Jump to content

R + L = J v 69


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Okay, then, Cheerio, I hope you have a nice afternoon. You had some interesting ideas but you didn't have a response to some of my more important points. Not a big deal.

Responding to something the Black Crow said, I don't think this analysis leads to the conclusion that Jon a Snow is illegitimate. It indicates that the presence of the King's guards tells us very little about what was going on one way or another. If, as I suggest, Lyanna was given King's guard protection, they had to protect her. It doesn't matter if she was married to Rhaegar and it doesn't matter if she had had a child or not -- they had no choice but to stay with her.

None of that means, however, that she wasn't married to Rhaegar or that she didn't have a child. That is all still possible.

Agreed, the whole business including GRRM's explanation that the Kingsguard were obeying orders (as their vows required then to to) is purposely unclear and open to a number of interpretations, including the proposition that Jon is the rightful heir to the Targaryen throne, but the mere presence of the Kingsguard is not of itself proof positive.

And in any case the tale of Bael the Bard as told to Jon should not be disregarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

Yes :laugh:

For not to say how mistreating the king's relatives matches with their vows.

You insist to forget that L was Jon's mother, Ned was L's brother, Ned was Jon's uncle. Eventually, it was Ned who raised Jon.

Can you tell me what was the KG buggering about good at? Nothing at all, as far as Jon's concerned.

Jon's already king of the wildlings, the IT is not his, and never was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, the whole business including GRRM's explanation that the Kingsguard were obeying orders (as their vows required then to to) is purposely unclear and open to a number of interpretations, including the proposition that Jon is the rightful heir to the Targaryen throne, but the mere presence of the Kingsguard is not of itself proof positive.

And in any case the tale of Bael the Bard as told to Jon should not be disregarded.

Orders. Living people command. When the king is not of age, there's a regent. It's not the LC of the KG, unless you consider a coup d'etat, like BS' in ADWD. R could have ordered them to wait for him there, but once R was dead, the order changed. They might be there waiting for L to give birth, but not for Rto come back. R's orders were outdated.

If Jon was king, it means R+L were legally married, and it makes L the regent. It's the same with Cersei and Tommen.

The point is the person out there was the king's blood, according to that therory. Should it be Jon Arryn or Hoster Tully, the KG could fight as much as they liked. They couldn't kill any king's relative just like that, they had to look for another way out, excluding a fight with the king's blood. I don't think they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see something so official like a regent being of any importance in a life-or-death situation like the ToJ. I see no reason why the KG should't have to obey Lyanna's orders, unless they were crazy, and by the same reasoning I think any Targ's orderds would have taken priority over Lyanna's - but there weren't any other Targs around and this is kind of a moot point.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Are we 100% sure he could?

As far as we know, since Maegor the Cruel no Targaryen had more than one wife. It is very possible that Maegor's successor Jaehaerys the Conciliator had to make some concessions to the Faith to appease them; and since the Targaryens wouldn't give up the incest (the blood of the dragon and all), the next best thing was the polygamy custom.

Of course there is a distinction. Yes, Ned is kind to Barra, a 13 or so years old girl. Does that mean he thinks she's equal to a noblewoman? Of course not; Ned is a nobleman from a medievalisque culture; he believes that the blood of nobility is above that of mere commoners and that they have inherent right to rule the commoners. Yea, he would not approve if a noblewoman had sex out of wedlock, but that doesn't mean she stops being a noblewoman in his eyes.

Anyway, the Brackens and the Blackwoods don't seem to be ashamed of Barba Bracken and Melissa Blackwood, so I don't think they considered them to be Aegon's whores.

“Lord Jonos made some remark about whose

teats they were,” he recalled to the Blackwood boy as they rode toward the darkening hills and the last

light of the day. “The Brackens call them by one name and the Blackwoods by another.”

“Aye, my lord. For a hundred years or so. Before that, they were the Mother’s Teats, or just the

Teats. There are two of them, and it was thought that they resembled …”

“I can see what they resemble.” Jaime found himself thinking back on the woman in the tent

and the way she’d tried to hide her large, dark nipples. “What changed a hundred years ago?”

“Aegon the Unworthy took Barba Bracken as his mistress,” the bookish boy replied. “She was a

very buxom wench, they say, and one day when the king was visiting at the Stone Hedge he went out

hunting and saw the Teats and …”

“… named them for his mistress.” Aegon the Fourth had died long before Jaime had been born,

but he recalled enough of the history of his reign to guess what must have happened next. “Only later

he put the Bracken girl aside and took up with a Blackwood, was that the way of it?”

