Jump to content

R+L = J v 86


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Once he is born, his safety as the rightful king becomes the KG's primary duty, but only if his parents were married.

And since the 3KG refuse to leave and are willing to die cause, as Ygritte said a page or two back, We! Are! Kingsguard! Dammit!....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it be conspicuous, it was by design by GRRM. The 3KGs had to die, its to serve the purpose of Ned's burden until the moment of his execution, the haunting memories that good men died that day, from his side and the 3KGs, the burden of his promises to his sister to keep Jon safe from a friend that will kill at the knowledge of any hints if Jon have Targaryen blood flowing in him, especially being the true heir of the IT.

So you feel that the 3KGs knew that Varys (or someone) switched the babies? that's what you're saying, you're trying to connect a fine thread where they believed baby Aegon is alive, because they would bringing it up with Ned in conversation if he was dead, right?

These are their words to Ned:

Our knees do not bend easily

(to the rebellion, to the new king, Robert)

Ser Willem is a good man and true... But not of the Kingsguard... The Kingsguard does not flee

(clearly Viserys is not the next in line, more evidence that instead they'd rather be defending the King in KL then or... now with Jon at the TOJ)

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

(if it's to make it clear for Ned, and us, the readers, that at that moment the LC believed he is clearly still keeping his sacred vow)

Ok then, so Arthur and Whent, I would assume had no clue about Varys' plans, they were with Rhaegar all this time. So the only possible member of the 3KGs that could possibly know is the Lord Commander. Because if we assume all 3 knew about Aegon being spirited away, I mean why stay at the tower?

Hmm, is Hightower lying then? in the middle of Targaryen extermination, Hightower is refusing to go to Aegon (the true heir after Rhaegar), and instead guarding a mistress of a prince? (with your favorite assumption that R+L not married).

So, the by-the-book Kingsguard, who watched Ned's Father and brother being tortured to death, had the gall to protect a mistress and doesn't go to find baby Aegon? I would think ser Gerold would move heaven and earth, using all of his resources to find where Varys was holding and keeping baby Aegon by now, as in he would've left the TOJ a while ago... like seconds after hearing Aerys' death, he would've been gone. However, he stayed, still strict with the vow he made, the vow to protect the King or the true heir.. still in the tower.

I figured you would think of Ned's thoughts highly, Fred. You do know that Ned thought of Dayne, Whent and Hightower as shining examples of the Kingsguard, right? not some oathbreaker, like Jaime.

Pardon the digression from the bloody mangled horse corpse that is Jon= King, but I saw this and wanted to make a few points.

First, Oberyn Martell made a point of mentioning how close Elia was to her children, refusing to let wet nurses take them, having them around her at all times. If a Varys baby swap had indeed occurred (with an Aegon that was about a year old at the time and certainly recognizable to his mother and those close to the family), Elia would have known about it. (I could be wrong here; I'm not sure in what universe a doting mother would mistake a Pisswater Prince for her own toddler, but I admit this is based on my own experience.)

Elia's lady-in-waiting during a good part of her time in KL ("in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar", per SSM) was Ashara Dayne....sister to Arthur Dayne, KG at ToJ, and Rhaegar's personal bodyguard and close friend. Ashara would be close to Elia, know her and know her children. We do not know when Ashara returned to Starfall from KL, but it was probably sometime during RR - and then of course she presumedly takes her own life (but sans habeus corpus) after Ned's arrival at Starfall.

The same SSM also notes "Ashara Dayne was not nailed to the floor in Starfall, as some of the fans who write me seem to assume. They have horses in Dorne too, you know. And boats (though not many of their own)."

Without going into a lot of creative detail, I will say that to answer the questions presented in the scenario you present, the KG would not be forsaking their duty of protecting the heir if they already knew that the heir was safely tucked away elsewhere, which would leave them mostly free to stick around ToJ and babysit Lyanna while she waits to hatch the latest dragon.

**Naturally this deductively concludes that 1) fAegon is the real deal, and 2) Varys was protecting the Targ dynasty as he claims, both of which have their own problems. I just wanted to lay out how it COULD have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple of problems here, though. The KG specifically say that if they had gone to the Trident or KL, the King would be alive. So, it their view, the King was not suffiently protected. So, why didn't they go to KL or the Trident to protect him?

The other big one is they don't know the gender of the baby yet. So, for two months, they are only protecting the maybe-King. Viserys is also the maybe-King, yes?

