Jump to content

R+L = J v 86


Stubby

Recommended Posts

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is. I get the impression that people here (not naming names, this is an impression from multiple posts) that people are taking the scene as gospel that that's how it was, when I know I've read that GRRM has pointed out that it was a fever dream and therefore the actual events may not have happened that way.

Also, does abduction and rape have to me mutually inclusive? I know we don't know exactly how Rhaegar and Lyanna ended up together, but I don't think abduction can be ruled out. I think it's the most likely scenario, as in abduction = taken at sword point, and I figure that swords had to have been drawn for the tale to be told that she was abducted (as I doubt that I highborn lady would have been alone wherever she was at the time). However, I don't think that Rhaegar abducting Lyanna automatically means he raped her, nor does it mean that Lyanna cannot have loved him or grown to love him, or even that she was totally unwilling when she was taken.

I think it's part true, part fever dream, and part Ned's own interpretation of the KG themeselves once he learned the truth. The conversation between the KG and Ned probably did NOT happen like that. But once Ned gets up to the Tower, and learns that Lyanna was married to Rhaegar and gave birth to his heir, then Ned's view on the KG changes. He probably questioned why those three were even there to begin with, but in his recollection of the event he now knows that they were upholding their sworn duty to protect the King. Thus the conversation between the 4 (KG and Ned) is a reflection of what Ned knows now that he did not know back then.

As far as what actually happened, I think it goes like this: Ned and his 6 arrive at the ToJ. Maybe there is a brief conversation but it certainly wasn't the way Ned remembers it. They all fight. The 3 KG die. Ned goes up to rescue his sister only to learn about Jon and the marriage of L and R.

EDITED TO ADD: so the reason why people take the conversation that Ned remembers so seriously is because he is privileged with information that we, as of yet, are not. The way that he remembers the KG (and even the way he remembers Rhaegar throughout aGoT) is more important that what may have really happened. He doesn't remember them as men who were helping to hold a woman hostage who supposedly was being raped over and over again, but he remembers them as examples of true knights that he mourns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To do that you would need to deal with the following.

1. We know from Jonathor Darry that the King's guards oath required them to obey Rhaegar's orders.

2. We know from the Princess and the Queen that, when given a lawful order, the King's guards will leave the king without King's guards protection so they can fulfill the order. Specifically, Larys Strong, a member of the Small Council, orders Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the King's guards to leave King Aegon II in the care of a non-King's guard bastard knight so they can go do something else, and they obey the order. So Dayne, Whent and Hightower would obey Rhaegar's order -- whatever it was -- before going to Dragonstone.

3. We also know from the Princess and the Queen that a dead man's orders survive his death. King Viserys' order that Otto Hightower serve as Hand would survive until the new monarch was formally proclaimed.

4. We know from the Rogue Prince that Viserys has a better claim to the Iron Throne than any son of Rhaegar.

The results of the most recent Great Council are precedent for future similar situations, and the most recent Great Council -- like real life Norman law -- supports Viserys' claim (as the son of a king) over Aegon's or Jon's (supposed) claim as the son of a dead prince.

5. There is no evidence that the King's guards thought that Prince Aegon was dead. Rhaella, Viserys and Aerys are accounted for in Ned's discussion with the King's guards. Prince Aegon is not. If the King's guards think that Aegon may still be alive, Jon cannot be king, since under any analysis Aegon comes before Jon. And, that is why Bloodraven takes Daemon II Blackfyre prisoner rather than killing him in the Mystery Knight -- you can't crown a younger brother while an older brother is still alive. Or, as Robb put it, "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me."

6. Barristan Selmy makes a point of saying in Dance with Dragons that King's guards protection can be extended to mistresses and bastards. How will this matter to the story if it isn't a reference to the Tower of Joy?

7. Connington makes a point of saying, in Dance with Dragons, that Rhaegar's son Aegon can't take two wives. What is the point of this if not to show that bigamy is disallowed?

8. At the end of the rebellion, Lyanna was the most valuable hostage the Targaryens could hope for. Even if Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar in the beginning, the King's guards' vow to protect Aerys' heir, Viserys, from harm or threat required them to secure the hostage until she could be moved to Dragonstone and used to deter the Barratheon/Stark invasion.

