BearQueen87 Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Aerys dies first, right? So the king dies, and his son is already dead, so his son's son (Aegon) becomes king in name only, and then he dies too. I guess we could substitute in "king" and "heir apparent" for father/grandson, respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion "When news of Rhaegar’s death and the defeat of the royalists reached King’s Landing, the newly-pregnant Queen Rhaella and her son Prince Viserys were sent to Dragonstone" I guessed that Rhaella was known to be pregnant. Based on the above statement. That takes a month off of your birth dates based off estimated time of conception.... IN HINDSIGHT, she had to have been pregnant, because she gave birth to Dany on Dragonstone and last slept with Aerys the night Chelsted was burned, which was about two weeks before the Sack. It is almost impossible for anyone, including Rhaella, to have known at the time she left that she was pregnant. She would have only been pregnant for, at the absolute most, two weeks, and probably more like a few days. There are home pregnancy tests that can't give a result that early, and Rhaella wasn't exactly peeing on a stick. Dany was conceived two weeks before the Sack and was born 9 months after Rhaella left, which was sometime in those intermediate two weeks but probably soon after the conception because she still had the marks on her when she left. So Dany's birth is sometime between 8.5-9 months after the Sack, which puts Jon's birth at about the time of the Sack to a couple of a weeks after. At the maximum limit, it was a month after. Absolutely not a full month before the Trident. Again, your math is off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygritte Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I guess we could substitute in "king" and "heir apparent" for father/grandson, respectively. *nod* I think the important thing is for both to be kings, and it just happens that Mance and his heir* were father and son. *ETA, before someone trolls me ;) I know that's not how wildling kingship works, but it was how the southerners were assuming it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 IN HINDSIGHT, she had to have been pregnant, because she gave birth to Dany on Dragonstone and last slept with Aerys the night Chelsted was burned, which was about two weeks before the Sack. It is almost impossible for anyone, including Rhaella, to have known at the time she left that she was pregnant. She would have only been pregnant for, at the absolute most, two weeks, and probably more like a few days. There are home pregnancy tests that can't give a result that early, and Rhaella wasn't exactly peeing on a stick. That is why I placed knowing she was pregnant at 1 month in... 2 weeks since missed period. You assumed last had sex was the time she got pregnant.... Can we agree with 9 months after Rhaegar's death and the Sack of KL... as the time for Dany's birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 That is why I placed knowing she was pregnant at 1 month in... 2 weeks since missed period. You assumed last had sex was the time she got pregnant.... Can we agree with 9 months after Rhaegar's death and the Sack of KL... as the time for Dany's birth? I don't think it's an assumption. She and Aerys didn't see each other. They really did not like each other. Aerys goes to her because of the burning. It (ugh) turns him on and he rapes her. Rhaella's last time she had sex was the night Aerys rapes her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 That is why I placed knowing she was pregnant at 1 month in... 2 weeks since missed period. You assumed last had sex was the time she got pregnant.... Can we agree with 9 months after Rhaegar's death and the Sack of KL... as the time for Dany's birth? Except that Aerys only slept with Rhaella at certain times, when he burned someone alive. The way he did with Chelsted. For Dany to be born 9 months after Rhaella fled the capital, her conception had to have occurred when Aerys raped Rhaella after burning Chelsted; that's the encounter that best matches the timeline and also the specific final encounter we're told about. It's not like Aerys and Rhaella were having regular, frequent sex otherwise; we're specifically told they weren't. And given that Rhaella would have only been pregnant for fewer than two weeks when she left, as I have said multiple times now, she wouldn't have known at the time that she was pregnant. Any mention of her being pregnant when she left is said with the benefit of hindsight. And if Dany was only 8.5-9 months after the Sack (given that her conception occurred roughly half a month before it), and Jon is 8-9 months older than Dany, then that puts Jon's birth at about the time of the Sack up to a few weeks after. Not a month before the Trident. For the third freaking time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 That is why I placed knowing she was pregnant at 1 month in... 2 weeks since missed period. You assumed last had sex was the time she got pregnant.... Can we agree with 9 months after Rhaegar's death and the Sack of KL... as the time for Dany's birth? This has dragged on for pages. In relation to R+L=J evidence, what does it matter? We have the entire blue rose collection, ranging from missing kings to blue roses placed in Lyanna's lap (womb) by Rhaegar, to the show framing a blue rose right over the throne (and they've been told the ending). We have a basic assumption that the Kingsguard would only be there