Now, of course, men make choices and decisions and hindsight is 20/20, but that's the point I'm making:

These are human beings with heir own individual opinions about who is king, honor, what is protection, who deserves protecting, what their role is. It's Barristan and it's Jamie. To deny that is missing the whole point of the story. Everything is murky and so is the ToJ.

That statement was made with the benefit of hindsight. Before the Sack, the KG could not have predicted Tywin and Pycelles treachery as well as Jaime killing Aerys. Also, according to ssm, the loyalists actually outnumbered the rebels at the Trident so there was a higher probability of a loyalist victory at that stage.

I also don't believe for a second they waited around for two months. I've already said all I am going to say about travel times and posted an ssm about it as well.

While the ToJ scene is in the context of a fevered dream I still think that the gist of it is unambiguous. The KG make it pretty clear why they are there. As to your question of why they don't run, that is something I cannot answer with certainty. Either they believed their location was a secret and therefore safe or they were simply unable to move or there were other reasons. The fact is; they were there and nothing is going to change that. I am certain that when all is revealed it will make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you came into that understanding; plainly stated by GRRM, we're not meant to know everything about what clearly happened at the TOJ yet, until in the later books.

We do know though, that Jon will know about his parents.

will Jon ever find out about his parentage?

Eventually, yes.

There's nothing wrong with a few sets of assumptions and theories, especially with the countless little clues, hints and foreshadowing of Jon being King in the end. GRRM wants us to know, he placed the clues and hints there for a reason, for a purpose, for us to know, or for us to think about the possibility (of Jon being King, thus he was born legitimate), so that later on in the books, it's only just light bulbs turning on.

We're giving unnecessary thoughts to counter GRRM's writing via some mindset of mass internet/forums/sns, to feel that in regards to foreshadowing, clues and hints early in the book series, that just because people now know, GRRM will pull the rug right under us and change midstream, I don't think he will do that, especially in regards to R+L=J.

I agree with you, and I don't think R+L=J will be undone. But, this thread wouldn't have gone 90 iterations if things made sense at this juncture and it were as simple as Jon=King or even Jon=Azor Ahai. It's supposed to be mysterious because there will be another layer.

I don't think its any coincidence that three of the most mysterious families: the Hightowers, the Whents and the Daynes are there. And I bet all three men had different, unique reasons for being there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going into a lot of creative detail, I will say that to answer the questions presented in the scenario you present, the KG would not be forsaking their duty of protecting the heir if they already knew that the heir was safely tucked away elsewhere, which would leave them mostly free to stick around ToJ and babysit Lyanna while she waits to hatch the latest dragon. .

Unless Aegon was stuck at ToJ, as well, this scenario runs into exactly the same dilemma: the KG first duty is not being fulfilled. Regardless of who was the heir, Aegon or Viserys, no KG was performing the duty to protect him, hence D+W+H were not free to to do any other tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going into a lot of creative detail, I will say that to answer the questions presented in the scenario you present, the KG would not be forsaking their duty of protecting the heir if they already knew that the heir was safely tucked away elsewhere, which would leave them mostly free to stick around ToJ and babysit Lyanna while she waits to hatch the latest dragon.

Yes, they would be forsaking their duties. If you assume (f)Aegon is real (and not (f)Aegon but the real Aegon) and the 3 KG knew of the baby switch, once Aerys died, at least ONE KG would have been required to go to the side of the new king to be fulfilling their duties. They cannot simply consider him to be safe. He needs a KG to guard him. None of the 3 KG tried to get to Aegon--thus either (f)Aegon is not Aegon or even if he (which I highly doubt), the 3 KG knew nothing of the baby switch.

ETA: Once again, Ygrain made my point before I could post it (but this time did not see it until after I had posted).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, and I don't think R+L=J will be undone. But, this thread wouldn't have gone 90 iterations if things made sense at this juncture and it were as simple as Jon=King or even Jon=Azor Ahai. It's supposed to be mysterious because there will be another layer.

I don't think its any coincidence that three of the most mysterious families: the Hightowers, the Whents and the Daynes are there. And I bet all three men had different, unique reasons for being there.

I don't disagree that mysteries remain, but I think this thread often gets bogged down by assertions from skeptics that can be pretty safely disposed of, at least as being extremely unlikely.

First in that pile for me is the assertion that the KG could have allowed a standing order to take precedence over their commitment to the dynasty if they were indeed so prideful of their KG status. I can't believe that and nobody should. Is it out of the question? Maybe not 100%, but functionally, I would say that yes it is.

