R + L = J v 69

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

There were three claimants: infant Jon (whether he was legitimate or not, since a bastard can inherit if all other claimants are dead), the boy Viserys, and Queen Rhaella, herself the daughter of a dead Targaryen King, and a woman of child-bearing age.

None of the claimants were left undefended. Rhaella and Viserys were safe on Dragonstone with the Targaryen master of arms and the Targaryen fleet. Jon and Lyanna had three King's guards. I think it was fully consistent with their vows and their orders to guard Lyanna and Jon with the goal of moving them to Dragonstone at the first opportunity. At that point, with all three claimants together, the family and the remaining loyal lords could select the new monarch.

A bastard has to be legitimized by a king. It's a Catch-22: Jon would only be a claimant to be king if there was another king around to legitimize him, but if that were the case, Jon wouldn't need to be legitimized because there already would have been a king. If Jon had been a bastard, he wouldn't have been a claimant in the way that Viserys and Rhaella were. None of them were undefended, but two lacked Kingsguard protection, which should have been remedied immediately if Jon had been fact been a bastard. That's kind of the entire point. "Willem Darry is a good man, and true, but not of the Kingsguard." It's spelled out, right there.

I disagree with your interpretation and I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it at that. Believe it or not you're not the first person to argue this premise. I didn't buy it the first fifty times I saw it and I'm not buying it now.

Eh, I wasn't asking if Jon is a bastard or not. What I was asking was why some people think it's important.

Anyway, seems to me you just wish it was important. ;)

And it seems to me you just wish it wasn't. See, I can do it too.

[Black Crow]

Yet GRRM explicitly said they fought at the Tower because they were obeying orders, and orders they didn't like.

I'm comfortable with the R+L=J theory in principle, I just dislike the insistence that the presence of the Kings Guard obeying those orders means that Jon is the legitimate Targaryen heir backed up by the totally unfounded assertion that Rhaegar and Lyanna had married in front of a weirwood. The first is a slightly dodgy theory with arguments for and against, the second thus far is no more than wishful thinking.

The point of the legitimacy business is presumably to identify Jon as the rightful heir to the Iron Throne in despite of everything that points to his destiny lying elsewhere and that it is more important that he is the son of Lyanna than that he is the son of Rhaegar. After all Bael's son became Lord of Winterfell, not King beyond the Wall.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yet GRRM explicitly said they fought at the Tower because they were obeying orders, and orders they didn't like.

And them still being at the Tower to fight is still an extension of the original order to stay put; had they done what they had wanted to, they probably would have marched off to help fight the war and thus not been at the Tower at all when Ned arrived. In any case, I'm not exactly holding my breath for the moment when GRRM goes, "LOL they were there because Jon's legitimate, you got me!"

[lojzelote]

Because there is a mystery to solve :-)

And because not getting married would be out of character for Rhaegar.

Or perhaps there's no mystery. :laugh:

I think we know too little of Rhaegar to be sure that having sex out of wedlock would be OOC for him. True, Ned thinks he wasn't the type to frequent brothels, but this is a different matter entirely. He needed a third child to save the world (or something along these lines). ... anyhow, here we are getting into a different topic than my question was about.

[finger]

The importance of Jon being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, sworn to each other before weirwood, may be something entirely else than sitting an ugly iron chair.

Or Aerys has no way to contact them directly, and hence cannot countermand whatever orders Rhaegar gave.

At last!

Nor the KG deeds had much to do with Jon.

Jon's and IT's are different story arcs.

You've struggled to see the light, but welcome to the club.

[Ygrain]

Or perhaps there's no mystery. :laugh:

I think we know too little of Rhaegar to be sure that having sex out of wedlock would be OOC for him. True, Ned thinks he wasn't the type to frequent brothels, but this is a different matter entirely. He needed a third child to save the world (or something along these lines). ... anyhow, here we are getting into a different topic than my question was about.

We are being hit over the head that marrying the girl is the honourable thing to do, and what an awesome, honourable guy Rhaegar was.

