Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RumHam

R+L=J v. 102

Recommended Posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 11:57 PM

Reference guide

The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory:
Jon Snow's Parents

And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary:
Jon Snow's Parents

A Wiki of Ice and Fire:
Jon Snow Theories


Frequently Asked Questions:

How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?
Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targaryen fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?
Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?
Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?
Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?
The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty.
For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?
The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?
Aerys was sane enough to realize how taking someone hostage works even at the end of the Rebellion, and he would hardly miss the opportunity to bring Ned and Robert in line any time after the situation started to look really serious.
Furthermore, regardless of on whose order the Kingsguard might have stayed at Tower of Joy, they would still be in dereliction of their duty to guard the new king.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?
The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the A Song of Ice and Fire readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 17 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?
Ned doesn't think about anyone as being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?
Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans?
No, he said he won't change the outcome of the story only because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle.


Previous editions:

I couldn't get the spoiler tags to work for some reason. Are you really gonna read through all the previous versions anyway?

Edit: Here's the last one at least:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/116524-rlj-v101/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous versions here:

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread one)


Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread two)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part III)” (thread three)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part IV)” (thread four)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part V)” (thread five)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)” (thread six)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII” (thread seven)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII” (thread eight)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX” (thread nine)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna =Jon Thread, Part X”(thread ten)

The R+L=J thread, part XI” (thread eleven)

The R+L=J thread, part XII” (thread twelve)

R+L=J Part XXIII” (thread thirteen)

R+L=J Part XXIV” (thread fourteen)

R+L=J XXV” (thread fifteen)

R+L=J v.16” (thread sixteen)

R+L=J v.17” (thread seventeen)

R+L=J v.18” (thread eighteen)

R+L=J v.19” (thread nineteen)

R+L=J v.20” (thread twenty)

R+L=J v.21” (thread twenty-one)

R+L=J v.22” (thread twenty-two)

R+L=J v.22a” (thread twenty-two (a))

R+L=J v.23” (thread twenty-three)

R+L=J v.24” (thread twenty-four)

R+L=J v.25” (thread twenty-five)

R+L=J v.26” (thread twenty-six)

R+L=J v.27” (thread twenty-seven)

R+L=J v.28” (thread twenty-eight)

R+L=J v.29” (thread twenty-nine)

R+L=J v.30” (thread thirty)

R+L=J v.31” (thread thirty-one)

R+L=J v.32” (thread thirty-two)

R+L=J v.33” (thread thirty-three)

R+L=J v.34” (thread thirty-four)

R+L=J v.35” (thread thirty-five)

R+L=J v.36” (thread thirty-six)

R+L=J v.37” (thread thirty-seven)

R+L=J v.38” (thread thirty-eight)

R+L=J v.39” (thread thirty-nine)

"R+L=J v.40" (thread forty)

"R+L=J v.41" (thread forty-one)

"R+L=J v.42" (thread forty-two)

"R+L=J v.43" (thread forty-three)

"R+L=J v.44" (thread forty-four)

"R+L=J v.45" (thread forty-five)

"R+L=J v.46" (thread forty-six)

"R+L=J v.47" (thread forty-seven)

"R+L=J v.48" (thread forty-eight)

"R+L=J v.49" (thread forty-nine)

"R+L=J v.50" (thread fifty)

"R+L=J v.51" (thread fifty-one)

"R+L=J v.52" (thread fifty-two)

"R+L=J v.53" (thread fifty-three)

"R+L=J v.54" (thread fifty-four)

"R+L=J v.55" (thread fifty-five)

"R+L=J v.56" (thread fifty-six)

"R+L=J v.57" (thread fifty-seven)

"R+L=J v.58" (thread fifty-eight)

"R+L=J v.59" (thread fifty-nine)

"R+L=J v.60" (thread sixty)

"R+L=J v.61" (thread sixty-one)

"R+L=J v.62" (thread sixty-two)