9. Meanwhile, what is the threat to Viserys? He has Willem Darry, the garrison at Dragonstone, and the Targaryen fleet. And he is on an island. Robert has no fleet, and it is more than half a year before he can go after a Dragonstone. The King's guards don't need to rush to Dragonstone in these circumstances.

There is more, but you get the drift...the common objection is not unsound.

Rhaenys_Targaryen actually addressed pretty much everything as far as your "evidence goes". However I don't think this will make any difference to you because at this point you are not even presenting a counter argument any more. All you are doing is trying to find anything that could poke a small hole in the R+L=J theory and you are still failing to even do that. Each of your points mean nothing.

  1. 1. So? That the KG are supposed to follow orders deoes not really mean anything. I can only assume you are trying to use this as proof that the TOJ3 were there on orders and not to guard the new king. The problem is the KG following orders still does not disprove anything.
  2. This still doesn't do anything to prove your version of things. It only means something if you are working from the assumption your theory is correct. On it's own it simply doesn't suggest anything.
  3. See number 1.
  4. You are trying to draw an exact parallel where there is not one. That was a different set of circumstances and means nothing in this circumstance.

  5. Yes there is evidence. Reread the exchange between Ned and the KG
  6. Because the context of the thought has nothing to do with the TOJ. If you ignore context then you can make anything mean whatever you want.
  7. It's safe to say it is frowned on, and Aegon is trying to win the crown. However would you also agree that incest is generally not allowed? Do the Targaryens seem to care about that?
  8. First you have the KG there to guard Lyanna by Rhaegars orders (even after his death) now you have them deciding to kidnap Lyanna and use her as a hostage? Really?
  9. You are defeating your own logic. Why do you have the KG kidnapping Lyanna to keep Visery's safe if as you say here he is in no danger? Which is it? Is Viserys safe so the KG don't need to protect him? Or is he in danger so they need to take a hostage to protect him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is. I get the impression that people here (not naming names, this is an impression from multiple posts) that people are taking the scene as gospel that that's how it was, when I know I've read that GRRM has pointed out that it was a fever dream and therefore the actual events may not have happened that way.

Also, does abduction and rape have to me mutually inclusive? I know we don't know exactly how Rhaegar and Lyanna ended up together, but I don't think abduction can be ruled out. I think it's the most likely scenario, as in abduction = taken at sword point, and I figure that swords had to have been drawn for the tale to be told that she was abducted (as I doubt that I highborn lady would have been alone wherever she was at the time). However, I don't think that Rhaegar abducting Lyanna automatically means he raped her, nor does it mean that Lyanna cannot have loved him or grown to love him, or even that she was totally unwilling when she was taken.

I've n never thought that the relationship was either "this or that," but more nuanced.

Remember what drives the author~ the heart and the conflicts within.

I think Lyanna could both love him and be unwilling, yet in the end glad he did.

I think it's possible that she was just as surprised as her entourage when Rhaegar, Whent, and Dayne showed up.

And since they were likely in disguise, she may not have known who it was setting upon her, so she may have drawn a blade herself, validating the tale that Dany heard on Lyanna being taken at sword point, as both "romanticized" but with the grains of truth regarding her own situation as she rides towards doing her duty but dreaming of another.

(In Lyannas case, her guy showed up).

I don't think Rhaegar would have needed a book to understand the impact of her, a highborn maiden, in the company of not one, but three men not her relatives in a time where if a woman's reputation was compromised, she was ruined, "and no other man Will want her."

Rhaegar taking matters into his own hands, taking the hit to HIS honor, understanding that he will be forgiven much more quickly in that patriarchal society than Lyanna, seems consistent with his reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is. I get the impression that people here (not naming names, this is an impression from multiple posts) that people are taking the scene as gospel that that's how it was, when I know I've read that GRRM has pointed out that it was a fever dream and therefore the actual events may not have happened that way.

Accurate enough. Much of it is confirmed is other sections of the books. Besides the format it is in really shows us the impact this had on Ned.

Also, does abduction and rape have to me mutually inclusive? I know we don't know exactly how Rhaegar and Lyanna ended up together, but I don't think abduction can be ruled out. I think it's the most likely scenario, as in abduction = taken at sword point, and I figure that swords had to have been drawn for the tale to be told that she was abducted (as I doubt that I highborn lady would have been alone wherever she was at the time). However, I don't think that Rhaegar abducting Lyanna automatically means he raped her, nor does it mean that Lyanna cannot have loved him or grown to love him, or even that she was totally unwilling when she was taken.

