Damsel in Distress

Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

471 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Aragorn brings to the fight the Flame of the West in the reforged shards of Narsil. So, Anduril, a very nice sword, versus the only three known dragons in her world. Sounds like Dany doesn't do badly in at least this comparison.

Sure, certain comparisons can be made with Aragorn to Dany and Jon, also with Frodo to Jon and Bran. However until more of their arcs are relieved I stand by my statement of not being ready yet to put said characters is the same category. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Boring hate thread is boring.

On 20/3/2017 at 7:22 AM, Damsel in Distress said:

My verdict?  Jon is a bastard

GRRM how nice to see you here!

snip

Why do you even  bother to answer seriously Ygrain? 

Edited by Jon's Queen Consort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you ever notice that Jon was a bastard?

You have great observation skills my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎24‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 2:27 AM, Rippounet said:

I've been thinking along similar lines. With the text we have (not just the fever dream, but Ned's inner thoughts as well) I believe it's one of the best conclusions we can reach at this point. Most of the other explanations quickly run into a lack of textual support and/or the necessity of various assumptions or speculations. I'm surprised this very simple perspective on the ToJ isn't mentioned more often.

If you think about it, the fever dream notwhithstanding, when the rebellion succeeded, the KG had two simple options: bend the knee to Robert or carry on fighting for the dying Targ dynasty. That some chose the latter option really doesn't mean they had any convoluted plans for the future. In fact, such scheming suited the likes of Darry or Connington much more than the KG. Which in a non-literal way is actually what the exchange in the fever dream appears to say.

Exactly, the kingsguard has one simple duty, to protect the king and the king was dead. They said the kingsguard does not flee and to me it means that they die fighting, to them there was no other option anymore. If they didn't die at the TOJ, they would have died at the battle of the Trident with their sworn brothers. Lets not forget that Aerys's  kingsguard is known to be the shining example of what a great kingsguard should be. That's why the confrontation at the TOJ feels so sad. They were ordered to stay at the TOJ so they couldn't die honorably at the big battle like their sworn brothers. So when they heard what had happened they just kept doing what they were ordered to do and basically waited for their own death. I can't see it any other way.  

On ‎24‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 9:27 AM, teej6 said:

The Targ queen and Viserys was on Dragonstone and the remanants of the Targ dynasty (the Targ fleet) was still on DS. If Jon was a bastard, Viserys was king and if not for Arthur or Oswell at least Gerold Hightower would/should have made an attempt to reach DS and Viserys, but he didn't. Don't you think there's something amiss there? 

I don't think they would have just left Lyanna and Jon and ran after Rhaella and Viserys, even if Jon was just Rhaegar's bastard. Jon doesn't have to be Rhaegar's legitimate child and rightful king for them to have a reason to stay there. They obviously had some other reason to be there from the beginning since Jon definitely wasn't king then. If they had a plan and if Jon really mattered so much to them, they would have tried harder. 

Aerys was dead, Rhaegar was dead, Rhaegar's children were dead, Targaryen army had been destroyed, Robert was sitting on the Iron throne and Viserys was just a child. The Targaryens were finished. They still had some friends to ensure their safety, but no one was thinking they would be back in power any time soon. Isn't it obvious when you look at the remaining Targaryens and see what happened to them. Baby Jon would not have made a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Jon doesn't have to be Rhaegar's legitimate child and rightful king for them to have a reason to stay there

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Sure, certain comparisons can be made with Aragorn to Dany and Jon, also with Frodo to Jon and Bran. However until more of their arcs are relieved I stand by my statement of not being ready yet to put said characters is the same category. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Exactly, the kingsguard has one simple duty, to protect the king and the king was dead. They said the kingsguard does not flee and to me it means that they die fighting, to them there was no other option anymore. If they didn't die at the TOJ, they would have died at the battle of the Trident with their sworn brothers. Lets not forget that Aerys's  kingsguard is known to be the shining example of what a great kingsguard should be. That's why the confrontation at the TOJ feels so sad. They were ordered to stay at the TOJ so they couldn't die honorably at the big battle like their sworn brothers. So when they heard what had happened they just kept doing what they were ordered to do and basically waited for their own death. I can't see it any other way.

