Damsel in Distress

Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

279 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

I wouldn't compare today's diplomacy to medieval politics. And besides, Trump and Erdogan aren't threatening to cut out Merkel's heart and eat it. Your argument here is that Jon was impulsive after receiving Ramsay's letter and he probably was. My argument to the poster who said Jon broke his NW vows for Arya was that in answering Ramsay's challenge, he didn't break his NW vows nor did he do it for Arya. In deciding to face Ramsay, he was well within his rights to defend himself and his men. 

And i see it as him using the watch to defend himself and Arya,the most realistic outcome would be him being given to Ramsay,and the watch choosing a new commander. He has right to defend himself and his men have the same right,only he doesn't have right to use his authority as lord commander to force them to fight for him or his sister. Why should the watch fight for lord snow,going against their vows by attacking the north?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, teej6 said:

I wouldn't compare today's diplomacy to medieval politics. And besides, Trump and Erdogan aren't threatening to cut out Merkel's heart and eat it. Your argument here is that Jon was impulsive after receiving Ramsay's letter and he probably was. My argument to the poster who said Jon broke his NW vows for Arya was that in answering Ramsay's challenge, he didn't break his NW vows nor did he do it for Arya. In deciding to face Ramsay, he was well within his rights to defend himself and his men. 

There is no great difference there, actually. First you insult each other, then you kill each other. Wars usually don't begin before you have properly insulted and dehumanized the enemy. Had Jon gotten the opportunity to march at the head of a wildling army against the North it could very well have meant the end of the Night's Watch. He could have sealed the victory of the Others with this whole thing.

Because if the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch leads a wildling army against the realms of men the institution is clearly no longer working properly. All the black brothers are guilty because they did not try to stop this madness.

And you yourself know that Jon himself began this entire conflict when he sent Mance Rayder of all people to Winterfell.

12 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't have the world book handy but it lists Rhaegar's closest companions, including Connington, and then gives the number of companions that went with Rhaegar when he left on the journey that ultimately led him to Lyanna.  It matches up with the list of his closest companions.

The usual list of suspects for the companions includes Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, Myles Mooton, Jon Connington, Richard Lonmouth, and Lewyn Martell. The last one is sort of doubtful in the wake of Harrenhal. The Dornishmen at court were close to Rhaegar prior to Harrenhal but not necessarily thereafter.

If Lewyn stayed with Rhaegar then the sixth guy would have to be somebody else, a man we don't know anything about. Or it might turn out they were only six, counting Rhaegar, too.

Quote

The use of the term "usurper" to describe Robert does not imply that they knew that he sat the Iron Throne.  In AGOT, Varys calls Stannis a "usurper."  In ACOK, Tyrion calls Stannis a "usurper."  Stannis calls Renly a usurper.  Melisandre calls Balon Greyjoy a usurper.  And so on.  

People were looking at Robert as a replacement for Aerys since the Battle of Gulltown.  As long as the KGs knew that a rebellion was underway, they would refer to Robert as a usurper even if they did not know about the Trident or the Sack.  

That is a really important point, something that I never thought about up to this point. But it makes it very clear that using that word clearly does not have to mean somebody has to have won the war or actually sit on a throne yet. And we can also be reasonably certain that the knights at the tower - if they had already known about the Trident before Ned arrived - would have known that the Targaryens had effectively lost the war when Rhaegar died. Aerys II wasn't exactly the men to rally to men or inspire confidence.

11 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The three head dragon is the sigil of House Targaryen because it references three specific Targaryens - Aegon the Conqueror, and his two sister wives, Visenya and Rhaenys. The dragonlords of old did not use the heraldic symbols the other kings and lords of Westeros used. This is a symbol of the three siblings and the beginning of their conquest.

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.

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.

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.

Quote

So the evidence points to Rhaegar trying to recreate Aegon and his sisters in his children as somehow important to the prophecy of the prince who was promised. The reference isn't to the many Targaryens who called themselves "dragons" but to the siblings who established Targaryen rule over Westeros and started the new Westerosi dynasty. He wants to bring back the power, including dragons, of the founders to fight the war of the dawn.

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.

10 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

Regarding your interpretation about "usurper", I'm not so sure.  The term usurper applies to the fullest in the case with the 3KG at the tower.  Not out of their own, but out of the insistent of a rebel leader, Eddard Stark.

That is true, but if the term usurper is also used in the series to refer to irrelevant and doomed pretenders like Renly, Balon, Robb, you name it then the men at the tower don't have to know anything about the Sack or Robert's coronation in KL to call him 'usurper'. That Robert is a more successful (and more complete) usurper after the Sack than he was only after the Trident is not in doubt. But that has nothing to do with anything.

Quote

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

I came down on Storm’s End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, “and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

It is very clear, from Ned's own mouth, he projected to the 3KG that the oath to their dynasty they swore their vow on has ended.  It was not to Ned that the Lords at Storm's End bend their knees to, but to the leader of the Rebellion that was made clear to be the new king and authority, a person worthy to have knees bend to for fealty.

The Kingsguard does not swear a vow to a dynasty. They swear an oath to the king. And quite honestly, as was part of the discussion with @SFDanny above, the Kingsguard did not retire before Joffrey fired Barristan. Which means that Ned was fully in his right to expect them to surrender now that a new king was sitting on the Iron Throne. Instead, they chose to fight and die.