"R+L=J v.63" (thread sixty-three)

"R+L=J v.64" (thread sixty-four)

"R+L=J v.65" (thread sixty-five)

"R+L=J v.66" (thread sixty-six)

"R+L=J v.67" (thread sixty-seven)

"R+L=J v.68" (thread sixty-eight)

"R+L=J v.69" (thread sixty-nine)

"R+L=J v.70" (thread seventy)
"R+L=J v.71" (thread seventy-one)

"R+L=J v.72" (thread seventy-two)

"R+L=J v.73" (thread seventy-three)

"R+L=J v.74" (thread seventy-four)

"R+L=J v.75" (thread seventy-five)

"R+L=J v.76" (thread seventy-six)

"R+L=J v.77" (thread seventy-seven)

"R+L=J v.78" (thread seventy-eight)

"R+L=J v.79" (thread seventy-nine)

"R+L=J v.80" (thread eighty)

"R+L=J v.81" (thread eighty-one)

"R+L=J v.82" (thread eighty-two)

"R+L=J v.83" (thread eighty-three)

"R+L=J v.84" (thread eighty-four)

"R+L=J v.85" (thread eighty-five)

"R+L=J v.86" (thread eighty-six)

"R+L=J v.87" (thread eighty-seven)

"R+L=J v.88" (thread eighty-eight)

"R+L=J v.89" (thread eighty-nine)

"R+L=J v.90" (thread ninety)

"R+L=J v.91" (thread ninety-one)

"R+L=J v.92" (thread ninety-two)

"R+L=J v.93" (thread ninety-three)

"R+L=J v.94" (thread ninety-four)

"R+L=J v.95" (thread ninety-five)

"R+L=J v.96" (thread ninety-six)

"R+L=J v.97" (thread ninety-seven)

"R+L=J v.98" (thread ninety-eight)

"R+L=J v.99" (thread ninety-nine)

"R+L =J v.100" (thread one hundred)

"R+L=J v.101" (thread one hundred one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread one)

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread two)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part III)” (thread three)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part IV)” (thread four)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part V)” (thread five)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)” (thread six)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII” (thread seven)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII” (thread eight)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX” (thread nine)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna =Jon Thread, Part X”(thread ten)

The R+L=J thread, part XI” (thread eleven)

The R+L=J thread, part XII” (thread twelve)

R+L=J Part XXIII” (thread thirteen)

R+L=J Part XXIV” (thread fourteen)

R+L=J XXV” (thread fifteen)

R+L=J v.16” (thread sixteen)

R+L=J v.17” (thread seventeen)

R+L=J v.18” (thread eighteen)

R+L=J v.19” (thread nineteen)

R+L=J v.20” (thread twenty)

R+L=J v.21” (thread twenty-one)

R+L=J v.22” (thread twenty-two)

R+L=J v.22a” (thread twenty-two (a))

R+L=J v.23” (thread twenty-three)

R+L=J v.24” (thread twenty-four)

R+L=J v.25” (thread twenty-five)

R+L=J v.26” (thread twenty-six)

R+L=J v.27” (thread twenty-seven)

R+L=J v.28” (thread twenty-eight)

R+L=J v.29” (thread twenty-nine)

R+L=J v.30” (thread thirty)

R+L=J v.31” (thread thirty-one)

R+L=J v.32” (thread thirty-two)

R+L=J v.33” (thread thirty-three)

R+L=J v.34” (thread thirty-four)

R+L=J v.35” (thread thirty-five)

R+L=J v.36” (thread thirty-six)

R+L=J v.37” (thread thirty-seven)

R+L=J v.38” (thread thirty-eight)

R+L=J v.39” (thread thirty-nine)

"R+L=J v.40" (thread forty)

"R+L=J v.41" (thread forty-one)

"R+L=J v.42" (thread forty-two)

"R+L=J v.43" (thread forty-three)

