Damsel in Distress

Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

505 posts in this topic

19 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

And no reason to believe it couldn't have.

That is not an argument. If you want to convince somebody you have to present positive evidence. The evidence we have indicates that the Faith is completely under the thumb of the Crown during the reign of Robert, Joffrey, and Tommen until the High Sparrow takes over.

19 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I've already explained how and why it would have been possible to get around Aerys.

But you have given no evidence supporting the possibility you gave.

19 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes I've noticed you don't care for baseless speculation unless it's your own.

I try not to come up with baseless speculations. If you caught we me with some please point out how it is baseless.

19 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Again you twist my words into something not remotely resembling what I said. Didn't I ask you to stop replying if you couldn't keep from doing that? Varys knowing doesn't mean Varys telling.

With the chances being high that Varys would have known why would you believe the man wouldn't have told Aerys? He supposedly always did. Rhaegar trying to take a second wife would be a huge scandal, one that could destroy the entire dynasty. 

19 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Rhaegar being king when Jon was born would not change the kid's legitimacy, either way. If he got a dispensation and married her, then Jon would be legitimate. If not, then Jon is a bastard. There's no middle ground. He could not have gotten a dispensation that said "valid as soon as you become king, and retroactive at that point." 

That is not true. The king decides whether a prince remains a prince or not. He can exile you, he can disinherit you, he can make you go away. And you can not force him to accept your children as his grandchildren, eligible to inherit the Iron Throne. When Aerys II declared Rhaenys smelled Dornish and refused to touch her this wasn't just an eccentricity. It was a public display of royal displeasure and disfavor. That girl wasn't a royal princess in Aerys' eyes.

I've thought about this whole dispensation idea a little bit. There is no reason to believe that people in Westeros could get permission from the High Septon to take another wife. The High Septon isn't the Pope, and the Faith isn't the Catholic Church. There are resemblances, but nothing indicates that the Faith could be as easily bribed as the Church.

What we know is that only two kings - Aegon and Maegor - were able to get away with polygamy, for a time. But this doesn't mean the Faith ever formally permitted, accepted, or blessed such unions.

If that's the case then the very notion that Rhaegar might somehow gotten special permission makes no sense.

Prince Daemon (and even Prince Maegor) wanted to set aside their previous wives whom they considered to be barren (or intolerable) they did not want to take another second wife in addition to the first. They wanted an annulment or a divorce to marry a new wife, basically.

Only Daemon Blackfyre apparently ever intended to take two wives - assuming that's not just a rumor - and he had asked his royal father Aegon IV to grant him that request, not the High Septon, and later it was another king, Daeron II, who allegedly denied it, so we can safely say that the Faith was not in the business of helping polygamists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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 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.  

 

 

You explain things very well.  My compliments.  I also believe Jon is a bastard. 

Bastard is a legal status.  It matters not at the wall.  While it is true that nobles get preferential consideration for advancement even bastards and common born can work their way up the ranks.  A man gets what he earns.  Jon's role is to fight the WW and that's what he should do.  A trained bastard can swing a sword just as well as a true-born son.  The WW won't care.  The Wildlings won't care.  I don't have a problem with Jon returning from the dead and reassuming his post as lord commander.  Maybe he can put Arya out of his head this time and focus on the important job.  I do not want to see Jon sitting on the Iron Throne.  I don't even want to see him rule the north.  He's poor at governing.  He's fine at swinging the sword and pulling bowstrings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is also possible that they were just very loyal men, to Rhaegar personally. Just as Stannis expects Justin Massey to continue the war in Shireen's name Rhaegar may have expected from the men he charged with taking care of Lyanna to continue to that, even if he died.

That kind of commitment is hardly unheard of. Just look how Rhaenyra's Blacks continued the fight in the wake of her demise. But the straw man scenario asking the question why they did not send one of their own to Dragonstone disallows for the men to have felt that kind of commitment to Rhaegar's memory and/or the duty to fulfill a given order/never refuse to go through with a task that is part of your Kingsguard duty.

Prophecy and belief in prophecy could also have played a role but it is not really necessary to explain their behavior.

Would you accept that they most likely intended to crown Jon? To argue this they know Ned and they know he wouldn't kill the child. There would be no need to fight a battle they knew they probably wouldn't win, and they wouldn't want to kill men who were no threat. They probably also had a fair idea Lyana was dying. In my mind there was clearly something else. However even though Ned would never harm his nephew, there was also no way he would agree to crown the child.