Quote

Again, stop bringing up about KG guarding mistresses and bastards.  Yes maybe during peace time and no wars/battles are being fought.  In a time of chaos and uncertainty, where at any moment the royal family will be killed, ONLY one rule apply! Kingsguard protect the king or protect the heir(s) of the king when possible.

How do you know that 'ONLY one rule appl[ies]? I'm very much interested in this Kingsguard thing as a concept (unlike many of the people only focused on this Jon Snow thing) and there simply is no textual evidence in any of the books of this series that the Kingsguard has a set of guidelines and rules beside the fact that they are bodyguards to the king and accepted to protect him at his leisure, serving and obeying him in the process. They are not people with a mission they can freely interpret according to fixed system of guidelines. They are bodyguards.

And please keep in mind that royal bastards also do have claims. Else people like Trystane Truefyre or Gaemon Palehair - pitiful as they were - would not never have been proclaimed kings, nor would they have gained any followers. Daemon Blackfyre was legitimized, but the above mentioned bastard pretenders were not. And we know other bastard kings - the great Benedict Rivers-Justman. Ronard Storm the Bastard - from the more distant past.

Quote

And if you wanna go along that line, guess what, this cancels your presumptions that since it's in the book it should apply as a narrative stance and plot... Targaryens practiced polygamy and had precedent in taking more than one wife.  Why would GRRM insert the line about Aegon marrying Visenya out of duty and Rhaenys out of love/desire?? --- if it won't apply to Rhaegar marrying Elia out of duty and Lyanna out of love. :rolleyes:

It could be reference to the many consorts Daenerys Targaryen will have. You may recall that the one time polygamy comes up in the books as a viable option it is when Jorah talks about the marital of the dragon queen who actually has dragons. You know that the dragon has three heads, and that Dany is out there looking for two male companions whom she can trust more than anybody else, right?

Rhaegar had no dragons, nor was he the promised prince, Maegor the Cruel, or Aegon the Conqueror. This doesn't mean Rhaegar might not also have tried. But arguing that the concept of polygamy was introduced into this series just for this Rhaegar-Lyanna background thing and not to actually for the plot of the series that is told does not strike me as very convincing.

The Targaryen incest thing was most likely also not introduced so that people like me can obsess over incestuous family trees. It is most likely a theme that will come up when marriages between Tyrion (Dany's half-brother) and Daenerys, and Jon Snow and Daenerys are discussed. Such unions would be impossible or highly questionable if there wasn't a longstanding incest tradition amongst the Targaryens.

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Perhaps what they describe as "fleeing" is the fact of avoiding a fight... As in "to run away often from danger or evil" which happens to be the literal definition of the verb.
In other words of avoiding to die for their king, which they are no doubt sworn to do.

Chiding Ser Willem Darry for fleeing - if that's what supposedly done there - actually makes some sense in this context because neither Queen Rhaella nor Prince Viserys would have been the main priorities whilst the king - King Aerys II Targaryen - was still alive and (reasonably) well. He was sending him to Dragonstone to protect his son and sister-wife, an honorable yet possibly not so desirable task for a Kingsguard who wants to protect his king (Jaime wanted to protect Aerys II at Harrenhal, too, but His Grace had other plans).

But the statement still makes no sense. I mean, what would those men have done if they had been given such an order?

Aerys II to Ser Gerold Hightower: Fetch my wife and the Prince of Dragonstone [Viserys]. They are going to the island, just in case. You, Dayne, and Whent will accompany them. If anything happens to them you will burn.

Ser Gerold: Your Grace... The Kingsguard does not flee...?

And what when the king himself is fleeing the battlefield? Won't they go with him then, to protect him?

Quote

Which would nicely explain the "then or now" from Dayne of course. They didn't flee to Dragonstone after Rhaegar or Aerys's deaths, but kept obeying their orders instead. And they won't flee now in front of Ned either.

Exactly, for some occult reason they don't see hanging out with a pregnant woman - whose unborn child would be at the very end of the succession while Aerys II, Rhaegar, Viserys, and Rhaegar's children by Elia were still alive - neither as desertion or fleeing yet Ser Willem Darry going to Dragonstone fulfilling exactly the same task as they were apparently doing at tower. In fact, Prince Viserys and the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms were much more important people after the Trident than Lyanna and her child ever were because they were the king's wife and the king's son and chosen heir. 

Quote

But honestly? At this point I know that your purpose is to affirm, again and again, that Jon MUST be legitimate, regardless of what the text or the facts say. You're not talking about ASOAIF, you're a fangirl defending her pet character and the vision she has of him as the perfect prince.

Exactly. And that is actually a very sad thing to do on a discussion board. This is supposed to be a place to discuss stuff, not to reaffirm your preconceptions. One should do that in your social media bubble. I mean, we have had a rather heated discussion about Jon's original name some time in the past, but that is what discussion boards are for.

