI&F 36) bold emphasis added

This takes place at Aegon's first coronation at the newly built wooden Aegonfort atop Aegon's High Hill. Which takes place not long after his landing at was to become King's Landing.

The timing of the sigil's creation and its meaning is beyond doubt. It is this symbol that Rhaegar references in his discussion with Elia in Daenerys's vision.

Not only that but we have the absence of any reference to the three-headed dragon in Melisandre's pronouncements about the prince who was promised as she proclaims Stannis Baratheon the fulfillment of that prophecy. The inclusion of the three-headed dragon into the prophecy must therefore be a later addition to it. An addition that is peculiarly Targaryen in its focus. My guess would be this addition comes from the same source as the prophecy that the prince who was promised would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

On 3/27/2017 at 4:42 AM, Lord Varys said:

In fact, there are subtle clues that the Targaryen sigil itself is a reference to the three dragon heads of prophecy. It is still a mystery why Aegon and his sisters conquered Westeros but there are some subtle hints that they might have some hints that they were fulfilling the prophecy of the promised prince and that Aegon himself thought he was the promised prince.

LV, you are going to have to show what these subtle hints are and why they contradict what is plainly written in the text.

On 3/27/2017 at 4:42 AM, Lord Varys said:

What the prophecy actually says is the job of the promised prince is completely unclear. But it seems very unlikely to have any direct references to the Others or else the Targaryens would have used their immense power during the dragon days to send tens of thousands of men to the Night's Watch.

According to Melisandre it is pretty damn clear what is the job of the promised prince.

Quote

He turned back to Melisandre. "You swear there is no other way? Swear it on your life, for I promise, you shall die by inches if you lie."

"You are he who must stand against the Other. The one whose coming was prophesied five thousand years ago. The comet was your herald. You are the prince that was promised, and if you fail the world fails with you." Melisandre went to him, her red lips parted, her ruby throbbing. (ASoS 711) bold emphasis added

Now perhaps this is a different prince who was promised than what Rhaegar thinks is his son Aegon, but I think not. Again, what is new is that Rhaegar includes his reference of the three-headed dragon, and the need of others than just the prince who was promised to fulfill the prophecy.

On 3/27/2017 at 4:42 AM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaegar's (and Aerys' and Jaehaerys') goal was to fulfill the prophecy. Aerys and Rhaella had any reason to believe that it had to be legitimate children of theirs. After all, it was said that the promised prince would be born from their line and that was the reason why they were forced to marry each other. However, nothing forces us or Rhaegar to believe that he had to recreate Aegon and his sisters to fulfill the prophecy. That already did not work. Visenya, Aegon, and Rhaenys were all the trueborn children of Aerion Targaryen and Valaena Velaryon, not the children of two different mothers. And there were already three young trueborn dragons around at the time of Aegon's birth - Viserys, Rhaenys, and Aegon himself (not to mention Rhaegar himself). Elia becoming unable to carry children after Aegon's birth could easily enough have been seen as a strong sign that Rhaegar was, in fact, not destined to produce all the three dragon heads. That is one of the cases where his mad obsession really can be seen. He was not acting rationally in all that,.

I mean, as it stands now the three dragon heads seem to be Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow, and Tyrion Lannister, the latter of which is clearly no trueborn Targaryen. The prophecy clearly never said anything about a trueborn dragons.

If Rhaegar believed there had to be trueborn children he clearly was wrong. And who knows? Perhaps his love for Lyanna was, in the end, so much stronger than any desire or delusion to fulfill a prophecy. Or it was made worse by the Ghost of High Heart (if he ever met her and got a prophecy from her) if she revealed that a child by Lyanna would indeed be very crucial to the prophecy (she would most likely be right about that). Viserys, Rhaenys, even Aegon don't seem to be as relevant as Jon Snow.

But even then - we should be pretty sure that a woman like the Ghost would have tried to knock some sense into Rhaegar's head, telling him that, no, petty social constructs like 'marriage' do not affect or rule/influence prophecy.

As I've already said to the @The Twinslayer what we are looking at here is what Rhaegar believed and what shaped his actions, not what the reader should believe is the real unraveling of the prophecy's meaning. And to complicate our search for what he thought is the fact we know he changed his mind about who was the prince who was promised. He changes his mind after a comet is seen on the night Aegon is conceived and after he already named his first child Rhaenys. And this change precedes him knowing Elia either could have no more children or it would endanger her life to do so. So, it is fairly clear Rhaegar is trying to make sense of something that doesn't exactly fit his life, but which he believes must do so in some form. Nonetheless, it is also clear that he thinks the "dragon has three heads" is an important part of the prophecy. That points to seeing in his children the recreation of the three-headed dragon of Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys. All who are trueborn children.

How he was wrong is certainly relevant to what the prophecy really means, but it isn't relevant to what shaped his thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that Rhaegar and Lyanna performed some sort of a wedding ceremony before (or shortly after) conceiving Jon, however, I can't imagine anyone outside of the Prince's fan club would consider the union valid and legally-binding even then, least of all almost two decades later. 

As far as I can tell for marriages to be valid in Westeros they have to be: i) approved by an overlord (liege lord or a king); ii) publicly announced (certainly after but most likely before too similar to reading of banns); iii) publicly held or at least accompanied by enough reliable witnesses; iv) the ceremony has to follow either an Andal, Rhoynar or First Men tradition; v) marriage has to be consummated.

