Heresy 102 of Ice and Fire

[Eira Seren]

Part I

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

. . . 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." . . .

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. . .

. . . 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.

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.

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.

Part I

There is Dany's vision in the HOTU. While BC is right, it does seem like Rhaegar is looking at Dany, he also appears to believe that there needs to be another head for the dragon.

"Viserys, was her first thought the next time she paused, but a second glance told her otherwise. The man had her brother’s hair, but he was tal er, and his eyes were a dark indigo rather than lilac. “Aegon,” he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. “What better name for a king?”

“Will you make a song for him?” the woman asked.

“He has a song,” the man replied. “He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire.” He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany’s, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. “There must be one more,” he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. “The dragon has three heads.” He went to the window seat, picked up a harp, and ran his fingers lightly over its silvery strings. Sweet sadness filled the room as man and wife and babe faded like the morning mist, only the music lingering behind to speed her on her way."

This is suggestive of the idea that one more child is required if the PTWP is to come from Rhaegar's line. As Maester Aemon says to Sam, (I'm paraphrasing), when considering the prophecy, they weren't thinking about a girl. So perhaps R thought another child, specifically a son, is required. And Elia couldn't have any more children, so possibly R decided to revive an old practice.

PART II

1. Agreed.

2. Good question. So. . . what reason would Ned have to think that the KG might have gone to Storm's end? Because it is now a Baratheon/King-related place? Surely he didn't think any Targs were there? Dragonstone I can understand.

Why would the KG continue to stand guard over Lyanna if the reason for the orders (a captive, held by the now-vanquished side) is obsolete? Just throwing some ideas out there.

GRRM directly responded to the question as to why they were at the Tower by stating they were following orders and orders they didn't like, not because it was their sworn duty to be there. The point about Ser Willem Darry is also well made because at the time Aerys was still King. The whole business is in fact summed up by the statement that had they been by the King's side as they ought to have been Jaime Lannister wouldn't have killed him. Instead they were stuck here obeying orders they resented and as a result failed to protect their king. So now here they are and it is time to die, which is why Ned says "And now it ends".

Basically old son, you are preaching to the converted. I don't think there's anybody on this thread believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna were lawfully wed and that Jon is the heir to the Targaryen throne. That's why rather than get bogged down in refuting the faith we will do much better to consider on the one hand Jon's future role as a son of Winterfell - and what really lies down those stairs, and Dany's true role...

For Hightower, possibly. Possibly not so much for Dayne, who I still think would follow Rhaegar and support him, even if it meant compromising a few of the KG ideals.

I do think it might be possible that R and L might be married, in a very Anglo-Saxon-y, subjunctive-y, maybe sort of way; it's a possibility that we could discover it was this way. Mainly, this is based on some very speculative conjecture as to the location of L at the time of the abduction (Harrenhal?), which is close to the Isle of Faces. Now, why would any offspring of R+L benefit from a marriage made old god style? It seems a bit at odds with the PTWP/fire narrative, as well as any COTF involvement, though I'm not throwing it all out until I have more to go on.

[wolfmaid7]

I would say evil and good is a "human" construct and it there bending magic to get a positive out come that makes it good or evil depending on who it affects and how. I for one don't think that the Dragons or the WWs are evil or good. They are a force and a magical manifestation of nature that doesn't need to be destroyed.They need to be bridled by an external force that can understand them.

We are looking at the WWs as if they are an evil that needs to be stopped,and i fear that is going to be an attempt and that is going to make things worst.All the while treating Mel an her lot as if the are "good", i fear that this again is GRRM's use of the human condition to show that Mel and her lot get the pass because they "look" and "sound" human enough for us to ignore that there is a danger in them.

I wonder how more likely Bran and Co and even Sam would be to accept CH's help if he didn't display attributes that we see in our self despite knowing he's dead. Crap Beric was killed how many times.Plus look at Stoneheart essentially they are "Wights".Not cold but they are,in Beric's case was.

