R+L=J v100

[J. Stargaryen]

Sure would provide a better explanation for the KG presence though, don't you think?

Sure, if you're willing to exclude all but two cherry picked data points. It's like you're basing your theory on an FBI report where everything has been redacted except for Aegon smuggled from KL [several paragraphs later] KG at the ToJ.

[BearQueen87]

...Rhaegar and Lyanna what?

MADE A BABY

Personally I don't think that Ned actually asked those questions. Too ritualised, too symbolic. I'll cover this at some length when I finally finish the mini thesis on the ToJ I'm working on (working title: "Ned's Katabasis: the Tower of Joy as a Celtic Otherworld", nobody scream, now.) Doesn't matter -- it's all about what was important in Ned's subconscious interpretation, and that's that the 3KG answered his challenge with honour, and to his great regret he could find no response but bloodshed -- exactly what he hoped to avoid, or he'd have taken more men. Ned knew.

I look forward to that. Please do let us know when it's done

[UVA]

Sure, if you're willing to exclude all but two cherry picked data points. It's like you're basing your theory on an FBI report where everything has been redacted except for Aegon smuggled from KL [several paragraphs later] KG at the ToJ.

Yea. Perfect analogy J. Star, can I ape it for other topics?

[J. Stargaryen]

Yea. Perfect analogy J. Star, can I ape it for other topics?

Of course. :)

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

100 threads....& it's filling up fast!

[Julia Martell]

What's this Soparano's thing everyone's talking about.

(New Jersey ain't in Westeros.)

[Ygrain]

But here's the thing: Martin could still choose to make Aegon real at this point. He could still choose to make him fake. He could just as easily pick one or the other and it wouldn't destroy any of the clues laid down in the past books. The "mummer" in mummer's dragon could simply mean Varys, and not that the dragon is fake. And in ACoK, he could have done anything at all with Aegon's character that he wanted to. He wasn't 'stuck' with what he had already written, because he had barely written anything at all.

The thing is, "mummer's dragon" is used the first time as Dany's description of what she saw in HotU - a cloth dragon on poles presented to cheering crowds. I don't think this allows any other reading than "a fake substitute". I didn't connect the dots to Aegon then but expected that some time in the story, a false dragon is going to make an appearance.

So yes, that might be Aegon in that tower but it's not probable.

Let's take the thought a little further: Ned allows someone to take away the child who, in two decades, will come back with fire and blood and start another civil war to overthrow Robert's dynasty. Not probable. At all.

Also wouldn't make sense why Lyanna is in her bloody bed. Unless we're thinking Aegon was there and Lyanna still had Jon.

Ah, the ToJ nursery, right? :D

Advice to new people who come to these threads: start reading at 20 threads back, you questions most likely have been addressed.

Advice to new people: ask away. You might want to read the reference guide, it does make things a bit easier.

So much this. Ned wasn't really looking for those particular 3 KGs at those places. He had other things on his mind, like the thousands of other people who actually were there to fight. Each step of what Ned asks them are all the same thing: justify your actions as King's Guards. Prove your honour. The unsaid part of the answer in every step is the because: we weren't at the trident because... we weren't at King's landing because... and it's the fact that it's never answered that should draw our attention to the question.

Personally I don't think that Ned actually asked those questions. Too ritualised, too symbolic. I'll cover this at some length when I finally finish the mini thesis on the ToJ I'm working on (working title: "Ned's Katabasis: the Tower of Joy as a Celtic Otherworld", nobody scream, now.) Doesn't matter -- it's all about what was important in Ned's subconscious interpretation, and that's that the 3KG answered his challenge with honour, and to his great regret he could find no response but bloodshed -- exactly what he hoped to avoid, or he'd have taken more men. Ned knew.

Couldn't agree more, especially on the ritualised nature of the dialogue and honour.

[Disputatious]

I still think Robert would have wed Lyanna. He wanted her...even when he talks about Rhaegar raping her, it's obvious that he hasn't lost his affection for her. He even called Cersei Lyanna on their wedding night, if I'm recalling correctly. Had Lyanna lived, Robert would have married her.