if Jon was the rightful king, which is another SUPPORTING piece of evidence, far from certain in its own right. We have Ned's refusal to call Jon his son, Ned's inner monologue about 14 (Jon's life span) years of lying and regrets. The only person Jon is ever described as looking at is Arya, who is supposedly a carbon copy of Lyanna. We have the raven constantly alluding to Jon as King (who is rather convincingly believed to be warged by Bloodraven, who could know through the weirnet). Quite frankly, we have enough evidence and foreshadowing that those who hear it and remain willful doubters are taking a bigger leap of faith than its supporters. What's your issue? What rebuttals do you have that could lead to me, or others much more eloquent than me, trying to explain why we believe this is the only logical choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Except that Aerys only slept with Rhaella at certain times, when he burned someone alive. The way he did with Chelsted. For Dany to be born 9 months after Rhaella fled the capital, her conception had to have occurred when Aerys raped Rhaella after burning Chelsted; that's the encounter that best matches the timeline and also the specific final encounter we're told about. It's not like Aerys and Rhaella were having regular, frequent sex otherwise; we're specifically told they weren't. And given that Rhaella would have only been pregnant for fewer than two weeks when she left, as I have said multiple times now, she wouldn't have known at the time that she was pregnant. Any mention of her being pregnant when she left is said with the benefit of hindsight. And if Dany was only 8.5-9 months after the Sack (given that her conception occurred roughly half a month before it), and Jon is 8-9 months older than Dany, then that puts Jon's birth at about the time of the Sack up to a few weeks after. Not a month before the Trident. For the third freaking time. However, Queen Rhaella died giving birth to Daenerys during a terrible storm almost precisely nine months after the death of Rhaegar and the Sack of King’s Landing. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion Is that an acceptable source for Dany's birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 This has dragged on for pages. In relation to R+L=J evidence, what does it matter? We have the entire blue rose collection, ranging from missing kings to blue roses placed in Lyanna's lap (womb) by Rhaegar, to the show framing a blue rose right over the throne (and they've been told the ending). We have a basic assumption that the Kingsguard would only be there if Jon was the rightful king, which is another SUPPORTING piece of evidence, far from certain in its own right. We have Ned's refusal to call Jon his son, Ned's inner monologue about 14 (Jon's life span) years of lying and regrets. The only person Jon is ever described as looking at is Arya, who is supposedly a carbon copy of Lyanna. We have the raven constantly alluding to Jon as King (who is rather convincingly believed to be warged by Bloodraven, who could know through the weirnet). Quite frankly, we have enough evidence and foreshadowing that those who hear it and remain willful doubters are taking a bigger leap of faith than its supporters. What's your issue? What rebuttals do you have that could lead to me, or others much more eloquent than me, trying to explain why we believe this is the only logical choice? I believe the issue he wants to raise (and has before) is that we cannot know if Jon was born before the showdown at the ToJ or after. I believe he wants to argue that Lyanna died in childbirth. after the showdown. Or rather, maybe acknowledge that we have no solid evidence either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 However, Queen Rhaella died giving birth to Daenerys during a terrible storm almost precisely nine months after the death of Rhaegar and the Sack of King’s Landing. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion Is that an acceptable source for Dany's birth? No one is disputing that Dany was born about 9 months after the Sack. My confusion is where the hell you're getting that Jon may have been born a month before the Trident/news of the Trident/whatever. Jon is explicitly 8-9 months older than Dany, per the SSM. The earliest then he would have been born is about the time of the Sack, not a month or month-and-a-half before it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 This has dragged on for pages. In relation to R+L=J evidence, what does it matter? We have the entire blue rose collection, ranging from missing kings to blue roses placed in Lyanna's lap (womb) by Rhaegar, to the show framing a blue rose right over the throne (and they've been told the ending). We have a basic assumption that the Kingsguard would only be there if Jon was the rightful king, which is another SUPPORTING piece of evidence, far from certain in its own right. We have Ned's refusal to call Jon his son, Ned's inner monologue about 14 (Jon's life span) years of lying and regrets. The only person Jon is ever described as looking at is Arya, who is supposedly a carbon copy of Lyanna. We have the raven constantly alluding to Jon as King (who is rather convincingly believed to be warged by Bloodraven, who could know through the weirnet). Quite frankly, we have enough evidence and foreshadowing that those who hear it and remain willful doubters are taking a bigger leap of faith than its supporters. What's your issue? What rebuttals do you have that could lead to me, or others much more