I wouldn't doubt,something similar to this was how the Dragons were dispelled,they were seen as a threat,not the power hungry humans who's will corrupted theirs because of their bond.

These forces/entities need a bridle not a sword.

[JNR]

The majority of things we discuss in these very pages and take as "de facto proven" have also similarly failed to meet the burden of proof.

Glass houses and all that :P

I wonder. I know I routinely question ideas in Heresy that don't seem to meet a burden of proof, like "the Andals invaded only 1000 years ago" or "dragonsteel is really Valyrian steel," etc. I've tried to apply a fairly consistent standard, both here and in my own theories.

[wolfmaid7]

I'd be glad to read and contribute to such threads, and your creative shadow name sounds cool as a way to dodge the Thread Police. We'll have to see if Black Crow changes his mind.

Thanks!

I suggested a single thread because i know Feather has a theory and there is a few others who do not ascribe to the theory,but we never really saw it in print.It would be a good space to look at alternates as well as the legitimacy issue. We know Targ legitamacy isn't the only one in question,there is the issue of Robb's possible letter that may have granted Jon legitimacy as a Stark.

My take on the Targ/Stark arguement

I myself stand in the middle i don't think Jon's destiny has anything to do with him being a Targ or a Stark. If we look at it,if Jon chooses either Stark or Targ or the very knowledge that he is either ,that knowledge coming out will be problematic,adding a whole lot of political intrigue.Also an internal struggle for Jon,one hand to deny WF is to deny home and all that you've known.To deny Targ would deny possible duty for more than just the North,if some people will rally behind you to make it happen.Anyways its a headache and a huge target on your back.

For me it has to do with the fact that he is a BASTARD,consort to the office of the Morrigan in this case i sub the Dark mother with Ghost,the Crow the trees what have you.They have claimed him and he is walking the path of the "divine bastard" which means he will be on the side of no "man" but a possible enemy to their will. That is the yoke of those who the Crow and the wolf call to walk the left-hand path.

Jon will choose to be "SNOW"

[Toccs]

I wonder. I know I routinely question ideas in Heresy that don't seem to meet a burden of proof, like "the Andals invaded only 1000 years ago" or "dragonsteel is really Valyrian steel," etc. I've tried to apply a fairly consistent standard, both here and in my own theories.

Oh so do I, but that didn't stop me from getting absolutely destroyed on the general board recently over some of our theories on Melisandre. I think that confirmation bias is unavoidable.

[JNR]

This is suggestive of the idea that one more child is required if the PTWP is to come from Rhaegar's line. As Maester Aemon says to Sam, (I'm paraphrasing), when considering the prophecy, they weren't thinking about a girl. So perhaps R thought another child, specifically a son, is required. And Elia couldn't have any more children, so possibly R decided to revive an old practice.

It's possible, but it's not clear why that third "head of the dragon" would have to be legitimate, at least not to me.

(Snowfyre had a take on Aemon's specific choice of words that I also believe. The PtwP/AAR prophecies might be good Heresy threads too.)

Why would the KG continue to stand guard over Lyanna if the reason for the orders (a captive, held by the now-vanquished side) is obsolete?

If you want my guess? We haven't been told exactly why Lyanna was there... when we know that, then we can answer your question above.

I could speculate... and have, in private to various people... but I couldn't meet a burden of proof. :cool4:

[JNR]

Oh so do I, but that didn't stop me from getting absolutely destroyed on the general board recently over some of our theories on Melisandre. I think that confirmation bias is unavoidable.

Which theories?

[Toccs]

Which theories?

Her motivations (and supposed lack of interest in the North and the Cold) prior to Davos reading Mormont's letter. Some things which have long been considered fact here in Heresy (myself included) but which don't actually hold up to the text. Rather it would seem that Melisandre's interest in Westeros and the cold winds is what in fact makes her a renegade from the church.

[JNR]

For me it has to do with the fact that he is a BASTARD...

Jon will choose to be "SNOW"

I tend to agree. For me -- just a personal opinion, not something I'm putting forward as fact -- Jon being a bastard is as essential to his story/nature as Tyrion being Tywin's son.