Hence, even if Rhaegar was unattached at the time of his elopement with Lyanna, the marriage (and Jon's status as the heir apparent of House Targaryen) would be doubted if discovered ~20 years later.

Imagine some lad showing up at Winterfell at the beginning of AGoT claiming that he's a trueborn son of Brandon Stark. I doubt that Cat and Ned would start packing their stuff and vacating Winterfell for him even if he had a piece of paper and reliable witnesses (e.g. a septon) with him. The kid's claim would be surely dismissed and the marriage considered invalid and there's nothing that he could do about it.  

The polygamy and the fact that the Targaryens were officially disposed are another can of worms, which complicates the issue much further. That said, I can see a faction of people considering Jon as a viable candidate for IT but nobody is going to abdicate and give up their claim for him, nor will anybody fight for him purely based on his birthright. If he wants to become a king (doubtful), he'd have to gather an army of followers and conquer it. People would join him out of respect, chance to improve their position or due to lack of better choices and they wouldn't care wheteher he's Rhaegar's trueborn or baseborn son, just that he has some sort of, albeit tenuous claim to the Throne. People didn't support Robert, because his grandma was a Targ. They exploited that fact when they "elected him" to be their king. Jon could potentially win a hypothetical future Great Council if he is popular (e.g. helps to defeat the Others) and if there's a lack of better choices but in that case again wouldn't matter if he is a bastard or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, we are told it is a reference to Aegon and his sisters.

We are also told when it was adopted as the sigil of House Targaryen, and not surprisingly for something that represents Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys, it was created while they were alive, not contemporaneous with the ancient prophecy.

This takes place at Aegon's first coronation at the newly built wooden Aegonfort atop Aegon's High Hill. Which takes place not long after his landing at was to become King's Landing.

The timing of the sigil's creation and its meaning is beyond doubt. It is this symbol that Rhaegar references in his discussion with Elia in Daenerys's vision.

You simply do not know that. Yes, we know some of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Targaryen banner and we also know that this banner originally symbolized Aegon and his sister-wives. But that isn't proof that the Aegon and his sister-wives just made that banner up without another inspiration of their own, stretching back to an ancient prophecy they brought with them from Valyria.

The prophecy of the promised prince is very old, even the Targaryen version of it. Archmaester Marwyn and Maester Aemon both confirm this. We know that the word 'prince' therein was apparently originally 'dragon' in High Valyrian or whatever language the originally prophecy was written in.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Not only that but we have the absence of any reference to the three-headed dragon in Melisandre's pronouncements about the prince who was promised as she proclaims Stannis Baratheon the fulfillment of that prophecy. The inclusion of the three-headed dragon into the prophecy must therefore be a later addition to it. An addition that is peculiarly Targaryen in its focus. My guess would be this addition comes from the same source as the prophecy that the prince who was promised would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

No, that is the case. Melisandre of Asshai does not have access to the same version of the prophecy as the members of House Targaryen have (Aemon, Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Rhaegar, etc.). She is no member of House Targaryen (as far as we know) nor was she raised court or in the Citadel.

It is quite clear that prophetic text and traditions of the red priests (Melisandre included) greatly differ from the Targaryen/Valyrian version of the prophecy. We see this reflected in the different interpretations Benerro and Melisandre have of the purpose and destiny of the savior.

In addition, if you go back to Aemon's ramblings in AFfC you realize that he talks about the dragon-prince thing as being introduced by the translation problem. The Ghost only prophesied from whose line the prince would be born. She did not say anything about three dragon heads.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

LV, you are going to have to show what these subtle hints are and why they contradict what is plainly written in the text.

The fact that the Valyrians allegedly had a prophecy that the Doom of Men would come from Westeros, the strange decision of the Targaryens to conquer Westeros, and the fact that Yandel's own text essentially describes Aegon's birthplace as the place of smoke and salt (Dragonstone).

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

According to Melisandre it is pretty damn clear what is the job of the promised prince.

It isn't. Not at all. Melisandre (and Benerro) see the world through the glasses of their religion. There is no (Great) Other, there are just the Others, and they have nothing to do with R'hllor. The red priests have their framework for reality and prophecy, a framework the Targaryens (who don't care about the Others or a war against 'darkness' or some evil Great Other god they don't believe in) don't care about.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Now perhaps this is a different prince who was promised than what Rhaegar thinks is his son Aegon, but I think not. Again, what is new is that Rhaegar includes his reference of the three-headed dragon, and the need of others than just the prince who was promised to fulfill the prophecy.

No, it would be the same. Mel also seems to have heard about the promised prince prophecy (and perhaps she even read those after she arrived on Dragonstone if the scroll was taken to and left there by Rhaegar) but that is not her main motivator.

The three dragon heads are also mentioned by the Undying. And they don't care about the Targaryen sigil nor is Daenerys supposed to have three children to recreate Aegon and his sisters. Those three heads are already alive, and they don't all have the same parents.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

As I've already said to the @The Twinslayer what we are looking at here is what Rhaegar believed and what shaped his actions, not what the reader should believe is the real unraveling of the prophecy's meaning. And to complicate our search for what he thought is the fact we know he changed his mind about who was the prince who was promised. He changes his mind after a comet is seen on the night Aegon is conceived and after he already named his first child Rhaenys. And this change precedes him knowing Elia either could have no more children or it would endanger her life to do so. So, it is fairly clear Rhaegar is trying to make sense of something that doesn't exactly fit his life, but which he believes must do so in some form. Nonetheless, it is also clear that he thinks the "dragon has three heads" is an important part of the prophecy. That points to seeing in his children the recreation of the three-headed dragon of Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys. All who are trueborn children.