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

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

LV, you would want GRRM to plainly state that to his readers?? LOL!

C'mon man... 

"I've laid out clues and foreshadowing early on... if I were to change it and say (insert his chambermaid/butler analogy here), I would be a liar"

Clearly GRRM has laid out and withhold clues and hints purposely for it to be a mystery, an element of uncertainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Why do you even  bother to answer seriously Ygrain? 

Out of masochism, my friend...

28 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

I don't think they would have just left Lyanna and Jon and ran after Rhaella and Viserys, even if Jon was just Rhaegar's bastard. 

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

 

31 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Exactly, the kingsguard has one simple duty, to protect the king and the king was dead.

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

28 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

They said the kingsguard does not flee and to me it means that they die fighting, to them there was no other option anymore.

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

28 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

If they didn't die at the TOJ, they would have died at the battle of the Trident with their sworn brothers. Lets not forget that Aerys's  kingsguard is known to be the shining example of what a great kingsguard should be. That's why the confrontation at the TOJ feels so sad. They were ordered to stay at the TOJ so they couldn't die honorably at the big battle like their sworn brothers. So when they heard what had happened they just kept doing what they were ordered to do and basically waited for their own death. I can't see it any other way.  

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

 

28 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Jon doesn't have to be Rhaegar's legitimate child and rightful king for them to have a reason to stay there. They obviously had some other reason to be there from the beginning since Jon definitely wasn't king then.

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

 

28 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

If they had a plan and if Jon really mattered so much to them, they would have tried harder. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IceFire125 said:

LV, you would want GRRM to plainly state that to his readers?? LOL!

C'mon man... 

"I've laid out clues and foreshadowing early on... if I were to change it and say (insert his chambermaid/butler analogy here), I would be a liar"

Clearly GRRM has laid out and withhold clues and hints purposely for it to be a mystery, an element of uncertainty.

Sure, but if you take the fever dream as the literal truth (and don't assume there was a lot of pleading and treating done before the ritualistic 'Now we are going to fight' exchange) then those clues are all we got. They are the complete picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that three KG would be left to defend anyone other than a member of the royal family. Lyanna and her babe have three KG and Viscerys had none.

Jon was raised a bastard. But I don't believe he was born one. What would be the point to it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dolorous22 said:

I don't believe that three KG would be left to defend anyone other than a member of the royal family. Lyanna and her babe have three KG and Viscerys had none.

We know from Barristan Selmy that there were Kingsguard who were assigned to protect royal mistresses and bastards.

We can be reasonably sure that the knights were there to protect people connected to the royal family, but nothing more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 11:04 AM, The Fattest Leech said:

Errrr, slow the pony on this idea because the app information is the carryover information that would not fit in to the World book.

In that case, information it provides must be considered GRRM-approved?  Since, in theory, it came from GRRM.

So for instance, Melisandre must be from Asshai (since the app states flatly that she is). 

But we know, factually, that she is not from Asshai, by her own private thoughts in her POV chapter. 

Similarly, the app claims that in the middle of the war Aerys heard a public rumor that Rhaegar and Lyanna were at the ToJ and therefore he sent Hightower there to retrieve Rhaegar. 

But this, too, is a preposterous notion, never supported in the canon, that any serious reader of the books should immediately see can't be right... and I doubt I have to explain why.

The app is full of serious problems of this sort, and I'm certainly not the first to point that out

Quote

 

Alternatively - accept that the app not the whole truth and should be treated with suspicion. I know my standards of canon, and I won't take a source which contradicts grrms text as being fact.

Some people want to pick and choose what they take from the app, that's down to personal choice I guess. It's true grrm has had direct input, but be careful with assuming it's all fact i think.

 

These problems certainly didn't originate with GRRM.  They originated with the app's authors.