“Lady Melissa,” Hoster confirmed. “Missy, they called her. There’s a statue of her in our

godswood. She was much more beautiful than Barba Bracken, but slender, and Barba was heard to say

that Missy was flat as a boy. When King Aegon heard, he …”

“… gave her Barba’s teats.” Jaime laughed. “How did all this begin, between Blackwood and

Bracken? Is it written down?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we 100% sure he could?

As far as we know, since Maegor the Cruel no Targaryen had more than one wife. It is very possible that Maegor's successor Jaehaerys the Conciliator had to make some concessions to the Faith to appease them; and since the Targaryens wouldn't give up the incest (the blood of the dragon and all), the next best thing was the polygamy custom.

Of course there is a distinction. Yes, Ned is kind to Barra, a 13 or so years old girl. Does that mean he thinks she's equal to a noblewoman? Of course not; Ned is a nobleman from a medievalisque culture; he believes that the blood of nobility is above that of mere commoners and that they have inherent right to rule the commoners. Yea, he would not approve if a noblewoman had sex out of wedlock, but that doesn't mean she stops being a noblewoman in his eyes.

Anyway, the Brackens and the Blackwoods don't seem to be ashamed of Barba Bracken and Melissa Blackwood, so I don't think they considered them to be Aegon's whores.

“Lord Jonos made some remark about whose

teats they were,” he recalled to the Blackwood boy as they rode toward the darkening hills and the last

light of the day. “The Brackens call them by one name and the Blackwoods by another.”

“Aye, my lord. For a hundred years or so. Before that, they were the Mother’s Teats, or just the

Teats. There are two of them, and it was thought that they resembled …”

“I can see what they resemble.” Jaime found himself thinking back on the woman in the tent

and the way she’d tried to hide her large, dark nipples. “What changed a hundred years ago?”

“Aegon the Unworthy took Barba Bracken as his mistress,” the bookish boy replied. “She was a

very buxom wench, they say, and one day when the king was visiting at the Stone Hedge he went out

hunting and saw the Teats and …”

“… named them for his mistress.” Aegon the Fourth had died long before Jaime had been born,

but he recalled enough of the history of his reign to guess what must have happened next. “Only later

he put the Bracken girl aside and took up with a Blackwood, was that the way of it?”

“Lady Melissa,” Hoster confirmed. “Missy, they called her. There’s a statue of her in our

godswood. She was much more beautiful than Barba Bracken, but slender, and Barba was heard to say

that Missy was flat as a boy. When King Aegon heard, he …”

“… gave her Barba’s teats.” Jaime laughed. “How did all this begin, between Blackwood and

Bracken? Is it written down?”

We are talking Ned Stark and his sister, not some power-greedy southerners.

And yes, we can be pretty much sure that the Targ polygamy was never officially abolished, both text-wise and SSM-wise.How many times is Aegon and his two sister-wives mentioned in the text? Aplenty. How many times is the Targ incest mentioned? Even more. How many times is the unacceptability of the Targ incest mentioned? Aplenty, time and again. How many times is the unacceptability of polygamy mentioned? Not. Once. What does GRRM say about polygamy? There may have been some later examples, he doesn't remember. Not a word about any concessions to the Faith. Not. One. The same goes for dragons - he never draws a line saying that polygamy was not possible after the dragons were gone. Ever. More likely objections/more difficult to defy the Faith and custom =/= impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking Ned Stark and his sister, not some power-greedy southerners.

And yes, we can be pretty much sure that the Targ polygamy was never officially abolished, both text-wise and SSM-wise.How many times is Aegon and his two sister-wives mentioned in the text? Aplenty. How many times is the Targ incest mentioned? Even more. How many times is the unacceptability of the Targ incest mentioned? Aplenty, time and again. How many times is the unacceptability of polygamy mentioned? Not. Once. What does GRRM say about polygamy? There may have been some later examples, he doesn't remember. Not a word about any concessions to the Faith. Not. One. The same goes for dragons - he never draws a line saying that polygamy was not possible after the dragons were gone. Ever. More likely objections/more difficult to defy the Faith and custom =/= impossible.

Not to mention that what the faith decreed (or not) is worth shit when marriages by old gods procedure are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking Ned Stark and his sister, not some power-greedy southerners.

