R+L=J v.35

[Erudain]

Didnt Aerys summon Rhaegar to become leader of the armies and become hand?...if he ever agreed to the later or had enough time to actually start acting as hand before going to the Trident is another matter...

[Dragonfish]

Aerys at one point wanted Rhaegar to be his Hand, but no one knew where he was, so he made Connington his Hand instead. Later, when Rhaegar did return, he wasn't actually made Hand, though he was given considerable control of the situation, no doubt.

[Dragonfish]

ETA: As a side note, what do you think of Prince Daeron's suggestion that Baelor Breakspear could have brought all 7 of the KG to the tournament at Ashford (where there were several Targ princes) but that instead he left four of them behind to guard the king?

That's not how I read that passage at all. Here it is in full:

"My father has commanded the Kingsguard to fight with him.”

“The Kingsguard?” said Dunk, appalled.

“Well, the three who are here. Thank the gods Uncle Baelor left the other four at King’s Landing with our royal grandfather.”

I don't see any suggestion here that Baelor could have brought the other four with him. Daeron is basically saying, "Thank God we only have to fight three Kingsguard in this situation."

[J. Stargaryen]

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

Where were you guys when your prince was being killed?

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

We had been given another command.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

You had better be glad we weren't there, because Robert would never have killed our prince.

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

Why weren't you there with the king when your fellow Kingsguard member killed him for his father?

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

We were here and did not know what was happening in Kings Landing. Otherwise Aerys would still be alive and we would have killed Jaime for breaking his vows.

"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."

I figured that Rhaegar or Aerys may have sent you elsewhere, but I thought it must be Storm's End to bring down Stannis, yet you were not there. Why?

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

We are more than mere knights. We are members of the Kingsguard None of that will be happening here.

"Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him."

Now that Rhaegar and Aerys are dead, Viserys is your king. Why are you here?

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

Ser Williem is a good knight to guard the young prince.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee.

Yes, but he is not one of us. We are members of the Kingsguard. We would not have fled with him to Dragonstone while our king still lives.

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

As members of the Kingsguard we will still protect our king.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

We will uphold our vow to protect our king with our lives.

<snip>

Such a good and valuable post. Severely under-liked, in my opinion.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Such a good and valuable post. Severely under-liked, in my opinion.

Thank you! It happens. ^_^

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

As a matter of interest, at what point in the Westerosi world does someone become the king? Would the official title be conferred once someone is crowned or would it be conferred upont he death of the previous king? I ask as obviously it's relevant to our dicussion here and I genuinely don't know.

My feeling would be it's at coronation. After all when Robert died Ned looked to have Stannis crowned and declared king.

"The king is dead. Long live the king."

Says it all, doesn't it?

The coronation makes it "official" and has other overtones, for example religious (annointing and whatnot). But for all practical purposes, the new king or queen takes over as soon as the previous one is dead. A coronation is mainly a technicality.

[Belandra Waters]

As to Jon being the new Targaryen heir, I think this is by far the most likely explanation, but I can't rule out that it could be Aegon who is the heir the Kingsguard are guarding, along with Lyanna and her newborn child. Not yet, at least. In that regard, let me just say, for the record, that even if Aegon was at the Tower of Joy, I don't think Young Griff is that Aegon. I think Aegon is dead. Nor do I think it means Jon is then a bastard. Other clues point to Jon being the legitimate child of Lyanna and Rhaegar than just the actions of the Kingsguard trio.

Just curious....are you saying that even if Aegon was at the ToJ, he died sometime later? If I'm understanding you correctly, could you please expand on this?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Just curious....are you saying that even if Aegon was at the ToJ, he died sometime later? If I'm understanding you correctly, could you please expand on this?

Yeah I'm also curious about that. I'm also on the record as saying that Aegon being at the Tower of Joy makes absolutely no sense, too, though.

[Twinslayer]

<quote snipped>

"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."

I figured that Rhaegar or Aerys may have sent you elsewhere, but I thought it must be Storm's End to bring down Stannis, yet you were not there. Why?

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

We are more than mere knights. We are members of the Kingsguard None of that will be happening here.

"Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him."

Now that Rhaegar and Aerys are dead, Viserys is your king. Why are you here?

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

Ser Williem is a good knight to guard the young prince.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee.

Yes, but he is not one of us. We are members of the Kingsguard. We would not have fled with him to Dragonstone while our king still lives.

Also, I believe the Kingsguard felt they could defeat Ned and his men, since according to Jaime, "I learned from Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. who could have slain all five of you with his left hand while he was taking a piss with the right." The Kingsguard almost won according to Ned, so I see no fault with this reasoning.

To me, this reading of the dialogue can work, so it can not be ruled out.