Without going into a lot of creative detail, I will say that to answer the questions presented in the scenario you present, the KG would not be forsaking their duty of protecting the heir if they already knew that the heir was safely tucked away elsewhere, which would leave them mostly free to stick around ToJ and babysit Lyanna while she waits to hatch the latest dragon.

I really just don't believe that the KG can leave the rightful heir unsupervised by at least one KG. They can't know that the king is safe unless one of them is with him. I do not believe that they can assume that the king is safe on the word of a raven. In the case of Viserys, I don't believe that they can know that he is safe with Willem Darry. This is not an assumption that the KG can exercise the prerogative to make. If he's not with a brother in white, his safety cannot be assured. On the other hand, if it's a misdirection play like a baby swap where a KG would actually draw undue attention to the heir, I could at least picture it, even though I don't think it likely, but it makes the latter scenario more likely than the former IMHO. Not that I think Aegon VI is legit, I don't, but that would at least be the sort of circumstance where you could argue the absence of the KG would actually help protect the heir. It's an extraordinary circumstance and a major exception though, and not one that should be thought of as commonplace or acceptable in 99% of circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, and I don't think R+L=J will be undone. But, this thread wouldn't have gone 90 iterations if things made sense at this juncture and it were as simple as Jon=King or even Jon=Azor Ahai. It's supposed to be mysterious because there will be another layer.

I don't think its any coincidence that three of the most mysterious families: the Hightowers, the Whents and the Daynes are there. And I bet all three men had different, unique reasons for being there.

I think that R+L=J is plenty layered already and R+L= legitimate J even moreso. It is only amongst forum users that this theory has become blasé and people start looking for things that aren't really there.

The three KG probably had differing reasons for being there initially (Dayne and Whent's friendship with Rhaegar, Hightower(?) order from Rhaegar most likely). Whatever the reasons for them being there initially, by the time Ned arrives, they are all on the same page and make it perfectly clear why they will not flee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't know that the king is safe unless one of them is with him. I do not believe that they can assume that the king is safe on the word of a raven. In the case of Viserys, I don't believe that they can know that he is safe with Willem Darry. This is not an assumption that the KG can exercise the prerogative to make. If he's not with a brother in white, his safety cannot be assured.

There is yet another aspect to this: even if the king was perfectly safe with a whole army around, it changes nothing about the fact that the KG are NOT doing their duty, someone else is doing it for them. As long as some KG are still alive, none of them is with the king and none of them is trying to reach him, they are all in dereliction of their sworn duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going into a lot of creative detail, I will say that to answer the questions presented in the scenario you present, the KG would not be forsaking their duty of protecting the heir if they already knew that the heir was safely tucked away elsewhere, which would leave them mostly free to stick around ToJ and babysit Lyanna while she waits to hatch the latest dragon.

**Naturally this deductively concludes that 1) fAegon is the real deal, and 2) Varys was protecting the Targ dynasty as he claims, both of which have their own problems. I just wanted to lay out how it COULD have happened.

I won't contest your argument.

Aegon may possibly be presumed safe by Dayne and Whent (biased enough since they were presumed close to Rhaegar, at the least Dayne), but Hightower? you would risk Hightower's integrity to presumption? The man watched Lord Stark and his son tortured and killed, why wait in the tower? Hightower had no sworn allegiance to Lyanna Stark and baby Jon, the bastard of the prince (if unmarried). Aside from Rhaegar's order to guard her, once Rhaegar died, Hightower's first sworn duty is to protect and defend the next in line to the throne, that's Aegon (assuming we're going with your train of logic).

I'm of the opinion that Hightower will move heaven and earth to find Aegon. If he didn't know where he was at that moment, once hearing that King Aerys has died, he's gone. There was no duty (sworn to protect) Lyanna and the baby, the true shining example of the Lord Commander had no right to stay at the tower, less he'd be an oathbreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, if you look at these three men solely in the light of their KG affiliation, yes, there are issues. However, if you add in a degree of humanity to these three men, the lines of "duty" start to blur a little bit.



It's interesting that they can said to be able to make snap personal judgment calls about the legitimacy of the offspring of what would be a dubious second marriage of a man who officially died a Crown Prince and never a King, but they aren't able to make personal judgment calls about the nature of their protective duties.