And yes, we can be pretty much sure that the Targ polygamy was never officially abolished, both text-wise and SSM-wise.How many times is Aegon and his two sister-wives mentioned in the text? Aplenty. How many times is the Targ incest mentioned? Even more. How many times is the unacceptability of the Targ incest mentioned? Aplenty, time and again. How many times is the unacceptability of polygamy mentioned? Not. Once. What does GRRM say about polygamy? There may have been some later examples, he doesn't remember. Not a word about any concessions to the Faith. Not. One. The same goes for dragons - he never draws a line saying that polygamy was not possible after the dragons were gone. Ever. More likely objections/more difficult to defy the Faith and custom =/= impossible.

Poor Blackwoods. GRRM showed us how tough they were and faithful to the old gods and that Bloodraven hailed from them and you just scrap them as "power-greedy southerners"?

But I still don't get where you get the certainty that Lyanna wasn't "dishonored". Perhaps Ned doesn't judge them so hard because he has some understanding for a couple in love? Or Lyanna became totally disillusioned with Rhaegar and told Ned on her deathbed that Rhaegar only wanted her for the prophecy and for a third child. Both would explain why he doesn't think it was common for Rhaegar to visit brothels, while he still "dishonored" Lyanna.

Yes, Aegon and his sisters were mentioned plenty. Aegon and his sisters had married and died before Jaehaerys came to rule.

GRRM might have said that, but GRRM sometimes changes his mind. He also said Rhaenyra's first husband was a Strong or that Aegon III's second wife was a Velaryon (which, it appers, changed). Anyhow, I think that Jaehaerys must have offered something to the Faith to show good will and to renew a good relatioship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Blackwoods. GRRM showed us how tough they were and faithful to the old gods and that Bloodraven hailed from them and you just scrap them as "power-greedy southerners"?

But I still don't get where you get the certainty that Lyanna wasn't "dishonored". Perhaps Ned doesn't judge them so hard because he has some understanding for a couple in love? Or Lyanna became totally disillusioned with Rhaegar and told Ned on her deathbed that Rhaegar only wanted her for the prophecy and for a third child. Both would explain why he doesn't think it was common for Rhaegar to visit brothels, while he still "dishonored" Lyanna.

Yes, Aegon and his sisters were mentioned plenty. Aegon and his sisters had married and died before Jaehaerys came to rule.

GRRM might have said that, but GRRM sometimes changes his mind. He also said Rhaenyra's first husband was a Strong or that Aegon III's second wife was a Velaryon (which, it appers, changed). Anyhow, I think that Jaehaerys must have offered something to the Faith to show good will and to renew a good relatioship.

I don't see much difference between them and the Boleyns who were all too happy to shove one daughter after another into the king's bed, for all the benefits it brought them, and I don't see the Starks conceding to that for a single second.

As for Rhaegar not frequenting brothels, you are failing to grasp the whole point of the comparison that Ned draws between Rhaegar and Robert: he concludes that Rhaegar was the better man. That is not consistent with Rhaegar dishonouring Lyanna in any way. Plus, there is this very peculiar passage:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

Why does the talk of Targaryen, and namely Rhaegar's, honour, evoke the thought of Lyanna, and one that Ned holds back from Robert? There is no reason to hush hush about Rhaegar being dishonourable because that's what Robert thinks, anyway. It's Rhaegar doing the honourable thing that Ned cannot tell.

The argument about GRRM changing his mind is really weak, because in the course of five books, he clearly hasn't, with exactly zero negative comments about polygamy. The two SSMs concerning polygamy are from different years, as well, and when Jorah suggests Dany that she should take more than one spouse, he doesn't mention any obstacle, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that what the faith decreed (or not) is worth shit when marriages by old gods procedure are concerned.

... and just to expand on that point, the Old Gods apparently don't seem to forbid polygamy per se. We know of several polygamous WIldlings.

There's no proof that the old gods enable polygamous marriages. Craster and his daughter-wives are an anomaly. Not even the other wildlings do polygamy IIRC. And even if they did, their marriage customs are different from those on the other side of the Wall, the kidnapping and all.

Anyway, I don't see how it would matter anyway. I doubt that Jaehaerys would write the new law down with a note that it doesn't apply if the couple married in front the old gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no proof that the old gods enable polygamous marriages. Craster and his daughter-wives are an anomaly. Not even the other wildlings do polygamy IIRC. And even if they did, their marriage customs are different from those on the other side of the Wall, the kidnapping and all.

