Jump to content

Archived

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

Stubby

R+L=J v 75

Recommended Posts

Been there. Was trying to avoid it this time around.

That's going to require quite a bit of getting . . . oh, nevermind. Now I'm just proving Corbin's point.

When in Rome. Sometimes it's better to go with the flow, people sometimes need to get it out of their system. And in no way could I pass up deflowering and Ned. Besides the imagery is what it is, now the symbolism? You know that's really a different animal. You can do a lot with that, but the text does suggest more. The rose petal storm, the bed of blood, all tie to that moment with Rhaegars big lance in Lyannas rose crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine and dandy, sometimes a sword is just a sword. Your ceremony sounds rather lovely, actually.

Allow me to tell a very ordinary story. I promise, it doesn't involve any real swords. Once, a woman's family went to a fancy restaurant for a celebratory dinner. A woman's husband did not immediately put his napkin in his lap. When the pretty hostess saw it, she offered, quite professionally, to place it in his lap. He could have cared less about slipping up on the etiquette, but was extremely uncomfortable and embarrassed by her being anywhere near his lap. He blurted out, "No, I'll do it myself!" snatched it out of her hands and turned about sixteen shades of red.

Also, back when I was in school and attended formal dances, our dates always struggled to find appropriate ways to pin corsages on our dresses. They were quite relieved when the kind that goes on the wrist became popular. So perhaps it is a cultural perspective.

Thank you for trying.

I don't think the same cultural perspective applies to a knight in armour using his lance to award a crown to a lady sitting in a stand with (probably) her hands in her lap.

I also think that Westerosi cultural is somewhat more... earthily grounded, if you like, than certain modern cultures are. At least based on what we see of a wide variety of characters through the books. Although that argues both for and against lap connotations being significant. :)

ETA: of course, you make me think of another point, which is that not everything sexual need be smutty :) Like the symbolic bowing of heads in the laps of the people who gave you life, it can be reverent, too.

Sure. It definitely turned into smuttily fun (which is not necessarily a bad thing, just annoying when you are puzzling at a genuine thread) thing here though.

And the idea that it was rude, surely indicates a bad connotation, smut over reverence, no?

Ok, the practical reality of the 5000 - 6000 page fantasy series, written by a man who coined the term fat pink mast. Martins a bit of a perv and something you may want to get used to is imagery, metaphors and symbolism within fiction, they are standard literary devices employed by writers.

You miss the point. Its been claimed that this was a rude thing to do because, more or less, of the literary metaphors.

The reason I'm struggling to accept this is because the characters are dealing with the real, practical effects, not the literary allusions the readers deal with. Characters actions and responses need to relate to the real, rather than the allusory. They are living the story, not reading and analysing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily important whether or not the physical act was impolite in any way, but the mere suggestion of sexual overtones being implied is what establishes the symbolism. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could be a completely chivalrous act, yet also serve as R+L=J symbolism.



If you accept the blue rose = Jon symbolism, this scene tells a portion of the R+L=J story. Rhaegar bypasses Elia for Lyanna, and places the symbolic Jon in her lap.



Also, for the record, there's no mention of a lance during the crowning. Not that I think it matters much either way.

Robert had been jesting with Jon and old Lord Hunter as the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion’s crown. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty’s laurel in Lyanna’s lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.
- AGoT, Eddard XV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to respond to this critical analysis?

Is Jon the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Meaning: Were Rhaegar and Lyanna married?

Part I

Its an extraordinary claim one that requires Rhaegar secretly to have pursued polygamy for the first time in many generations of Targaryen rule.

If you're going to make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

But those making the claim haven't provided much evidence at all. All they have is the presence of three of Aerys Kingsguard at the ToJ when Ned arrived. Their idea is: "KG are sworn to guard the king. The KG were at the ToJ. So was baby Jon. Therefore, baby Jon must be the king."

Now, GRRM has been asked about this exact subject. And very unusually for him, hes given a direct answer.

This is quite plain. Rhaegar ordered the KG to stay at the ToJ, before he rode off to his eventual death at the Trident, and long before Jon was even born. That's why the KG did stay at the ToJ until Ned showed up.

