Marriage of Rhaegar and Lyanna Revisited

[Ygritte]

You bring up a point here that was a major issue in RL (every time an old King dies the new King has to renew all the oaths of fealty by having everyone come and swear to him), and while it gets mentioned in ASOIAF (especially in light of Robert's death), I've noticed a lot of readers generally seem to ignore it, which an actual person of medieval origin wouldn't and it would be a tremendous deal for.

Until an oath is renewed that person doesn't technically recognize them as their king.

The KG at the ToJ might well have sworn while they were there, though. It would have been between Jon's birth and Ned's arrival, so we have no living witness that we've met yet, so we don't know.

[Ygrain]

I would prefer to not argue because I normally agree with you but while maybe not public knowledge it was obviously not impossible to figure out at this point either. Either Ned figured it out (in whichcase someone else would too) or someone told him. Either way once Ned arrived the KG would know they couldn't rely on location anymore. As I said the reason Ned probably didn't get an army (or at least more men) is that he was afraid he would get to the TOJ and the KG and Lyanna would be gone. Ned was a very deliberate and even somewhat cautious leader. While 7 to 3 are good odds their victory was anything but certain.

That is exactly why we can quite safely presume that no-one figured out, that Ned was told. By whom, and if the KG knew or could have realized, is unknown. And even if they were aware that their location was compromised, they simply may not have had a better option. Where would they take Lyanna (yes, Lyanna is essential, too - if for no other reason, then to prevent anyone from finding out that she had given birth) and the child, and how? There may have even been preparations under way but Ned simply arrived before they were ready to move.

You bring up a point here that was a major issue in RL (every time an old King dies the new King has to renew all the oaths of fealty by having everyone come and swear to him), and while it gets mentioned in ASOIAF (especially in light of Robert's death), I've noticed a lot of readers generally seem to ignore it, which an actual person of medieval origin wouldn't and it would be a tremendous deal for.

Until an oath is renewed that person doesn't technically recognize them as their king.

Barristan disagrees, when he speaks about Joffrey as his king immediately after he learns about Robert's death, and Stannis also thinks he should have people's fealty automatically. - In other words, renewing the fealty is a technicality and if you are a loyal subject, you are supposed to follow your liege's heir even without it.

[The other prince]

That is exactly why we can quite safely presume that no-one figured out, that Ned was told. By whom, and if the KG knew or could have realized, is unknown. And even if they were aware that their location was compromised, they simply may not have had a better option. Where would they take Lyanna (yes, Lyanna is essential, too - if for no other reason, then to prevent anyone from finding out that she had given birth) and the child, and how? There may have even been preparations under way but Ned simply arrived before they were ready to move.

I agree with most of this. Mypoint is just that once Ned shows up they know that someone knows for sure. For all they know he has already sent messages about the location. Either way I agree they probably just didn't have a better option (I also agree Lyanna was essential). She obviously couldn't be easily moved. Oaths and duty aside they don't seem like the type of people who would just leave Lyanna to die anyway.

[Ygrain]

I agree with most of this. Mypoint is just that once Ned shows up they know that someone knows for sure. For all they know he has already sent messages about the location. Either way I agree they probably just didn't have a better option (I also agree Lyanna was essential). She obviously couldn't be easily moved. Oaths and duty aside they don't seem like the type of people who would just leave Lyanna to die anyway.

I think that his choice and number of companions basically scream "I don't want this to get public".

Also, I think it is possible that they knew he was coming even beforehands. If they learned about the Trident first, Lyanna would be in a very bad situation - in need of protection both from Aerys and the Rebels. Who else might she turn to but her brother and ask him for discretion? At that point, the KG had no reason to oppose her wish, it was only the Sack that was the main game-changer, but by the time they learned about the Sack, Lyanna couldn't be moved.

[mambru]

The ToJ dream isn't a literal version of events. Also, it's not necessarily a matter of what Ned would do to the child. He only represents one faction of the rebellion, and Robert is the king now.

The dream isn't 100% literal, though. We don't know that they paused to give soliloquies in the exact manner they did in the dream. Ned's mind may be backfilling the encounter with the information he got later from Lyanna, just like he backfills the "Now it ends" line with the hindsight of knowing who won the fight.