You don't recall correctly, one more practitioner is specifically mentioned. And while there are certain deviations, the religion and the marriage procedure are fundamentally the same. (Note also that it is the incest that causes offence, not once does anyone note that Crasters marriages but the first are invalid (supposing your point was correct)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Rhaegar not frequenting brothels, you are failing to grasp the whole point of the comparison that Ned draws between Rhaegar and Robert: he concludes that Rhaegar was the better man. That is not consistent with Rhaegar dishonouring Lyanna in any way. Plus, there is this very peculiar passage:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”
“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

Why does the talk of Targaryen, and namely Rhaegar's, honour, evoke the thought of Lyanna, and one that Ned holds back from Robert? There is no reason to hush hush about Rhaegar being dishonourable because that's what Robert thinks, anyway. It's Rhaegar doing the honourable thing that Ned cannot tell.

The argument about GRRM changing his mind is really weak, because in the course of five books, he clearly hasn't, with exactly zero negative comments about polygamy. The two SSMs concerning polygamy are from different years, as well, and when Jorah suggests Dany that she should take more than one spouse, he doesn't mention any obstacle, either.

But Ned never calls Rhaegar honorable! Apparently, he doesn't think he was a rapist or a whoremonger, but that doesn't mean that Ned thinks that Rhaegar never strayed! Lyanna's not a whore from a brotherl. Rhaegar didn't elope with her just to get him some good sword sheathing.

My argument is not weak. It's fair game. You used SSM as a proof of your hypothesis, I showed you that GRRM already went against what he had stated in SSM in other cases.

Jorah is desperate to get into Dany's pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, it took quite some time to read all the posts that were placed here since yesterday evening :)

I think this is exactly it. I might be entirely wrong, but I don't find the "orders" bit of all of this to be particularly confusing or contradictory in the slightest. I think people often make it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Here's a rough sketch of how I think it went down.

Whent and Dayne were Rhaegar's personal detail, "loaned" to him by Aerys. In that capacity, they would follow Rhaegar's orders until Aerys recalled them and/or gave them orders that superseded Rhaegar's. In that capacity, they were with Rhaegar when he "abducted" Lyanna (I think probably from Harrenhal, not immediately after the tournament but from Harrenhal nonetheless).

Whent and Dayne continue to be in Rhaegar's servce when he and Lyanna end up relocating to Dorne and going into hiding. Because Aerys does not know where the two men are, exactly, he can't recall them or give them superseding orders. But as the war goes on, he sends Hightower to get Rhaegar back.

Now this is where it gets critical. Is it a loophole, absolutely. Does it still work as a valid explanation, absolutely.

I think that Aerys's orders to Hightower were probably broad. "We need Rhaegar to lead the army, make sure he gets back here." Something to that effect. Hightower goes off and manages to track down Rhaegar. Rhaegar agrees to go back, but orders Hightower to stay at the Tower. That does not contradict Aerys's order. Hightower can fulfill his order — getting Rhaegar back — and also fulfill Rhaegar's order to stay at the Tower. Rhaegar goes back and dies, and Aerys still has no way to reach the three men at the Tower. He can't recall them even if he wanted to because he doesn't know where they are. And because Rhaegar gave them a valid order, one Aerys can't override, the men have to stay. They can't "pick and choose" the orders to follow in this instance; they might want to go back and fight, but they can't.

Fast forward. Rhaegar dies at the Trident and soon after, Aerys and Aegon die in the capital. The Kingsguard stay where they are, even though it turns out, from Ned's memory, that they were aware of what had happened. So why are they still there? You would think it could be Rhaegar's orders, but no. Rhaegar is dead, and Viserys, the new king supposedly, is on Dragonstone unprotected. The orders of the dead prince that were in force when he was alive are not valid now that there is a new king and Rhaegar is dead. I also think that if the men had learned about Rhaegar's death before they knew about Aerys's, one or more would have left the Tower to go to Aerys. However, I think they learned about all three deaths at the same time. Meaning, there was never anything they could have done for Aerys or Aegon.

But they're still at the Tower, knowing that Aegon, Aerys and Rhaegar are dead. They are the last loyal members of their Kingsguard. So why aren't they now en route to Viserys? Because Viserys isn't the king now.