Now, GRRMs statement above has been dismissed by R+L=J people, very heatedly and repeatedly. Usually, they roll out this kind of reasoning: "Rhaegars orders died with him. The KG would not have been bound by Rhaegar's orders after the Trident."

Well, you can read what GRRM actually said, above, and decide for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, in any dispute between GRRM and some of his fans, I side with GRRM.

PART II

I would find the Jon Is King! argument weak anyway, even without the above, for other reasons. Here are just two of them.

1. We have excellent reason to think the KG don't always defend the king.

Notice that the KG at the ToJ did not move to defend King Aerys the living Targaryen king after Rhaegar's forces were defeated at the Trident, when Aerys' life was in blatant danger.

This, again, is quite straightforward. It clearly suggests that the KG did not consider themselves bound by oath to guard the Targaryen king, in person, under all circumstances. Instead, they consider themselves subject to the direct orders of the royal family, and they assume (and hope) the royal family knows what it's doing, in issuing those orders.

Here's the typical R+L=J response: "The KG didn't know Rhaegar lost, or Aerys was in peril. The ToJ was off the raven network. And they had no other possible way to get news quickly."

Here's the problem with that idea: There is no such statement in the books at all. It's just a convenient assumption, like the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, that pleases certain people.

Furthermore, we know for sure that the KG did get news fairly quickly. Because by the time Ned showed up, the news that Aerys was dead, and Jaime killed him, beat him there. The three KG already knew it.

So the Jon Is King! crowd is a bit trapped. They think that information was slow getting to the ToJ, and that's why the KG never tried to guard King Aerys. But they also think that information was quick getting to the ToJ, and that's why it outran Ned. These ideas can't both be true.

My own belief is that the KG got their information quickly. It seems likely they did know Aerys was in trouble, and yet were bound by strict orders from Rhaegar, which predated Jon's birth, to remain at the ToJ carrying out some ultra-important mission.

This, you will notice, is exactly what GRRM suggests above. He is implying the ToJ KG wanted to leave the ToJ, because they knew full well what was happening but they were bound by strict orders given by Rhaegar.

2. Ned's dialogue with the KG at the ToJ also contains a couple of other very interesting hints on this subject. I just recently noticed these.

Let's walk through that dialogue.

Structurally, it's quite simple. Ned is asking the three KG where the hell they have been all this time. He points out four different places they could have been. Then the KG explain why they weren't there.

The first two are the Trident and the Sack. I've already discussed those two above.

The third location is Storm's End, when Ned showed up there to lift the siege. Now, notice there were no Targaryens at Storm's End at that time. Ned knows that. So Storm's End shouldn't even be on his list, right?

Yet he still thinks the three KG could all have been there -- and not with Viserys on Dragonstone. Why does Ned think that's possible?

Because he knows the KG are bound to follow their orders whether those orders include personally guarding the royal family or not. This, again, supports what GRRM said above, about orders being the determining factor in KG behavior.

The fourth location Ned brings up is even more suggestive. Ned says:

Here, Ned is moving backwards in time to a point after the Trident, but before the Sack. Because that's when Viserys sailed.

Now, if you've read this far, you know what the Jon Is King! crowd should predict the KG answer should be:

"We, the KG, couldn't have sailed with Viserys before the Sack. We had no idea Rhaegar had died, or that the royal family was even threatened, until the Sack had already happened. We were getting our information very slowly."

But that's not what the KG say. Not at all:

Again: They don't say "we couldn't have fled with Viserys, because we didn't know he was fleeing."

They say "we didn't flee with Viserys. Because we are Kingsguard and Kingsguard don't flee. Then or now."

The clear implication is that the KG knew what was happening all along. They were getting information rapidly, and that info included the fact that Viserys and Rhaella were about to flee to Dragonstone -- before the Sack happened.

Now, once again if the KG were getting rapid information, that means they chose not to guard King Aerys, even knowing he was in danger after Rhaegar lost at the Trident. Instead, they followed Rhaegar's direct orders (just as GRRM explicitly said).

Which means the KG are not always bound by oath to personally guard the king at all times, but instead, are bound to follow direct orders.

Which means that their presence at the ToJ when Ned arrived does not prove baby Jon was the king.

Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

Found here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/105550-heresy-102-of-ice-and-fire/page-12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily important whether or not the physical act was impolite in any way, but the mere suggestion of sexual overtones being implied is what establishes the symbolism. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could be a completely chivalrous act, yet also serve as R+L=J symbolism.

If you accept the blue rose = Jon symbolism, this scene tells a portion of the R+L=J story. Rhaegar bypasses Elia for Lyanna, and places the symbolic Jon in her lap.

Also, for the record, there's no mention of a lance during the crowning. Not that I think it matters much either way. - AGoT, Eddard XV

Perhaps Rhaegar was setting the bait in an attempt to kidnap Lyanna and hold her hostage to prevent a prophecy from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its obvious that while I enjoy this endeavor, trying to decipher the outcomes, I do it with a grain of salt and some levity.

The symbolisms we were having fun with do carry serious undertones when contemplating the notion that the moment Rhaegar fell in love with Lyanna, THAT was when he started fulfilling prophesy.

Rather than consciously carrying out certain behaviors according to some metaphysical script, his very genuine, emotional response to Lyanna THROUGH his possibly impulsive behavior at the Tourney, predict his later actions and the birth of Jon.

The symbolisms are the "bread crumbs," and for the reader.

In terms of the culture in relation to the characters in this pseudo Medieval society, given that the morning after real Medieval weddings, the bedding sheet was displayed before all and sundry to prove the bride had been a maid, yes, such things were close, personal and certainly relevant to the individual, particularly the bride especially in regards to the consequences to the bride if the sheet did not give evidence to her prior purity.

Medieval character was also a study conflicting elements. It was both brutal and tender, pious and bawdy.

Finally on Rhaegar, I think it entirely feasible that a man as tightly contained and wound as Rhaegar would actually be quite awkward and impulsive in love as I've seen such people in real life, so in that moment, in the stands, all he saw was Lyanna as Jorah saw Lynesse and destiny, and I dont think he needed prophesy to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to respond to this critical analysis?

Found here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/105550-heresy-102-of-ice-and-fire/page-12

Sure, here's my response: None of the regulars in this thread take his posts seriously, which is why he took his sideshow act to Heresy.

He was probably best known around here as someone who would make really bizarre observations. For example, he used to say that, while Lyanna is Jon's mother, we can't be sure who the father is because there were possibly a bunch of unaccounted for penises in her vicinity, during her disappearance. Because, you know, we can't really be sure that Lyanna wasn't sleeping with like four, five or maybe even twenty different guys during that time. Also, "Rhaegar could have been in Essos the whole time" prior to returning to KL, is another gem of his that I recall. So, to say that "he doesn't get it" would be putting it mildly.

It's not even an argument against the legitimacy theory that we have to make certain assumptions, based on inferences, because we don't have all of the evidence, or a proverbial smoking gun. It's simply the reality of where we are in the series – five books into a seven or eight book series. And, fwiw, any theory is going to require a certain number of assumptions. For example, JNR assumes that the KG at the ToJ were getting information rapidly.

Btw, I don't think it should be lost on anyone that this 'analysis' was posted in a Heresy thread. If you have something important or relevant to R+L=J that you want put to the test, you post it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily important whether or not the physical act was impolite in any way, but the mere suggestion of sexual overtones being implied is what establishes the symbolism. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could be a completely chivalrous act, yet also serve as R+L=J symbolism.

If you accept the blue rose = Jon symbolism, this scene tells a portion of the R+L=J story. Rhaegar bypasses Elia for Lyanna, and places the symbolic Jon in her lap.

All that I can go with no trouble it all. That didn;t appear to me to be the presentatio though. Maybe I was wrong.

Also, for the record, there's no mention of a lance during the crowning. Not that I think it matters much either way.

- AGoT, Eddard XV

Sure, but he's just competed with a Lance and Lyanna is probably up in a stand of sorts (see Sansa for example, so its a natural fit for the scene. Such a situation doesn't leave a lot of options for him to present her with the crown, especially in a way that is sudden enough to cause the shock effect it does.

It seems much reminiscent of a knight on horseback receiving a Lady's favour from the stand as a penant, except in reverse.