Aegon is the proper name for a king. It is a common Targaryen royal name. It is a proper name for the eldest son of a prince. That name has little to do with the prophecy.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

How he was wrong is certainly relevant to what the prophecy really means, but it isn't relevant to what shaped his thinking.

I agree with that. I'm saying his thinking was shaped by the text of the prophecy he read which mentioned three heads of the dragon (unclear in what context). The idea that Rhaegar was as mad to think the banner of his family - which just represented the conquering Targaryens, originally - had any bearing on the meaning of an ancient prophecy is pretty much insane. I don't think he was nuts enough to believe that unless we assume the prophecy also spelled out that Westeros would be conquered by three people who would choose a banner which would then also represent the three saviors of the world. And there is no reason to believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

i) approved by an overlord (liege lord or a king)

Nope. We see a king mad at his offspring for marrying secretly several time, yet the marriage stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Nope. We see a king mad at his offspring for marrying secretly several time, yet the marriage stands.

True but those marriages were publicly announced very shortly afterwards and also didn't happen between people who were already married in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the first few pages of this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating points others have already made.

Regarding the KG at the ToJ and the Protect vs. Obey debate. Since Obey is the default position, the onus is on Protect to make its case. Normally we'd call that the burden of proof, but that somehow doesn't seem quite right here, in the realm of theorizing. Now, rather than rehash the details of the debate myself, I'd suggest that everyone look at the bigger picture. Meaning, ask yourself what message GRRM was trying to convey to his audience by having the kingsguard at Jon Snow's place of birth, and by wording the dialogue in Ned's dream the way he did. The answers to these questions form the basis of the Protect case, though they can be interpreted in ways that are compatible with Obey.

The message I get is that (1) Jon is the king, or, possibly quite separately, (2) he will become king later on in the story. The first option need not be strictly literal, of course. There are a range of possibilities defining what it meant for Jon to be king when the KG fought Ned and company; e.g., "rightful," "uncrowned." Or, maybe it tells us what the KG (possibly mistakenly!) believed.

Though these interpretations tend to be well known, I want to comment upon arguably the strongest hints for option 1 from the ToJ dialogue. For the sake of clarity and brevity I've numbered the lines and will be referring to them as such. So, at the risk of repeating what others have already said in this thread, and countless times before...

  1. “Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”
  2. “Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.
  3. “But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”
  4. “Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.
  5. “We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold. - AGoT, Eddard X

In line 1 Ned suggests that the KG might have left King Aerys and fled to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys and Queen Rhaella, which makes sense. But lines 2 and 3 make it clear to Ned why they didn't flee, or probably more accurately, why they wouldn't have fled, with Viserys and the queen. KG don't flee, not even with the prince and the queen. But why not? What is it that would keep them from fleeing with the prince and queen? The dialogue appears to provide an answer of sorts in line 5. But "We swore a vow" only leaves the audience asking yet another question— What vow? I think there is an answer to that, which I'll get to momentarily. But first I want to address the previous question. Why wouldn't the KG flee with the prince and queen? What could possibly be more important to the kingsguard than the (crown) prince and the queen? Simple deduction suggests an obvious and sensible answer— The king. Yes, guarding the king would be more important to the kingsguard than the (crown) prince and/or the queen. Now we can move onto the next question—What vow?—and see how well that fits with the answer to the previous one.

Someone, I forget who, pointed out many moons ago that Ser Gerold practically repeats line 5, from AGoT, in the following book, ACoK. But that's not all. He actually mentions a specific vow while using nearly identical language. Jaime relays this quote to Catelyn during their conversation in the RR dungeons.

“After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, ‘You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.’ That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree.” - ACoK, Catelyn VII

Can we be certain that this excerpt from ACoK actually echoes and explains the line from AGoT? No, not for certain. But it's at least a tantalizing possibility, I'd say. We don't exactly have an abundance of quotes from this deceased character for one, and the linguistic similarities can't help but call attention to each other. Then there's the fact that the later quote is specific precisely where the original is vague. More to the point, the second quote gives us an answer to the exact question left by the first— What vow? To guard the king.

Is it simply a coincidence that this same character uses almost identical wording—"We/you swore/swear a vow"—to describe a vow specific to KG in successive installments of the series? Possible, sure. But how likely? If you're asking me, I personally rate the possibility that this is merely a coincidence as very unlikely. I could be wrong, but to me it looks an awful lot like GRRM left the audience with a question in book one—What vow?—which he answered in book two— To guard the king.

Using deduction, we were able to answer the first question. Which was, What would prevent the KG from fleeing with the (crown) prince and queen? The answer being, the king. More precisely, the safety of the king. In other words, protecting the king. Kingsguard guard the king. Makes sense. Then, we answered the second question—What vow?—by noting the nearly identical language of Ser Gerold in line 5 to a quote from ACoK, where he mentions the specific vow of guarding the king. Are these two answers compatible? You could describe it that way, I suppose, but you would be grossly underselling the harmony of the answers, IMO.

Now, with all of that in mind, let's reconsider the lines in question, and what exactly they entail.