And speaking of, what prompts KG to serve a dynasty, anyway? They don't serve dynasties. They serve kings. The only thing compelling them to serve a dynasty is personal loyalty.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going into a lot of creative detail, I will say that to answer the questions presented in the scenario you present, the KG would not be forsaking their duty of protecting the heir if they already knew that the heir was safely tucked away elsewhere, which would leave them mostly free to stick around ToJ and babysit Lyanna while she waits to hatch the latest dragon.

**Naturally this deductively concludes that 1) fAegon is the real deal, and 2) Varys was protecting the Targ dynasty as he claims, both of which have their own problems. I just wanted to lay out how it COULD have happened.

I disagree, the Kingsguard at the tower of joy lose Ned's admiration for their honorability in dying for their king, as sworn. The three Kingsguard loudly professing that they are upholding thier vow as their reason to fight becomes a hollow banter. It just does not work with the source. Aegon is dead, as Ned tells us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that R+L=J is plenty layered already and R+L= legitimate J even moreso.

One aspect that I think we overlook when look at the specific factual details is how the issue impacts the overall arc of the story. Why will it be important that R+L=J? I think everyone basically accepts this theory (and almost everyone on the board seems to at least accept the basic conclusion that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna). But the issue of Jon's parents is a central mystery in the story. If the only significance is that Jon will able to ride a dragon, then I guess it does not matter whether his parents were married. But if the significance is that he was raised to believe he was a bastard when he really was the true heir to the Targaryen dynasty--now that is a much bigger revelation.

I know that for some people, this argument proves the opposite. To them, Jon's identity as a bastard is who he is, and undoing that identity by showing that his parents were married would diminish his identity. But this is a fantasy story. Yes, GRRM claims to deconstruct tropes, but I don't think he does this as much as some think. If the reveal is that everyone thought he was the bastard son of Ned and Wylla/Ashara/Fisherman's Daughter/... but he is really the bastard son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, that seems like kind of a let down (certainly a surprise to many readers but to some extent, so what). Wouldn't the reveal shake Jon's world (and the rest of Westeros if they find out) much more if the reveal is that he is arguably the rightful KING (ignoring whether the Targs have any claim any longer--not really the point here)? Isn't that much more dramatic? Aren't we missing this basic theme that runs through fiction--that a big mystery has to have a big pay-off? Which alternative is the bigger pay-off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, the Kingsguard at the tower of joy lose Ned's admiration for their honorability in dying for their king, as sworn. The three Kingsguard loudly professing that they are upholding thier vow as their reason to fight becomes a hollow banter. It just does not work with the source. Aegon is dead, as Ned tells us.

That's the thing, though - if we are looking at KG and their duty to the king in black and white, the entire ordeal is hollow. When Jaime slashed Aerys' throat in KL and Robert assumed the throne, there was no Targaryen king for them to serve. As KG, Robert was now their king to which they should show fealty. If they were true KG strictly upholding vows, the second they heard of Aerys' death they should have returned to KL to serve Robert Baratheon or agree to take the black, to hell with Lyanna and her kid who is not king.

They didn't do that. They stayed behind, and called Robert "Usurper." But, but, he is now their king!!! They are KG!!! Ergo, they did not uphold their oath to serve the king. Barristan did, these 3 did not. Why not? Personal loyalty. Black and white just turned grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, though - if we are looking at KG and their duty to the king in black and white, the entire ordeal is hollow. When Jaime slashed Aerys' throat in KL and Robert assumed the throne, there was no Targaryen king for them to serve. As KG, Robert was now their king to which they should show fealty. If they were true KG strictly upholding vows, the second they heard of Aerys' death they should have returned to KL to serve or agree to take the black, to hell with Lyanna and her kid who is not king.

They didn't do that. Ergo, they did not uphold their oath to serve the king. Barristan did, these 3 did not. Why not? Personal loyalty. Black and white just turned grey.

Not if they didn't believe Robert was really the rightful king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, if you look at these three men solely in the light of their KG affiliation, yes, there are issues. However, if you add in a degree of humanity to these three men, the lines of "duty" start to blur a little bit.

It's interesting that they can said to be able to make snap personal judgment calls about the legitimacy of the offspring of what would be a dubious second marriage of a man who officially died a Crown Prince and never a King, but they aren't able to make personal judgment calls about the nature of their protective duties.

And speaking of, what prompts KG to serve a dynasty, anyway? They don't serve dynasties. They serve kings. The only thing compelling them to serve a dynasty is personal loyalty.