We should all be open to change our minds when there is new evidence. And ADwD and TWoIaF really have shaken some certainties some people had put a lot of heart blood into. They are not willing to let go of that easily. Just remember the uproar the revelation about Viserys being Aerys' heir caused. People were actually trying to dismiss that as 'a lie' because it didn't fit their pet theory.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2017 at 4:13 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Yes but whilst there was a massive war going on? With Viscerys fleeing and everything? I appreciate the element of doubt but when you look at the whole picture it seems like this 'bastard' probably wasn't a bastard at all. And THREE KG? Three? That's overkill for a mere mistress or a simple bastard. 

And what a three! The Lord Commander himself: Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne - sword of the morning and Whent - brother to the Lord of Harrenhal - where the tourney took place. These guys are kind of a 'big deal'. Ned, in his dream makes a note of where they are not. And he's right to. What's more, these three seem complicit in not only the defense of the ToJ, but in the kidnapping and plot. 

I like the idea that the fever dream was an amalgamation of memories, anxieties and trauma, all muddled into one very peculiar dream. I need to backtrack through several pages to catch-up as I have been away. I'm just a tad incredulous as to how the presence of three of the most renown knights of their time are protecting what is essentially a mere bastard with no claim to anything. There's every chance that Rhaegar didn't give two flips about who was to be King. Maybe he was focused on the long-night the entire time...

Anyway, time to play catch-up. 

Share this post


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

Yes but whilst there was a massive war going on? With Viscerys fleeing and everything? I appreciate the element of doubt but when you look at the whole picture it seems like this 'bastard' probably wasn't a bastard at all. And THREE KG? Three? That's overkill for a mere mistress or a simple bastard. 

You have to keep in mind that they were with Lyanna for months while the war was waged 'outside' their little world in the tower (if we assume they were at the tower the entire time).

Even if we assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married (which I actually do - the question I'm asking is how valid or accepted such a marriage would have been) then Lyanna was still only Rhaegar's second wife. Elia was his first wife, and the mother of his two living, breathing children.

We don't even know whether Lyanna was already confirmed to be pregnant when Rhaegar left her because we actually don't know when exactly that was in relation to the Trident, the Sack, and Ned's eventual arrival at the tower. It might be that neither Rhaegar nor the knights believed she was pregnant. If so, then it is even more striking that they accepted this task.

Because, you know, them sitting there with Lyanna doing basically nothing did not help King Aerys II, Queen Rhaella, Prince Rhaegar, Prince Viserys, Princess Elia, Princess Rhaenys, and Prince Aegon - all of which should have been more important priorities to these men than Lyanna.

And as to her child - if she had had a miscarriage, it would not matter, if it was stillborn, it would not matter, if it was female it would not matter, and even if it was male it would not really matter all that much while Aerys II, Rhaegar, Viserys, and Rhaegar's children by Elia were still alive and kicking.

22 minutes ago, Dolorous22 said:

And what a three! The Lord Commander himself: Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne - sword of the morning and Whent - brother to the Lord of Harrenhal - where the tourney took place. These guys are kind of a 'big deal'. Ned, in his dream makes a note of where they are not. And he's right to. What's more, these three seem complicit in not only the defense of the ToJ, but in the kidnapping and plot. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Dolorous22 said:

I like the idea that the fever dream was an amalgamation of memories, anxieties and trauma, all muddled into one very peculiar dream.

Perhaps somebody should start a threat on all those dreams. That could make for an interesting topic. However, even I'd have to do a lot of rereading to participate in such a discussion.

22 minutes ago, Dolorous22 said:

I need to backtrack through several pages to catch-up as I have been away. I'm just a tad incredulous as to how the presence of three of the most renown knights of their time are protecting what is essentially a mere bastard with no claim to anything. There's every chance that Rhaegar didn't give two flips about who was to be King. Maybe he was focused on the long-night the entire time...

As I've said already, bastards do have claims. Weak ones, but they do have claims. Just as widows and dowagers have claims to the seats, titles, and even crowns of their husbands. There is precedent for that, too.

The most important ones are the two bastard Targaryen pretenders during the Dance, Trystane Truefyre (allegedly a bastard son of Viserys I) and Gaemon Palehair (allegedly a bastard son of Aegon II) but there were also bastard kings in the more ancient history, most noteworthy King Ronard 'the Bastard' Storm who confined his trueborn brother to a tower cell and stole his wife and throne as well as Benedict Rivers-Justman, a Bracken-Blackwood bastard who conquered all the Riverlands and established his own royal dynasty, House Justman.

And, quite honestly, we know the Kingsguard do usually follow orders when they are given some. Boros Blount even became King Tommen's food taster when the people in charge decided that this is what he should do.

And thinking of Blount a little bit more, the conundrum the Kingsguard at the tower find themselves in - confronted by Ned and his men, killing and dying in the fight against them - is actually sort of mirrored in Blount's failure to protect Prince Tommen in ACoK.

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.

Share this post


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

This isn't about people discussing ideas on a theory. This is a bunch of people adamantly presenting their theory as fact while refusing to hear any argument that there are alternative explanations and/or that it's not as simple as they say.

Disagreeing with an argument =/= "refusing to hear any argument".

People can "hear" and understand these alternative explanations and still disagree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Perhaps what they describe as "fleeing" is the fact of avoiding a fight... As in "to run away often from danger or evil" which happens to be the literal definition of the verb.
In other words of avoiding to die for their king, which they are no doubt sworn to do.