eloquent than me, trying to explain why we believe this is the only logical choice? I know where you got all the highlighted from.... I don't know where you got the time of birth from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I believe the issue he wants to raise (and has before) is that we cannot know if Jon was born before the showdown at the ToJ or after. I believe he wants to argue that Lyanna died in childbirth. after the showdown. Or rather, maybe acknowledge that we have no solid evidence either way. And what purpose does that argument serve, either for or against R+L=J? I suppose it might render a piece of supporting evidence not necessarily correct, but it's still nowhere near large enough to derail the entire train. I know where you got all the highlighted from.... I don't know where you got the time of birth from... Well, the last few pages combined have pretty much suggested that Jon was born around the Sack to one month after, and we can extrapolate that Ned took about a month, if not a little more to get there. Is that cleared up then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 No one is disputing that Dany was born about 9 months after the Sack. My confusion is where the hell you're getting that Jon may have been born a month before the Trident/news of the Trident/whatever. Jon is explicitly 8-9 months older than Dany, per the SSM. The earliest then he would have been born is about the time of the Sack, not a month or month-and-a-half before it. You all said that SSM is canon... i said ok... A pregnant Rhaella left KL after the trident..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygritte Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 However, Queen Rhaella died giving birth to Daenerys during a terrible storm almost precisely nine months after the death of Rhaegar and the Sack of King’s Landing. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion Is that an acceptable source for Dany's birth? What is your source for the death of Rhaegar and the Sack being simultaneous, hmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 You all said that SSM is canon... i said ok... A pregnant Rhaella left KL after the trident..... She was pregnant when she left King's Landing even if she didn't know at the time that she was pregnant. And given how far along she was (read: not very much, at all), she in all likelihood would not have known at the time. However, because she did give birth to Dany 9 months after leaving, in hindsight, we know (and people in-story know) that she must have been pregnant when she left. I'm sorry but I really don't see what is so bloody hard to get about this. You're conflating being pregnant with knowing that you're pregnant. They're not synonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 And what purpose does that argument serve, either for or against R+L=J? I suppose it might render a piece of supporting evidence not necessarily correct, but it's still nowhere near large enough to derail the entire train. Well, the last few pages combined have pretty much suggested that Jon was born around the Sack to one month after, and we can extrapolate that Ned took about a month, if not a little more to get there. Is that cleared up then? Oh he's not looking to derail the train. SOD believes in R+L = J. He even belives R+L = LEGIT J. The issue I think he takes is how we all accept certain things that have not be "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt as canon fact. Like Jon being born before Ned arrives instead of during/after Ned's arrival so that Lyanna literally dies in childbirth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Oh he's not looking to derail the train. SOD believes in R+L = J. He even belives R+L = LEGIT J. The issue I think he takes is how we all accept certain things that have not be "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt as canon fact. Like Jon being born before Ned arrives instead of during/after Ned's arrival so that Lyanna literally dies in childbirth. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 What is your source for the death of Rhaegar and the Sack being simultaneous, hmmm? the source is in the link to the quote.... the question was is the source acceptable... http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/What_happened_when_during_Roberts_Rebellion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Oh he's not looking to derail the train. SOD believes in R+L = J. He even belives R+L = LEGIT J. The issue I think he takes is how we all accept certain things that have not be "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt as canon fact. Like Jon being born before Ned arrives instead of during/after Ned's arrival so that Lyanna literally dies in childbirth. I think Jon was probably born a few days before Ned arrived. Lyanna, going by the description Ned gives of her (feverish), would have gone out due to puerperal fever, not the childbirth itself. Meaning, she need not have been right in the middle of labor when Ned got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I think Jon was probably born a few days before Ned arrived. Lyanna, going by the description Ned gives of her (feverish), would have gone out due to puerperal fever, not the childbirth itself. Meaning, she need not have been right in the middle of labor when Ned got there. Oh I happen to agree with you 100%. But I have danced this dance with State now for three threads. He's not going to give in unless we prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.