It's possible Jon will turn out never to have been a bastard... as it's possible Tyrion will turn out to be Aerys Targaryen's son.

I just see both cases as pretty dismissive of the character arcs, five books into a seven book series.

And I was certainly intrigued by the season three Histories, in which Narrator Jon says about the Starks:

Their name ruled the North. But my name is the North... Snow.

[JNR]

Her motivations (and supposed lack of interest in the North and the Cold) prior to Davos reading Mormont's letter. Some things which have long been considered fact here in Heresy (myself included) but which don't actually hold up to the text. Rather it would seem that Melisandre's interest in Westeros and the cold winds is what in fact makes her a renegade from the church.

Well, the difference is that we admit the ideas in Heresy are just that -- heresy. Offbeat stuff, possible but not demonstrated, and certainly not conclusive. Black Crow opens every thread iteration with words to that effect.

The R+L=J/Jon Will Be king! camp takes quite a different position.

Their ideas are righteous, smart, and evidence-driven. They are scientists! Those who question their ideas can only be creationists in denial.

[Toccs]

Which is why I post here and not there, I'm just saying that we are just as prone to confirmation bias as everyone else.

[Eira Seren]

This is interesting in that the Valyrians "sin" was against the Dragons by trying to enslave them.Now a big part of Dragonlore is their ability to "shapeshift". A lot of Valyrian imagery especially the Sphinx alludes to that seeing that is the meaning behind the Sphinx in Egyptian Mythology.Mel for sure is using a glamour,what she looks like below that beats me,but what has struck me is the theme again of" singing".

Drogon sang Dany a song that brought her to him. Mel made Ghost's name a song ( or i believe she mimicked the song sang by Ghost to link him to Jon) and when Tyrion first saw Master Benero he was leading the afternoon prayer in song.

I use this to show that possibly Mel and her kind,plus the Dragons are also "singers" but they sing the song of fire.I would also characterize Ghost as a "singer" just maybe his song is different.

Nice catch. Plus, the example of MMD, singing. Which makes me think that in all cases, blood magic is involved.

Nice. Without discussing the optimal conditions for lemon tree growth, there are some issues with Dany's memories of "home". It would be interesting if the "red door" was representative of something more mystical. One thing though, Dany's arc is more about the concept of home rather than a return to it.

Seems to reflect how Dany's concept of home has been shaped by some ideas that aren't rooted in fact alone.

As to the first, there are demons of snow and ice and cold in the North so why not demons of flame in Valyria. As to Mel I think its opportunistic happenstance. When we first met her she had no notion of trouble up North. She reckoned she had identified Stan the Man as Azor Ahai (clever old her) and only saw her real chance for glory after Davos picked his way through that letter. Never mind Master Benero and the darkness in Valyria. She knows better and she's going to show him. Ha!

Now whenever I picture Mel, I'm going to think of Cersei.

[Urrax2]

You knocked that one out the park JNR,...

Or as some of our gang might say, he hit them for six.

Now I'm looking forward to Feather Crystal's reasons why Jon's father is not Rhaegar but Mance, which she promised us this evening.

[wolfmaid7]

I tend to agree. For me -- just a personal opinion, not something I'm putting forward as fact -- Jon being a bastard is as essential to his story/nature as Tyrion being Tywin's son.

It's possible Jon will turn out never to have been a bastard... as it's possible Tyrion will turn out to be Aerys Targaryen's son.

I just see both cases as pretty dismissive of the character arcs, five books into a seven book series.

And I was certainly intrigued by the season three Histories, in which Narrator Jon says about the Starks:

That's an awesome quote and to me exemplify Jon.Plus to me him choosing recognition as anything but is to typical of other stories.In this case I prefer the Bastard who would not be King.

[wolfmaid7]

Nice catch. Plus, the example of MMD, singing. Which makes me think that in all cases, blood magic is involved.

Seems to reflect how Dany's concept of home has been shaped by some ideas that aren't rooted in fact alone.