Maybe I've seen too much Ivanhoe style imagery...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to respond to this critical analysis?

Found here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/105550-heresy-102-of-ice-and-fire/page-12

Part I

Its an extraordinary claim one that requires Rhaegar secretly to have pursued polygamy for the first time in many generations of Targaryen rule.

If you're going to make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

But those making the claim haven't provided much evidence at all. All they have is the presence of three of Aerys Kingsguard at the ToJ when Ned arrived. Their idea is: "KG are sworn to guard the king. The KG were at the ToJ. So was baby Jon. Therefore, baby Jon must be the king."

Polygamy is an alternative, as is setting aside Elia and marrying Lyanna, and a decree legitimizing Rhaegar's child. Each possibility has pro's and con's. The latter two are covered in the text. The fact that Jon (in R+L=J) was born over a year after Lyanna went missing gives Rhaegar a minimum of 3 months to find a solution.

For extraordinary proof check Ned's dialogue in the crypts of winterfell: The wife has lost a husband. Perhaps the mother fears to lose the son. It can apply equally to Lysa and Lyanna. The last thoughts given for Ned were about Lyanna.

Then we have the KG at ToJ showing there was something very valuable to Rhaegar there.

Then we have Lyanna's burial in the WE crypts

Then we have the Raven Jon King

Then we have Thorne's grudge

Then we have Jon commenting about his own royal blood v.s. Mance's

Not going in to all the general hints or clues but to dismiss them all seems silly.

Now, GRRM has been asked about this exact subject. And very unusually for him, hes given a direct answer.

Now, GRRM is not the text. I don't follow interviews and hardly care to do so. If it is in the text, then fine. Until then, we work with what we have. If there is an author's edition released we could discuss it.

This is quite plain. Rhaegar ordered the KG to stay at the ToJ, before he rode off to his eventual death at the Trident, and long before Jon was even born. That's why the KG did stay at the ToJ until Ned showed up.

Now, GRRMs statement above has been dismissed by R+L=J people, very heatedly and repeatedly. Usually, they roll out this kind of reasoning: "Rhaegars orders died with him. The KG would not have been bound by Rhaegar's orders after the Trident."

Well, you can read what GRRM actually said, above, and decide for yourself.

That is not supported by the text. If GRRM had included Rhaegar's ability to order the KG we would have something. He didnt. So we don't.

As far as I'm concerned, in any dispute between GRRM and some of his fans, I side with GRRM.

Try siding with the text rather that fan's or the author.

PART II

I would find the Jon Is King! argument weak anyway, even without the above, for other reasons. Here are just two of them.

1. We have excellent reason to think the KG don't always defend the king.

Notice that the KG at the ToJ did not move to defend King Aerys the living Targaryen king after Rhaegar's forces were defeated at the Trident, when Aerys' life was in blatant danger.

We have a statement of the obvious: The ToJ is not KL and an assumption that the KG learned about Rhaegar and Aerys in time to act.

This, again, is quite straightforward. It clearly suggests that the KG did not consider themselves bound by oath to guard the Targaryen king, in person, under all circumstances. Instead, they consider themselves subject to the direct orders of the royal family, and they assume (and hope) the royal family knows what it's doing, in issuing those orders.

The KG were at the ToJ suggests they had good reason to be there. You kind of added obey the royal family instead of the textual protect the royal family and obey the orders of the king.

Hightower was ordered by Aerys to return Rhaegar to KL. We can leave that as such for the moment.

Here's the typical R+L=J response: "The KG didn't know Rhaegar lost, or Aerys was in peril. The ToJ was off the raven network. And they had no other possible way to get news quickly."

Here's the problem with that idea: There is no such statement in the books at all. It's just a convenient assumption, like the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, that pleases certain people.

Furthermore, we know for sure that the KG did get news fairly quickly. Because by the time Ned showed up, the news that Aerys was dead, and Jaime killed him, beat him there. The three KG already knew it.

A valid point, however I can't concede the like R married L at the moment.