Hindsight's 20/20 and furthermore I would be on your side of doubting all of this if GRRM insert one, just one disagreement or doubt among the 3KGs. If in Ned's dream that Hightower were seen to be questioning the reason why he must fight (against the 7 rebels), that as Ned gave them reasons after reasons to go, could you imagine the context of discussions of R+L=J version threads now? it would be on the standing ground of Hightower's words of doubt, and it would in the right to assume that.

That's why it is even more prevalent that GRRM wrote as such that all three Kingsguard had no doubt whatsoever among themselves as to their duty at the very moment. That there is someone of great importance in that tower who claimed their sworn vow and loyalty to fight and defend to the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, though - if we are looking at KG and their duty to the king in black and white, the entire ordeal is hollow. When Jaime slashed Aerys' throat in KL and Robert assumed the throne, there was no Targaryen king for them to serve. As KG, Robert was now their king to which they should show fealty. If they were true KG strictly upholding vows, the second they heard of Aerys' death they should have returned to KL to serve Robert Baratheon or agree to take the black, to hell with Lyanna and her kid who is not king.

They didn't do that. They stayed behind, and called Robert "Usurper." But, but, he is now their king!!! They are KG!!! Ergo, they did not uphold their oath to serve the king. Barristan did, these 3 did not. Why not? Personal loyalty. Black and white just turned grey.

No, no, no, no. In their eyes, the rules for who becomes king is clear. Robert was not heir to the throne and was not declared king by a Grand Council. Ergo, by the rules that the KG believe they are sworn to follow Robert simply is not king--he is a Usurper and Jon is the rightful king. That is the way that the rules that they were sworn to follow work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing, though - if we are looking at KG and their duty to the king in black and white, the entire ordeal is hollow. When Jaime slashed Aerys' throat in KL and Robert assumed the throne, there was no Targaryen king for them to serve. As KG, Robert was now their king to which they should show fealty. If they were true KG strictly upholding vows, the second they heard of Aerys' death they should have returned to KL to serve Robert Baratheon or agree to take the black, to hell with Lyanna and her kid who is not king.

They didn't do that. They stayed behind, and called Robert "Usurper." But, but, he is now their king!!! They are KG!!! Ergo, they did not uphold their oath to serve the king. Barristan did, these 3 did not. Why not? Personal loyalty. Black and white just turned grey.

That totally depends on who you see as your lawful king: the dynasty you've sworn your vows to, or the dynasty that takes over using violence. Robert becoming king did not happen by law. It happened by conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that for some people, this argument proves the opposite. To them, Jon's identity as a bastard is who he is, and undoing that identity by showing that his parents were married would diminish his identity. But this is a fantasy story. Yes, GRRM claims to deconstruct tropes, but I don't think he does this as much as some think. If the reveal is that everyone thought he was the bastard son of Ned and Wylla/Ashara/Fisherman's Daughter/... but he is really the bastard son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, that seems like kind of a let down (certainly a surprise to many readers but to some extent, so what). Wouldn't the reveal shake Jon's world (and the rest of Westeros if they find out) much more if the reveal is that he is arguably the rightful KING (ignoring whether the Targs have any claim any longer--not really the point here)? Isn't that much more dramatic? Aren't we missing this basic theme that runs through fiction--that a big mystery has to have a big pay-off? Which alternative is the bigger pay-off?

Also, if GRRM wants to deconstruct a trope, he must first build one. Usually, the hidden heir learns about his heritage and in the end gets the throne and the girl and rules happily ever after - safe to assume that this is not going to happen in GRRMth.

That's the thing, though - if we are looking at KG and their duty to the king in black and white, the entire ordeal is hollow. When Jaime slashed Aerys' throat in KL and Robert assumed the throne, there was no Targaryen king for them to serve. As KG, Robert was now their king to which they should show fealty. If they were true KG strictly upholding vows, the second they heard of Aerys' death they should have returned to KL to serve or agree to take the black, to hell with Lyanna and her kid who is not king.

They didn't do that. Ergo, they did not uphold their oath to serve the king. Barristan did, these 3 did not. Why not? Personal loyalty. Black and white just turned grey.

That's not how loyalty works. Allegiance is to the house and bloodline, not to the office. What Barristan did was a rational choice, at the time when he really had no agenda of his own, being injured and held captive. Those three followed their vows to the bitter end, bringing the ultimate sacrifice instead of the rational choice which they were offered, and this is why Ned thinks Arthur Dayne the finest knight ever and not Barristan.

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...