What suggests to you that knowing what we do about Rhaegar he would abduct Lyanna? Time and again we see that Rhaegar was considered honorable by nearly everyone but Robert. Nothing in the books suggest to me that he abducted Lyanna or that it was even in his nature to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is how accurate Ned's fever dream recollection of the ToJ showdown is.

It is an old dream, one that Ned has had on many occasions. There may be some small details that do not reflect actual happenings, like shadow swords and wraiths. The storm of rose petals could be a baby's crying. We need more details for the symbolism that is embedded. However, we can analyse the words. GRRM had a tough chore with writing that particular bit of prose, he needed to be accurate, but not direct, to avoid giving away the game. The actors are all as they were in life, this is an actual happening that Ned is recalling. It must make sense to Ned, so the blinds are being drawn aside on what was actually communicated.

Now, keeping in mind that we have a secret and a reread must reveal that we did not lie to cover it up; read my analysis. Ther eis a link in my signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an old dream, one that Ned has had on many occasions. There may be some small details that do not reflect actual happenings, like shadow swords and wraiths. The storm of rose petals could be a baby's crying. We need more details for the symbolism that is embedded. However, we can analyse the words. GRRM had a tough chore with writing that particular bit of prose, he needed to be accurate, but not direct, to avoid giving away the game. The actors are all as they were in life, this is an actual happening that Ned is recalling. It must make sense to Ned, so the blinds are being drawn aside on what was actually communicated.

Now, keeping in mind that we have a secret and a reread must reveal that we did not lie to cover it up; read my analysis. Ther eis a link in my signature.

Yeah, it's not like "Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone with the queen and Prince Viserys" is actually "Prince Viserys and the queen fled to Oldtown with Lord Varys." It's pretty intuitive what can be taken seriously and what can't. The gist should be sound, and specific information should reflect the truth, whether the dialogue is faithful or not. Not to mention the fact that Ned specifically uses the line "In the dream as there had been in life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-reading ADWD right now and came across a little point that I thought I'd mention (I'm sure it has been brought up before)



In Davos's chapter in which he is brought from jail to talk with Manderly, the talk turns to Ramsey Snow/Bolton. Robett Glover remarks





Robett: The evil is in his blood. He is a bastard born of rape. A Snow, no matter what the boy king says.




It's often said in the series that bastards are the product of lusts but this doesn't make them "evil." Gendry and Mya for instance are both bastard born, but there is no evil in them.



But this thought from Glover seems to suggest that when a boy is a bastard born of rape, there is a taint of evil, thus why Ramsey Snow is the way he is.



But look at Jon. Since we believe that R+L = J, it would follow that it could not have been rape on the part of Rhaegar Jon and Ramsey are very different from each other.



Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought it was an interesting point, and one I had forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an old dream, one that Ned has had on many occasions. There may be some small details that do not reflect actual happenings, like shadow swords and wraiths. The storm of rose petals could be a baby's crying. We need more details for the symbolism that is embedded. However, we can analyse the words. GRRM had a tough chore with writing that particular bit of prose, he needed to be accurate, but not direct, to avoid giving away the game. The actors are all as they were in life, this is an actual happening that Ned is recalling. It must make sense to Ned, so the blinds are being drawn aside on what was actually communicated.

Now, keeping in mind that we have a secret and a reread must reveal that we did not lie to cover it up; read my analysis. Ther eis a link in my signature.

But why would it being an old dream make it any more accurate? If a dream is repeated, it does not make it true, and it being an old dream does not negate it being a dream. And things make sense in dreams that have no logic when we're awake.

I'm not saying that nothing in the dream was true. I'm pointing out that it was a fever dream that should not be taken as gospel. Even if the characters in the dream were as Ned remembered them in life, it does not mean that events happened as they appeared in the dream. And GRRM has said that, and said that the truth about the ToJ won't come out until later books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Fred:
1. We know from Jonathor Darry that the King's guards oath required them to obey Rhaegar's orders.