  1. “Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”
  2. “Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.
  3. “But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”
  4. “Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.
  5. “We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold. - AGoT, Eddard X

Within the first three lines we are given information that requires an answer. Specifically, why wouldn't the KG have fled with Viserys and Rhaella. The plain text of the dialogue seems to suggest that the reason "The Kingsguard does not flee" is that they "swore a vow." Notice that both of these lines, 3 and 5, are from Ser Gerold. It's not much of an explanation by itself, but there you have it. And we have tantalizing, if not compelling, evidence that line 5's own question—What vow?—is answered in ACoK, and that the answer is—To guard the king. The same answer we arrived at using deductive reasoning to the first question.

So, if the question posed by lines 1 and 3 is answered by line 5, and line 5's answer is, to guard the king. Which checks out when using deductive reasoning. Then what are we to make of line 4? Well, a pretty strong argument in favor of Protect, actually. It's quite obvious that "then" refers to when Aerys sent Viserys and Rhaella to Dragonstone. The answers to the two questions posed in the 5 lines—guarding the king—make perfect sense here. If all of that is true, and there's good reason to believe it is, then the possible, or maybe likely, implication of "now" becomes clear. We, the KG, will not flee now, from the ToJ, because we swore a vow to guard the (uncrowned, rightful, etc.) king.

Once you have an an answer to the question posed by line 5—What vow?—the KG seem to be saying that their place is with the king, not the prince. The question then becomes, how literally are we supposed to take this dialogue? Do the KG think Jon is the rightful, yet-to-be-crowned king? Or is Ned projecting his own thoughts and beliefs onto the KG in this dream? Or maybe, is it possible that GRRM was hinting at Jon's eventual kingship, rather than his birthright? There is room for debate here. In fact, I think there is enough room to allow for all I've said to be true, more or less, and Obey to be right. In that case, it would mean that Protect more or less correctly interpreted figurative evidence, but made the mistake of believing it was literal.

Playing devil's advocate, I think there is a simple counter interpretation to the analyzed paragraph. Simply, the KG did not flee Lyanna and her (unborn?) child when Viserys and Rhaella fled to Dragonstone—then—and they're not going to flee from Lyanna and her (unborn?) child now. I think if you're looking for a simple explanation and you favor Obey, you'll probably prefer this interpretation. That's fine, of course. But I don't think it's quite as strong an interpretation as the one I've laid out. At least in my eyes, it doesn't explain why the KG contrast themselves with Ser Willem Darry as well the Protect version does. Sure, he fled to Dragonstone with the prince and the queen, but he was not specifically charged with protecting the king. At least not in any way that set him apart from other knights, or even able-bodied men, in KL at the time. So he wasn't fleeing from any specific vow or duty. On top of the fact that guarding the (crown) prince and queen can't be less noble than guarding Rhaegar's mistress and their bastard. Now couple this with the evidence suggesting that the answer to the question raised by line 5—What vow?—is revealed in ACoK to be— To guard the king, and suddenly the explanation is not as simple as it first appeared to be.

Hat tip to @MtnLion and countless others for their contributions, which have almost, if not entirely, informed this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/03/2017 at 2:22 PM, Lord Varys said:

Dayne and Whent are likely to have been with Rhaegar when he took Lyanna. Hightower was not. He searched for Rhaegar on Aerys' orders and then decided (why we don't really know) to stay with Lyanna and the others when Rhaegar left.

Yep. Yep, yep. I was just being lazy there. Maybe Hightower arrived with 'new orders'? 

 

 

On 27/03/2017 at 2:22 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

Remember, the Queen Regent Cersei Lannister sends Tommen to Rosby, disguised as a page. He has specific orders to look over the boy, keep him safe, and not deliver him into the hands of anybody else. Tyrion Lannister, the Acting King's Hand, finds out about that plan, considers it a good idea, but sends his own men under the command of Ser Jacelyn Bywater, the Lord Commander of the City Watch, to take care of Tommen. Blount hands over the prince to Ser Jacelyn without so much as a fight.

Yet he is not heralded a hero who refused to spill the blood of loyal men (both he himself as well as Tyrion's men were King Joffrey's men) - instead people expected him to stay true to his vow and the command given to him. The Kingsguard does not yield, the Kingsguard does not flee, etc.

The knights at the tower stayed true that (rather destructive, even suicidal) ideal and are heralded as heroes for that, even by their enemies, a man like Ned.

The same most likely goes for men like Lord Larys Strong and Ser Gyles Belgrave of the Kingsguard who both chose execution instead of the Wall in the wake of the death of Aegon II. They did not want to survive the king they had sworn to serve and protect.

In my opinion, the men at the tower are living up such an ideal, an ideal of servitude, utmost loyalty, and the willingness to sacrifice one's own life for a higher purpose than that they are dying for 'the rightful king' or even a very strong claimant to the Iron Throne. They are also putting themselves between a brother and a sister, the latter a woman who lies dying in her bed. That is not particularly noble. But they have orders and a mission, and they are not inclined to make any compromises. Especially not after they know (or are informed) that their own rigidity in being loyal to the command/task given to them by Rhaegar contributed to the death of Rhaegar and the very king they had sworn to protect. They have failed. And now they can go down with a fight.

I really like this. It's so utterly tragic that it 'fits'. Thanks for sharing that.

I suppose given the fact we don't have an explicit account of the actual KG vows, we can only use the ones we know of. And I think it's a nice thought that the only vow left to them was to 'die for their king'(that's from Jaime, but again it was a fever dream iirc). It would definitely leave Ned very depressed to have to even fight them, let alone be remembered as the one who killed them. 