Now, if you accept that they were going to crown Jon, and assuming Rhaeger would have wanted that, why wouldn't he have wed Lyana? He had plenty of time to do so as a contingency and it would have given legitimacy both to Jon and also to Lyana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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 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.  

For your first point, Rhaeger and Connington were good friends, but Connington became hand of the King and was away fighting battles. He was not around Rhaeger during that period of time and would have been completely unaware of it if it did happen.

For your second point, there is a significant difference in power. It's all well and good for Rhaeger to marry again for what likely seems to be someone who loves him, but Daenerys is the F**king dragon riding dragon queen. She needs to be inclined and enticed to marry Aegon and if Aegon is already married, and possibly has a child on the way, I would suggest that is much, much less likely. Also Connington isn't a Targaryen so he is less likely to think that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloodraven thinks Jon is the rightful king. And if a bastard can't inheret...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Makk said:

Would you accept that they most likely intended to crown Jon? To argue this they know Ned and they know he wouldn't kill the child. There would be no need to fight a battle they knew they probably wouldn't win, and they wouldn't want to kill men who were no threat. They probably also had a fair idea Lyana was dying. In my mind there was clearly something else. However even though Ned would never harm his nephew, there was also no way he would agree to crown the child.

Now, if you accept that they were going to crown Jon, and assuming Rhaeger would have wanted that, why wouldn't he have wed Lyana? He had plenty of time to do so as a contingency and it would have given legitimacy both to Jon and also to Lyana.

Crown Jon? With what crown?

Seriously, no. There is no reason to believe that. We know Aerys II made Prince Viserys (and not Rhaegar's son Aegon, a hostage) his new heir upon Rhaegar's death at the Trident (possibly even formally naming him Prince of Dragonstone considering he was actually sent to that island) where the Queen Dowager crowned him King Viserys III once she heard that her royal brother-husband was dead.

The idea that three Kingsguard knights in the middle of nowhere would crown a rival pretender to challenge the claim of Viserys III doesn't make any sense (and according to the fever dream they actually knew or learned from Ned that Viserys was on Dragonstone).

Even if they preferred Lyanna's child to Viserys as king personally, they had no more right to rule on the succession than any other servant of the king. The succession of the king is a matter of state, it would have fallen to the royal family, the Small Council and the royal officials, and the great lords of the Realm to decide that matter, not three men in the middle of nowhere.

And keep in mind as I've previously said here that Prince Aegon, too, has not been crowned by his followers despite the fact that he is the last male scion of House Targaryen since the death of Viserys III. What on earth makes you believe then that some Kingsguard would crown an infant who could only be harmed or killed if being put into the spotlight this way?

Arys Oakheart tried to crown Myrcella - and it got him killed and his princess disfigured. Criston Cole crowned Aegon II and has thus acquired the bad reputation of being 'the Kingmaker'. Crowning the boy would have put him against his royal uncle and royal grandmother as well as Robert.

If those men had any intention then, most likely, to get the child to some place safe. To Dragonstone, Starfall, or even across the Narrow Sea (I doubt it would have been safe at Sunspear - Oberyn would have quickly poisoned him to avenge the honor of his late sister).

Share this post


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

That is not an argument. If you want to convince somebody you have to present positive evidence. The evidence we have indicates that the Faith is completely under the thumb of the Crown during the reign of Robert, Joffrey, and Tommen until the High Sparrow takes over.

But you have given no evidence supporting the possibility you gave.

I try not to come up with baseless speculations. If you caught we me with some please point out how it is baseless.

With the chances being high that Varys would have known why would you believe the man wouldn't have told Aerys? He supposedly always did. Rhaegar trying to take a second wife would be a huge scandal, one that could destroy the entire dynasty. 

That is not true. The king decides whether a prince remains a prince or not. He can exile you, he can disinherit you, he can make you go away. And you can not force him to accept your children as his grandchildren, eligible to inherit the Iron Throne. When Aerys II declared Rhaenys smelled Dornish and refused to touch her this wasn't just an eccentricity. It was a public display of royal displeasure and disfavor. That girl wasn't a royal princess in Aerys' eyes.

I've thought about this whole dispensation idea a little bit. There is no reason to believe that people in Westeros could get permission from the High Septon to take another wife. The High Septon isn't the Pope, and the Faith isn't the Catholic Church. There are resemblances, but nothing indicates that the Faith could be as easily bribed as the Church.