The "orders" thing is a matter of timing (the men have to learn about the three deaths at the same time; if they learn about Rhaegar before the Sack, it doesn't work) and loophole exploitation (Rhaegar exploiting that loophole to keep Hightower in Dorne even when he went back), but it still makes perfect sense and more importantly it significantly cuts down on hand-wringing, contradictions and confusion.

All of those bolded parts are spot on. Aerys was in a paranoid state, and he send Hightower away to find Rhaegar. I absolutely think that Aerys did not give the order "find Rhaegar and return with him" but more something along the line "Go and find my son and see that he returns to the city", expecting Hightower to come back with Rhaegar, but never ordering him to do so.

Once Rhaegar had returned and died, Aerys had indeed no way of knowing where the other three KG were - Rhaegar most likely wouldn't have told him, and he would have been the only person who could have known.

After learning of the deaths of Aerys, Aegon and Rhaegar, they remain. That itself is a major hint. They don't go to Viserys, but they remain behind, to guard whatever is in that tower.

Either it is their first duty to protect the king, or it is their first duty to obey orders. It can't be both. You claim that obeying orders takes priority, yet, for some reason, Barristan says that the first duty is to protect the king.

How about this:

The three KG at ToJ were obeying the orders they had gotten, which became their number 1 duty until both the King, and the man who gave them the order was dead. That's when they found themselves in the presence of the new king (Jon), and they continued to remain at ToJ because they are now protecting their new king.

And when push came to shove, Aerys could and probably would have ordered Dayne, Whent and Hightower back into service. That would have been more important to him than that they were guarding Lyanna. That the three men's orders were never overridden by Aerys strongly implies that this was because he couldn't override them (read: he didn't know where they were and had no way to access them), not because he had no reason to.

That's a very important detail, agreed.

Which is why it would be good to know just how Hightower found them. He may have been the "contact," but was persuaded otherwise.

Ned discovered Lyanna's location at ToJ at sometime between leaving KL and leaving Storm's End. Perhaps Hightower found out from the same person that Hightower found out from. By the time Hightower left KL to search for Rhaegar, the siege of Storm's End had already started. Those same people would still be present at Storms End when Ned arrived.

Are you referring to your assumption that Rhaegar's order died when he did? I think that is incorrect for two reasons. First, it is contradicted by the quote from Martin. He was asked why they stayed and fought Ned, and he said it was Rhaegar's order. At that point they knew Rhaegar was dead but they still followed his order.

Second, in the Princess and the Queen,


King Viserys gave an order for Otto Hightower to serve as Hand. It says that even after Viserys died, that order would remain in force until a new king was proclaimed.


So until a new king is proclaimed (or a Regent is established) and Rhaegar's order was countermanded, Rhaegar's order would stand.

I think you take the meaning of what's under your spoilertag wrong. Otto Hightower remained to serve as Hand until a new King was proclaimed, as Viserys I had proclaimed him his Hand, yes. But Otto has to remain Hand until a new King is proclaimed, since only a King can name a Hand, and more importantly, unname him, and for that, you'll need a king. Which is why Otto remains Hand not matter what until there is a new king, who can then choose to keep Otto on as Hand, or name another.

For the reasons as to why the three KG remained at ToJ when they knew Rhaegar was dead, see above. And for further explanation, see below :)

They still followed the order because at that point Jon was the king. It's two different things (Rhaegar's order, Jon being king) that yield the same outcome (Kingsguard at the Tower).

Yes!!!!!!!!! :D

And they could both keep Rhaegar's order to protect the tower and their duty to defend the king... if they split up. Which they didn't do.

There was no reason to do that. Until Aerys gave the order for the three KG to return to the city, they were allowed to follow Rhaegar's order to remain at ToJ. When Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were all dead, Rhaegar's orders might no longer have been in power, but their duty to protect the king kicked in again, and their King was exactly where they were.

Had the news of Rhaegar's death reached them before the news of Aerys' death, it might have been a complete different situation. But in between the Trident and the Sack was only a fortnight, and complete armies were racing towards KL. Westeros at that point was in chaos, and it would have taken a while to get this information to an isolated location. It would first have to reach the people who knew about the location of the three KG.

Especially Hightower. Dayne and Whent were apparently Rhaegar's buddies but not him. The man who put the KG vow above anything. No way he would have left Viserys without a single KG.

Unless Viserys wasn't the King, which, if Jon is legit, was the case.