You're right. The KG doesn't suggest the presence of a legitimate anything, except the KG themselves. Prior to this, I had 'Kingmakers' in my head; That these guys were set on protecting their new king as the last survivor of his/her dynasty. Kind of along the same lines as Ser Aerys. And I was hoping that when Ser Gerold said "we swore a vow" he meant those three had sworn a vow. Not the ones to Aerys, but new ones. 

Thinking about it, Bael didn't marry the Stark girl and they were so desperate for an heir they didn't give a toss.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

snip

I agree with your post. The imaginary and dialogue very strongly indicates that the KG are protecting someone very important, i.e. a possible future king and GRRM wouldn't structure the scene in that way if he didn't want to hint at Jon's royal origins and/or his potential future claim to the IT. It's emphasised by the white cloaks (very impractical in a fight), boasting about being true to their vow and being exactly as where they should be and their reaction to Viserys' whereabouts. I have no doubt that in their minds the KG were protecting the rightful monarch and the last of Rhaegar's legacy. 

However, I believe that there's a discrepancy between what Rhaegar (and his men) perceived as "right" and "legal" and what the realm would should Jon's birth become public. Even if Bobellion didn't happen, nobody would look too kindly on Rhaegar's action and most would consider his marriage to Lyanna invalid and thus Jon a bastard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dolorous22 said:

And I was hoping that when Ser Gerold said "we swore a vow" he meant those three had sworn a vow. Not the ones to Aerys, but new ones. 

It is possible Ser Gerold is talking about a new vow.  In The Princess and the Queen, we are told that King Aegon II and two of his children were smuggled out of King's Landing by Lord Larys Strong with the help of two KGs (Fell and Thorn) and a nameless bastard knight.  Lord Larys ordered the KGs to leave the king in the care of the bastard knight and they obeyed the order, leaving the king without any KG protection. 

Thorne was ordered to guard Prince Maelor and Fell was ordered to take Princess Jaehaera to Storm's End for safekeeping.  Interestingly, Fell swears a vow to complete his mission -- meaning he swore to protect someone about as far down the line of succession as you can get while leaving the King with no kingsguard.

That may be a hint that Hightower, Dayne and Whent swore a similar vow.

18 minutes ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

However, I believe that there's a discrepancy between what Rhaegar (and his men) perceived as "right" and "legal" and what the realm would should Jon's birth become public. Even if Bobellion didn't happen, nobody would look too kindly on Rhaegar's action and most would consider his marriage to Lyanna invalid and thus Jon a bastard. 

I agree that if Rhaegar and Lyanna did go through a ceremony it would not be widely accepted.  But add an additional wrinkle:  if Jon was legitimized by Robb's will, he might be considered legitimate (now) by the Northerners.  Not by marriage but by royal decree.  Would that mean he is a bastard Targaryen but at the same time a legitimate Stark?  I think that is the kind of scenario that would really appeal to GRRM.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Nope. We see a king mad at his offspring for marrying secretly several time, yet the marriage stands.

The standing of the marriage is irrelevant. Maegor and Alys and Daemon and Laena are married in exile. They and their children are nothing. Without good standing with the king they have no claims to the Iron Throne. Rhaegar and Lyanna can have been 'married' all day long and it still doesn't have to have an impact on the status or claim of their child.

6 hours ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

True but those marriages were publicly announced very shortly afterwards and also didn't happen between people who were already married in the first place. 

Indeed. Nobody is accepting Maegor's second marriage in 39 AC, and he is not trying to have a second wife. He wants to set aside his barren wife and replace her with Alys Harroways. Maegor was not a polygamist at heart. At least not at that point.

6 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Regarding the KG at the ToJ and the Protect vs.Obey debate. Since Obey is the default position, the onus is on Protect to make its case. Normally we'd call that the burden of proof, but that somehow doesn't seem quite right here, in the realm of theorizing. Now, rather than rehash the details of the debate myself, I'd suggest that everyone look at the bigger picture. Meaning, ask yourself what message GRRM was trying to convey to his audience by having the kingsguard at Jon Snow's place of birth, and by wording the dialogue in Ned's dream the way he did. The answers to these questions form the basis of the Protect case, though they can be interpreted in ways that are compatible with Obey.

I don't think that is the proper methodology to investigate this mystery. The fever dream is an interesting mystery but it is just one clue among many, and as a dream it is less significant than other clues in light of the fact it is incomplete and possible faulty. George's purpose could have been to actually give clues as well as red herrings in that dream conversation.

It is a scene we should take with more than just a grain of salt.

The basic fact that Kingsguard are at the tower certainly is pretty relevant to the entire conundrum but I honestly think there are many stronger clues like the flowers in Lyanna hand when she dies, and the promise. The Kingsguard themselves could also have been assigned to protect an empty tower, an impostor (as a distraction for enemies), etc.

6 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The message I get is that (1) Jon is the king, or, possibly quite separately, (2) he will become king later on in the story. The first option need not be strictly literal, of course. There are a range of possibilities defining what it meant for Jon to be king when the KG fought Ned and company; e.g., "rightful," "uncrowned." Or, maybe it tells us what the KG (possibly mistakenly!) believed.

That is a message you like to see. Nothing in the story connects the Kingsguard with the king. Other members of the royal family are constantly protected by Kingsguard throughout the story and since ADwD we have confirmation that this can extend to the extended royal family as well as to mistresses and illegitimate. Barristan Selmy puts the Kingsguard at the tower into perspective, and we don't have to change even iota of that dream conversation if we interpret it as Jon being a bastard or Jon just being a prince.