And there's no walking such issues back via unreliable narration, either, because unlike the canon, and unlike the World book, the app has no narrator.  It is purportedly just a collection of simple facts... but I fear, like yolkboy, I know bullshit when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017. 03. 21. at 9:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

Royal princes and even kings are not necessarily protected by the Kingsguard all times. In fact, Joffrey Baratheon's sworn shield for years wasn't even a knight, and Princess Rhaenyra's sworn shield for a couple of years was Ser Harwin Strong, a man who didn't wear a white cloak. And even King Tommen is occasionally guarded by non-Kingsguard like Ser Garlan Tyrell when the Kingsguard is having meetings and the like.

We know that the three knights where with Lyanna because they were assigned to her by someone. Else they wouldn't have been there when the child was born.

And they had no way of knowing about or influencing Aerys II's decision to name new Kingsguard after the deaths of Lewyn Martell and Jonothor Darry at the Trident. Ser Willem could easily enough have died wearing a white cloak given to him by Aerys II, Queen Rhaella, or King Viserys III.

I'm not talking of who may or may not guard a king (Joffrey, BTW, did some pretty unorthodox things to the Kingsguard, which weren't the norm at all), I'm talking about what is emphasized in one particular scene (which happens to be full of symbols), where members of the Kingsguard specifically claim that they are Kingsguard proudly on duty. It happens to be in a moment when the whole royal family is in mortal danger, which is very different form a random day when the members of the Kignsguard may be doing some odd tasks. Yet, in this critical situation they seem to have no doubt about being in the right place and doing the right thing and doing something important.

I have no idea what this has to do with the - probably never mentioned - possibility of Ser Willem being appointed a Kingsguard. To the knowledge of Ser Arthur Dayne et al, Ser Willem is not a Kingsguard, while they are and they make sure to highlight this difference even though they know that Ser Willem is guarding Viserys.

On 2017. 03. 21. at 9:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

I've great difficulty seeing a scenario where 'the Realm' would want to see Jon Snow as a leader. He is stuck at the Wall (or the North), and that's basically at the periphery of the Realm, not at a place where 'the general public' would look towards him for leadership. And once the Others make their move it should even be tougher to communicate Jon's successes (if he has any) to the people down south, especially if they don't even by that the enemies he is allegedly fighting against is real.

Even the story of his assassination and resurrection is not likely going to be believed south of the Neck. That is basically in the same league as the tale that Stannis controlled the boar that killed Robert or that Sansa transformed herself into a winged wolf after she had killed Joffrey.

We have to keep the distances in mind, too, especially in winter.

I certainly could see Jon becoming an important political player in the North (in a sense he is that, already) but that's not going to bring him closer to the Targaryens and their allies (all people who have nothing to do with the Northmen), nor is he in good position to connect with Robb's old allies (Catelyn and Brynden essentially hate him) - and even if he did, the Riverlands are even more ravaged than the North, and are likely to deteriorate even further (just as the North is right now, thanks to Roose and Stannis).

How we go from there to Jon becoming a leader of the entire realm I really can't see. Even if Dany makes him her consort there might still people who object to this thing - just as half of the Realm or more is going to object to the idea of a 'King Tyrion' as Dany's other consort.

Sure, it is possible that George will throw the whole mystery of Jon's parentage out of the window and that no one ever will hear about Jon south of the Neck, but we'll see. What we can tell at this point is that Jon's whole story is largely about learning to become a leader. In any case, even if he becomes "only" a leader in the North, what I said may still happen: his bastard status may be overlooked, forgotten or replaced by some fancy story in songs - and it won't be because of some document that proves his legitimate birth but because of his own merits. 

On 2017. 03. 21. at 9:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

The days where charismatic people (which Jon isn't really) could win the love and admiration of a lot of 'summer knights' are long over. And a Stark bastard looking like a Stark bastard is not going to win any sympathies with some real Targaryen loyalists.

Well, Jon seems pretty charismatic on several occasions. As for his looks, if the realm, on the brink of total destruction, wants to choose on the basis of looks rather than deeds and personality, then they would deserve to have the Beggar King for their ruler - Viserys had all the Targaryen looks, yet, even Jorah was able to tell that he was less than the shadow of a snake, very far from bring a "dragon". 