What we know is that only two kings - Aegon and Maegor - were able to get away with polygamy, for a time. But this doesn't mean the Faith ever formally permitted, accepted, or blessed such unions.

If that's the case then the very notion that Rhaegar might somehow gotten special permission makes no sense.

Prince Daemon (and even Prince Maegor) wanted to set aside their previous wives whom they considered to be barren (or intolerable) they did not want to take another second wife in addition to the first. They wanted an annulment or a divorce to marry a new wife, basically.

Only Daemon Blackfyre apparently ever intended to take two wives - assuming that's not just a rumor - and he had asked his royal father Aegon IV to grant him that request, not the High Septon, and later it was another king, Daeron II, who allegedly denied it, so we can safely say that the Faith was not in the business of helping polygamists.

On a subject where most of the pertinent information is unknown, it's difficult to do so. This only ever bothers you when someone brings up a possibility in opposition to your own beliefs about the series.

Thus my calling it a possibility, as opposed to a probability or a certainty. My use of language is deliberate.

I've pointed some out to you before, but that was another thread.

And you've given precisely the reason why Varys wouldn't have told Aerys. He didn't want the destruction of the dynasty. He probably also didn't want Rhaegar burned to death with wildfire. 

You said when Jon was born. Even Rhaegar couldn't legitimize the kid pre-natally. If he's born a bastard, he's born a bastard whether his father is a king or a prince or a fisherman at the time of his birth. We are not discussing possible later legitimization but Jon's status at birth.

Yes there are some obvious differences between the Catholic Church and the Faith of the Seven. A septity instead of a trinity for one. But there are enough similarities to make it entirely possible that the Faith could grant special favors in special circumstances. Not to mention GRRM's insistence on a decent amount of realism and historical accuracy in the series. Tyrion's comments about septons seems to indicate that they can indeed be bribed, pressured, and more.

Aegon I is a case that absolutely illustrates the Faith accepted bigamy. If they hadn't he would have either destroyed them or set aside one of his wives. Maegor doesn't count.

Something not making sense to you does not mean it makes no sense. It just means it doesn't make sense to you. And you're still ignoring the prophecy part of the equation.

What Daemon and Maegor did not request does not set precedent. It would if Rhaegar were Daemon reborn or Maegor reborn. But there is no reason to expect Rhaegar would have acted in the same manner as two of the biggest jerks the Targaryens ever produced.

If they went to the king first, the Faith hadn't entered into it yet. And you can go to the king if the king isn't insane. If the king is insane, obviously going to him will not work, so you go around him. 

In this series, we haven't seen it happen is not equal to it being impossible. We'd never seen a person in the series brought back from the dead, never seen a shadow assassin, or seen someone killed by shadow assassin before ACoK. We'd never seen anyone killed at a wedding, or an Other killed with anything before ASoS. We'd never seen a queen arrested by the Faith, an Ironborn Kingsmoot, a Valyrian dragon horn, or the Faceless Men taking away someone's sight before AFfC. We hadn't seen anyone with active greyscale and wouldn't have expected to see Nymeria Sand to join the Small Council, Jon being stabbed, or Varys personally murdering Pycelle and Kevan before reading ADwD. Every single book brings new things we did not expect. It's ridiculous to think that there will be no new revelations, especially regarding the past events about which we know so little, in the next two books. Martin could throw anything at us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ser Mallic said:

Bloodraven thinks Jon is the rightful king. And if a bastard can't inheret...

Are you referencing the raven? He could be referring to Jon being future king.

Share this post


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

If those men had any intention then, most likely, to get the child to some place safe. To Dragonstone, Starfall, or even across the Narrow Sea (I doubt it would have been safe at Sunspear - Oberyn would have quickly poisoned him to avenge the honor of his late sister).

I find this, your only other suggestion to what they were doing when they wanted to fight, extremely uncompelling. The safest place for the baby was with Ned anyway. And the manner of their speech in the dream...

Our knees do not bend easily

The Kingsguard does not flee.

Then or now

We swore a vow

And now it begins

...belies that as well. Yes I know you said it was a fever dream, and anything can be disregarded, but to me that changes the meaning of the scene altogether. With a complete lack of any information regarding what happened there in all of his writing I can't accept that.