So the Jon Is King! crowd is a bit trapped. They think that information was slow getting to the ToJ, and that's why the KG never tried to guard King Aerys. But they also think that information was quick getting to the ToJ, and that's why it outran Ned. These ideas can't both be true.u

This is actually a false dilemma. Ned did not travel directly to the ToJ. He travelled with an army to lift the seige on storm's end. That would have made his progress a crawl at best for at least half of his journey. The KG did not seem aware that the Tyrells had surrendered.

My own belief is that the KG got their information quickly. It seems likely they did know Aerys was in trouble, and yet were bound by strict orders from Rhaegar, which predated Jon's birth, to remain at the ToJ carrying out some ultra-important mission.This, you will notice, is exactly what GRRM suggests above. He is implying the ToJ KG wanted to leave the ToJ, because they knew full well what was happening but they were bound by strict orders given by Rhaegar.

I prefer not to deall with implied and likely as you were so kind to point out in your points against R married L. Relying on your assiptions on the author's interview to make claims not found in the book is rougly the same as the speculation you earlier mocked.

2. Ned's dialogue with the KG at the ToJ also contains a couple of other very interesting hints on this subject. I just recently noticed these.

Let's walk through that dialogue.

Structurally, it's quite simple. Ned is asking the three KG where the hell they have been all this time. He points out four different places they could have been. Then the KG explain why they weren't there.

The first two are the Trident and the Sack. I've already discussed those two above.

The third location is Storm's End, when Ned showed up there to lift the siege. Now, notice there were no Targaryens at Storm's End at that time. Ned knows that.

So Storm's End shouldn't even be on his list, right? Yet he still thinks the three KG could all have been there -- and not with Viserys on Dragonstone. Why does Ned think that's possible?

Storm's End is next on the list of Royalist defeats and shows the KG that the royal allies are finished.

Because he knows the KG are bound to follow their orders whether those orders include personally guarding the royal family or not. This, again, supports what GRRM said above, about orders being the determining factor in KG behavior.

Repeating the following orders and relying on your assumptions about George do not actually help your case.

The fourth location Ned brings up is even more suggestive. Ned says:

Here, Ned is moving backwards in time to a point after the Trident, but before the Sack. Because that's when Viserys sailed.

Now, if you've read this far, you know what the Jon Is King! crowd should predict the KG answer should be:

"We, the KG, couldn't have sailed with Viserys before the Sack. We had no idea Rhaegar had died, or that the royal family was even threatened, until the Sack had already happened. We were getting our information very slowly."

Nice piece of fanfiction here.... aside from the fact that it goes against the generally hostile tone the KG took with Ned.

But that's not what the KG say. Not at all:

Again: They don't say "we couldn't have fled with Viserys, because we didn't know he was fleeing."

They say "we didn't flee with Viserys. Because we are Kingsguard and Kingsguard don't flee. Then or now."

They do actually say Ser Willem a good man and true but not Kingsguard. Kingsguard does not flee. .. then or now.

The clear implication is that the KG knew what was happening all along. They were getting information rapidly, and that info included the fact that Viserys and Rhaella were about to flee to Dragonstone -- before the Sack happened.

Now, once again if the KG were getting rapid information, that means they chose not to guard King Aerys, even knowing he was in danger after Rhaegar lost at the Trident. Instead, they followed Rhaegar's direct orders (just as GRRM explicitly said). Which means the KG are not always bound by oath to personally guard the king at all times, but instead, are bound to follow direct orders.

The more you keep repeating the worse your claims seem to be, Obey the orders of the king: last known order: Return Rhaegar to KL,

Which means that their presence at the ToJ when Ned arrived does not prove baby Jon was the king.

It absolutely does not but not because GRRM hinted and not because the KG follow all orders given by the royal family.

Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

Well now we have established that KG=/=guarding the king at all times because it is in the freaking book. We have also established that KG=obey the orders of the king and the king ordered Aerys returned to KL.

You forgot: We swore a vow..

Unless that is the first and only statement of the obvious the KG made and the last of the conversation was a history lesson. The vow was not their KG vow.

A vow to Rhaegar to guard the tower in exchange for his return to KL... explains the same thing without making up KG rules like KG must always guard the king or KG must always obey orders of all members of the royal family.