If we assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and Jon was their legitimate son, that still does not make him king. At best he occupies the same position as Aerion Brightflame's son occupied when King Maekar died: he was the son of a dead prince and the grandson of a dead king. Viserys occupies a position similar to that of Prince Egg: younger son of the dead king.

When Maekar died there was no king until a great council was convened to decide between the rival claimants. In the end, Prince Egg became Aegon IV.

Hightower Dayne and Whent would have known this. They would also know that King's guards should not play the game of thrones, so they would not have taken it upon themselves to crown Jon. If they were guarding Jon it was because he was a potential claimant, not because he was the king.

Actually, that makes him the first in line for the throne.

The fact that the position of Aerion's son matches Jon's and Egg's position matches Viserys' position, doesn't mean that Viserys would automatically be chosen over Jon. What was decided during one council, might not have been decided by another council, filled with other men, at another time in history.

Seeing Jon as their new king would not be crowning Jon themselves. They saw Jon as their new king. Nowhere are hints to a coronation given. They would have been guarding Jon because he was the legit king, coronation or no.

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.

I doubt that Rhaella was ever considered a claimant. She was a woman, and besides, she had a living son by the former king, who became said kings heir, if Jon wasn't legit. Rhaella would not stand a chance to gain the throne for as long as Viserys lived. Even if she remained unaware of Jon's existence (which she did). Had she learned about Jon's existence (and his legality), she would have dropped another position. Jon as Rhaegar's legal son would be the first in line, followed by Viserys, followed by Daenerys, followed by Rhaella. Jon as Rhaegar's bastard would not be in any position to inherit unless a monarch legalized him, which no monarch would do because it would mean they would lose the throne, as making Jon legal would most likely put him in front of them in the line of succession.

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.

It's true that Ned didn't truly know Rhaegar, but rumours surfacing about a man says a lot in Westeros. Since there were no rumours about Rhaegar visiting brothels, it becomes less likely (though not unlikely) that he ever did.

But indeed we don't know much about Rhaegar's character, we only know how other people felt about him. And that doesn't say everything. It only says something.

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?

That right there. :D That's an extremely important detail in the whole "is Jon legit?" question in R+L=J.

"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.

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.

These questes of you show that Hightower took his vows seriously. And I agree, what Hightower says is we swore a vow to guard the king. But the fact that Jon Darry says a similar thing to Jaime can be taken as another hint that Hightower would remain to guard the king. He swore to obey, after all.

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.

Aegon was chosen over Aerion's son not only because Aerion was mad, but because it was a time of war (Maekar died fighting against a rebel lord). Naming an infant as your king would put the realm in the hands of the Regent and Hand. Crowning Aegon had the advantage that Aegon was an adult, with at least two children of his own (Jaehaerys II, Aegon's second son, was born in 223 AC, so he was 10 at the time of Aegon's coronation). But not only did Aegon already have heirs, he was an adult who was capable of making decisions on his own, and capable of leading a war.

The additional bonus was that Aegon and his children would have been old enough to determine if they were crazy, which they obviously weren't (or at least not at much as Aerion had been). Any taint Aerion might have passed on to his son, would disappear from the throne by crowning Aegon.

And again, exactly. Viserys didn't have any KG with him because he wasn't king. And thus, the KG weren't forced by their vows to protect him.

'One istance' isn't good enough. That of Aegon is the only example we have, but it's made pretty clear that it was an exceptional occasion. The law of succession of the Targaryen was exactly the same as in the rest of Westeros, with the exclusion of women inheriting, and in the books is made pretty clear on more than one occasion that a son comes before an uncle (on the top of my head, the Karstarks - Alys complaining that her uncles stole the seat from Harry - though I'm pretty sure there were others).
I simply don't see why you are insisting with this 'claimant' thing - I really don't see the point. There were no loyal lords left, no one to call a council or whatever, and what you're suggesting only complicates things with no apparent reason. Occam's razor, that's all I'm saying.

Because a child in a castle under siege is obviously as safe as an adult, likely a trained warrior, on dragonback.

In Westeros (except for Dorne) a son comes before an uncle. But a daughter comes before an uncle as well. However, the inheritance for the throne goes a bit differently. Even if there are still daughters of a dead king left, the throne won't go to them, or their sons, but to the kings brothers, or nephews by said brothers, should he have those. Are all the direct males dead, only then will the throne stand a chance to go to the sons of daughters, or to those daughters themselves (in the case of there being no sons).