On 2017. 03. 21. at 9:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

But quite honestly, I'd it prefer if George would hand the entire hidden prince story to Aegon now, and let Jon go down the heroic path of self-sacrifice fighting against the real danger. Neither Jesus nor Gandalf stayed with their people for long after they came back from the dead.

If Jon dies saving the realm from the real danger, there will be even more reason for the songs to remember him as a legendary, heroic figure. Who knows, some singer may even invent the story that Lord Commander / King of Winter Jon Snow wasn't really a Stark bastard but a secret prince born of the secret union of Ice and Fire... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let me throw this into the mix of the discussion, because it seems to be getting lost. It doesn't matter if Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna because Aerys named Viserys his heir before his death. One has to assume that the Kingsguard knows all the information in Ned's dream dialogue, and yet does not know of this fact. They are protecting the wrong king. One has to consider the likelihood they knew Viserys was their lawful king and they chose, just as Ser Barristan did, to not go to him.

Edited by SFDanny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

They knew that Aerys was dead and Viserys was away

That's actually speculation.

The problem in my view is not that there is a theory that Jon is legitimate. The problem is that proponents of this theory refuse to admit it's only a theory and present speculations and debatable interpretations as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I'm not talking of who may or may not guard a king (Joffrey, BTW, did some pretty unorthodox things to the Kingsguard, which weren't the norm at all), I'm talking about what is emphasized in one particular scene (which happens to be full of symbols), where members of the Kingsguard specifically claim that they are Kingsguard proudly on duty. It happens to be in a moment when the whole royal family is in mortal danger, which is very different form a random day when the members of the Kignsguard may be doing some odd tasks. Yet, in this critical situation they seem to have no doubt about being in the right place and doing the right thing and doing something important.

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

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

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

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

16 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I have no idea what this has to do with the - probably never mentioned - possibility of Ser Willem being appointed a Kingsguard. To the knowledge of Ser Arthur Dayne et al, Ser Willem is not a Kingsguard, while they are and they make sure to highlight this difference even though they know that Ser Willem is guarding Viserys.

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

16 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Sure, it is possible that George will throw the whole mystery of Jon's parentage out of the window and that no one ever will hear about Jon south of the Neck, but we'll see. What we can tell at this point is that Jon's whole story is largely about learning to become a leader. In any case, even if he becomes "only" a leader in the North, what I said may still happen: his bastard status may be overlooked, forgotten or replaced by some fancy story in songs - and it won't be because of some document that proves his legitimate birth but because of his own merits. 

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

16 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Well, Jon seems pretty charismatic on several occasions. As for his looks, if the realm, on the brink of total destruction, wants to choose on the basis of looks rather than deeds and personality, then they would deserve to have the Beggar King for their ruler - Viserys had all the Targaryen looks, yet, even Jorah was able to tell that he was less than the shadow of a snake, very far from bring a "dragon".

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Let me throw this into the mix of the discussion, because it seems to be getting lost. It doesn't matter if Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna because Aerys named Viserys his heir before his death. One has to assume that the Kingsguard knows all the information in Ned's dream dialogue, and yet does not know of this fact. They are protecting the wrong king. One has to consider the likelihood they knew Viserys was they lawful king and they chose, just as Ser Barristan did, to not go to him.

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's actually speculation.

That's actually reading comprehension. The way the KG respond to Ned makes sense only if they know the facts already, regardless when they learned; at the time they choose to fight, they know already.

44 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Let me throw this into the mix of the discussion, because it seems to be getting lost. It doesn't matter if Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna because Aerys named Viserys his heir before his death. One has to assume that the Kingsguard knows all the information in Ned's dream dialogue, and yet does not know of this fact. They are protecting the wrong king. One has to consider the likelihood they knew Viserys was their lawful king and they chose, just as Ser Barristan did, to not go to him.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017. 03. 21. at 9:58 PM, The Twinslayer said:

One of the reasons I think this never happened is that Jon Connington -- described as "the next best thing to Rhaegar" -- is only aware of Rhaegar having one wedding.  We get this from Connington himself:  "Jon Connington remembered Prince Rhaegar's wedding all too well.  Elia was never worthy of him."  I think that if Rhaegar had gone through a second wedding ceremony with Lyanna Stark, Connington would have known about it, since he was one of Rhaegar's best friends and the world book strongly suggests that Connington was with Rhaegar when he set out on the journey that led to Lyanna's abduction.