Added to the fact that there were various other clues scattered through the books hinting that he is infact a king (talking to Arya about Joffery, mormonts raven) makes a compelling argument that he is probably a king. Nothing said to the contrary has had any grounding in the actual text, its all speculation on kingdom rules, motivations of characters we don't know etc. There hasn't been anything compelling in it at all.

Share this post


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

 

It is not really what would have been possible. Possibly it was pure bragging, but I think it was what they were thinking, believing. Quite possibly, Robert would have died at the Trident, if he had faced Arthur Dayne rather than Rhaegar. And with Robert dead and Rhaegar alive, who knows? I know some despise Pycelle advices, but:

“For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king...

Saying "Aerys would still be on the Throne" and Jamie was a traitor doesn't mean they cared that much for the Mad king. If they cared that much they would not be at the Tower. They were confident in their power, not on the King's safety without them.

But you are right about everything. Why letting the Targaryens fall and putting Jon in the hands of the rebellion? On a very uncertain future.

My answer is "they were directed so by the prophecy". But not knowing this prophecy, it is an empty affirmation. I have Rhaegar interest for prophecies. His sadness after visiting Summerhall. Was he meeting the Ghost of High Heart there? Was he knowing something? Bloodraven was probably already active at the time...

If someone has a logical explanation, for the Tower, the rebellion, Lyanna abduction, and everything, I'll buy it.

Yeah, I can understand your viewpoint and respect it, there are many and more things that need to come to light in order to really get a full understanding on things regarding the Rebellion. I agree that Rhaegar is an enigma I don't think there is anyone left alive who knew everything that was going on in his head which leaves so many mysteries unsolved. We do know that he was right about the Others.

Just taking what happened on face value alone though I still feel like the Kingsguard were mismanaged by Rhaegar. From what I can gather Rhaegar wanted three children of his body to be the three heads of the dragon that would save the world. However I feel like he put the cart before the horse and that got his other two children and heads of the dragon killed. Hindsight is 20/20 but I'll always wonder why he didn't take at least Arthur or Ser. Gerold with him to the Trident.

Share this post


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

Our knees do not bend easily

The Kingsguard does not flee.

Then or now

We swore a vow

And now it begins

The reference to the vow is actually problematic. The KG don't get to choose their orders and it's unlikely that Rhaegar would have ordered them to crown his child because i) as per Jaime Rhaegar didn't expect to die at the Trident and ii) Rhaegar didn't know Lyanna would have a boy.
The only way out of this is to say that the KG were following orders as regard Lyanna.
This in turn may even explain the fight. The KG were ordered to protect Lyanna. They failed, through no fault of their own. But they could have seen Lyanna's demise as their responsibility. Similarly Ned, in his grief, could have blamed them for keeping his sister in an isolated place with no medical assistance nearby.
To assume that the KG stayed because Lyanna might give birth to an heir doesn't work because Rhaegar and Aegon were only killed in the last weeks of the rebellion. That they would have played kingmaker once Rhaegar and Aegon were dead is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Makk said:

I find this, your only other suggestion to what they were doing when they wanted to fight, extremely uncompelling. The safest place for the baby was with Ned anyway. And the manner of their speech in the dream...

Even if you keep the dream in mind, this stuff is far from conclusive. Let me take a try.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

Our knees do not bend easily

 

A sentence that assumes that Ned has demanded that they yield and bend the knee to King Robert. Something that was not been said in the dream by him, suggesting that something is missing. They would not be talking about bending knees if nothing of this sort was brought up.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

The Kingsguard does not flee.

The reason why they are fighting now. The enemy is there and they are not going to avoid a fight.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

Then or now

 

Actually a weird statement. When is 'then' from their point of view. They were neither at the Trident, nor at KL, nor at Storm's End.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

We swore a vow

 

What vow are they referring to. The Kingsguard vow? Could be. But it could also be a specific vow they swore to Rhaegar to protect Lyanna (and the unborn child) from harm, or that they would do anything in their power to keep the existence of that child a secret should the war turn against the Targaryens.