Now whenever I picture Mel, I'm going to think of Cersei.

It occurred to me reading Dany, Bran Tyrion and Jon chapters that these creatures sing and their songs are powerful. MMD traveled a lot who knows what she picked up from whom.

[Eira Seren]

It's possible, but it's not clear why that third "head of the dragon" would have to be legitimate, at least not to me.

(Snowfyre had a take on Aemon's specific choice of words that I also believe. The PtwP/AAR prophecies might be good Heresy threads too.)

If you want my guess? We haven't been told exactly why Lyanna was there... when we know that, then we can answer your question above.

I could speculate... and have, in private to various people... but I couldn't meet a burden of proof. :cool4:

No, I'd agree. And it's impossible to get into Rhaegar's brain, but it could have mattered to him, and to Aemon, that the PTWP is legitimate, though I bet we'll never know! Certainly they thought the PTWP would be a Targ.

Yep, as to why L was at the TOJ, we'll have to speculate until we're told. :cool4: All I know is that for some reason Ned had to work really hard to get to her.

imo, the reason the KG (at least Dayne and Whent) would obey R's orders to stay at the TOJ and did so instead of returning to KL to defend Aerys may also have had something to do with the "changes" that R told Jaime he was planning to make. Once R died prior to the sack one of their options was to support a king that they were going to help R put aside. And if defending Aerys went directly against an order from R . . .

I think this is why Ned then reverts timewise to asking about Viserys on Dragontstone.

Which is why I post here and not there, I'm just saying that we are just as prone to confirmation bias as everyone else.

Yeah, awareness seems to be the key.

[JNR]

Once R died prior to the sack one of their options was to support a king that they were going to help R put aside. And if defending Aerys went directly against an order from R ...

We're thinking much alike.

Now, the R+L=J folks are very big on this idea: Hightower was a stickler for the rules and would not have been down with the above treason. I agree.

I also think if always-paranoid Aerys had summoned the three KG, right after Rhaegar died? They would have answered that summons. Orders from king trump orders from prince.

But there's no reason to believe Aerys knew where they were. Rhaegar is only said to have returned to King's Landing "from the south." And without knowing their location, he had no hope of summoning them.

[Eira Seren]

It occurred to me reading Dany, Bran Tyrion and Jon chapters that these creatures sing and their songs are powerful. MMD traveled a lot who knows what she picked up from whom.

yeah, didn't she mention training in Asshai.

[Eira Seren]

We're thinking much alike.

Now, the R+L=J folks are very big on this idea: Hightower was a stickler for the rules and would not have been down with the above treason. I agree.

I also think if always-paranoid Aerys had summoned the three KG, right after Rhaegar died? They would have answered that summons. Orders from king trump orders from prince.

But there's no reason to believe Aerys knew where they were. Rhaegar is only said to have returned to King's Landing "from the south." And without knowing their location, he had no hope of summoning them.

I see that. Though I also think that if there was someone else, directly descended from R, who Dayne and Whent would have preferred to have on the throne, they might have ignored a summons from Aerys. Though why Dayne, Whent and Hightower wouldn't want to return to protect baby Aegon, leaving a wounded Selmy, untried Jaime and (who were the last two?) to guard the royal family?

It boggles my mind that R had no contingency plan for his heirs if he indeed planned to take the throne. He probably didn't foresee the sack of KL, though he might have at least entertained the possibility that they could lose.

ETA: I might be downplaying Jaime's training there a bit, it just seemed an odd choice of person to leave with Aerys, considering the tensions between Tywin and the king. R must have felt Jaime was firmly in his camp.

[GrumpkinsAndStarks]

If were were to assume R+L=J were true, what would that mean, necessarily, for Jon? Does his lineage have to set him apart, and on some predetermined path? must he have some prophecy to fulfill. I guess the laws of narrative would make it so, why else would GRRM include such a plot point. If so, what roles might he fill? Does his parentage keep from anything that Ned being his father may have availed him? Is he better of R+J son or was bastardhood better?