Funny, the events at the ToJ as seen through Ned's memories is seen as gospel truth by some proponents of MarriedR+L, but as soon as I point out some inconsistencies in Ned's memories with their pet theory, those are considered invalid because suddenly Ned's dream isn't literally to be relied on as fact. Convenient, isn't it?

[Ygritte]

Funny, the events at the ToJ as seen through Ned's memories is seen as gospel truth by some proponents of MarriedR+L, but as soon as I point out some inconsistencies in Ned's memories with their pet theory, then suddenly Ned's dream isn't literally to be relied on as fact. Convenient, isn't it?

There's no need to be snarky. I think the dream is actually more likely to convey clues if it's symbolic than if it's literal; after all, people's real conversations don't always have handy clues in them. Ned's mind knows pretty much the whole story, in hindsight, so the dream contains assorted information that he has, whether it was handily mentioned in the five minutes before the fight or not.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Funny, the events at the ToJ as seen through Ned's memories is seen as gospel truth by some proponents of MarriedR+L, but as soon as I point out some inconsistencies in Ned's memories with their pet theory, those are considered invalid because suddenly Ned's dream isn't literally to be relied on as fact. Convenient, isn't it?

The thing is that there are events in Ned's dream that are 100% accurate; that the three King's Guard were present at the Tower, Lyanna died in a "Bed of Blood' and Ned and Howland are the only fighters to survive the battle.

Those things tell you every thing you need to know, every thing else is just texture and sub text.

From those things you can deduce the following:

Lyanna had a baby at the Tower

The King's Guard stayed at the Tower because they were guarding the King

The King was in the Tower

The only person that could have been the King is the baby

If the baby was the King, the baby was a boy

If the King's Guard thought the Baby was King, then Rhaegar and Lyanna were married as a bastard can not be King

Really the only thing that you can not 100% deduce is that Jon was the baby in the tower

but there are a lot of other areas in the books that pertain to that.

[The other prince]

I think that his choice and number of companions basically scream "I don't want this to get public".

Also, I think it is possible that they knew he was coming even beforehands. If they learned about the Trident first, Lyanna would be in a very bad situation - in need of protection both from Aerys and the Rebels. Who else might she turn to but her brother and ask him for discretion? At that point, the KG had no reason to oppose her wish, it was only the Sack that was the main game-changer, but by the time they learned about the Sack, Lyanna couldn't be moved.

Maybe, but I still fell like the number of companions points more towards not feeling like he had time for reinforcements rather then discretion. I can't know that of course so it is possible. I agree the sack was a game changer.

[UnmaskedLurker]

There's no need to be snarky. I think the dream is actually more likely to convey clues if it's symbolic than if it's literal; after all, people's real conversations don't always have handy clues in them. Ned's mind knows pretty much the whole story, in hindsight, so the dream contains assorted information that he has, whether it was handily mentioned in the five minutes before the fight or not.

Exactly this. The dream is not necessarily a precise re-telling of the events but they are not just false memories either. We know it is an "old dream" so he has had the same dream many times before. They basically are his recollections of the events of that day. Like most memories, they are not perfect, so some of the details may be off, such as compressing the conversation or adding points that should have been said (such as Ned adding a statement about this being the end which probably is added after the fact and not actually said at the time). But there is no point to the dream if it is totally unreliable. It is Ned's memory of the essential elements of the events and conversations. The dream needs to be understood in this light. It should not merely be ignored or completely untrusted, but it needs to be understood sort of as a "paraphrasing" of the events as best as Ned can recall--and has recalled repeatedly for many years. Most important, the elements of the dream must be consistent with Ned's understanding of the surrounding facts.

[mambru]

There's no need to be snarky. I think the dream is actually more likely to convey clues if it's symbolic than if it's literal; after all, people's real conversations don't always have handy clues in them. Ned's mind knows pretty much the whole story, in hindsight, so the dream contains assorted information that he has, whether it was handily mentioned in the five minutes before the fight or not.

I don't think I'm being that snarky, especially compared to earlier posts in this thread, which didn't look much like a ladies' tea party.