It is clear that the Kingsguard thing is what caused them to stay with Lyanna, originally, but the Kingsguard vow is not necessarily the vow they are referring to here.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

And now it begins

 

I honestly don't see any meaning therein. That as well as Ned's 'No, now it ends' seems to be created by Ned's unconscious mind who actually knows how this whole things ends. Not the way the Kingsguard (or Ned) wanted it to happen. A very common theme in dreams about dead person or events that greatly trouble you is that you watch things unfold again, powerless to stop them. You can even comment on what's going to happen without it having any bearing on things.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

...belies that as well. Yes I know you said it was a fever dream, and anything can be disregarded, but to me that changes the meaning of the scene altogether. With a complete lack of any information regarding what happened there in all of his writing I can't accept that.

I honestly don't think those men would have acted or behaved differently even if there had been no living child, a girl, or even a bastard. It is not about what the child was supposed to be one day but rather how they see themselves as men, knights, and Kingsguard.

9 hours ago, Makk said:

Added to the fact that there were various other clues scattered through the books hinting that he is infact a king (talking to Arya about Joffery, mormonts raven) makes a compelling argument that he is probably a king. Nothing said to the contrary has had any grounding in the actual text, its all speculation on kingdom rules, motivations of characters we don't know etc. There hasn't been anything compelling in it at all.

Even if we went with the idea that Mormont's raven is talking sense there, Bloodraven's opinion that Jon Snow should be king doesn't make it so. There are objective criteria in this world which make a (pretender) king. A proclamation, a coronation, and some sort of anointment. Nothing indicates that Jon Snow was ever proclaimed a king (nor crowned or anointed). Prince Aegon wasn't, either, which is why he is still a prince.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

On a subject where most of the pertinent information is unknown, it's difficult to do so. This only ever bothers you when someone brings up a possibility in opposition to your own beliefs about the series.

Well, I sure as hell must have a reasons to point it out. But it is obvious in this case, George even commented on the rising power of the Faith under the sparrows.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

And you've given precisely the reason why Varys wouldn't have told Aerys. He didn't want the destruction of the dynasty. He probably also didn't want Rhaegar burned to death with wildfire. 

But telling Aerys could have prevented the destruction of the dynasty, right? Just as warning Aerys about Harrenhal may have postponed the outbreak of a civil war.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You said when Jon was born. Even Rhaegar couldn't legitimize the kid pre-natally. If he's born a bastard, he's born a bastard whether his father is a king or a prince or a fisherman at the time of his birth. We are not discussing possible later legitimization but Jon's status at birth.

I was, too. If the king does not accept Rhaegar's weirdo second marriage then a child from that union would not be a member of the royal family in his eyes. Just as Daemon's and Laena's daughters weren't members of the royal family when they were born in exile. They were basically nothing.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes there are some obvious differences between the Catholic Church and the Faith of the Seven. A septity instead of a trinity for one. But there are enough similarities to make it entirely possible that the Faith could grant special favors in special circumstances. Not to mention GRRM's insistence on a decent amount of realism and historical accuracy in the series. Tyrion's comments about septons seems to indicate that they can indeed be bribed, pressured, and more.

There are remarkable differences. For one, the High Septon never was an independent head of state, like the Pope still is, nor was he residing in his own state. Originally he was under the protection/jurisdiction of the Hightowers, and later directly under the control of the Iron Throne. He would have had a lot of power as a moral authority, sure, but nothing indicates he considered himself the ruler of the world like the medieval popes did.

The reason why kings and noble had to inquire the papacy for dispensations and the like is that the Pope was usually very far away, in Rome. Under Jaehaerys I we have more a Church of England-like situation. The High Septon is no longer (somewhat) similar to the Pope but rather the Archbishop of Canterbury. And the Archbishop of Canterbury did what Henry VIII commanded him to do.

But again, the interesting point is that dispensations granted by the High Septon are never mentioned in Westeros. We should also not assume that Easter or Christmas are celebrated in Westeros, that Holy Communion is a sacrament, or that there Maiden had a virgin birth in the distant past.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Aegon I is a case that absolutely illustrates the Faith accepted bigamy. If they hadn't he would have either destroyed them or set aside one of his wives. Maegor doesn't count.

They accepted Aegon and his sister-wives as fact, but they were foreign invaders who married in pagan rite and were already married when the conquered the continent. It is pretty clear that the Faith did everything in his power to prevent the continuation of the vile practices of the Targaryens, and during Aegon's reign the man actually deferred to them. There were no incest marriages, and no polygamy crap. Aegon did not take another wife after Rhaenys' death.

Making one exception isn't changing the rules for everyone. And Rhaegar never was a king.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Something not making sense to you does not mean it makes no sense. It just means it doesn't make sense to you. And you're still ignoring the prophecy part of the equation.