And actually, if you take Ned's though a little further, it is there, as well. He is disillusioned with Robert, who frequented brothels and fathered bastards on young girls. He thinks that Rhaegar was the better man, not frequenting brothels, based on what? Fathering a bastard on the young Lyanna? Or rather not fathering a bastard on her?

[lojzelote]

And it seems to me you just wish it wasn't. See, I can do it too.

I'm afraid you do it wrong. :kiss:

I already confessed that I would rather if it didn't come into play.

... because I would prefer if he helped to show that the stigma against bastards is wrong and gave an idol to all bastards in the future to come. Which would IMHO be far more meaningful than "you were wrong to overlook me; in the end I'm more highborn than the lot of you!"

[lojzelote]

We are being hit over the head that marrying the girl is the honourable thing to do, and what an awesome, honourable guy Rhaegar was.

And actually, if you take Ned's though a little further, it is there, as well. He is disillusioned with Robert, who frequented brothels and fathered bastards on young girls. He thinks that Rhaegar was the better man, not frequenting brothels, based on what? Fathering a bastard on the young Lyanna? Or rather not fathering a bastard on her?

What is the honor of one girl against the fate of the whole Westeros? Even if Rhaegar couldn't marry Lyanna, he would still want to get a child on her, IMHO.

Perhaps Lyanna told him they were in love and that he swore to her that he will legitimize their progeny the moment he becomes the King.

Or that comment could mean that Ned thinks that Rhaegar was just too high-class to bed common whores. To have a highborn mistress is way more sophisticated. :D

[Ygrain]

What is the honor of one girl against the fate of the whole Westeros? Even if Rhaegar couldn't marry Lyanna, he would still want to get a child on her, IMHO.

Perhaps Lyanna told him they were in love and that he swore to her that he will legitimize their progeny the moment he becomes the King.

Or that comment could mean that Ned thinks that Rhaegar was just too high-class to bed common whores. To have a highborn mistress is way more sophisticated. :D

The point is, Rhaegar was the one person who could marry Lyanna despite being married already, so why rely on legitimization some time later when he can make their union legitimate from the very beginning? And as for the way the honourable guys go, we could say, what is the honour of one girl against the fate of the whole North? Yet, Robb put Jeyne's honour above his, and history ran its course towards the Red Wedding.

As for your distinction between "common whores" and "highborn mistresses", you would have to prove in the first place that such a distinction existed in Ned's mind. I certainly see no "common whore" approach in his treatment of Barra's mother, and I don't see how he would not consider Lyanna dishonoured by being someone's mistress, either.

[finger]

Which is where my favourite blackmailing scenario comes in: "I will return to KL under the condition that the three of you remain here to guard Lyanna" :-)

Agreed again, the 3 KG at ToJ was R's condition.

You're progessing.

I'd add he asked for more

[finger]

This too. If Rhaegar had ordered them to stay at the Tower but Viserys was in their view the new king (and bear in mind that without a council or Hand or septon to declare, it fell to the men themselves to make that call), they could have had one person stay at the Tower and two go to Viserys, or two stay at the Tower and one go to Viserys, etc. The big flaming giant fucking clue that the king was at the Tower was that all three stayed, including 100% by-the-book Hightower.

Agreed.

But, it Jon were king,....

When Ned appeared at the gates, well, actually they had to see him approack, they had to inform the king's mother, aka Lyanna. Otherwise, it'd be treason.

Recall Rhaegar and Aerys were both fucking dead.

Should Lyanna say she wanted a word with his brother, they had no option but to see him in.

I just don't consider Hightower not fulfilling his duty proper.

Then, if Jon were king, did Lyanna command the 3 KG to fight his brother without a last word?

Something doesn't fit.

[J. Stargaryen]

"We swore a vow." - LC Hightower to Ned at the ToJ (AGoT, Eddard X)

"You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him." - LC Hightower to Jaime (ACoK, Catelyn VII)

So, in book one of the series Hightower says: "We [the KG] swore a vow." Then in book two of the series he says to Jaime: "You [a KG] swore a vow to guard the king."