I've never before heard Jon Connington being described as "the next best thing to Rhaegar". Anyway, I don't think that anything we know about Connington excludes the possibility of Rhaegar's second marriage for several reasons.

One reason is that even though we have JC's POV, we don't have access to everything he knows. How many times does Eddard think of Lyanna on page? Yet, we never catch him thinking of Jon Snow being Lyanna's son even though he must be aware of this piece of information. Jon Connington thinking of Rhaegar and Elia's wedding does not tell us anything about his knowledge or lack of it about another wedding. The context in which he recalls Rhaegar and Elia's wedding on page is when the possibility of a marriage - an alliance - between Aegon and Dorne is suggested. The parallel is obvious enough, and since Jon wants to refuse the suggestion, he thinks of Dornish Elia - and how she was "unworthy" of Rhaegar. This neither proves nor disproves that JC might have known of another wedding.    

Secondly, I don't have the impression that JC necessarily knew all Rhaegar's secrets. For him, Rhaegar was certainly very important, but was that feeling truly reciprocal? Didn't Rhaegar keep Arthur Dayne in higher regard, weren't they closer friends than JC and Rhaegar? Can you direct me to the part of the World Book that strongly suggests that JC was with Rhaegar on that journey? BTW, do we ever get Connington's opinion about the Lyanna affair? If he was truly with Rhaegar in those days, yet, he never thinks of Lyanna, it's further proof that he hasn't shared all his knowledge with the reader yet. 

On 2017. 03. 21. at 9:58 PM, The Twinslayer said:

I also think that if this is something Rhaegar thought possible, Connington would at least entertain the idea that it was possible.  After all, not only was he one of Rhaegar's best friends, he also was a high lord who served for a time as Hand under the last Targaryen king.  Yet, when it is suggested to him that Aegon marry a Westerosi noblewoman, Connington says:  "Daenerys Targaryen may yet come home one day.  Aegon must be free to marry her."  Now, if polygamy is allowed for Targaryens, why would a marriage now prevent a marriage to Dany in the future?  Note that Connington says that if Aegon has a wife, he won't be "free" to marry Dany -- not that it would make Dany less willing to marry him.  So Connington thinks that taking two wives is something Aegon is prohibited from doing -- even though he also knows that there is nothing to stop Aegon from engaging in incest with his aunt.  

 

 

No, not just some Westerosi noblewoman, they are talking about making an alliance with a great House, and they specifically discuss the case of Dorne, which is "central to their hopes". Even if not said, it is strongly suggested that the marriage would mean Dorne. JC indeed says Aegon must be "free" to marry Daenerys, but free can be interpreted in several ways. If Connington wants Aegon to marry Danaerys, making Aegon marry another girl to seal a political alliance is not a good idea, as the alliance would be over the moment Aegon married Daenerys. Even if this wasn't a problem, however, a princess with dragons may not agree to become a second wife, so Aegon must remain single ('free') for her. Besides, it is one thing what he tells Haldon, but the fact that he immediately thinks of how Elia wasn't worthy of Rhaegar suggests a motivation that he does not want to share with Haldon. Using the "free" argument is the simplest way to refuse the idea. 

Jon Connington does not necessarily think that polygamy for a Targaryen is "impossible", only that it wouldn't be wise in the current situation, and knowing of Rhaegar's supposed second marriage would only confirm this opinion.

In addition, JC doesn't seem to worry about the fact that Daenerys is married. It seems that in his opinion, a former marriage to some insignificant guy in Essos who is still alive wouldn't be an obstacle to a marriage between two Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

The way the KG respond to Ned makes sense only if they know the facts already,

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now