I do have some questions about it. First, it assumes that at this point Ned thinks Viserys is the Targ heir. Why does he say he was certain that the 3 KG would have been at the siege of Storm's End before he asks them why they were not with Viserys? If ;your reading is correct, I would have thought Ned would have asked them why they were not with Viserys before asking them why they were not at Storm's End.

Second, when you say "we would not have fled to Dragonstone while our king still lives" do you mean "we would not have fled to Dragonstone while a woman is pregnant with someone who might be the next king or who might be a daughter whose claim is trumped by Viserys."? I ask this because I think it is clear that Viseryis fled to Dragonstone before Jon was born.

Third,I am very curious what you (or anyone else) thinks the KG planned to do if they had won? If they killed Ned and his companions, would they stay at the ToJ, head to some castle (Sunspear?) with baby Jon, head to Essos, or do something else altogether? I don't have a good answer to this question but I'm interested in whether others do.

[SFDanny]

Just curious....are you saying that even if Aegon was at the ToJ, he died sometime later? If I'm understanding you correctly, could you please expand on this?

Yeah I'm also curious about that. I'm also on the record as saying that Aegon being at the Tower of Joy makes absolutely no sense, too, though.

Yes, I think Aegon (aka Young Griff) is the "mummer's dragon" which I believe means a Targaryen pretender masquerading under Aegon's name. Although, I also don't think Young Griff knows this yet. However, that doesn't necessarily mean Aegon died at the sack of King's Landing. If there was a baby switch and he was smuggled out, then I think it more likely Rhaegar was responsible for this plan than for Varys to suddenly take an interest in saving Rhaegar's children. The real Aegon could have died in a number of ways, but I think the clues point to Young Griff being a fake which means if someone did smuggle the real Aegon out of Westeros, he or she knows what happened to him and why Varys and Illyrio are using a fake instead of the real thing. My number one candidate for the role of that somebody is Ashara Dayne. If she is Septa Lemore, then she is going along with Varys scheme knowing it is a charade for reasons of her own. My guess is that, if Aegon did not die at the hand of Gregor Clegane, then he died later and Varys puts his own puppet into the role. One that he can always manipulate through threats of exposure.

As to why, Apple, you think it "makes no sense" that Aegon could have been at the tower, I'd love to know your reasoning and to go along with you - if possible. I just can't rule this out yet, especially because Martin has made the Aegon baby switch such an important part of his story in ADwD. Perhaps I'm too slow on the uptake, but I see ways for this to have happened and to make sense. Not likely yet, but for it to fit within the story as we know it and make sense. Anyway, instead of hijacking this thread on a long discussion about the mummer's dragon, Blackfyre pretenders, non-Blackfyre pretenders, and on and on, perhaps you could just provide a link to where you make the case and I'd love to read it. And though you don't make reference to your own thoughts on this subject, Belandra, I'd love to read what you think as well. Thanks.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

To me, this reading of the dialogue can work, so it can not be ruled out.

I do have some questions about it. First, it assumes that at this point Ned thinks Viserys is the Targ heir. Why does he say he was certain that the 3 KG would have been at the siege of Storm's End before he asks them why they were not with Viserys? If ;your reading is correct, I would have thought Ned would have asked them why they were not with Viserys before asking them why they were not at Storm's End.

1. Nope, it doesn't assume that at all. It assumes that Ned knows something is amiss and is asking questions.

2. Ned exhausted all other options before going in with the big question. I don't see this as odd.

Second, when you say "we would not have fled to Dragonstone while our king still lives" do you mean "we would not have fled to Dragonstone while a woman is pregnant with someone who might be the next king or who might be a daughter whose claim is trumped by Viserys."? I ask this because I think it is clear that Viseryis fled to Dragonstone before Jon was born.

Nope, that is not at all what I mean. True, Viserys fled to Dragonstone before Jon was born. When Viserys was sent to Dragonstone Aerys was still king. Also, Rhaegar and Aegon were still alive. There was no reason for the members of the Kingsguard to believe that Viserys would be king anytime soon, so why would they flee to Dragonstone while their king, crown prince, and his heir were still alive in Westeros. I feel that line was meant to show how faithful these members of the Kingsguard are to their vows. I also believe that Jon was born sometime around the Sack of King's Landing, therefore when the Kingsguard at the ToJ discovered the truth of Aegon's death, Jon was now king. Meaning, there was no reason for them to leave the ToJ and they were never in violation of their vows.

Third,I am very curious what you (or anyone else) thinks the KG planned to do if they had won? If they killed Ned and his companions, would they stay at the ToJ, head to some castle (Sunspear?) with baby Jon, head to Essos, or do something else altogether? I don't have a good answer to this question but I'm interested in whether others do.