You know, it's almost like GRRM is trying to provide us with a clue or something.

[Fred of Ashai]

"We swore a vow." - LC Hightower to Ned at the ToJ (AGoT, Eddard X)

"You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him." - LC Hightower to Jaime (ACoK, Catelyn VII)

So, in book one of the series Hightower says: "We [the KG] swore a vow." Then in book two of the series he says to Jaime: "You [a KG] swore a vow to guard the king."

You know, it's almost like GRRM is trying to provide us with a clue or something.

I think there is more to it:

"When you donned that white cloak, you promised to obey." Jonathor Darry to Jaime Lannister after Rhaegar gives Jaime an order.

[J. Stargaryen]

I think there is more to it:

"When you donned that white cloak, you promised to obey." Jonathor Darry to Jaime Lannister after Rhaegar gives Jaime an order.

You missed the point. I'm quoting Hightower. Both times. So when Hightower talks about the KG swearing a vow, we know what Hightower means.

So when he says to Ned at the ToJ: "We swore a vow." We know that means: "We swore a vow to guard the king." Because GRRM has Hightower flesh out that initial thought from AGoT in the next book.

[Ser Creighton]

Yet GRRM explicitly said they fought at the Tower because they were obeying orders, and orders they didn't like.

I'm comfortable with the R+L=J theory in principle, I just dislike the insistence that the presence of the Kings Guard obeying those orders means that Jon is the legitimate Targaryen heir backed up by the totally unfounded assertion that Rhaegar and Lyanna had married in front of a weirwood. The first is a slightly dodgy theory with arguments for and against, the second thus far is no more than wishful thinking.

The point of the legitimacy business is presumably to identify Jon as the rightful heir to the Iron Throne in despite of everything that points to his destiny lying elsewhere and that it is more important that he is the son of Lyanna than that he is the son of Rhaegar. After all Bael's son became Lord of Winterfell, not King beyond the Wall.

Sorry do you have that quote from Martin? Not that I doubt it I just don't recall it.

[Lissa Nymeros Martell]

I'm just gonna jump in if that's cool.

Even if Lyanna and the baby hadn't been at the TOJ the Kingsguard would still have fought Ned and Co. Ned was a rebel and working for the usurper of their king. Yes, Aerys and Rhaegar were dead but they had not bent the knee to Robert. They did not acknowledge Robert's claim to the throne so Robert was just a traitor. Their fighting Ned and Co had little to do with who they were or were not guarding and more to do with Ned being a traitor to their crown.

[Ser Creighton]

We are being hit over the head that marrying the girl is the honourable thing to do, and what an awesome, honourable guy Rhaegar was.

And actually, if you take Ned's though a little further, it is there, as well. He is disillusioned with Robert, who frequented brothels and fathered bastards on young girls. He thinks that Rhaegar was the better man, not frequenting brothels, based on what? Fathering a bastard on the young Lyanna? Or rather not fathering a bastard on her?

Well disillusion is a big theme with Ned, including his own choices, he has a lot of regrets clearly. But that does not mean he thought Rhaegar was the better man, it's a limited comparison and we never know how he feels about it or if he thinks Rhaegar is a better man. Ned seems to look at the whole thing as a bad tragedy. Ned never even Refers to Aerys in a poor way. Does that mean he respected Aerys? And Ned also makes mistakes, take Jaime, he was rather judgmental against Jaime.

The only person among them that Ned has a good comment about is Arthur Dayne. Though he does still recall Robert of the past fondly as well. I understand making the connection with Rhaegar but that is a rather large leap to make to consider him respecting the man.

What's the extension of how Ned felt about Elia and her children? Do you think he holds Rhaegar blameless for that or the war or for the death of his family? Conflicted maybe, but respecting the man? Oh sorry not respected, honorable and awesome. Yeah I am sorry but I don't think that is there. Conflict could also stem from perhaps Ned feeling if nobody had done anything and they just let Rhaegar do what he wanted, then his brother, sister, father and all those who died in the war would be alive. Though Lyanna may have still died, more than likely.