Which would nicely explain the "then or now" from Dayne of course. They didn't flee to Dragonstone after Rhaegar or Aerys's deaths, but kept obeying their orders instead. And they won't flee now in front of Ned either.

Get your facts straight - when Darry left for DS, Aerys was still alive, and this is why the "now or then" poises a very interesting parallel.

Quote

But honestly? At this point I know that your purpose is to affirm, again and again, that Jon MUST be legitimate, regardless of what the text or the facts say. You're not talking about ASOAIF, you're a fangirl defending her pet character and the vision she has of him as the perfect prince.

Then you know nothing. Jon is not among my top favourite characters, that place belongs to Ned, Cat, Jaime and Tyrion before his descent into darkness. But either way, this talk is over.

Edited by Ygrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Disagreeing with an argument =/= "refusing to hear any argument".

People can "hear" and understand these alternative explanations and still disagree with them.

That isn't really the point. The point is the audacity and arrogance in proclaiming that a text passage that is vague and open to interpretation can only be interpreted in a single, orthodox fashion, never mind the evidence to the contrary.

Is it possible that the knights at the tower were (stupid or treacherous (?) enough to) believe that Jon Snow was 'the rightful king'? Sure, that is a possibility (they don't even to have to believe Rhaegar and Lyanna were to believe that the boy was king - after all, bastards were proclaimed kings before).

The question is how likely is that in comparison to all the other possibilities the interpretation of the relevant textual evidence also allows for?

We are not a cult, we are a discussion board. And you can be of the opinion that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents without thinking that the knights at the tower died for their king, or even without believing that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married (or that a marriage ceremony had any influence on the legal status of their child).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rippounet just a note while I get ready to run this morning. I've had more than my share of disagreements with Ygrain over many years, but she also has my respect. The fangirl remark was over the line, imo. Not that I haven't crossed such lines in the heat of debate, but you don't win points or arguments, much less respect for yourself when you do. Just my opinion.

@Lord Varys I'll get back to your post in a few hours. Looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The three head dragon is the sigil of House Targaryen because it references three specific Targaryens - Aegon the Conqueror, and his two sister wives, Visenya and Rhaenys. The dragonlords of old did not use the heraldic symbols the other kings and lords of Westeros used. This is a symbol of the three siblings and the beginning of their conquest.

When Dany travels through the House of the Undying she sees a vision of Rhaegar with Elia and with the newborn Aegon, and he says the following:

So the evidence points to Rhaegar trying to recreate Aegon and his sisters in his children as somehow important to the prophecy of the prince who was promised. The reference isn't to the many Targaryens who called themselves "dragons" but to the siblings who established Targaryen rule over Westeros and started the new Westerosi dynasty. He wants to bring back the power, including dragons, of the founders to fight the war of the dawn.

The three founders where all trueborn siblings, although they had a baseborn brother in Orys Baratheon. When Rhaegar tells Elia the dragon has three heads, he isn't talking about Aegon and Rhaenys and a bastard child. He is talking about three of his own trueborn children. That is evidence of a powerful reason Rhaegar would want his child with Lyanna to be trueborn, and why he would look to the traditions of the founders to polygamy to make it happen. Not the only reason, but strong evidence of his motives.

We don't know whether the prophecy said anything about whether the three heads of the dragon had to have parents who were married.  We don't even know if the concept of bastardy was recognized in Valyria or Ashai (or wherever the prophecy comes from) in the same way it is recognized in the 7 kingdoms. 

What we do know is that polygamy was either illegal or, at the least, highly controversial, in the 7 kingdoms.  So Rhaegar would have to know that an attempt to get away with it would cause enormous problems, potentially pitting Dorne against the North and the Iron Throne against the Faith.  Rhaegar would have to know that Maegor brought on tremendous trouble by attempting polygamy and that Aegon IV did the same when he legitimized his bastards.  So Rhaegar would need to have a very good reason to try polygamy and invite all of that difficulty.  

What could that reason be?  If your answer lies in the prophecy, that is an assumption that is not supported by any hints we get about what the prophecy says.  The only thing you have pointed to is Rhaegar's statement that the dragon must have three heads and the suggestion that Aerion Targaryen (or his wife, Valaena) had four children but only three were dragonriders.  But we don't actually know that Orys was a bastard brother of Aegon's -- that is just a rumor.  And, we do know that trueborn Targaryens may not be "dragons" (Viserys is described as no dragon) while Targaryen bastards can be "dragons" (Daemon Blackfyre, for example).  And you don't have to be a trueborn Targaryen to bond with a dragon (Nettles, for example).  Rhaegar would know all of this.  Why risk losing the support of Dorne and the Faith if what you are trying to do is to unite the 7 Kingdoms in preparation for the War for the Dawn?  It seems to me that, once he took Lyanna -- and offended the Starks and Barratheons -- he would want to do everything he could to minimize the offense to everyone else (the Faith, Dorne, etc.). 

11 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

Regarding your interpretation about "usurper", I'm not so sure.  The term usurper applies to the fullest in the case with the 3KG at the tower.  Not out of their own, but out of the insistent of a rebel leader, Eddard Stark.