"R+L=J v.44" (thread forty-four)

"R+L=J v.45" (thread forty-five)

"R+L=J v.46" (thread forty-six)

"R+L=J v.47" (thread forty-seven)

"R+L=J v.48" (thread forty-eight)

"R+L=J v.49" (thread forty-nine)

"R+L=J v.50" (thread fifty)

"R+L=J v.51" (thread fifty-one)

"R+L=J v.52" (thread fifty-two)

"R+L=J v.53" (thread fifty-three)

"R+L=J v.54" (thread fifty-four)

"R+L=J v.55" (thread fifty-five)

"R+L=J v.56" (thread fifty-six)

"R+L=J v.57" (thread fifty-seven)

"R+L=J v.58" (thread fifty-eight)

"R+L=J v.59" (thread fifty-nine)

"R+L=J v.60" (thread sixty)

"R+L=J v.61" (thread sixty-one)

"R+L=J v.62" (thread sixty-two)

"R+L=J v.63" (thread sixty-three)

"R+L=J v.64" (thread sixty-four)

"R+L=J v.65" (thread sixty-five)

"R+L=J v.66" (thread sixty-six)

"R+L=J v.67" (thread sixty-seven)

"R+L=J v.68" (thread sixty-eight)

"R+L=J v.69" (thread sixty-nine)

"R+L=J v.70" (thread seventy)
"R+L=J v.71" (thread seventy-one)

"R+L=J v.72" (thread seventy-two)

"R+L=J v.73" (thread seventy-three)

"R+L=J v.74" (thread seventy-four)

"R+L=J v.75" (thread seventy-five)

"R+L=J v.76" (thread seventy-six)

"R+L=J v.77" (thread seventy-seven)

"R+L=J v.78" (thread seventy-eight)

"R+L=J v.79" (thread seventy-nine)

"R+L=J v.80" (thread eighty)

"R+L=J v.81" (thread eighty-one)

"R+L=J v.82" (thread eighty-two)

"R+L=J v.83" (thread eighty-three)

"R+L=J v.84" (thread eighty-four)

"R+L=J v.85" (thread eighty-five)

"R+L=J v.86" (thread eighty-six)

"R+L=J v.87" (thread eighty-seven)

"R+L=J v.88" (thread eighty-eight)

"R+L=J v.89" (thread eighty-nine)

"R+L=J v.90" (thread ninety)

"R+L=J v.91" (thread ninety-one)

"R+L=J v.92" (thread ninety-two)

"R+L=J v.93" (thread ninety-three)

"R+L=J v.94" (thread ninety-four)

"R+L=J v.95" (thread ninety-five)

"R+L=J v.96" (thread ninety-six)

"R+L=J v.97" (thread ninety-seven)

"R+L=J v.98" (thread ninety-eight)

"R+L=J v.99" (thread ninety-nine)

"R+L =J v.100" (thread one hundred)

"R+L=J v.101" (thread one hundred one)

Thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to suggest that the ceremonies were the end all determination of when someone's rule begins. (Though Aegon I marked his rule from the time the High Septon annointed him.) But there are important differences in the two situations. Joffrey and then Tommen had armies, the Iron Throne, legitimate claims in the eyes of the people, and perhaps most importantly people knew who they were. Everyone expected Jeoffrey to inherit someday. Nobody would have backed "this baby I got here that was Rhaegar's born to a second wife nobody knew about."

...since when does the KG made decisions based on political viability? They know that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead. They know that Jon is Rhaegar's only living son and heir. Ergo, Jon is the rightful king to the Targaryan throne. If the KG had successfully spirited Jon away to safety and then at some point announced to the kingdom that Rhaegar's heir lived, do you think that everyone would have been "...but where's the proof?" to three of the most famous and respected KG in history? Think of how extremely powerful Houses Hightower, Dayne and Whent are. This wouldn't be a cut-and-dried situation at all.