6 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Though these interpretations tend to be well known, I want to comment upon arguably the strongest hints for option 1 from the ToJ dialogue. For the sake of clarity and brevity I've numbered the lines and will be referring to them as such. So, at the risk of repeating what others have already said in this thread, and countless times before...

  1. “Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”
  2. “Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.
  3. “But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”
  4. “Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.
  5. “We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold. - AGoT, Eddard X

In line 1 Ned suggests that the KG might have left King Aerys and fled to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys and Queen Rhaella, which makes sense. But lines 2 and 3 make it clear to Ned why they didn't flee, or probably more accurately, why they wouldn't have fled, with Viserys and the queen. KG don't flee, not even with the prince and the queen. But why not? What is it that would keep them from fleeing with the prince and queen? The dialogue appears to provide an answer of sorts in line 5. But "We swore a vow" only leaves the audience asking yet another question— What vow? I think there is an answer to that, which I'll get to momentarily. But first I want to address the previous question. Why wouldn't the KG flee with the prince and queen? What could possibly be more important to the kingsguard than the (crown) prince and the queen? Simple deduction suggests an obvious and sensible answer— The king. Yes, guarding the king would be more important to the kingsguard than the (crown) prince and/or the queen. Now we can move onto the next question—What vow?—and see how well that fits with the answer to the previous one.

That line of argument actually makes no sense because Eddard Stark is not making sense here, either. Ser Willem Darry did, in fact, not 'flee' to Dragonstone. He was sent to Dragonstone as sworn shield/protector to Viserys Targaryen, the new Prince of Dragonstone, and Rhaella Targaryen, the Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men.

If His Grace Aerys II had commanded Ser Gerold Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne, and Ser Oswell Whent to accompany Viserys and Rhaella to Dragonstone they would have done so, irregardless whether His Grace King Aerys had had any Kingsguard protection or not. The king commands. His servants obey.

The fact that Ser Gerold agrees with Ned that Ser Willem has 'fled' actually indicates that Ser Gerold has no clue what actually happened. If the men at the tower had accurate information they would have known that neither Willem nor Viserys or Rhaella actually fled.

You have to keep in mind that Prince Viserys was not yet Viserys III when he went to Dragonstone. He was just the king's new heir and thus much more important than the king's grandson.

Speculation about the vow is also just baseless speculation at this point because we essentially have no clue what vow they are talking about, or to whom they made this vow. If King Aerys II is dead then there is no king until one is crowned or proclaimed, and the new Targaryen king is Viserys III, not Lyanna's son.

6 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Someone, I forget who, pointed out many moons ago that Ser Gerold practically repeats line 5, from AGoT, in the following book, ACoK. But that's not all. He actually mentions a specific vow while using nearly identical language. Jaime relays this quote to Catelyn during their conversation in the RR dungeons.

“After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, ‘You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.’ That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree.” - ACoK, Catelyn VII

Can we be certain that this excerpt from ACoK actually echoes and explains the line from AGoT? No, not for certain. But it's at least a tantalizing possibility, I'd say. We don't exactly have an abundance of quotes from this deceased character for one, and the linguistic similarities can't help but call attention to each other. Then there's the fact that the later quote is specific precisely where the original is vague. More to the point, the second quote gives us an answer to the exact question left by the first— What vow? To guard the king.

Is it simply a coincidence that this same character uses almost identical wording—"We/you swore/swear a vow"—to describe a vow specific to KG in successive installments of the series? Possible, sure. But how likely? If you're asking me, I personally rate the possibility that this is merely a coincidence as very unlikely. I could be wrong, but to me it looks an awful lot like GRRM left the audience with a question in book one—What vow?—which he answered in book two— To guard the king.

That is just speculation. Whent and Dayne didn't give a shit about King Aerys, both being involved in a plot of his son and heir against the royal person, and the great Ser Gerold Hightower sat on his ass at a tower in the middle of nowhere doing nothing while his king and prince were butchered by their enemies.

They may all have sworn a vow to guard the king but that was clearly not their priority when they were guarding Lyanna. Why on earth should it suddenly have become their priority after their king was dead? Because they now had a newborn babe they could bow to and style 'Your Grace' and call 'king'? That is more a travesty than a real picture.

It would make those men ambitious and evil thugs on the same level as Walder Frey. 'Let's stay out of the fighting and then proclaim a new king once the old is dead. After all, we've got a pregnant woman with a royal baby in her belly.'

Everything we know about these men indicates that they were not playing such a political game.

6 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Using deduction, we were able to answer the first question. Which was, What would prevent the KG from fleeing with the (crown) prince and queen?

Again, nobody fled. Despite what Ned said. And if they had been there, they certainly would have done what Aerys II commanded, irregardless whether that included fleeing or not.

Whatever vow the knights swore might just as well have glued them to Lyanna Stark from the moment Prince Rhaegar departed. Either as part of the overall loyalty that is included in the Kingsguard vow (or their specific interpretation thereof) or a completely different vow they swore in addition to the Kingsguard vow to Prince Rhaegar when the man left them.

That doesn't change the fact that the dream men saw themselves as Kingsguard but 'the Kingsguard does not flee' certainly also refers to situation where the king is not present. The Kingsguard is not supposed to flee cowardly from a battlefield (or yield to an enemy) irregardless whether His Grace the king, a royal prince, the Hand, or somebody else is around. They are supposed to follow and uphold a certain standard. To conclude on such a flimsy base of evidence anything of note is simply not possible.