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

I came down on Storm’s End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, “and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

It is very clear, from Ned's own mouth, he projected to the 3KG that the oath to their dynasty they swore their vow on has ended.  It was not to Ned that the Lords at Storm's End bend their knees to, but to the leader of the Rebellion that was made clear to be the new king and authority, a person worthy to have knees bend to for fealty.

Again, stop bringing up about KG guarding mistresses and bastards.  Yes maybe during peace time and no wars/battles are being fought.  In a time of chaos and uncertainty, where at any moment the royal family will be killed, ONLY one rule apply! Kingsguard protect the king or protect the heir(s) of the king when possible.

And if you wanna go along that line, guess what, this cancels your presumptions that since it's in the book it should apply as a narrative stance and plot... Targaryens practiced polygamy and had precedent in taking more than one wife.  Why would GRRM insert the line about Aegon marrying Visenya out of duty and Rhaenys out of love/desire?? --- if it won't apply to Rhaegar marrying Elia out of duty and Lyanna out of love. :rolleyes:

I am just pointing out that in these books, "usurper" refers to anyone who is trying to take a throne, not only to someone who has succeeded.  It is a small point, and just demonstrates (I think) that the KGs' reference to the "usurper" does not mean they knew that Robert sat the throne already.

I think the difference between Selmy's statement about guarding mistresses and bastards and Jorah's comment that Dany can take two husbands is that there is really only one reason why GRRM would have Selmy make that statement in what is really the fullest explanation provided in the books for what the KG vow requires and because it has obvious potential relevance for Jon.  

But the statement about polygamy is quite likely to come up in the future for Dany.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because, you know, them sitting there with Lyanna doing basically nothing did not help King Aerys II, Queen Rhaella, Prince Rhaegar, Prince Viserys, Princess Elia, Princess Rhaenys, and Prince Aegon - all of which should have been more important priorities to these men than Lyanna.

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.

There is an alternative that perfectly explains all of this.  Lyanna is a valuable hostage.  That is shown by the fact that the Lannisters grabbed Sansa and tried to grab Arya, and why Tywin wanted Catelyn taken hostage rather than killed at the Red Wedding.  And why Aerys seized Elia, to keep Dorne on side.  

So consider this:  Suppose the KGs found out that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead and that Viserys and Rhaella had fled.  And suppose they believed that Aegon and Rhaenys were either dead or hostage in King's Landing.  What is the best way to defend Viserys, Rhaella, Aegon and Rhaenys?  Is it for three knights to attempt to rescue Aegon and Rhaenys?  Is it for one (or two or three) knights to go to Dragonstone today?  Or is it to seize Lyanna as a hostage, take her to Dragonstone as soon as she is able to travel, and hold her hostage against the lives of Aegon and Rhaenys (if they are alive) or to prevent an invasion of Dragonstone?  

That would be a normal thing to do in Westeros, and Ned would respect that -- he took Theon hostage as a small boy.  And it makes sense:  Ned has no respect for Jaime, who killed the king Ned was planning to kill.  Ned has respect for the toj KGs because they did exactly what their duty required:  they protected the royal family from harm or threat by taking a valuable hostage.  

And it makes the relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna irrelevant to understanding the KGs' actions.  Sansa went from fiance to hostage in an instant, and the transformation was triggered by the death of the king.  Elia went from Prince's wife to King's hostage just as quickly, triggered by the Battle of the Bells.  Why would Lyanna's status be any different after Rhaegar died at the Trident?    

And it would explain why the KGs fought Ned.  There is no good reason to keep him away from his sister unless they are holding her hostage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

We don't know whether the prophecy said anything about whether the three heads of the dragon had to have parents who were married.  We don't even know if the concept of bastardy was recognized in Valyria or Ashai (or wherever the prophecy comes from) in the same way it is recognized in the 7 kingdoms.

We actually have clues here. We can infer from Aemon's ramblings in AFfC that the original prophecy of the promised prince the Targaryens had (possibly some ancient scroll Aerys I rediscovered) was in High Valyrian and used the word 'dragon' for the promised person which was wrongly translated into the Common Tongue as 'prince', resulting in the Targaryen obsession of searching for a special male child.

The dragonlords of Old Valyria saw themselves as dragons in a sense (as the Targaryens still do) because they have 'the blood of the dragon'. They are aware of the fact that the magic is in the blood. It doesn't care whether the child is born in our outside of wedlock. They might have still had a conventional concept of marriage but that is completely independent of the question whether bastards can become dragonlords or inherited magic from their magical parents.

In that sense it is the primitive feudal understanding of legitimate and illegitimate birth (which is rooted in the feudal inheritance practice) and the superstitions surrounding it (bastards are evil, bastards grow quicker, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎26‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 0:47 AM, Lord Varys said:

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

This is what bothers me the most, he was just a baby not a king! I can't seriously believe they thought in their minds that they were guarding the king. And it's weird to me how some fans claim the kingsguard only stayed there because they are so loyal and dutiful, that there is no way they would be guarding anyone less than a king. Especially when their actual king and his heir had just died and they were nowhere near to be seen when this happened. And they say this is the proof that Jon is legitimate.

 

On ‎26‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 0:50 AM, Ygrain said:

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

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

But they first started guarding Lyanna and her unborn baby because Rhaegar ordered them to do that, so why is it so hard to believe that they would still keep doing that after Rhaegar dies. They stayed at the TOJ after Rhaegar had died and Lyanna was still pregnant with Jon. They couldn' thave known if the baby would be a boy or a girl, so why did they stay? Maybe they were waiting to see if it's a boy and if it's not, they would just leave?