To suggest that Rhaegar's orders after dying, take precedence over the survival of the 283 year dynasty is a stretch to say the very least. So we do not know this, at all. We rightfully suspect the opposite (as does Ned).

2. We know from the Princess and the Queen that, when given a lawful order, the King's guards will leave the king without King's guards protection so they can fulfill the order. Specifically, Larys Strong, a member of the Small Council, orders Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the King's guards to leave King Aegon II in the care of a non-King's guard bastard knight so they can go do something else, and they obey the order. So Dayne, Whent and Hightower would obey Rhaegar's order -- whatever it was -- before going to Dragonstone.

When Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the KG left King Aegon 2, in someone else's care, had the current king and his 2 direct heirs just been killed by a successful rebellion, suggesting imminent danger? Were they leaving him half a kingdom away in unconfirmed circumstances having not seen him for months and months? Then it is not an apt comparison.

3. We also know from the Princess and the Queen that a dead man's orders survive his death. King Viserys' order that Otto Hightower serve as Hand would survive until the new monarch was formally proclaimed.

Were these "dead man's orders" going to leave, specifically, the KG in dereliction of their primary duty to guard the king? Then, again- not a true analog.

4. We know from the Rogue Prince that Viserys has a better claim to the Iron Throne than any son of Rhaegar.

Spoiler

I don't think we know this at all. I haven't read the Rogue Prince, but others don't seem to see this as a pure analog. It has always been understood that the sons of the first born come ahead of the second born and Egg says as much in one of the Dunk and Egg stories, though I can't find the quote just this minute. Our conventional understanding of the succession has always worked this way and you point to one precarious exception and take it as gospel. Aside from this, the behavior of the KG at the tower suggest that THEY do not believe that Viserys has a better claim than Jon.

5. There is no evidence that the King's guards thought that Prince Aegon was dead. Rhaella, Viserys and Aerys are accounted for in Ned's discussion with the King's guards. Prince Aegon is not. If the King's guards think that Aegon may still be alive, Jon cannot be king, since under any analysis Aegon comes before Jon. And, that is why Bloodraven takes Daemon II Blackfyre prisoner rather than killing him in the Mystery Knight -- you can't crown a younger brother while an older brother is still alive. Or, as Robb put it, "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me."

Why, if they knew about the sack, would they not also know that Aegon had also been killed? Just because they didn't specifically address Aegon in the dialogue does not automatically imply that they didn't know about it. I would argue that it doesn't even suggest as much. Aside from this, once again, their behavior is consistent with the scenario that they believed that Aegon had died and that they were protecting the rightful claimant.

6. Barristan Selmy makes a point of saying in Dance with Dragons that King's guards protection can be extended to mistresses and bastards. How will this matter to the story if it isn't a reference to the Tower of Joy?

And again, has this extension of KG protection been used to protect mistresses and bastards at a time when it put the KG in dereliction of their duty to protect the king? Were such extensions used in a scenario like the one during Robert's Rebellion, where the king and his first 2 heirs have been killed? Connecting this to the Tower of Joy is superfluous and borderline ridiculous. The 283 year Targaryen dynasty is in peril, but Rhaegar told the KG to guard his mistress and bastard a. before he died and b. at a time when he couldn't have known that they would be in this situation right now. It just does not hold up to scrutiny. Guarding a mistress or a bastard while other KG live and are with the monarch is one thing. Guarding them in the ToJ situation is another thing entirely.

7. Connington makes a point of saying, in Dance with Dragons, that Rhaegar's son Aegon can't take two wives. What is the point of this if not to show that bigamy is disallowed?

So far as Connington knows, polygamy hasn't been practiced by Targaryens since Maegor. Connington is not at liberty to exercise the prerogative that the situation might be extraordinary enough to warrant that this convention be overturned. Prophecy minded Rhaegar, insistent that the dragon must have 3 heads, is FAR more likely to exercise this prerogative, even if it does fly in the face of convention, and even if SOME (obviously Dayne, Hightower, and Whent excluded) may later argue that the marriage was questionable. I concede that he's likely to encounter such an objection, but it is obvoius that D, H, and W were not making it.

8. At the end of the rebellion, Lyanna was the most valuable hostage the Targaryens could hope for. Even if Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar in the beginning, the King's guards' vow to protect Aerys' heir, Viserys, from harm or threat required them to secure the hostage until she could be moved to Dragonstone and used to deter the Barratheon/Stark invasion.