Robert is a usurper. I don't see how anyone could argue that he isn't, based on the fact that he uses his Targaryen blood claim to take the throne and Viserys still lives. Even Ned or Robert himself would have to admit that, it's a matter of public record. I'll grant you that the Kingsguard probably used it meaning negative connotations.

Anyway to the larger point, it's not for them to determine the validity of the king on the Iron Throne. Now I'm not trying to say that Dayne, Hightower or Whent weren't Targaryen loyalists who would die before bowing to Robert or anyone else. I'm just saying I think it's faulty logic to go from a comparison of Ned's opinion of Jaime vs. Author to "Arthur could never have abandoned Viserys cause he was the best."

I said look at the way he characterizes both of them.

He thinks Jaime, the man who slew the king who murdered his father and brother and helped win Robert and Ned's war, is disloyal and doesn't deserve to wear the cloak.

He thinks that Arthur Dayne, a man he fought to the death, is the best KG he had ever seen.

The dichotomy is striking and makes no sense until you realize that Ned prizes the KG, first and foremost, for upholding their duty. Ned isn't prone to seeing shades of grey...he sees things very black and white. They refused to run, and they refused to bow down. The story specifically points out that Viserys had no KG with him and the KG at the ToJ thought they were fulfilling their vow by staying there. And so does Ned.

As for the foreshadowing, one or two pieces by themselves would mean nothing...but there's quite a lot of it, and very specific.

Also, the evidence I gave following that supports the idea of marriage.

Rhaegar wants his child to be the third head of the dragon. Why would he not make sure that child IS a dragon in every way possible?

We know that Visenya performed a ritual of blood and fire for her son, Maegor, to marry him to his second wife when the Faith refused.

We know that Lyanna didn't want to marry Robert because of his infidelity. Why on earth would she then consent to become the mistress of any man and bear his bastard child?

We know that they didn't get pregnant right away. In fact, it took several months. So they weren't 'swept up in a fit of passion' and found themselves pregnant. They had plenty of time to get married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumham,



1) Just for the record, not in living memory. Since Aegon married both sisters before invading Maegor the cruel stands as the only example, and he warred with the Faith for his entire reign.


The same is true of the North as an independent kingdom with its own king.



This is true, but remember that the Faith was toothless in Rhaegar's time.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumham,

The same is true of the North as an independent kingdom with its own king.

This is true, but remember that the Faith was toothless in Rhaegar's time.

I agree the Faith did what the king said by the time of Rhaegar. Still Rhaegar was not a king. It's hard to imagine the faith's relationship with Aerys and his son without more information. It's interesting that Aerys never fell under the spell of the red priests.

It's also interesting that we have no examples of the Kings of Winter or Lords of Winterfell taking multiple wives. Even the Boltons and Umbers (who supposedly still practice the first night) refrain from taking multiple wives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the Faith did what the king said by the time of Rhaegar. Still Rhaegar was not a king. It's hard to imagine the faith's relationship with Aerys and his son without more information. It's interesting that Aerys never fell under the spell of the red priests.

It's also interesting that we have no examples of the Kings of Winter or Lords of Winterfell taking multiple wives. Even the Boltons and Umbers (who supposedly still practice the first night) refrain from taking multiple wives.

It's not really strange, considering they are descended from the First Men and worship different gods. The Valyrians clearly believed incest and polygamy was fine...other cultures did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the Faith did what the king said by the time of Rhaegar. Still Rhaegar was not a king. It's hard to imagine the faith's relationship with Aerys and his son without more information. It's interesting that Aerys never fell under the spell of the red priests.

It's also interesting that we have no examples of the Kings of Winter or Lords of Winterfell taking multiple wives. Even the Boltons and Umbers (who supposedly still practice the first night) refrain from taking multiple wives.