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

But why do you think that Jon is legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? If there is no need for him to be then why is it neseccary? If I thought that Jon would end up on the Iron throne, then I would believe that he is legitimate.


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

I mostly agree with you on this one, but I only mentioned Lyanna because I think that this would would only be an extremely stupid thing to do on Rhaegar's part and would not make him look any better in my eyes. The opposite actually.  

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

Lord Manderly is not alone. He is a Lord with political power and the Manderlys are vassals to the Starks. Being a kingsguard member is not the same as being a Lord.

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

But instead their loyalty was transferred to a baby? Joffrey was old enough to be the next king so of course it's understandable that Barristan would serve the next king . Same with Robb, no problem there. And Viserys would have been crowned king before Jon.  

 

Share this post


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

he was just a baby not a king!

A baby can be a King. 

27 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

that there is no way they would be guarding anyone less than a king

There is not. The Kingsguard  wouldn't had left the King surrounded by enemies in order to protect a bastard. No one would had come before the King not even the King's family as it was proven by the fact that they did nothing to protect Rhaella. They had to be with the King even if anyone else from the family was in danger. The king always comes first and none of them was with Viserys.

28 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

Especially when their actual king and his heir had just died and they were nowhere near to be seen when this happened

Yet they knew what happened and they still were with Jon while they had already told that the man who was with Viserys wasn't a KG.

29 minutes ago, Sansa Snow said:

And they say this is the proof that Jon is legitimate.

There is a proof while there is no reason why the Kingsguard would abandoned the King without not even one guardian. The fact that you believe that a KG would had abandoned the King in order to stay with a bastard doesn't mean that you are correct and everyone is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

What could that reason be?  If your answer lies in the prophecy, that is an assumption that is not supported by any hints we get about what the prophecy says.  The only thing you have pointed to is Rhaegar's statement that the dragon must have three heads and the suggestion that Aerion Targaryen (or his wife, Valaena) had four children but only three were dragonriders.  But we don't actually know that Orys was a bastard brother of Aegon's -- that is just a rumor.  

That is true, and the fact that TWoIaF did not cast more light on that question clearly shows that Lord Aerion (who supposedly was the parent of Orys, not Valaena, since in the latter case it would have been clear that he was indeed the half-brother of the Targaryen siblings) actually never acknowledged the boy as his son, nor did King Aegon later legitimize Orys is telling in this regard. All we can say we really know is that Aegon and Orys were really close in their childhood, youth, and early adulthood (until Orys returned maimed from Dorne).

We know that parentage can be posthumously acknowledged and the children even be legitimized (this is done with Addam and Alyn of Hull during the Dance) but it did not happen with Orys Baratheon. Thinking about Alyn a little bit it must have been pretty difficult for him to claim and keep the lordship of Driftmark. His alleged father, Laenor Velaryon, was long dead, and his alleged grandfather, Lord Corlys died early on during the Regency. His marriage to Baela Targaryen would have helped but there must have been still some Velaryons around who thought they had a better claim.

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think the difference between Selmy's statement about guarding mistresses and bastards and Jorah's comment that Dany can take two husbands is that there is really only one reason why GRRM would have Selmy make that statement in what is really the fullest explanation provided in the books for what the KG vow requires and because it has obvious potential relevance for Jon.

I think that is both, actually. It is info dump for the readers (who were always obsessing about how Kingsguard rules worked), clarifying some things, as well as putting the fever dream into perspective. In my opinion any real knowledge about the Kingsguard as an institution from the waking world trumps the details of the conversation of the fever dream. This does not mean the dream does not also carry a lot of weight and contains a lot of interesting material but that is garbled, imprecise, and perhaps at times even completely wrong. We just don't know, and should thus not use it as our benchmark to judge everything else.

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

But the statement about polygamy is quite likely to come up in the future for Dany.

If there is foreshadowing involved here both Jorah's talk about Dany taking multiple husbands as well as her belief in ADwD that there are two men in this world she can trust completely qualify as such. That all goes back to the House of the Undying and we actually see visions of Dany's three consorts there.

Spoiler

Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars. A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly. A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness. . . . mother of dragons, bride of fire . . .

The first scene is a vision of her wedding night with Drogo, the second a somewhat obscured thing that could hint at a Greyjoy (Euron/Victarion) or perhaps even Tyrion (if we see the whole scene as mostly symbolic - having killed his father, and having a death wish himself on his journey east), and the third is clearly Jon Snow.

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

There is an alternative that perfectly explains all of this.  Lyanna is a valuable hostage.  That is shown by the fact that the Lannisters grabbed Sansa and tried to grab Arya, and why Tywin wanted Catelyn taken hostage rather than killed at the Red Wedding.  And why Aerys seized Elia, to keep Dorne on side.  