The rebellion is over. Robert has already won. All of the important Targaryen loyalists have bent the knee except for these three men. And as someone else said, are they there on Rhaegar's orders or because Lyanna is a valuable hostage? All the while, it is likely that Lyanna will die anyway, which these three probably know. And even granting that holding her hostage would be a priority, how could you justify all 3 of them being used to guard one sickly young girl while the supposed heir is elsewhere, likely in grave danger, unseen by any of these three KG for months and months?

9. Meanwhile, what is the threat to Viserys? He has Willem Darry, the garrison at Dragonstone, and the Targaryen fleet. And he is on an island. Robert has no fleet, and it is more than half a year before he can go after a Dragonstone. The King's guards don't need to rush to Dragonstone in these circumstances.

The threat to Viserys is that all Targaryens encountered by rebel forces are being killed, and he is their primary target. I would think that would be abundantly obvious. The KG have word by raven that Viserys is with Willem Darry (who they go to the trouble to distinguish specifically as not being of the KG) half a kingdom away with no KG protection. Is this truly sufficient to establish that he does not need a brother in white by his side? Is the KG at liberty to make such an assumption in any case? Again, they haven't so much as seen Viserys in months. In one of Eddard's first chapters in aGoT, Robert remarks how he should have killed Viserys and Dany earlier when it would have been easy. How is it so hard to believe that an assassin could be sent at any time to kill him given the ruin of his house and the dearth of loyalists in general? I don't think it's plausible that they would be able to so much as rest until he had a KG by his side.

All of the above is of course supported by the fact that throughout Ned's conversation with the KG, all three of the white brothers are beating their chests over the fact that they are KG and that their knees don't bend to rebels and that they swore a sacred vow.

Your argument basically amounts to giving an interesting list of "exceptions." These are situations where the KG might have, on the surface, done something that seemed out of character, or in dereliction of duty or that may only have happened once or twice over the course of centuries, and in times of considerably less apparent danger. For the whole of your position to be plausible, you'd have to establish that all of these exceptions essentially came together in this instance which is absolutely unique and extraordinary in its threat to the survival of the 283 year old Targaryen dynasty AND that in the light of the full knowledge of all of these circumstances, that these men, looked on with absolute admiration by Eddard Stark would beat their chests and harp on their KG pride while allowing ALL of them to take precedence over the dynasty as a whole.

The case just doesn't hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-reading ADWD right now and came across a little point that I thought I'd mention (I'm sure it has been brought up before)

In Davos's chapter in which he is brought from jail to talk with Manderly, the talk turns to Ramsey Snow/Bolton. Robett Glover remarks

It's often said in the series that bastards are the product of lusts but this doesn't make them "evil." Gendry and Mya for instance are both bastard born, but there is no evil in them.

But this thought from Glover seems to suggest that when a boy is a bastard born of rape, there is a taint of evil, thus why Ramsey Snow is the way he is.

But look at Jon. Since we believe that R+L = J, it would follow that it could not have been rape on the part of Rhaegar Jon and Ramsey are very different from each other.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought it was an interesting point, and one I had forgotten.

This bothers me a bit too much in terms of how it would translate to real life, so I sincerely hope that's not where GRRM is going with it. I'm more inclined to think there's something curse-ish on the Boltons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bothers me a bit too much in terms of how it would translate to real life, so I sincerely hope that's not where GRRM is going with it. I'm more inclined to think there's something curse-ish on the Boltons.

Oh I think Ramsey is just a very unhinged man; nothing to do with real life children born of rape.

But that thought is in the series. And if people believe that R+L = J but through rape, not through love/marriage/ prophecy fulfillment, then the idea that a bastard born of rape is mad doesn't add up for Jon. ie: he's not a bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Dany is legitimate, but born of rape and I don't see any evidence she is evil.

Aurane Waters is a bastard, snarky, but not evil.

The Boltens have been Stark wannabes for a long time, even trying to mimic their skin changing by literally wearing others skin.

In the Boltens, the blood as a whole is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Dany is legitimate, but born of rape and I don't see any evidence she is evil.

Aurane Waters is a bastard, snarky, but not evil.