Besides, I was just pointing out a certain pattern. ;)

[Ygritte]

Exactly this. The dream is not necessarily a precise re-telling of the events but they are not just false memories either. We know it is an "old dream" so he has had the same dream many times before. They basically are his recollections of the events of that day. Like most memories, they are not perfect, so some of the details may be off, such as compressing the conversation or adding points that should have been said (such as Ned adding a statement about this being the end which probably is added after the fact and not actually said at the time). But there is no point to the dream if it is totally unreliable. It is Ned's memory of the essential elements of the events and conversations. The dream needs to be understood in this light. It should not merely be ignored or completely untrusted, but it needs to be understood sort of as a "paraphrasing" of the events as best as Ned can recall--and has recalled repeatedly for many years. Most important, the elements of the dream must be consistent with Ned's understanding of the surrounding facts.

It could even be a lot of his own inner reasoning, put into their mouths after the fact. "Huh, the KG are still hanging around. I wonder why they didn't bend the knee to Bob, or go to Dragonstone to attend on Viserys?...OH HOLY CRAP!" :D

[The other prince]

Exactly this. The dream is not necessarily a precise re-telling of the events but they are not just false memories either. We know it is an "old dream" so he has had the same dream many times before. They basically are his recollections of the events of that day. Like most memories, they are not perfect, so some of the details may be off, such as compressing the conversation or adding points that should have been said (such as Ned adding a statement about this being the end which probably is added after the fact and not actually said at the time). But there is no point to the dream if it is totally unreliable. It is Ned's memory of the essential elements of the events and conversations. The dream needs to be understood in this light. It should not merely be ignored or completely untrusted, but it needs to be understood sort of as a "paraphrasing" of the events as best as Ned can recall--and has recalled repeatedly for many years. Most important, the elements of the dream must be consistent with Ned's understanding of the surrounding facts.

Honestly that the dream may not have been 100% accurate can support R+L=J even more so. That would mean that Ned is remembering facets of the TOJ that are really important to him. He remembers the 3 KG guarding Lyanna, he remembers the bed of blood. He remembers "promise me." He remembers blue roses. All of these are things that suggest there was a child who is likely a prince.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Honestly that the dream may not have been 100% accurate can support R+L=J even more so. That would mean that Ned is remembering facets of the TOJ that are really important to him. He remembers the 3 KG guarding Lyanna, he remembers the bed of blood. He remembers "promise me." He remembers blue roses. All of these are things that suggest there was a child who is likely a prince.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. He remembers the details that are important to him. The details surrounding the death of his sister and the promise he made to her, but also the details surrounding the death of the 3 KG--men he admired. So while the conversation between Ned and them may not be word-for-word was was said, in some ways it is better than a word-for-word transcription. It is a recollection of the facts based on Ned's understanding of why the KG did what they did--i.e., guard the King--Jon.

[mambru]

I would imagine they could fairly well see if any of Neds men had cross bows. There were only seven men, and it doesn't take all day to put a helmet on. While I certainly think the KG were willing to die (and would consider this an honorable death) had they wanted to die they would just not have worn any armor.

That would be merely suicide. And suicide without a proper battle to SHOW that they were ready to lay down their lives to follow their orders would not be honorable. If they just wanted suicide, they could have flung themselves off the top of the tower without needing Ned to kill them. But if they obeyed Rhaegar's orders to stay at the ToJ 3 guarding Lyanna and her fetus, and stayed there while Rhaegar fell, and their king fell, and his family was massacred in the Red Keep - all events that they thought they could have prevented if they'd been there - then committing suicide would have constituted abandonment of their assigned post and disobedience of their orders. And they have vowed to obey.

If they believe - as Barristan believed - that with the loss of the throne the Targaryen heir is no longer the King (regardless of whether that heir is Jon or Viserys), they HAVE to stand there guarding, continuing to obey the last orders given to them by a man (Rhaegar) who was authorized to command them by the king they had sworn their vows to.

And unlike Barristan, who did his level best to obey Aerys' last orders or die trying and can therefore consider he has obeyed his vows to Aerys in full and is free, the ToJ 3 have not done their heroic best to obey the last orders they were given. Barristan nearly died defending Aerys. The other KG (except Jaime) DID die honorably defending Aerys. What have the ToJ 3 done throughout the war to defend Aerys? Nothing. Now the war's over, and Aerys is dead, and Aerys' heir (whoever it is) has no throne anymore. IF they think (as Barristan thought) that the throneless Targaryen heir is not the king, there's no one left with the authority they recognize to countermand their last orders. They can't change the last mission given them, even if the mission is obsolete and no longer makes sense. They're stuck.