So consider this:  Suppose the KGs found out that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead and that Viserys and Rhaella had fled.  And suppose they believed that Aegon and Rhaenys were either dead or hostage in King's Landing.  What is the best way to defend Viserys, Rhaella, Aegon and Rhaenys?  Is it for three knights to attempt to rescue Aegon and Rhaenys?  Is it for one (or two or three) knights to go to Dragonstone today?  Or is it to seize Lyanna as a hostage, take her to Dragonstone as soon as she is able to travel, and hold her hostage against the lives of Aegon and Rhaenys (if they are alive) or to prevent an invasion of Dragonstone?  

That would be a normal thing to do in Westeros, and Ned would respect that -- he took Theon hostage as a small boy.  And it makes sense:  Ned has no respect for Jaime, who killed the king Ned was planning to kill.  Ned has respect for the toj KGs because they did exactly what their duty required:  they protected the royal family from harm or threat by taking a valuable hostage.  

And it makes the relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna irrelevant to understanding the KGs' actions.  Sansa went from fiance to hostage in an instant, and the transformation was triggered by the death of the king.  Elia went from Prince's wife to King's hostage just as quickly, triggered by the Battle of the Bells.  Why would Lyanna's status be any different after Rhaegar died at the Trident?    

And it would explain why the KGs fought Ned.  There is no good reason to keep him away from his sister unless they are holding her hostage.  

That is not impossible but a less likely scenario for me. I find it actually more likely that Rhaegar may have confined Lyanna to that tower because he had enough of her, and was not willing suffer her childish attempts to interfere with his grand political ambitions - which, at the time of his departure, apparently included saving his mad father's ass and defeating the rebels in the field. He may even have intended to make an example of Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, etc. This whole rebellion thing had gone on long enough and threatened the entire dynasty. If Rhaegar had won he would definitely have been forced to destroy or at least attaint four major houses (the Baratheon brothers would most likely have been killed due to their rather strong blood claim to the Iron Throne) and Lyanna most likely wouldn't have looked gladly forward to that.

We saw how high-spirited and proud a Northern girl she was at Harrenhal, bossing those squires around who were manhandling her lord father's bannerman. She would not have exactly looked forward to the destruction or even the humiliation of her house, not to mention the lives of her brothers. And, yeah, perhaps even Robert's. I don't think she wanted these to men to fight to the death over her.

Love does not bridge all gaps, and Lyanna clutching the dead winter roses on her death bed basically means nothing without context. If she had heard that Rhaegar was killed on the Trident she could have realized how much she loved him (and how greatly she would miss him) after all. I mean, people often think about their mistakes and losses when they are dying - a very prominent example that came up right now in my mind is Pharaoh Sethy I (historically completely falsely portrayed, of course) in 'The Ten Commandments' who remembers and speaks Moses' name with his dying breath even despite that he essentially destroyed him and his memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sansa Snow said:

But they first started guarding Lyanna and her unborn baby because Rhaegar ordered them to do that, so why is it so hard to believe that they would still keep doing that after Rhaegar dies.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Sansa Snow said:

They stayed at the TOJ after Rhaegar had died and Lyanna was still pregnant with Jon. They couldn' thave known if the baby would be a boy or a girl, so why did they stay? Maybe they were waiting to see if it's a boy and if it's not, they would just leave?

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.

1 hour ago, Sansa Snow said:

But why do you think that Jon is legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? If there is no need for him to be then why is it neseccary? If I thought that Jon would end up on the Iron throne, then I would believe that he is legitimate.

He might. But is it going to be from his own will, or as a burden thrust on him by others (just like the LC election)? Will he rise to the occasion, or refuse it? Will he live, or sacrifice himself for his people, like none of the other candidates ever would? Lots of intriguing possibilities where Jon's legitimacy might lead. Or there might be a lesson of bitter realism: even the truest claim is not enough when you're dealing with ruthless, powergreedy bastards (pun intended).

1 hour ago, Sansa Snow said:

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

Lord Manderly is not alone. He is a Lord with political power and the Manderlys are vassals to the Starks. Being a kingsguard member is not the same as being a Lord.

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.

1 hour ago, Sansa Snow said:

But instead their loyalty was transferred to a baby? Joffrey was old enough to be the next king so of course it's understandable that Barristan would serve the next king . Same with Robb, no problem there. And Viserys would have been crowned king before Jon.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

We don't know whether the prophecy said anything about whether the three heads of the dragon had to have parents who were married.  We don't even know if the concept of bastardy was recognized in Valyria or Ashai (or wherever the prophecy comes from) in the same way it is recognized in the 7 kingdoms.

That is actually not the point at all. We know some things the prophecies say from different sources, but all of that is really almost irrelevant to the question of what did Rhaegar believe the prophecy told him. Not if Rhaegar got it right - he clearly didn't - but what did he believe at the time that could have shaped his actions.

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.

6 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

What we do know is that polygamy was either illegal or, at the least, highly controversial, in the 7 kingdoms.  So Rhaegar would have to know that an attempt to get away with it would cause enormous problems, potentially pitting Dorne against the North and the Iron Throne against the Faith.  Rhaegar would have to know that Maegor brought on tremendous trouble by attempting polygamy and that Aegon IV did the same when he legitimized his bastards.  So Rhaegar would need to have a very good reason to try polygamy and invite all of that difficulty.

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

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.