The Boltens have been Stark wannabes for a long time, even trying to mimic their skin changing by literally wearing others skin.

In the Boltens, the blood as a whole is bad.

Very true.

I was probably reading too much into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also a massive caveat about both tPatQ and tRP that does not come up enough.

They are books that were written in universe, which adds layers of bias and so much room for subjectivity and inaccuracies by the Maester's who wrote them, as to be nothing more than a outline of events.

How many medieval historians do you trust for 100% accuracy for how many angels can fit through the eye of a needle?

So are you saying Richard III wasn't born with a tail and Edward IV wasn't a bastard?

Well said, both of you :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true.

I was probably reading too much into it.

It's easy to do :)

I get the feeling Martin was making the point on the Westerosi, negative sentiments regarding bastards and just how extraordinary Neds actions were in bringing Jon home as "his."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would it being an old dream make it any more accurate? If a dream is repeated, it does not make it true, and it being an old dream does not negate it being a dream. And things make sense in dreams that have no logic when we're awake.

The events on that day have obviously had a tremendous impact on Ned, thus he has had the dream many times. Having a dream many times may not make it true but it does show us how important the events of that day were to Ned. It being an old dream also tells us that even when it is just a dream and not a fever dream as you say the details are the same. When Ned wakes up he doesn't question anything from the dream. He accepts it as true.

I'm not saying that nothing in the dream was true. I'm pointing out that it was a fever dream that should not be taken as gospel. Even if the characters in the dream were as Ned remembered them in life, it does not mean that events happened as they appeared in the dream. And GRRM has said that, and said that the truth about the ToJ won't come out until later books.

Many things from the dream are confirmed outside of it though. By truth I think it is clear GRRM means the whole story, not that what we know so far is inaccurate. The fact that the characters in the dream are as Ned remembers them in life is much more suggestive that the dream is accurate then inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Fred:

2. We know from the Princess and the Queen that, when given a lawful order, the King's guards will leave the king without King's guards protection so they can fulfill the order. Specifically, Larys Strong, a member of the Small Council, orders Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the King's guards to leave King Aegon II in the care of a non-King's guard bastard knight so they can go do something else, and they obey the order. So Dayne, Whent and Hightower would obey Rhaegar's order -- whatever it was -- before going to Dragonstone.

When Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the KG left King Aegon 2, in someone else's care, had the current king and his 2 direct heirs just been killed by a successful rebellion, suggesting imminent danger? Were they leaving him half a kingdom away in unconfirmed circumstances having not seen him for months and months? Then it is not an apt comparison.

Aeron I AGREE.

Now, I want to add this. Aegon II was not the king at the time in question, the king was wearing a crown and with Lord Commander (and Hand) Criston Cole. It is known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an old dream, one that Ned has had on many occasions.

I think this is the operative point that way too many people either miss or willfully ignore. This is not Ned having a one-time drug-fueled nightmare. It's very clear that he's had the dream before and has had it for a while. It also says that the situation is as it had been "in life." Granted, memory can be a fuzzy thing, but that at least suggests some minimal promise of realism.

Now, some of the dream seems to be clearly metaphorical. The storm of blue rose petals, for instance, or Lyanna calling Ned "Lord Eddard" when her voice bleeds into Poole's. But the meat of it, I'm confident saying, is accurate. If the entire thing was suspect, as some people bizarrely try to argue, why even bother discussing it at all? Why include it at all, if all of it can be thrown out? At some point you have to be able to look at the dream and say, "This probably happened. This probably happened. This is probably symbolic." And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aeron I AGREE.

Now, I want to add this. Aegon II was not the king at the time in question, the king was wearing a crown and with Lord Commander (and Hand) Criston Cole. It is known.

Actually, Aegon II was the king, he had just lost King's Landing, and he was fleeing to Dragonstone. The King's Guards obeyed an order to let him make the journey with only a non-King's guard bastard knight to protect him.

I think you are referring to Aemond, who was the Regent becuase Aegon was to ill to rule, as the one who had Criston Cole with him. But Aemond didn't have Criston Cole with him. Aemond flew off into the Riverlands on a dragon while Cole marched his army south. Then Cole died, and no King's guards tried to find either Aemond or Aegon. They just kept following their last orders, as they were sworn to do.

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...