Why should that figure into any of that?

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

What Daemon and Maegor did not request does not set precedent. It would if Rhaegar were Daemon reborn or Maegor reborn. But there is no reason to expect Rhaegar would have acted in the same manner as two of the biggest jerks the Targaryens ever produced.

That is not an argument. Daemon and Maegor were both dragonriders. Why the hell did they not get what they wanted? Why did they not go to Oldtown and demand that the High Septon give them this dispensation you are talking about. If Balerion and Caraxes had landed in front of the Starry Sept His High Holiness would have been forced to take the word of those princes that their royal brothers were supporting their demands. He would have granted it, and then they would have been lawfully married, according to your view.

Which is in itself a paradox because any such permission (or marriage) gained by threatening the septon granting it or officiating at it would be, most likely, null and void from the start. Just as a marriage where you force one of the parties to agree to it.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If they went to the king first, the Faith hadn't entered into it yet. And you can go to the king if the king isn't insane. If the king is insane, obviously going to him will not work, so you go around him. 

Mad Aerys would most likely have burned any High Septon who did something of that sort behind his back.

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

In this series, we haven't seen it happen is not equal to it being impossible. We'd never seen a person in the series brought back from the dead, never seen a shadow assassin, or seen someone killed by shadow assassin before ACoK. We'd never seen anyone killed at a wedding, or an Other killed with anything before ASoS. We'd never seen a queen arrested by the Faith, an Ironborn Kingsmoot, a Valyrian dragon horn, or the Faceless Men taking away someone's sight before AFfC. We hadn't seen anyone with active greyscale and wouldn't have expected to see Nymeria Sand to join the Small Council, Jon being stabbed, or Varys personally murdering Pycelle and Kevan before reading ADwD. Every single book brings new things we did not expect. It's ridiculous to think that there will be no new revelations, especially regarding the past events about which we know so little, in the next two books. Martin could throw anything at us. 

We still do judge the future usually on the past. New things might happen, and I always try to keep the magical factor in mind when speculating about the future. That's why I always said that Euron, as a sorcerer or man who has captured sorcerers, could use magic to defeat the Redwyne fleet. But this still doesn't mean we should invent stuff we have no reason to believe could show up in the story.

Share this post


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

Even if you keep the dream in mind, this stuff is far from conclusive. Let me take a try.

Quote

Our knees do not bend easily

 

A sentence that assumes that Ned has demanded that they yield and bend the knee to King Robert. Something that was not been said in the dream by him, suggesting that something is missing.

Nothing is missing.

"...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.”

Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Hard as I try, I cannot spot anything missing here. Ned says aloud he expected them to bend the knee, they reply that they wouldn't. It is hard to take your objections as made in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Nothing is missing.

"...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.”

Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Hard as I try, I cannot spot anything missing here. Ned says aloud he expected them to bend the knee, they reply that they wouldn't. It is hard to take your objections as made in good faith.

Yeah, I should have gone back to read the entire scene again. But there is definitely stuff missing there, since we don't know what or who the knights are defending nor have we any indication that Ned gave them any terms.

The interesting point there, though, is that Kingsguard usually are accepted to swear fealty to a new king, even if the old one has been overthrown by rebels.

Aenys I's Kingsguard apparently continued to follow Maegor rather than joining Prince Aegon. Two of Maegor's KG eventually defected to Jaehaerys I but one assumes Jaehaerys I accepted the other five White Swords into his service after he had taken possession of the Red Keep. Ser Marston Waters - who was involved in Rhaenyra's death on Dragonstone - was allowed/willing to continue to serve during the Regency of Aegon III (true, nobody would have asked the boy king's permission, and the man died before Aegon III came of age).

In that sense the knights at the tower actually seem to act in a way that's not common for the Kingsguard. Their knees usually bend when there's a new king on the throne, irregardless how he got there. Selmy shows how it is usually done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Nothing is missing.

"...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.”

Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Hard as I try, I cannot spot anything missing here. Ned says aloud he expected them to bend the knee, they reply that they wouldn't. It is hard to take your objections as made in good faith.

Agreed.

Apparently the kingsguard had some knowledge of what they were doing there at the ToJ. I am sure it was no accident that the author placed these specific people where he did, and at that specific time.

  • [Q] Also, did the Kingsguards know what was in the Tower?