Given that mindset, I think their actions are perfectly explained. In my own personal opinion, they're sure Ned is an honorable man, both by reputation and probably from Lyanna (who they've spent months in the tower with). That's why they go out of the tower without their helmets and talk to Ned seated while they sharpen their swords, as leisurely as if they're preparing for a tourney. They know that Honorable Ned will listen politely to their last speeches and be en garde when they're ready for formal battle, instead of cravenly firing on them from a distance or crudely putting spurs to his horse and trampling one of them while he sits sharpening his sword.

They know he's honorable enough not to do those things - but they don't take advantage of his honor to negotiate with him to spare his nephew. Why not? IMO, the only reason that really makes sense to me is that it's not in their orders. Rhaegar rode off with the optimistic expectation that he WOULD win the war. Therefore, his last orders were probably something like, "Guard Lyanna and let no enemy enter the tower or leave alive till I return." That doesn't leave room for them to let Lyanna negotiate with Ned, even if it's Jon's best chance for survival. Hence their insistence on a fight to the death.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

That would be merely suicide. And suicide without a proper battle to SHOW that they were ready to lay down their lives to follow their orders would not be honorable. If they just wanted suicide, they could have flung themselves off the top of the tower without needing Ned to kill them. But if they obeyed Rhaegar's orders to stay at the ToJ 3 guarding Lyanna and her fetus, and stayed there while Rhaegar fell, and their king fell, and his family was massacred in the Red Keep - all events that they thought they could have prevented if they'd been there - then committing suicide would have constituted abandonment of their assigned post and disobedience of their orders. And they have vowed to obey.

If they believe - as Barristan believed - that with the loss of the throne the Targaryen heir is no longer the King (regardless of whether that heir is Jon or Viserys), they HAVE to stand there guarding, continuing to obey the last orders given to them by a man (Rhaegar) who was authorized to command them by the king they had sworn their vows to.

And unlike Barristan, who did his level best to obey Aerys' last orders or die trying and can therefore consider he has obeyed his vows to Aerys in full and is free, the ToJ 3 have not done their heroic best to obey the last orders they were given. Barristan nearly died defending Aerys. The other KG (except Jaime) DID die honorably defending Aerys. What have the ToJ 3 done throughout the war to defend Aerys? Nothing. Now the war's over, and Aerys is dead, and Aerys' heir (whoever it is) has no throne anymore. IF they think (as Barristan thought) that the throneless Targaryen heir is not the king, there's no one left with the authority they recognize to countermand their last orders. They can't change the last mission given them, even if the mission is obsolete and no longer makes sense. They're stuck.

Given that mindset, I think their actions are perfectly explained. In my own personal opinion, they're sure Ned is an honorable man, both by reputation and probably from Lyanna (who they've spent months in the tower with). That's why they go out of the tower without their helmets and talk to Ned seated while they sharpen their swords, as leisurely as if they're preparing for a tourney. They know that Honorable Ned will listen politely to their last speeches and be en garde when they're ready for formal battle, instead of cravenly firing on them from a distance or crudely putting spurs to his horse and trampling one of them while he sits sharpening his sword.

They know he's honorable enough not to do those things - but they don't take advantage of his honor to negotiate with him to spare his nephew. Why not? IMO, the only reason that really makes sense to me is that it's not in their orders. Rhaegar rode off with the optimistic expectation that he WOULD win the war. Therefore, his last orders were probably something like, "Guard Lyanna and let no enemy enter the tower or leave alive till I return." That doesn't leave room for them to let Lyanna negotiate with Ned, even if it's Jon's best chance for survival. Hence their insistence on a fight to the death.

There is no vow to obey the Crown Prince to the end of time, especially after he, and his father the King has died.

Would have they just stayed at the Tower till the end of Time?

The first duty is to guard the King, they are called the King's Guard not the King's Obeyers. Once Rhaegar died, and especially after Aerys died they would have re-evaluated what they needed to do.