Well this is where inheritance comes into play. Just because you can take multiple wives, doesn't mean that people regularly do. I fully acknowledge that having two wives is problematic when it comes to first born sons and families infighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is where inheritance comes into play. Just because you can take multiple wives, doesn't mean that people regularly do. I fully acknowledge that having two wives is problematic when it comes to first born sons and families infighting.

Yeah I concede that point. In other words it could be that the difference between Maegor and Aegon the Unworthy is that Maegor needed an heir. Still it's hard to imagine that one guy in the Targaryen/Stark lines wouldn't have taken a second wife. I mean what we see of Daemon's relationship with his "Bronze Bitch" and Myseria carrying his first son, it seems like the perfect time for a brash young Targaryen to say "fuck it, I'm taking another wife."

Is this evidence the Targaryen's started to play by the rules re: polygamy, no. But in my opinion the fact that the Faith was at this point "toothless" and yet still no Targaryens took second wives suggests to me that either something changed between Maegor and Rhaegar re: polygamy or polygamy was always held as terrible by the old gods and new. As Martin has said, you can get away with a lot when you have dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this evidence the Targaryen's started to play by the rules re: polygamy, no. But in my opinion the fact that the Faith was at this point "toothless" and yet still no Targaryens took second wives suggests to me that either something changed between Maegor and Rhaegar re: polygamy or polygamy was always held as terrible by the old gods and new. As Martin has said, you can get away with a lot when you have dragons.

Something may have changed, but it could also be that Rhaegar just didn't care that something had changed. And, in his head, by the time this was all said and done, he'd have overthrown Aerys (good for the realm and potentially the Faith) and the Faith was still toothless enough that he figured they wouldn't object to what it took to overthrow Aerys and what he did in the process,like marrying Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, here's the thing. We don't know exactly what happened in the ToJ. We are speculating on what happened, because Martin has not yet revealed the full picture. Good speculation is based on making reasonable assertions; ones that are not contradicted in the text, and follow from common sense. Like this one.

If we knew exactly what happened, there would be no place for reasonable assertions that were not in the text. This thread wouldn't exist, either. Nobody (I hope!) is asserting that their speculation is fact; only that it's solid speculation.

General is not the same as specific. Either you insist that because the text does not provide qualifiers there can be no qualifiers, in which case you must also conclude that a Kingsguard would refuse to flee if ordered by a fleeing king to accompany him, or you accept that in certain circumstances there can be qualifiers. Either there are or there are not. It's an either/or, and one of the options provides for absurd situations.

I'm not sure if you think that Barristan's flight from the Dun Fort with Aerys doesn't count as fleeing because he left at a walking pace rather than running, but that's not supported in the text and rather unlikely. He was certainly retreating from danger, to save the king, which fits pretty well with Ygraine's suggestion.

True, the text does not specify. Nowhere does it say either "We do not flee, even to accompany a fleeing king," or "We do not flee, except when accompanying a fleeing king". It's just the sensible conclusion that they would accompany a fleeing king. If the text does not specify, we run with the option that is least absurd unless we get evidence to the contrary. Doesn't that sound reasonable to you?

Progress! You agree that Ned was opposed to killing children. Great. This leaves only two possible conclusions:

1. Targaryen children are not children, Kingmonkey's assertion was wrong.

2. Ned is opposed to killing Targaryen children, Kingmonkey's assertion was correct.

Which of these two conclusions do you subscribe to?

Not at all at odds with each other. Look at the post I linked: "Of course he could have. He knew to go to the ToJ. Seems reasonable to assume someone told him. Why shouldn't they have also told him what was at the ToJ?" There, spelled out.

No, of course I'm not suggesting that the location and contents of the Tower of Joy are a state secret, that's just an illustration that a secret does not cease to become a secret just because you tell one person, or two, or even seven.

Ok, help me out with this, because I'm struggling a little to understand the thrust of your arguments. Is your assertion that when Ned says "You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents" in ch.12 and perhaps "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" in ch.33, he's stating that he doesn't believe that Robert would be involved in killing children?