Also, Viserys wasn't under siege at Dragonstone. Stannis first had to build a fleet, in order to lay siege on Dragonstone.

Tock, tock.

Are you deaf?

If Jon were their king they had to OBEY LYANNA.

Did she tell the to kill her brother? NUTS.

That's the killer point, but their own behaviour is wrong. They are doing something related to the Targs, and it can't be Jon.

It's you who are going in circles in plain denial. Of course they had vows, and duties to their king. It wasn't Jon.

You can keep refusing to see.

This has come up many times before. Being the mother of a king does not automatically make you the regent of said king. I don't know where you've gotten that from.

I don't think the plot was thrown away after Harrenhal. Jaime remebers Rhaegar saying he would make changes at court that he should have made beore when he returned from the Trident.

Perhaps I said it a bit difficult. The plot to overtake Aerys disappeared after Aerys had come along to Harrenhall, and in the following year, Rhaegar appears to have not showed any desire to plot again (though I believe this was because Elia got pregnant again, and it would have been a risk for Rhaegar to start a coupe when his wife was pregnant with tPtwP). After Aegon's birth, Rhaegar was occupied with Lyanna, and either missed Aerys' crazy actions during the early stages of the war completely, or he ignored them, perhaps because it was more important to him to get Lyanna with child. Most likely it was a combination of the two, and he only learned the seriousness of the situation after Hightower filled him in on it.

Upon his return to KL, the plot came to his mind again, and this time he was determined to see it through after the end of the war.

I think the theory in question is more about fAegon than Jon. GRRM said a mystery that's been around since ACoK would be resolved, but R+L=J is even older than that.

So any idea which mystery was introduced in aCoK only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see much difference between them and the Boleyns who were all too happy to shove one daughter after another into the king's bed, for all the benefits it brought them, and I don't see the Starks conceding to that for a single second.

As for Rhaegar not frequenting brothels, you are failing to grasp the whole point of the comparison that Ned draws between Rhaegar and Robert: he concludes that Rhaegar was the better man. That is not consistent with Rhaegar dishonouring Lyanna in any way. Plus, there is this very peculiar passage:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

Why does the talk of Targaryen, and namely Rhaegar's, honour, evoke the thought of Lyanna, and one that Ned holds back from Robert? There is no reason to hush hush about Rhaegar being dishonourable because that's what Robert thinks, anyway. It's Rhaegar doing the honourable thing that Ned cannot tell.

The argument about GRRM changing his mind is really weak, because in the course of five books, he clearly hasn't, with exactly zero negative comments about polygamy. The two SSMs concerning polygamy are from different years, as well, and when Jorah suggests Dany that she should take more than one spouse, he doesn't mention any obstacle, either.

On the matter of the Boleyn parallel, I completely agree. Were the girls complicit in what they did?

Yes, but only in the sense, they were raised from birth by greedy, ambitious parents to put their daughters out there for the familys benefit.

In that way, I think they are more comprable to the Tyrells and Margaery who seems happy to go along, but only because that is all she has ever known, and probably at the knee of Lady Olenna who I bet has a score to settle with the royals.

And while all families lobbied for good marriages for their daughters, the Boleyns/Tyrells seem just over-the-top, and no, I don't think the Starks rise to that occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Ned never calls Rhaegar honorable! Apparently, he doesn't think he was a rapist or a whoremonger, but that doesn't mean that Ned thinks that Rhaegar never strayed! Lyanna's not a whore from a brotherl. Rhaegar didn't elope with her just to get him some good sword sheathing.

<snip>

Turn it the other way, you are looking at things through the wrong end. If Rhaegar had dishonored Lyanna Ned is not going to think of him in any positive light at all. He is not going to think of the two Kingsguard that helped Rhaegar with Lyanna (Whent and Dayne) as a shining example for all of the world, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't recall correctly, one more practitioner is specifically mentioned. And while there are certain deviations, the religion and the marriage procedure are fundamentally the same. (Note also that it is the incest that causes offence, not once does anyone note that Crasters marriages but the first are invalid (supposing your point was correct)).

Name of whose is...?

How do you know it's the same? We've never seen a wildling marriage ceremony. If there is any. Maybe the wildlings don't do weddings and have only "common law" type of marriage, i.e. that woman lives with that man, so she's his wife, no ceremony needed. Also, that kidnapping and wife cutting her husband's throat on the wedding night seems to be more than some minor deviations. Their customs plain and simple differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...