[GRRM]Certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Fascinating topic.

The only thing I could think of is that the KG at the Tower of Joy did not believe their true King was dead, and that Robert was not their King. Perhaps they did believe the possible son of Lianna was now their King? Perhaps under orders from Rhaegar? Strange, since he was not the King...unless they had received an earlier message that the King was dead, killed by the Kingslayer, and that the former Prince was then King.  Rhaegar then ordered them, as the new King, (and now as Rhaegar's KG), that Lianna was now carrying his son...and when Rhaegar had also been killed at the Trident, the KG found out and now knew that the baby was, potentially, the new King?

That is a lot of leaps...I know.

 

Edited by Thoth11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You raise pretty strong points here, and I'm one of the people who maintain that the court must have known/eventually learned that Rhaegar had married Lyanna if that was the case. Either before they went underground or after Rhaegar had returned to KL. Rhaegar would have been forced to give his royal parents and the council some sort of explanation about his recent actions.

However, I think George is really phrasing things carefully there. Connington never so much thinks of Lyanna as of yet, and he may not have attended Rhaegar's second wedding (if there was one). In fact, I think he was one of Rhaegar's companions and may even have been with him when he took Lyanna but when he learned about the idea of a wedding he saw red and returned to court, trying to calm down Aerys and eventually becoming Hand.

If Rhaegar's second marriage showed the Targaryens that polygamy was completely impossible it may explain why Connington insists on the Dany marriage. However, here Connington might have an ulterior motive. He is not likely keep to allow Aegon a wife who ends up putting ideas in his head that he, Connington, does not share. At least not while the war is not yet won.

The curious thing indicating that Connington might have known about a second marriage of Rhaegar's can be seen when he formally introduces Aegon to the Golden Company as 'Prince Rhaegar's firstborn son by Elia of Dorne'. Mentioning his mother is well and good, it is proper procedure and all, but it is still interesting.

Thanks. 

I don't think there is anything unusual about the way Connington introduces Aegon to the Golden Company.  The reason he says "firstborn son" is because Aegon is not Rhaegar's firstborn.  Rhaenys was.  If Aegon was older than Rhaenys, Connington would just have said "firstborn," which is the way Cersei describes Joffrey and the way Catelyn thinks of Robb.    

I also don't think there is anything unusual about the fact that Connington mentions Elia.  If you look at Jaime Lannister's entry in the White Book, it says he is the firstborn son of Tywin and Joanna.  So that is a common way of describing a man who has an older sister.

Also, in order for the interpretation you are suggesting to be correct, Connington would have to know that Rhaegar had another son by another woman.  But Connington left Rhaegar before Jon was born (that is, prior to the Battle of the Bells).  Unless one of Connington's companions was at the tower of joy after Jon's birth, that seems impossible.  

12 hours ago, The Transporter said:

You explain things very well.  My compliments.  I also believe Jon is a bastard. 

Bastard is a legal status.  It matters not at the wall.  While it is true that nobles get preferential consideration for advancement even bastards and common born can work their way up the ranks.  A man gets what he earns.  Jon's role is to fight the WW and that's what he should do.  A trained bastard can swing a sword just as well as a true-born son.  The WW won't care.  The Wildlings won't care.  I don't have a problem with Jon returning from the dead and reassuming his post as lord commander.  Maybe he can put Arya out of his head this time and focus on the important job.  I do not want to see Jon sitting on the Iron Throne.  I don't even want to see him rule the north.  He's poor at governing.  He's fine at swinging the sword and pulling bowstrings. 

Thanks.  I also think Jon is not a very capable leader.  Ned taught his sons that a leader needs to eat with his men -- never ask a man to die for a leader he does not know.  But one of the first things Jon does after becoming Lord Commander is to stop eating with his men.  "Those days are gone.  The realization twisted in his belly like a knife.  They had chosen him to rule."  One of the next things he does is to send all his allies away.  Then, after isolating himself, he starts giving orders his men can't understand.  It's not surprising he was stabbed. 

12 hours ago, Makk said:

For your first point, Rhaeger and Connington were good friends, but Connington became hand of the King and was away fighting battles. He was not around Rhaeger during that period of time and would have been completely unaware of it if it did happen.

