R+L=J v.60

[WhiteOwl18]

As I recall, it was the opposite. GRRM mentioned that the third head need not be a Targaryen, but mentioned nothing about dragon riders.

You're right. I stand corrected. His exact words are: "Three heads of the dragon... yes... but the third will not nessesarily BE a Targaryen...". But he still says "three heads of the dragon". One dragon, with three heads.

[finger]

And if Viserys was the king, they could have left the TOJ and go to Dragonstone to protect him. They don't even try to do that or show any intention of doing it. Why?

What a mess! Viserys wasn't king and if he were, he'd also flee.

The KG are good at fighting, not at fleing.

And there's no regular air line between ToJ and Dragonstone. Travelling is not so easy.

Why should they go anywhere?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The biggest problem with the idea that anyone would try to smuggle Aegon out before the Sack is that up until the Trident, the royal forces still had a reasonable chance of success and the capital was still secure. Rhaegar went to the Trident expecting to win. It was only AFTER the Targs lost there that the situation became extremely dire and the capital became unsafe. But by that time, Hightower and the other two were obviously already at the Tower.

And again, if they were smuggled out for their safety and the opportunity presented itself pre-Sack, why not save both kids? This also completely mismatches Varys's official-but-still-BS story about not smuggling Aegon out until the Sack.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

What a mess! Viserys wasn't king and if he were, he'd also flee.

The KG are good at fighting, not at fleing.

And there's no regular air line between ToJ and Dragonstone. Travelling is not so easy.

Why should they go anywhere?

Because they're friggin' sworn to protect the king, maybe? It's "protect the king at all costs," not "protect the king unless it's a pain in the ass to get to him, in which case, meh."

[Foothill]

Because they're friggin' sworn to protect the king, maybe? It's "protect the king at all costs," not "protect the king unless it's a pain in the ass to get to him, in which case, meh."

Haha agreed

[finger]

Why wouldnt they take Rhaenys too? If they smuggled the prince away for protection, they obviously thought KL wasnt safe. Why would Elia let them condemn her as well?

Unless i am not understanding, i dont see it as plausible.

Aegon was Rhaegar's heir, and Rhaegar tried to prevent Aerys to have Aegon as a hostage.

Aerys had a difficult choice. He kept Elia and Rhaenys as hostages to secure the Martells's fealthy, and conceded Aegon.

When bargaining, you seldom get all you want.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Aegon was Rhaegar's heir, and Rhaegar tried to prevent Aerys to have Aegon as a hostage.

Aerys had a difficult choice. He kept Elia and Rhaenys as hostages to secure the Martells's fealthy, and conceded Aegon.

When bargaining, you seldom get all you want.

It would be super if you had any actual textual basis for any of this.

[Lumina]

Because they're friggin' sworn to protect the king, maybe? It's "protect the king at all costs," not "protect the king unless it's a pain in the ass to get to him, in which case, meh."

How many days would they have to rid? Did the know of the sacking at kingslanding?

And if they did, they would already know the battle was lost right?

Not even thinking about who is king, it would be pointless to leave Reagars SON behind for a corps.

neu?

[WhiteOwl18]

Aegon was Rhaegar's heir, and Rhaegar tried to prevent Aerys to have Aegon as a hostage.

Aerys had a difficult choice. He kept Elia and Rhaenys as hostages to secure the Martells's fealthy, and conceded Aegon.

When bargaining, you seldom get all you want.

I'm sorry, what? Aerys conceded Aegon? Where did you get that?

[Lumina]

I'm sorry, what? Aerys conceded Aegon? Where did you get that?

Ielw. that's just wrong.

[J. Stargaryen]

It would be super if you had any actual textual basis for any of this.

This argument dies upon the same hill every time. :)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

How many days would they have to rid? Did the know of the sacking at kingslanding?

And if they did, they would already know the battle was lost right?

Not even thinking about who is king, it would be pointless to leave Reagars SON behind for a corps.

neu?

Ned's memory of the confrontation shows that they knew exactly what had happened. Which is why it's such an issue that they didn't go to Viserys.

[Jon Icefyre]

Very good vids. Jessica Brown-Findlay has always been my dreamcast Lyanna btw. Yeah, in these fanvids Rhaegar is usually the weak link. In all honesty I wouldn't know where to find good scenes with the right 'face' (some Scandinavian period drama?). A very daunting casting indeed.

The following vids are my favourite, editing perfection:

It's just a matter of suspension of disbelief when it comes to Rhaegar lol

Also, here is my contribution for Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Really liked the compilation of the music and the imagery:

AND, my cast choice for Brandon Stark is Taylor Kitsch.

http://www.thecinema...hn_carter-5.jpg

Since we're posting videos, here's one about the Knight of the Laughing Tree:

http://youtu.be/q9i4hm2Vvo4

Wow all those vids are amazing!!!