The former is denied by the KG at the ToJ. The latter is denied by Aerys rape of Rhaella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stateofdissipation



Fu*k, maybe I hallucinated the last week or two, but weren't you here arguing staunchly against such a notion of Jon being legit!?



edit: never mind, I read the whole post now.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stateofdissipation

Fuck, maybe I hallucinated the last week or two, but weren't you here arguing staunchly against such a notion of Jon being legit!?

I was arguing against the KG at ToJ because KG always guard the king proved it.... one has to make up that rule as it suits his or her purpose

Just like I argued that the KG obeying orders of the Royal Family proves otherwise.... one has to make up that rule as it suits his or her purpose

Just like i would argue that Ned's dream about the ToJ proves R+L=J.... It isn't a case of a specific scene or word proving it... it is an overall weight of evidence

Mine was an arguent of method not conclusions.

The weight of the evidence of R+L=J makes denying it harder than accepting it.

the weight of the evidence of R married L makes denying it harder than accepting it.

Like the anti polygamy thing.... it is a possibility but to argue it happened is almost impossible.

Try this:

Rhaegar had at least 3 months to solve the issue of already being marrried

Set aside his wife.. it is referenced by Cersei and practiced by Tywin

Legitimized bastard... it is practiced by Robb and Roose

Polygamy was an ancient practice and cannot be ruled out by the text.

It could be done and the timeframe allowed for it to be done. That is the best case i can manage for the R married L without distorting facts or making wild assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for KG staying with the royal families:


Jaime is not with his King during a big part of AFFC and ADWD. He's in Westeros conquering castles.


Funnily enough Jaime is royal family with Tommen on the throne. He protects himself? ;)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for KG staying with the royal families:

Jaime is not with his King during a big part of AFFC and ADWD. He's in Westeros conquering castles.

Funnily enough Jaime is royal family with Tommen on the throne. He protects himself? ;)

He is only the King's nuncle, oficially. Not too worthy an asset :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for KG staying with the royal families:

Jaime is not with his King during a big part of AFFC and ADWD. He's in Westeros conquering castles.

Funnily enough Jaime is royal family with Tommen on the throne. He protects himself? ;)

Trying to establish unbreakable hard and fast rules for the KG is an exercise in futility.

Robert planned to name Jamie Warden of the East and they mentioned that he was heir to the West as well. neither makes sense in light of his vow to own no lands and hold no titles. c

If you can come up with a KG vow, I will show you exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for KG staying with the royal families:

Jaime is not with his King during a big part of AFFC and ADWD. He's in Westeros conquering castles.

Funnily enough Jaime is royal family with Tommen on the throne. He protects himself? ;)

That's a specific case though, because first, the Lannisters are showing that they are a law of their own, and second - Tywin is desperately trying to show the world that Jaime is a Lannister and his firstborn son first, and a KG second (to none).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is only the King's nuncle, oficially. Not too worthy an asset :-)

isn't he the Funcle or the Fancle or the Fathencle?

Uncle-dad Duncle or Dancle....

Come to think of it Kingslayer, Kingfather twice, Warden of the East and West, fugitive from the king's justice to fight the Tullys over Tyrion, absentee guard to search for Sansa.... come to think of it perhaps citing Jamie for anything related to the KG is a bad idea:

Killed the king, did not protect the royal family (elia and aegon), disobeyed the order of the king (bring Tywin's head), fathered children, titled to East and West (not sure if that was actually done or just promised but it does show he had no intent to forsake land and title)...

That is like 0 for 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The maid loved Bael so dearly she bore him a son, the song says... what’s certain is that Bael left the child in payment for the rose he’d plucked unasked, and that the boy grew to be the next Lord Stark.


Is it actually stated anywhere that the child was a bastard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't he the ... Dancle...

No, "A Dancle with Dragons" is no book by Grrm. :-)

Killed the king, did not protect the royal family (elia and aegon)

... and Rhaenys. Did we ever learn if he fed Balerion? ...

Killed the king, did not protect the royal family (elia and aegon), disobeyed the order of the king (bring Tywin's head), fathered children, titled to East and West (not sure if that was actually done or just promised but it does show he had no intent to forsake land and title)...

... nearly been made the missing hand of the king ...

That is like 0 for 6

0.

And noooo R+L=Jaime :-)

Share this post


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

×