You know Jon's parents stopped being a mystery a long time ago, it's really the how and why and people make some large leaps on very limited text. I am not saying it is the leap that Patchface is secretly Rhaegar is, but it's still a bit of leap and of course it works both ways with the Ned hated Rhaegar stuff. But with the way Martin writes, at times I feel like when he wants you to like a character, he will write that character so most will like them and when he doesn't want you to like him, he does the same. But he seems to have a timing about it. Rhaegar was bad, then Rhaegar was good, now who is to say he isn't going to flip that again? Martin likes to manipulate the reader, and he is good at.

It's also a circular debate, the information is so limited and it's open enough to flip it either way. There are even hits at Rhaegar not being able to really love. But that can be flipped too. People are positive one way or the other, but I think we are probably all sort of off. I don't think he has given us the information that we actually need on Rhaegar, or the clues, I think he is keeping that closer to himself then everyone thinks same for Lyanna.

[Ser Creighton]

I'm just gonna jump in if that's cool.

Even if Lyanna and the baby hadn't been at the TOJ the Kingsguard would still have fought Ned and Co. Ned was a rebel and working for the usurper of their king. Yes, Aerys and Rhaegar were dead but they had not bent the knee to Robert. They did not acknowledge Robert's claim to the throne so Robert was just a traitor. Their fighting Ned and Co had little to do with who they were or were not guarding and more to do with Ned being a traitor to their crown.

No you can't jump in. It's forbidden.

I think everyone should probably except that they were there for multiple reasons. They were ordered, they would of probably fought Ned, they were involved in something regarding Lyanna and succession. And that Arthur Dayne is not alive living in the north with Howland Reed and Ashara. Though I can't speak for Ashara not being there. Though she is more than likely dead. Possibly alive, no dead. Could be alive though. No, I am sure she is dead, although...

See that is what Martin does and he knows it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm just gonna jump in if that's cool.

Even if Lyanna and the baby hadn't been at the TOJ the Kingsguard would still have fought Ned and Co. Ned was a rebel and working for the usurper of their king. Yes, Aerys and Rhaegar were dead but they had not bent the knee to Robert. They did not acknowledge Robert's claim to the throne so Robert was just a traitor. Their fighting Ned and Co had little to do with who they were or were not guarding and more to do with Ned being a traitor to their crown.

Don't buy this for a second. Ned came to them, not the other way around. They didn't seek him out. If all they really cared about was killing usurpers, they could have done that without being at the Tower. They were still at the Tower for a reason.

[Whatever]

There were three claimants: infant Jon (whether he was legitimate or not, since a bastard can inherit if all other claimants are dead), the boy Viserys, and Queen Rhaella, herself the daughter of a dead Targaryen King, and a woman of child-bearing age.

None of the claimants were left undefended. Rhaella and Viserys were safe on Dragonstone with the Targaryen master of arms and the Targaryen fleet. Jon and Lyanna had three King's guards. I think it was fully consistent with their vows and their orders to guard Lyanna and Jon with the goal of moving them to Dragonstone at the first opportunity. At that point, with all three claimants together, the family and the remaining loyal lords could select the new monarch.

Eeeem... no.

Aegon was chosen over Aerion's son because Aerion was reportedly nuts (and a kid) while Aegon was older, more experienced (having been on Maekar's council) and most important not crazy.

Also, the KG take their duties seriously. It doesn't matter if there's a whole host guarding the king; there must be a KG as well - the only reason why they weren't with Viserys was because Viserys wasn't king. This 'claimant' thing is crap - it's an absolute monarchy, not the Holy Roman Empire, the throne goes to the king's first son and to the heir's own first son if the heir is dead. I mean, it's not hard, isn't it?

Hey, AppleMartini, what's your horrible opinion on Dany that lojzelote finds so bad? Just asking.