They would have been honor and oath bound to protect the King, whether he was in the Tower or at Dragonstone.

[In A Coat of Gold]

There is no vow to obey the Crown Prince to the end of time, especially after he, and his father the King has died.

Would have they just stayed at the Tower till the end of Time?

The first duty is to guard the King, they are called the King's Guard not the King's Obeyers. Once Rhaegar died, and especially after Aerys died they would have re-evaluated what they needed to do.

They would have been honor and oath bound to protect the King, whether he was in the Tower or at Dragonstone.

but at that point the King was Robert Baratheon. The war was over and he sat on the throne. Why weren't they at King's Landing defending the actual King?

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

but at that point the King was Robert Baratheon. The war was over and he sat on the throne. Why weren't they at King's Landing defending the actual King?

Because they saw Robert as the Usurper, not the King. They even call him that during the conversation with Ned.

Barristan surrendered because he was defeated, injured and captured. Three things that these men were not.

[mambru]

There is no vow to obey the Crown Prince to the end of time, especially after he, and his father the King has died.

Well, if his father King Aerys assigned those particular KG to obey Rhaegar, then they do have to obey Rhaegar by the terms of their vow to obey King Aerys, don't they?

Would have they just stayed at the Tower till the end of Time?

King's Landing has fallen. The Tyrell forces have surrendered to Robert. The Dorne haven't officially capitulated yet, but they never fight another battle against Robert after Rhaegar's death, AFAIK. And the very presence of Ned and his men hints at a larger Northern army just beyond the horizon, ready to sweep in. The ToJ 3 won't have to wait in the Tower till the end of time for the chance to die honorably obeying Rhaegar's last orders. They won't have to wait long at all.

[Ygrain]

but at that point the King was Robert Baratheon. The war was over and he sat on the throne. Why weren't they at King's Landing defending the actual King?

"Woe to the Usurper" shows what they think about Robert's claim. They swore to Aerys Targaryen and their loyalty transfers to Aerys' heir, not to the guy who stole his throne.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Well, if his father King Aerys assigned those particular KG to obey Rhaegar, then they do have to obey Rhaegar by the terms of their vow to obey King Aerys, don't they?

King's Landing has fallen. The Tyrell forces have surrendered to Robert. The Dorne haven't officially capitulated yet, but they never fight another battle against Robert after Rhaegar's death, AFAIK. And the very presence of Ned and his men hints at a larger Northern army just beyond the horizon, ready to sweep in. The ToJ 3 won't have to wait in the Tower till the end of time for the chance to die honorably obeying Rhaegar's last orders. They won't have to wait long at all.

So they just say, screw guarding the King we are just going to sit here and guard Rhaegar's girlfriend and bastard kid because that's what Rhaegar said.

That argument is so awful. THEY ARE THE KING'S GUARD. Not only that, but Ned remembers them as a shining example of what a KING'S GUARD should be.

Did he say that because they were good at following orders, or because they gave their life to defend the King?

At this point you are just being contrarian because for what ever reason you don't want Jon to be the rightful heir and for Rhaegar and Lyanna to have been married.

I read all of the books before I ever came to any thing ASoIaF internet related, and I never once put it together that Jon was Rhaegar's kid (I cant believe I didn't see that)

I discovered R+L=J on the web, and I was was like "that makes so much sense now"

But I didn't for a minute think about him be legitimate. He was a bastard right? Never dawned on me.

After re-reading the series and looking at what people on here have researched, with an open mind. And seeing the other little clues/ puzzles that GRRM has left in the story there is no other reasonable explanation for the what happened at the Tower of Joy.

Every argument against them being married has huge holes in it, including but not limited to huge character motivational flaws that GRRM is so very good at laying out.

GRRM very carefully put together the events at the Tower of Joy with purposeful phrasing and structure to allude to not only is Jon the baby at the Tower but that he is Rhaegar's surviving Heir and his Legitimate son.

And not only the scene at the Tower of Joy, but everything other clue that leads to those events as well. Ned's feeling's about the King's Guard. The Story of the Lyanna at the Tournament. Ned's recollection of the Promise. Other people's recollection of Rhaegar. Daenerys visions. The Blue Roses.

It all leads up to this one solid truth: Jon is Rhaegar's True Born son