If so, you're missing the subtext. Ned doesn't actually believe those things, he's trying to shame Robert into accepting his viewpoint by stating it in a way he thinks Robert cannot deny. In both cases, Ned says these things in direct response to Robert promoting the idea of killing of a child.

How would you explain "I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him." (ch.12) or "I want them dead, mother and child both, and that fool Viserys as well. Is that plain enough for you? I want them dead." (ch.33) other than that Robert wants them dead, and feels he should have killed them years ago?

No, Robert did not personally kill Aerys' children. Nor did Tywin Lannister. Tywin ordered it, and Robert condoned the action.

This passage is pretty explicit. This was a major bone of contention between them; Ned left King's landing in a cold rage because Robert considered Tywin's actions to have been the right thing to do in the end. It's hardly a jump to suppose that Ned would believe any more Targaryen children that Robert heard about would be in danger. Remember, Robert doesn't consider them children, he considers them dragonspawn and he wants them dead. He says so himself.

General is not the same as specific. Either you insist that because the text does not provide qualifiers there can be no qualifiers, in which case you must also conclude that a Kingsguard would refuse to flee if ordered by a fleeing king to accompany him, or you accept that in certain circumstances there can be qualifiers. Either there are or there are not. It's an either/or, and one of the options provides for absurd situations.

Oliver Bailey Smith (October 26, 1893 – December 25, 1977) was a highly decorated combat veteran of World War II and the Korean War. He is most noted for commanding the 1st Marine Division during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, where he said "Retreat, hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_P._Smith

so much for either or...

Ser Gerold made a statement "kingsguard do not flee" That statement is supported after the Battle of the Bells and at the Trident in the text. Hightower could also say "We are not fleeing, we are attacking a different enemy or we are obeying the orders of the king."

As things turned out.... None of Aerys's kingsguard fled... for any reason.

I'm not sure if you think that Barristan's flight from the Dun Fort with Aerys doesn't count as fleeing because he left at a walking pace rather than running,

I did not specify a pace... I did not call it Selmy rescuing Aerys.. Selmy's flight from the Dun Fort.... My pencil is broken and my pen is out of ink.

but that's not supported in the text and rather unlikely.

Selmy's rescue of Aerys is covered in the text... just not how you are describing it.

He was certainly retreating from danger, to save the king,

Selmy went into the Dun fort, killed the knight that had killed a kingsguard, brought Aerys out and the fort surrendered....

It is hard to turn that into fleeing.... it is winning.

which fits pretty well with Ygraine's suggestion.

Do you mean Ygrain's paperback writing...

...

Progress! You agree that Ned was opposed to killing children.

I generally try not to agree or disagree... i make distinctions between supported and non supported statements... Ned opposed the killing of children is supported...

Great. This leaves only two possible conclusions:

1. Targaryen children are not children, Kingmonkey's assertion was wrong.

2. Ned is opposed to killing Targaryen children, Kingmonkey's assertion was correct.

Which of these two conclusions do you subscribe to?

3. kingmonkeys statement left off Lannister children, Stark children, Baratheon children, whore's children, Tyrell children, Dothraki children, Ironborn children, anybody's children-- well "Ned opposed killing children" is certainly shorter...

Not at all at odds with each other. Look at the post I linked: "Of course he could have. He knew to go to the ToJ. Seems reasonable to assume someone told him. Why shouldn't they have also told him what was at the ToJ?" There, spelled out.

It is also not a secret....unless you specify the someone. If Ned heard it from an archer that heard it from a pikeman... that heard it from the cook... that heard it from an inkeeper that heard it from a group of mummers passing through town... it is not a secret.

No, of course I'm not suggesting that the location and contents of the Tower of Joy are a state secret, that's just an illustration that a secret does not cease to become a secret just because you tell one person, or two, or even seven.