For your second point, there is a significant difference in power. It's all well and good for Rhaeger to marry again for what likely seems to be someone who loves him, but Daenerys is the F**king dragon riding dragon queen. She needs to be inclined and enticed to marry Aegon and if Aegon is already married, and possibly has a child on the way, I would suggest that is much, much less likely. Also Connington isn't a Targaryen so he is less likely to think that way.

It is true that Connington left Rhaegar before Rhaegar left Lyanna, so Connington would not have seen everything.  But if Rhaegar went through a ceremony while Connington was there, or if he even discussed the possibility, Connington would have known. 

Regarding the comments about Dany, I would agree with you if Connington had said that Dany would be less likely to marry Aegon if he already had a wife.  But that is not what Connington said.  He said that if Aegon took a wife, he would not be "free" to marry Dany.  That means that Aegon can't take a second wife even if Dany was willing to do it.  

Anyway, the point is that Connington is the only POV character who was with Rhaegar and Lyanna after the abduction.  I think GRRM deliberately included these musings in Connington's chapter (and Barristan's musing about KG guarding mistresses and bastards, and the KG obeying the order to leave the king without KG protection in TPATQ, and a number of other clues) to dispel the theory that Jon was born "legitimate."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't think there is anything unusual about the way Connington introduces Aegon to the Golden Company.  The reason he says "firstborn son" is because Aegon is not Rhaegar's firstborn.  Rhaenys was.  If Aegon was older than Rhaenys, Connington would just have said "firstborn," which is the way Cersei describes Joffrey and the way Catelyn thinks of Robb.

Oh, I was thinking that Connington could just have said something like 'Rhaegar's son'. That could have been enough. People know there was only one, and that Aegon wasn't Rhaenys was pretty obvious.

4 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I also don't think there is anything unusual about the fact that Connington mentions Elia.  If you look at Jaime Lannister's entry in the White Book, it says he is the firstborn son of Tywin and Joanna.  So that is a common way of describing a man who has an older sister.

Yeah, that's true. That's why I said that it is also proper procedure. But there might be an ambivalence here.

4 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Also, in order for the interpretation you are suggesting to be correct, Connington would have to know that Rhaegar had another son by another woman.  But Connington left Rhaegar before Jon was born (that is, prior to the Battle of the Bells).  Unless one of Connington's companions was at the tower of joy after Jon's birth, that seems impossible.  

I know that Connington wouldn't have been around when Rhaegar returned to court but he was in the thick of things when the Lyanna affair begun and the court might very well have learned about a second marriage and/or about Lyanna being pregnant by then. Not to mention that he as a Rhaegar buddy with connections to Varys and Illyrio might have gotten very detailed information on certain things even after he had gone into exile.

I expect the next Connington chapters - especially when the man meets another Elia with a personality like Lyanna - to touch upon Connington's memories of Lyanna, giving us crucial pieces of the Harrenhal and the abduction mystery.

A very good explanation as to why Ned ends up to hide Jon the way he does is that it was actually known that Lyanna was pregnant, and that some people - Targaryen loyalists and Rhaegar's friends - might now not be unwilling to use such a child as a pawn to start a rebellion against Robert. Especially after Rhaegar's children by Elia were dead.

Vice versa, Robert would have to have a very good reason to (threaten to) kill Lyanna's child - something he wouldn't have had if the child was just a bastard born of rape.

Share this post


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

```

I know that Connington wouldn't have been around when Rhaegar returned to court but he was in the thick of things when the Lyanna affair begun and the court might very well have learned about a second marriage and/or about Lyanna being pregnant by then. Not to mention that he as a Rhaegar buddy with connections to Varys and Illyrio might have gotten very detailed information on certain things even after he had gone into exile.

```

As long as crucial information between maesters and septons is not shared between each other ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

As long as crucial information between maesters and septons is not shared between each other ;)

George may have a plan to slowly uncover this mystery. Connington and Barristan are very good POVs to begin doing that. They won't be able to cover the tower of joy and Rhaegar-and-Lyanna-along-in-the-wild parts but they certainly can add crucial pieces to Harrenhal, the abduction, and how Rhaegar's actions were seen and interpreted at court. I never said either of them would have super good evidence. But a rumor about Lyanna being pregnant could very well be a true rumor, or a rumor people (Robert included) might have believed.

The whole thing is just too obvious for nobody ever thinking that Rhaegar might have impregnated Lyanna. The resolution for Ned there could be that he told a convincing story about a stillborn child upon his own return from the South. He wouldn't have had his bastard on his lap when telling that story.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.