He's a Blackfyre or some other pretender. The real Aegon is dead and always has been. Young Griff is not Aegon.

The spider also has his own personal agenda, which includes passing off a fake for the real Aegon. Compared with the large amount of thematic and circumstantial evidence that Aegon is a fake and possibly a Blackfyre, forgive me, Varys's word isn't worth dick to me, especially when it's in his interest to pass off the lie.

:agree: My thoughts exactly.

I'll tell the whole story.

Hightower went to ToJ escorting Aegon, as a condition for Rhaegar's coming back.

When things went wrong, Aegon was taken away.

The HG stayed to hinder his prosecutors and die with their secret, while they attended Lyanna and Jon.

We can't know what would have happened if Lyanna recovered or died. They'd be free to go away with Jon. They might join a Company in the Free Cities, :dunno:

Smh, no, just no........ :bang:

[Ghost's Shadow]

Doesn't 'agree to disagree' mean you stop the discussion and move on? Because I always thought it did. :P

[Ygrain]

Because they're friggin' sworn to protect the king, maybe? It's "protect the king at all costs," not "protect the king unless it's a pain in the ass to get to him, in which case, meh."

:agree:

[Stann]

The spider also has his own personal agenda, which includes passing off a fake for the real Aegon. Compared with the large amount of thematic and circumstantial evidence that Aegon is a fake and possibly a Blackfyre, forgive me, Varys's word isn't worth dick to me, especially when it's in his interest to pass off the lie.

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but why are you stating this like it's a forgone conclusion? Why would it effect the truth of Varys's other claims if this one hasn't actually been confirmed as a lie yet? Or did I miss something?

I get that it's hinted at and I even kinda like the idea of Aegon being a Blackfyre out to avenge his broken off branch of a bastard family name (if he even knows he's not the real Aegon), but there's only circumstantial evidence for such at this point. What happens to this entire argument if the obvious ISN'T true and he is, in fact, the real Aegon?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but why are you stating this like it's a forgone conclusion? Why would it effect the truth of Varys's other claims if this one hasn't actually been confirmed as a lie yet? Or did I miss something?

I get that it's hinted at and I even kinda like the idea of Aegon being a Blackfyre out to avenge his broken off branch of a bastard family name (if he even knows he's not the real Aegon), but there's only circumstantial evidence for such at this point. What happens to this entire argument if the obvious ISN'T true and he is, in fact, the real Aegon?

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and stick to it. Aegon being fake is one of my lines. And I don't think it's that obvious -- most readers probably DO think he's Aegon. I highly doubt that many of them have picked up on, say, the dragon sign imagery, or really put thought into what the Golden Company contract-breaking really means.

GRRM has already given us all we need to figure out it's not really Aegon. It's just a matter of people being able to put it together.

[Twinslayer]

This argument dies upon the same hill every time. :)

Would 't you agree that the real issue in figuring out what Hightower and the other KG were doing is not whether Aegon was really dead but whether the 3 KG believed that Aegon was dead?

If you agree with that, then I think you have to agree that there is not textual evidence either way. The dialogue with Ned shows they knew what happened to Aerys and Rhaegar. They also knew where Rhaella and Viserys were. But there is no "textual evidence" that they had any belief one way or another where Aegon was.

If you agree with that, then we are just talking about what inferences can be drawn from other things we know, and the best you can do is say what you think is more or less likely based on incomplete information.

Personally, I think GRRM left Aegon's name out of the TOJ dialogue intentionally because he planned all along for "Young Griff" to appear. What GRRM intends to do with this remains to be seen.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

This argument dies upon the same hill every time. :)

True, but it reminds me of an aunt who shows up a bit more batty each time, but she's always unfailingly cheerful and pleasantly guileless. Can't help but be entertained by her ;)

[J. Stargaryen]

Would 't you agree that the real issue in figuring out what Hightower and the other KG were doing is not whether Aegon was really dead but whether the 3 KG believed that Aegon was dead?

If you agree with that, then I think you have to agree that there is not textual evidence either way. The dialogue with Ned shows they knew what happened to Aerys and Rhaegar. They also knew where Rhaella and Viserys were. But there is no "textual evidence" that they had any belief one way or another where Aegon was.

If you agree with that, then we are just talking about what inferences can be drawn from other things we know, and the best you can do is say what you think is more or less likely based on incomplete information.

Personally, I think GRRM left Aegon's name out of the TOJ dialogue intentionally because he planned all along for "Young Griff" to appear. What GRRM intends to do with this remains to be seen.

No. I've answered this before. And, honestly, it's pretty annoying that you ask people to repeat the same arguments over and over again.

True, but it reminds me of an aunt who shows up a bit more batty each time, but she's always unfailingly cheerful and pleasantly guileless. Can't help but be entertained by her ;)

I don't know about the entertained part. It depends on my mood that day.