25 minutes ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

I agree with your post. The imaginary and dialogue very strongly indicates that the KG are protecting someone very important, i.e. a possible future king and GRRM wouldn't structure the scene in that way if he didn't want to hint at Jon's royal origins and/or his potential future claim to the IT. It's emphasised by the white cloaks (very impractical in a fight), boasting about being true to their vow and being exactly as where they should be and their reaction to Viserys' whereabouts. I have no doubt that in their minds the KG were protecting the rightful monarch and the last of Rhaegar's legacy. 

That would actually mean that those three men thought polygamy was a thing a mere Targaryen prince could do and that a child of Rhaegar's from his second wife would actually have a better claim to the Iron Throne despite the fact that King Aerys II had no idea it even existed and despite the fact that King Aerys II also had another son, Prince Viserys, whom he already preferred to Prince Rhaegar.

That is huge stretch. There was no clear-cut line of succession and thus it is actually ridiculous to assume that Lyanna's son was king after the deaths of Rhaegar, Aerys II, Aegon, and Rhaenys.

I mean, we have no reason to believe that the Kingsguard ever had an opinion when the succession of a king was questionable. Even when the Dance broke the leaders of the Greens were Otto and Alicent, not Criston Cole. There is no indication that Prince Maegor, Princess Vaella, Maester Aemon or Egg were championed as 'the new and rightful monarch' by some Kingsguard in the wake of King Maekar's death.

The idea that three men who had lived at court for years and decades would actually be stupid enough to proclaim a king in the middle of nowhere doesn't make any sense. Sure, privately they may have hoped Rhaegar's line should win the day over Viserys III but it would have been treason to actually involve yourself in such a thing.

5 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

That may be a hint that Hightower, Dayne and Whent swore a similar vow.

Yeah, that is very likely. Especially in light of the fact that the normal Kingsguard vow should especially trigger Hightower - the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard who should actually only take orders from King Aerys II himself or his Hand and, perhaps, the queen - to return to KL to protect his king and leave the task of guarding Lyanna to Dayne and Whent alone (as they had done in the past before Hightower had arrived).

It seems as if Rhaegar has given Hightower a command but if Hightower was not willing to obey such a command there was nothing Rhaegar could do to force him. Yet the man stayed with Lyanna for some reason. Some new vow could easily enough explain that.

5 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I agree that if Rhaegar and Lyanna did go through a ceremony it would not be widely accepted.  But add an additional wrinkle:  if Jon was legitimized by Robb's will, he might be considered legitimate (now) by the Northerners.  Not by marriage but by royal decree.  Would that mean he is a bastard Targaryen but at the same time a legitimate Stark?  I think that is the kind of scenario that would really appeal to GRRM.   

Considering that Robb's will now seems to be in the hands of Howland Reed I doubt Jon Snow will ever be legitimized as a Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You simply do not know that. Yes, we know some of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Targaryen banner and we also know that this banner originally symbolized Aegon and his sister-wives. But that isn't proof that the Aegon and his sister-wives just made that banner up without another inspiration of their own, stretching back to an ancient prophecy they brought with them from Valyria.

The prophecy of the promised prince is very old, even the Targaryen version of it. Archmaester Marwyn and Maester Aemon both confirm this. We know that the word 'prince' therein was apparently originally 'dragon' in High Valyrian or whatever language the originally prophecy was written in.

I'm not saying it's proof. I'm saying the available evidence shows this to be likely. You are saying "well ... what if it is more ancient in it's origins" but we have no evidence to suggest that is the case. LV, you are making up a case that isn't supported by the evidence and would contradict the evidence we have with nothing to suggest it is true, by saying it could be. Yes, in a fantasy book anything can happen. No, the evidence points to the three headed dragon Rhaegar speaks of in Dany's vision to be a reference to Aegon and his sisters, not to some unnamed prophecy or tradition of ancient Valyria we have no reason to believe existed.

The fact Melisandre quotes a prophecy she says is 5,000 years old, but leaves out any reference to a three-headed dragon should be a clue that the three-headed dragon is perhaps something much newer than that. Perhaps only three hundred years old when we hear of it, as the evidence suggests. Making stuff up isn't a sound strategy for unraveling this riddle.

If we are going to guess, then let's at least do so on the basis of something we know. Perhaps this?

Quote

... and King Aegon remained intent on his reign.

And intent on one more thing: dragons. as he grew older, Aegon V had come to dream of dragons flying once more above the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. In this, he was not unlike his predecessors, who brought spots to pray over the last eggs, mages to work spells over them, and maesters to pore over them. Though friends and counselors sought to dissuade him, King Aegon grew ever more convinced that only with dragons would he ever wield sufficient power to make the changes he wished to make in the realm and force the proud and stubborn lords of the Seven Kingdoms to accept his decrees.

The last years of Aegon's reign were consumed by a search for ancient lore about the dragon breeding of Valyria, and it was said the Aegon commissioned journeys to places as far away as Asshai-by-the-Shadow with the hopes of finding texts and knowledge that had not been preserved in Westeros. (TWoI&F 109-110) bold emphasis added

and/or this?

Quote

Jaehaerys and Shaera would have two children, Aerys and Rhaella. On the word of Jenny of Oldstone's woods witch Prince Jaehaerys determined to wed Aerys to Rhaella, or so the accounts from his court tell us. King Aegon washed his hands of it in frustration, letting the prince have his way. (TWoI&F 109) bold emphasis added

And of course this as well

Quote

Ser Barristan went on. "I saw your father and your mother wed as well. Forgive me, but there was no fondness there, and the realm paid dearly for that, my queen."