OK but hearing it from the archer... or one of his soldiers... who heard it from a prostitute. kind of eliminates it from being a secret.

Ok, help me out with this, because I'm struggling a little to understand the thrust of your arguments.

Ok but i generally do not argue..

Is your assertion that when Ned says "You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents" in ch.12 and perhaps "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" in ch.33, he's stating that he doesn't believe that Robert would be involved in killing children?

No... I asserted that Ned's statement:

"Your grace, the girl is scarce more than a child. You are no Tywin Lannister to slaughter innocents,"--aGoT page 107

"I thought you were a better man than this Robert. I thought we had made a nobler king,"--Ned aGoT page 343.

counter your assertion that Ned believed Robert was a threat to children.

If so, you're missing the subtext. Ned doesn't actually believe those things,

I bother to counter the assertion that Ned was lying.... but I do not think you are actually aware you are making it.

he's trying to shame Robert into accepting his viewpoint by stating it in a way he thinks Robert cannot deny. In both cases, Ned says these things in direct response to Robert promoting the idea of killing of a child.

you kind of need to directly assert that Ned was lying to make that point. Or show that he thought differently. He is a viewpoint character... there is hordes of text including his thoughts. It should not be a problem to show it in the text.

How would you explain "I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him." (ch.12) or "I want them dead, mother and child both, and that fool Viserys as well. Is that plain enough for you? I want them dead." (ch.33) other than that Robert wants them dead, and feels he should have killed them years ago?

I do not need to explain it. It proves Ned was wrong about Robert. "I thought you were a better man than this Robert. I thought we had made a nobler king,"--Ned aGoT page 343. Ned stated he had been wrong about Robert at the end of that chapter... To counter that statement you need to make Ned a liar.

No, Robert did not personally kill Aerys' children. Nor did Tywin Lannister. Tywin ordered it, and Robert condoned the action.

This passage is pretty explicit. This was a major bone of contention between them; Ned left King's landing in a cold rage because Robert considered Tywin's actions to have been the right thing to do in the end.

We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children.--Tywin --aSoS chapter 53

Right...

It's hardly a jump to suppose that Ned would believe any more Targaryen children that Robert heard about would be in danger.

Not at all....

Remember, Robert doesn't consider them children, he considers them dragonspawn

Yes...

and he wants them dead. He says so himself.---

13 years later.

The questionable assertion was that Ned believed Robert was a threat to Targaryen children.

It is questionable because it contradicts Ned's statements... and is not supported by his thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the Faith did what the king said by the time of Rhaegar. Still Rhaegar was not a king. It's hard to imagine the faith's relationship with Aerys and his son without more information. It's interesting that Aerys never fell under the spell of the red priests.

It's also interesting that we have no examples of the Kings of Winter or Lords of Winterfell taking multiple wives. Even the Boltons and Umbers (who supposedly still practice the first night) refrain from taking multiple wives.

If we look at the Targaryen dynasty we see repeatedly that multiple branches of heirs invites trouble. It's not just polygamy either. Viserys I's two wives were consecutive, not concurrent. Yet the second wife led to a second branch of heirs, and a vicious civil war. The legitimization of Aegon IV's great bastards, specifically Daemon Blackfyre, caused generations of trouble for the Targaryens and Westeros as a whole.

Yet the gods do not always provide ideal circumstances, and often the choice is between something risky and something disastrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something may have changed, but it could also be that Rhaegar just didn't care that something had changed. And, in his head, by the time this was all said and done, he'd have overthrown Aerys (good for the realm and potentially the Faith) and the Faith was still toothless enough that he figured they wouldn't object to what it took to overthrow Aerys and what he did in the process,like marrying Lyanna.

But it's not just the Faith he'd be defying, there's something to be said for the convention/custom aspect. Even if it's just resentment. It is far from a given that Rhaegar's son by his second wife would be accepted as King of the Seven Kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he is both a king and a bastard?