My answer to this question changes depending on what day it is, but today I believe they would have went to Sunspear.

[MtnLion]

I like the reading of the conversation, however Ned is opening the possible discussion for the Kingsguard to surrender when he mentions Storm's End. He is pointing out that all of the loyalist armies have been defeated or surrendered, and that he expected these three Kingsguard to be among those at Storm's End. When they weren't present it was a surprise. Now he has offered them the chance to surrender, which they brush aside, saying that they do not surrender so easily. He then offers them the chance to fulfill their vow to protect the king, and assumes that Viserys is the new king, and only has Willem Darry as guard. Ned is offering an opening for the Kingsguard to withdraw to guard Viserys at Dragonstone. They respond that they do not flee (unfortunate choice of words for Ned), and that they serve their vows by remaining at the tower. And finally the fight begins, with all other options put on the table and swept to the ground. Ned knows how it ends, thus he comments, "Now it ends."

[Mihai Brasoveanu]

I don't want to be the "oh, here comes the new guy", but I have to say something.

Why are we talking about who's the heir? Cersei makes it perfectly clear that it doesn't matter if you're the wife, daughter or son of the king, the Kingsguard has to protect you. So the 3 could not just leave Jon to go after Viserys, their vow was for them to protect him, being the closest they had to a relative of the king.

P.S. fascinating to read the books, develop a theory and then go on a forum to find out it's already an acronym :)

[Pugsley]

I don't want to be the "oh, here comes the new guy", but I have to say something.

Why are we talking about who's the heir? Cersei makes it perfectly clear that it doesn't matter if you're the wife, daughter or son of the king, the Kingsguard has to protect you. So the 3 could not just leave Jon to go after Viserys, their vow was for them to protect him, being the closest they had to a relative of the king.

P.S. fascinating to read the books, develop a theory and then go on a forum to find out it's already an acronym :)

I think the point is that none of the 3 KG left the tower to go to Viserys. If Viserys were the heir, he should have at least one KG with him and at that time he had none. It indicates that the 3 KG don't consider him to be the heir. They believe the heir to the throne is in that tower.

[The guy from the Vale]

I don't want to be the "oh, here comes the new guy", but I have to say something.

Why are we talking about who's the heir? Cersei makes it perfectly clear that it doesn't matter if you're the wife, daughter or son of the king, the Kingsguard has to protect you. So the 3 could not just leave Jon to go after Viserys, their vow was for them to protect him, being the closest they had to a relative of the king.

P.S. fascinating to read the books, develop a theory and then go on a forum to find out it's already an acronym :)

That's not how it works. Yes, they have to guard the royal family, too - but only if that doesn't interfere with guarding the king. Guarding Jon when Viserys was alive means they considered Jon the king, not Viserys. And indeed, they could have sent one or two of them to Viserys while having the remaining one or two stay with Jon, if both Viserys and Jon were of concern. But all three of them stayed...

[Black Wolf Smith]

Why are we talking about who's the heir? Cersei makes it perfectly clear that it doesn't matter if you're the wife, daughter or son of the king, the Kingsguard has to protect you. So the 3 could not just leave Jon to go after Viserys, their vow was for them to protect him, being the closest they had to a relative of the king.

Welcome to the boards, and no worries, ask any question you like.

The big thing is that they knew that Aerys was dead, and that Viserys was on Dragonstone. The fact that none of the KG felt the need to go to Viserys, the fact they felt they were doing their duty by staying with Lyanna and Jon, means from their point of view that Jon is the rightfull king.

[tenchi]

With the point of the Kingsguard protecting the royal family, I believe it was Jamie in a flashback to when he and another were guarding the kings bedroom while Aerys was pretty much raping his wife and jamie asked him about protecting the queen, The kingsguard replied that their main job was to protect the king and if the king extend their protection to anyone then they would follow. And they gave the example of either to a prince or a bastard.

I know i will be a little scatter brained here but in reference to the succession, it seems to me that the eldest living son always inherits his father's seat. With that being said the part about the great council for Aegon 5th I think happen because most of the entire royal family was wiped out or incapable of serving as king. And we have very little information on the council exactly who called it and who part took in it.

[Belandra Waters]

Yes, I think Aegon (aka Young Griff) is the "mummer's dragon" which I believe means a Targaryen pretender masquerading under Aegon's name. Although, I also don't think Young Griff knows this yet. However, that doesn't necessarily mean Aegon died at the sack of King's Landing. If there was a baby switch and he was smuggled out, then I think it more likely Rhaegar was responsible for this plan than for Varys to suddenly take an interest in saving Rhaegar's children. The real Aegon could have died in a number of ways, but I think the clues point to Young Griff being a fake which means if someone did smuggle the real Aegon out of Westeros, he or she knows what happened to him and why Varys and Illyrio are using a fake instead of the real thing. My number one candidate for the role of that somebody is Ashara Dayne. If she is Septa Lemore, then she is going along with Varys scheme knowing it is a charade for reasons of her own. My guess is that, if Aegon did not die at the hand of Gregor Clegane, then he died later and Varys puts his own puppet into the role. One that he can always manipulate through threats of exposure.