He would have married her at his peril. You don't really imagine Lyanna would have forgiven him for killing Rhaegar, do you?

[Debra Morgan]

So why do you think they were married? The bastard who turns out to be true prince and becomes the king is a cliche for Martin. Ok, you may believe in R+L=J, but why does Jon need to be legitimate?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

So why do you think they were married? The bastard who turns out to be true prince and becomes the king is a cliche for Martin. Ok, you may believe in R+L=J, but why does Jon need to be legitimate?

If they weren't managed, neither 3KG@TOJ nor all the "king" allusions to Jon make sense. Nor do the Jon-jokes work. Reason why Jon and Joffrey are not allowed to train at swords in the yard:

He gave her a half smile. "Bastards are not allowed t damage young princes,"

AGoT 07 Arya I

We know Joffrey is the bastard, so the young prince can't be a bastard or the joke is dead.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

And, most importantly, Jon being legitimate does not automatically mean that he will sit the throne in the end. ;)

[Kyoshi]

Just wanted to say Happy 100 Threads!!!

[Mithras]

And, most importantly, Jon being legitimate does not automatically mean that he will sit the throne in the end. ;)

Agreed. However, George is consistently dropping hints to refer to Jon as a king and that build up should cause something.

[Attitude]

And, most importantly, Jon being legitimate does not automatically mean that he will sit the throne in the end. ;)

Better yet, Jon being legit doesn't mean he is the rightful heir of the Throne. Robert simply conquered the Throne, Stannis is the rightful heir.

Agreed. However, George is consistently dropping hints to refer to Jon as a king and that build up should cause something.

Quotes, topic(s)?

[Mithras]

Quotes, topic(s)?

A King in Hiding Part 1 and Part 2. Some really nice quotes there.

[Attitude]

A King in Hiding Part 1 and Part 2. Some really nice quotes there.

Ty!

[Ygrain]

So why do you think they were married (1)? The bastard who turns out to be true prince and becomes the king (2) is a cliche for Martin. Ok, you may believe in R+L=J, but why does Jon need to be legitimate?

(1) and (2) are two completely separate issues. There are plenty of hints towards (1), but what it will result in, nobody knows yet.

[The guy from the Vale]

Better yet, Jon being legit doesn't mean he is the rightful heir of the Throne. Robert simply conquered the Throne, Stannis is the rightful heir.

Quotes, topic(s)?

Eh, and Stannis' throne was conquered by the Lannisters. Either Tommen is the rightful king, or Jon. And while I do like Tommen, I don't see him as an effective king for the time being - and we need one asap, not in 15 years.

[Attitude]

Eh, and Stannis' throne was conquered by the Lannisters. Either Tommen is the rightful king, or Jon. And while I do like Tommen, I don't see him as an effective king for the time being - and we need one asap, not in 15 years.

You can put it like that if you want, but I don't see it as a conquer. Robert's last words were ignored and Eddard was called a traitor (which he wasn't). They put a child of the Queen on the Throne, claiming he is a Baratheon, which is isn't.

I think it's complex and you can claim it either way. Fact stays: At the moment Robert died, Stannis was the rightful heir. (Ignoring the fact that Robert named Joffrey the rightful heir, because the reason he did that, was because he wasn't informed.

[FrozenFire3]

So why do you think they were married? The bastard who turns out to be true prince and becomes the king is a cliche for Martin. Ok, you may believe in R+L=J, but why does Jon need to be legitimate?

We are talking about the same author who came up with notions such as Tower of joy, I'm of the night, Even those who lack a man's parts may still have a man's heart, Needle was Jon Snow's smile, right? Just to understand where all this it-is-too-much-of-a-cliché-for-Martin comes from. Also, what you call cliché has a much nobler sibling, the archetype - one of those little universal themes that have been structuring literature, epic, myth and psychology for about, well, 3000 years. As much as I love Martin's style, I find it unlikely he'll be able to wipe out the archetypal DNA of storytelling when Shakespeare, Dante, Euripides and Homerus couldn't. Every story has already been told and yet there are endless ways to tell it. Who cares for the destination when the journey has been amazing?