"Why did they wed if they did not love each other?"

"Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him the prince was promised would be born of their line."

"A woods witch?" Dany was astonished.

"She came to court with Jenny of Oldstones. a stunted thing, grotesque to look upon. A dwarf, most people said, though dear to Lady Jenny, who always claimed that she was one of the children of the forest." (ADwD 300-301) bold emphasis added

Here we have a search for ancient lore, including from Asshai-by-the-Shadow, and a new source of prophecy in Jenny's wood witch. Instead of assuming that the Targaryen's have been consumed by the prophecy of the prince who was promised since the days of the conquest or even before, this suggests it is only during Egg's reign that it becomes so. And that also tied into the search for a way for the dragon's eggs to hatch. A way in which the Targaryens could bring back the power of the founders of their dynasty so they could remake Westeros in the way they saw necessary. This is conjecture, of course, but at least it is based on something we know. Not "what if"s.

To be clear, my guess is that the Targaryen obsession with the prince who was promised comes from King Aegon V Targaryen's time and the source is a combination of the discovery of ancient  prophecies they interpret to about their family, and new prophetic visions revealed to them by the woods witch who comes to court with Jenny of Oldstones - aka the Ghost of High Heart. Not some ancient prophecy known to the Conquer's generation and the source of their adoption of the symbol of the three headed dragon. The former guess has evidence to support it. The latter does not.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that is the case. Melisandre of Asshai does not have access to the same version of the prophecy as the members of House Targaryen have (Aemon, Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Rhaegar, etc.). She is no member of House Targaryen (as far as we know) nor was she raised court or in the Citadel.

It is quite clear that prophetic text and traditions of the red priests (Melisandre included) greatly differ from the Targaryen/Valyrian version of the prophecy. We see this reflected in the different interpretations Benerro and Melisandre have of the purpose and destiny of the savior.

In addition, if you go back to Aemon's ramblings in AFfC you realize that he talks about the dragon-prince thing as being introduced by the translation problem. The Ghost only prophesied from whose line the prince would be born. She did not say anything about three dragon heads.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with some of what I said before or not, but if we are going to speculate where the three-headed dragon come into the prophecy as Rhaegar knew it, then Jenny's wood witch is a very likely source.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that the Valyrians allegedly had a prophecy that the Doom of Men would come from Westeros, the strange decision of the Targaryens to conquer Westeros, and the fact that Yandel's own text essentially describes Aegon's birthplace as the place of smoke and salt (Dragonstone).

These are not much in the way of hints about the three-headed dragon and its origins. The first suggests a tie to the prince who was promised prophecy, but not anything about the three-headed dragon. The last two are evidence of nothing.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It isn't. Not at all. Melisandre (and Benerro) see the world through the glasses of their religion. There is no (Great) Other, there are just the Others, and they have nothing to do with R'hllor. The red priests have their framework for reality and prophecy, a framework the Targaryens (who don't care about the Others or a war against 'darkness' or some evil Great Other god they don't believe in) don't care about.

And the  5,000 year old prophecies of Asshai don't originate in the religion of R'hllor. Yet Melisandre quotes them. And we know there are other sources for similar prophecies, so the fact Melisandre speaks of a prince who was promised does not suggest that she and Rhaegar have all the same sources, which is something I've been saying so on that much we agree, but the use of the same phrase does suggest a intersection of sources and possible common origins.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it would be the same. Mel also seems to have heard about the promised prince prophecy (and perhaps she even read those after she arrived on Dragonstone if the scroll was taken to and left there by Rhaegar) but that is not her main motivator.

The three dragon heads are also mentioned by the Undying. And they don't care about the Targaryen sigil nor is Daenerys supposed to have three children to recreate Aegon and his sisters. Those three heads are already alive, and they don't all have the same parents.

The answers given to Deanery's questions in the House of the Undying suggests a second source than Rhaegar's , although not necessarily from an ancient prophecy, to the need for three heads of the dragon. It only helps to validate that Rhaegar was not wrong in the need for three individuals , only in his view on who those individuals need be.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon is the proper name for a king. It is a common Targaryen royal name. It is a proper name for the eldest son of a prince. That name has little to do with the prophecy.

Your argument, LV, is that it is only a coincidence that Rhaegar name his son both Aegon and identifies him as the prince who was promised, and then speaks of the need for another child because of the dragon needs three heads? I think you are just dismissing clues you don't like, my friend.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I agree with that. I'm saying his thinking was shaped by the text of the prophecy he read which mentioned three heads of the dragon (unclear in what context). The idea that Rhaegar was as mad to think the banner of his family - which just represented the conquering Targaryens, originally - had any bearing on the meaning of an ancient prophecy is pretty much insane. I don't think he was nuts enough to believe that unless we assume the prophecy also spelled out that Westeros would be conquered by three people who would choose a banner which would then also represent the three saviors of the world. And there is no reason to believe that.

I've never suggested Rhaegar tied any of this to the actual physical banner unfurled by the Targaryens  upon their invasion. I have suggested the symbol Rhaegar used is a reference to Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys and the founding power and glory of his House. That is a simple fact of its representation. I've also suggested it is obvious that Rhaegar has tied that symbolism and that history to the birth of his son and the need for another to be part of accomplishing the fulfillment of the prophecy of the prince who was promised. That much of his thinking seems to be obvious, although you don't agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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