I was just thinking the same "How does that work" question everyone else was, until it suddenly struck me... "King Jon Snow" IS both a king and a bastard. Snow is a Bastard's name. It might be King Jon Stark or King Jon Targaryen, but if it's King Jon Snow, that does kind of indicate a bastard king.

However! I have an entirely different take on the Ravens and the "king" line. Let's Mormont's Raven's wordsin Jon VIII, aDwD, when John is talking with Marsh, Cellador and Yarwyck. From the three entering the room:

"Corn, " screamed the raven from the lintel. "Corn, corn. "

"Free, " the raven muttered. "Corn. King. "

The raven flapped its wings and said, "Corn, corn, kill. "

"Snow, " screamed Lord Mormont's raven. "Snow, Snow. "

Above the door the raven muttered, "Dead, dead, dead. "

We can ignore "corn" because ravens are greedy, and we can ignore repetition of the same word, because ravens are babbling nutcases. This leaves us with:

"Free" "King" "Kill" "Snow" "Dead".

Yes, new crackpot theory time! We've totally misinterpreted the Raven's "King" quorks, as did Jon and Mormont in the books. The Raven has no interest in monarchies, he's telling Marsh, Yarwyck and Cellador (at least one of whom was involved in Jon's stabbing, obviously on the raven's instructions) to "Freaking kill Snow dead!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking the same "How does that work" question everyone else was, until it suddenly struck me... "King Jon Snow" IS both a king and a bastard. Snow is a Bastard's name. It might be King Jon Stark or King Jon Targaryen, but if it's King Jon Snow, that does kind of indicate a bastard king.

However! I have an entirely different take on the Ravens and the "king" line. Let's Mormont's Raven's wordsin Jon VIII, aDwD, when John is talking with Marsh, Cellador and Yarwyck. From the three entering the room:

"Corn, " screamed the raven from the lintel. "Corn, corn. "

"Free, " the raven muttered. "Corn. King. "

The raven flapped its wings and said, "Corn, corn, kill. "

"Snow, " screamed Lord Mormont's raven. "Snow, Snow. "

Above the door the raven muttered, "Dead, dead, dead. "

We can ignore "corn" because ravens are greedy, and we can ignore repetition of the same word, because ravens are babbling nutcases. This leaves us with:

"Free" "King" "Kill" "Snow" "Dead".

Yes, new crackpot theory time! We've totally misinterpreted the Raven's "King" quorks, as did Jon and Mormont in the books. The Raven has no interest in monarchies, he's telling Marsh, Yarwyck and Cellador (at least one of whom was involved in Jon's stabbing, obviously on the raven's instructions) to "Freaking kill Snow dead!"

...or it's Bloodraven warning Jon Snow of the man/men who plan on killing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's not just the Faith he'd be defying, there's something to be said for the convention/custom aspect. Even if it's just resentment. It is far from a given that Rhaegar's son by his second wife would be accepted as King of the Seven Kingdoms.

Yes he would be defying convention and custom. But who is going to strongly object enough to make serious waves?

Dorne is the biggest possibility, I know.

Casterly Rock/Lannisters: If Tywin can insert himself politically into Rhaegar's new regime, then he might be willing to go for it. "I'll accept your second wife if you make me your Hand" sort of deal

Highgarden/The Tyrells: rich but kinda toothless in all this.

The Vale/Arryns: Problematic but might follow the North

The North/Starks: Yeah, Rickard (if he were alive) isn't going to object to his daughter being Queen.

Storm's End/Baratheons: This and Dorne are the issues, I know. But would they concede?

Also, as to your second point, I don't think Rhaegar ever intended Jon to be King of Westeros. That was always going to be Aegon. Baby Boy Jon had a different task and destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as to your second point, I don't think Rhaegar ever intended Jon to be King of Westeros. That was always going to be Aegon. Baby Boy Jon had a different task and destiny.

^This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×