As to why, Apple, you think it "makes no sense" that Aegon could have been at the tower, I'd love to know your reasoning and to go along with you - if possible. I just can't rule this out yet, especially because Martin has made the Aegon baby switch such an important part of his story in ADwD. Perhaps I'm too slow on the uptake, but I see ways for this to have happened and to make sense. Not likely yet, but for it to fit within the story as we know it and make sense. Anyway, instead of hijacking this thread on a long discussion about the mummer's dragon, Blackfyre pretenders, non-Blackfyre pretenders, and on and on, perhaps you could just provide a link to where you make the case and I'd love to read it. And though you don't make reference to your own thoughts on this subject, Belandra, I'd love to read what you think as well. Thanks.

Thanks for your thoughts, SFDanny...always appreciated!

I'm still formulating my thoughts and beliefs on this topic. While I do believe that R&L=J, I am not convinced of the polygamous marriage and Jon's legitimacy (yet). It seems to me that Jon's story is in the North and not in a fight for the Iron Throne, so I think it's his Stark heritage that will be important, not his Targaryen blood. Therefore, I'm not sure why the issue of his legitimacy is so important to the story.

The actions of the KG are central to the development of the R+L=legitimateJon theory, but if Aegon is also at the ToJ, then their actions are understandable. I'm open to the possibility that you offered earlier; that perhaps it was Rhaegar who sent Aegon to safety.

Many posters have postulated that the polygamy issue has been introduced by GRRM in order to explain Jon's legitimacy. I wonder then, why Barristan tells us that the KG can also be sent to protect mistresses and bastards, if it's not to explain the KG presence at the ToJ guarding Lyanna and her unborn child?

As for Young Griff, I'm not sure that he's really Aegon Targaryen, (again, I don't find the "mummer's dragon" argument totally convincing), but I think GRRM certainly has given us hints that Aegon survived the sack of KL and wants us to at least consider the possibility.

Anyway, I welcome any feedback from my fellow posters but please understand I only tentatively hold the above positions.

[Big Daddy Dave]

Putting Aegon in the TOJ WITH Jon? That's just doesn't ring true to me narratively. I'm not saying it can't be where the story goes, but it seems unlikely and doesn't feel right. And Aegon is introduced so late into the books that he screams red herring. Either by being a fraud, or that if he IS legitimate, he'll be killed off soon.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm still formulating my thoughts and beliefs on this topic. While I do believe that R&L=J, I am not convinced of the polygamous marriage and Jon's legitimacy (yet). It seems to me that Jon's story is in the North and not in a fight for the Iron Throne, so I think it's his Stark heritage that will be important, not his Targaryen blood. Therefore, I'm not sure why the issue of his legitimacy is so important to the story.

I don't think Jon will ever have anything to do with the Iron Throne or anything pertaining to Targaryen inheritance. The issue of legitimacy means that he's not only a legitimate Targaryen, but also legitimate in the Stark line as well. I personally find the issue of legitimacy important to the story in terms of character development for other characters. For one, Jon's parentage tells us a lot about Ned. He's lied, committed treason, condemned his nephew to a life as a bastard, hurt his wife in the process. It makes him quite grey, more so than if he had only faltered on his vows in a moment of weakness. It offers an explanation for why he did not send out any of his children to be fostered nor arrange betrothals before the start of the books. But then there's a trickle down effect to consider. Everyone around him thinks he's perfectly honorable and honest, just a man who made a mistake one night in his life. His sons see him as that and seek to live up to and emulate the person they think Ned is. It gets Robb in trouble, especially when he decides to marry Jeyne Westerling. I think it's very likely that Robb would have reacted differently if he knew the secrets Ned kept.

It's also important in terms of plot development. I just tried to type out an explanation for this and realized it was a bit...nonsensical. One of those things that sounds better in your head. I'll try to flesh out my thoughts at another time.

Finally, I think one of the minor reasons for understanding Jon's parentage all the way to his legitimacy is just because doing so offers the method in which GRRM subtly reveals the answers to mysteries in the series. It's one of the first mysteries introduced and it's not obvious at all unless you are 'looking' at what's happening and not listening to what characters are saying. Most other mysteries are revealed in this way so it's the method to figure this out is useful throughout the text.