6 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

What could that reason be?  If your answer lies in the prophecy, that is an assumption that is not supported by any hints we get about what the prophecy says.  The only thing you have pointed to is Rhaegar's statement that the dragon must have three heads and the suggestion that Aerion Targaryen (or his wife, Valaena) had four children but only three were dragonriders.  But we don't actually know that Orys was a bastard brother of Aegon's -- that is just a rumor.  And, we do know that trueborn Targaryens may not be "dragons" (Viserys is described as no dragon) while Targaryen bastards can be "dragons" (Daemon Blackfyre, for example).  And you don't have to be a trueborn Targaryen to bond with a dragon (Nettles, for example).  Rhaegar would know all of this.  Why risk losing the support of Dorne and the Faith if what you are trying to do is to unite the 7 Kingdoms in preparation for the War for the Dawn?  It seems to me that, once he took Lyanna -- and offended the Starks and Barratheons -- he would want to do everything he could to minimize the offense to everyone else (the Faith, Dorne, etc.). 

Once again, the three headed dragon refers to the three founders of the Targaryen dynasty. Not to any member of it. Trueborn or not. Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys, who are a trueborn brother and his trueborn sisters married to him. Could Rhaegar have thought a bastard child of his could fit the recreation of the Conquerors? Very unlikely given the option of a second marriage was open to him.

Share this post


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

@Rippounet just a note while I get ready to run this morning. I've had more than my share of disagreements with Ygrain over many years, but she also has my respect. The fangirl remark was over the line, imo. Not that I haven't crossed such lines in the heat of debate, but you don't win points or arguments, much less respect for yourself when you do. Just my opinion.

Yeah, that was over the line. It was my fault for engaging in that debate knowing full well that there was little chance of a veteran boarder admitting the flaws in their pet theory. Such discussions have no doubt occurred dozens of times before I even discovered the forum, so it was pretentious of me to think the story would be any different because I decided to give it a try. I guess I got caught up in my own game and that's mea culpa.

And who knows... From a purely logical point of view, the KG's presence in the south can't be that important, or else Ned's story about Jon would never have flied. But who's to say how logical George will be? If he decides that Ned's lies were convincing enough, then so be it. After all, even though at this point it takes a lot of speculations and assumptions to see the ToJ as proof of legitimacy, it would take a simple sentence in the next book to turn them into facts. Sometimes fangirls or fanboys get exactly what they want. So... Whatever, guys. Have fun.

Share this post


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

Yeah, that was over the line. It was my fault for engaging in that debate knowing full well that there was little chance of a veteran boarder admitting the flaws in their pet theory. Such discussions have no doubt occurred dozens of times before I even discovered the forum, so it was pretentious of me to think the story would be any different because I decided to give it a try. I guess I got caught up in my own game and that's mea culpa.

And who knows... From a purely logical point of view, the KG's presence in the south can't be that important, or else Ned's story about Jon would never have flied. But who's to say how logical George will be? If he decides that Ned's lies were convincing enough, then so be it. After all, even though at this point it takes a lot of speculations and assumptions to see the ToJ as proof of legitimacy, it would take a simple sentence in the next book to turn them into facts. Sometimes fangirls or fanboys get exactly what they want. So... Whatever, guys. Have fun.

The sarcasm is just a little thick here, I think. Too bad. I liked our discussions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I poop on this argument that's been had 5 ZILLION times.

Let's pretend Jon's a bastard and Arthur, Gerold and Oswell are village idiots:

The bastard thing makes no matter, elsewise poor Robert of the Bastard House of Orys Baratheon is outta luck.

Poor (f)Aegon of the Bastard House Blackfyre is outta luck.

Poor Tommen, of the Bastard House of Lannister is outta luck.

'Cept.....House Baratheon took the Stormlands and centuries later won the IT by conquest. No one bitched about Orys. House Blackfyre lost at war, but could win again by conquest and had decent support in the Kingdoms at one time.  Tommen holds the crown purely by the very thin string that is the support of the noble houses of various lands.  But then, that support isn't all that thin unless or until he dies or Dany burns the shit out of everyone. 

I got the feels for those poor Anglos that fell for it when William the Bastard pretended to be king.  But wait...he and his line established a dynasty in which today's monarchy is still rooted.  Sometimes, when you put people to the sword, everyone sips on a bottle of fine STFU wine.

If Jon is a Targ and >>Jon rides a dragon (because Valyrian) and>>Jon conquers Westeros, then he can be anything he puts his mind to.  Until the Others squash them all.  God I hope that happens, so we can stop arguing about whether Jon was born a king, a bastard, a coal miner's daughter or a rambling man.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Sometimes fangirls or fanboys get exactly what they want.

So now the author following a pre-planned route is fanservice? Classy indeed.

 

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

From a purely logical point of view, the KG's presence in the south can't be that important, or else Ned's story about Jon would never have flied. But who's to say how logical George will be? If he decides that Ned's lies were convincing enough, then so be it

Are you really saying here what I think you are, that GRRM is going to make a glaring plothole? Well, let me fix it for you: Ned's lies must have been convincing enough or else the story about Jon woud never have flied. Because the funny thing is that we have no idea what story he spread about Lyanna and the KG, he never adresses the issue in his own thoughts, and never, ever, talks about the details with anyone except confiding to Robert that he was with Lyanna when she died. Other than that, a FSM could have gone by, we don't know what he said or not. 

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