Jump to content

Archived

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

RumHam

R+L=J v. 102

Recommended Posts

Ned thought Robert would kill the Lannister children.IIRC he said something about no one being able to stop Robert's rage at knowing he was made a fool of in front of the entire realm.

This was something else. Poison in the dark, a knife thrust to the soul. This he could never could forgive, no more than he had forgiven Rhaegar. He will kill them all, Ned realized

And yet he knew he could not keep silent. He had a duty to Robert, to the Realm, and to the shade of Jon Arryn...and to Bran who surely must have stumbled on some part of the truth. Why else would they have tried to slay him? -aGoT page 466-467

this realization comes after

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was something else. Poison in the dark, a knife thrust to the soul. This he could never could forgive, no more than he had forgiven Rhaegar. He will kill them all, Ned realized

And yet he knew he could not keep silent. He had a duty to Robert, to the Realm, and to the shade of Jon Arryn...and to Bran who surely must have stumbled on some part of the truth. Why else would they have tried to slay him? -aGoT page 466-467

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Ned can make that conclusion after

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

and his statement is still honest. If Ned had thought something similar before claiming that he thought Robert was a better man... then Ned would have been lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't Rhaegar hook up with either Cercei or Ashara or even Lysa ,because if he had the realm wouldn't burn.

Yes, why? Why did he "kidnap" Lyanna Stark? There are some that think he wanted a third head for the dragon so badly he would became mad when Elia couldn't have more children. Wouldn't it be better to, uh, "kidnap" a woman who already had babies? How did he knew Lyanna was fertile?

The whole "Rhaegar was obsessed with profecy" is only a red herring. Rhaegar didn't kidnapp Lyanna, he saved her from Aerys, who found out she was TKoTLT and became paranoid about the Starks since then.

They were not in love, Rhaegar hadn't seen Lyanna since the tourney at Harrenhal. It makes no sense to think that he suddenly realized he needed her for his "profecy". From what we know of the man, he was not impulsive, he would think things through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not in love,

That explains Rhaegar's last word, "Lyanna"?

It makes no sense to think that he suddenly realized he needed her for his "profecy". From what we know of the man, he was not impulsive, he would think things through.

As suddenly as the maester's told him he could not have any more children by his wife Elia.

From what we know of the man, he was not impulsive, he would think things through.

So it was his plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they had heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers, They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of Morning deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's kingsguard, and how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward he had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea.--aGoT page 62

(snip)

Check the above passage citing Ned's soldiers knowledge of the events at the tower. It does hurt the case for secrecy.

Not at all. Nobody was left at the tower, so no reason for that part of the secret to be kept. People would want to know where Ned had been and what had happened to Lyanna, so some information had to be revealed. That a partial and probably inaccurate account came out afterwards doesn't demonstrate that secrecy wasn't felt necessary at the time.

The speed and surprise was not a hypothesis... it was a text based response to the question you posed.... Why did Ned take only a small party.

As a reason for why Ned took only 6 men, it remains a hypothesis.

If you believe, as I do, that the text makes it very clear that Ned considered Robert a threat to targaryen children, then it works with both these.

It is a belief because no text backs it and text does contradict it.

The text you claim contradicts it is Ned's speech, which is not necessarily what he's actually thinking, and certainly not necessarily what he thought during a cold fury at Robert 14 years previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, they're both sort of fairy tale. I don't think there is a way Jon gets out (at least not too far) from a trope, be it the prince in hiding or the bastard who would be king.

(unless Jon becomes the Great Other and brings eternal winter to Planetos)

I'm saying it's Fairytale-like for Westeros to just "accept" a bastard as King. It doesn't sound realistic at all. Maybe as a Knight or a Lord...but never a king.

IF Jon becomes king (and I'm not saying it's certain at all), he will need to be true born. I'm just thinking of it realistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does R+L=J matter? To anyone other than Jon, i mean.

The last Targ reign wasnt that great and they were overthrown anyway, so no claim better than Tommen or Stannis. There would be a question on his legitimacy as well, i imagine. Is it just someone for danny to play around with? Will it have any effect on his ability to tame or ride a dragon? I wouldnt have thought so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does R+L=J matter? To anyone other than Jon, i mean.

The last Targ reign wasnt that great and they were overthrown anyway, so no claim better than Tommen or Stannis. There would be a question on his legitimacy as well, i imagine. Is it just someone for danny to play around with? Will it have any effect on his ability to tame or ride a dragon? I wouldnt have thought so.

It lasted over 300 years and they united the seven kingdoms. Where do you get the idea that "it wasn't that great"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It lasted over 300 years and they united the seven kingdoms. Where do you get the idea that "it wasn't that great"?

It was overthrown to save millions. Not a great ending. Only as good as last game which was a bit crazy for most

Also, didnt really address the question i was asking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Nobody was left at the tower, so no reason for that part of the secret to be kept. People would want to know where Ned had been and what had happened to Lyanna, so some information had to be revealed. That a partial and probably inaccurate account came out afterwards doesn't demonstrate that secrecy wasn't felt necessary at the time.

As a reason for why Ned took only 6 men, it remains a hypothesis.

The text you claim contradicts it is Ned's speech, which is not necessarily what he's actually thinking, and certainly not necessarily what he thought during a cold fury at Robert 14 years previously.

Not at all. Nobody was left at the tower, so no reason for that part of the secret to be kept.

This is an assertion of both how Ned's soldiers learned of the tower of joy and what Ned to keep it a secret....without bothering to make them.

People would want to know where Ned had been and what had happened to Lyanna, so some information had to be revealed.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of Morning deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's kingsguard, and how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward he had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea.--aGoT page 62

The kingsguard at the tower and Ned's trip to Starfall are what had to be revealed. unless you changed from saying the quote does not relate to the secrecy at the tower.

That a partial and probably inaccurate account

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of Morning deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's kingsguard, and how their young lord had slain him in single combat.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning had a sad smile on his lips. --aGoT page 409

They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away: Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman Howland Reed.--aGoT 412

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star, They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then , and he would say no more,---aCoK page 332

This part of the story whispered by Ned's own soldiers is supported elsewhere in the text.

And they told how afterward he had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea.

Or was it the grieving sister, the Lady Ashara? She threw herself into the sea, I'm told. Why was that? For the brother you slew or the child you stole?--Cersei aGoT page 470

What happened to Ser Arthur Dayne's sword Dawn after Ned brought it back to Ashara?

Dawn remains at Starfall, until another Sword of the Morning shall arise.--GRRM

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1193/

The second half of the story Ned's soldiers whispered is supported by outside sources.

came out afterwards doesn't demonstrate that secrecy wasn't felt necessary at the time.

That would largely depend on where one chooses to place the afterwards.

I did not address the feeling of a need for security, I pointed to a passage that indicates that secrecy was not practiced. At a minimum assertions of Ned's feeling a need for secrecy needs to address it. Claiming it was probably inaccurate... did not do that.

As a reason for why Ned took only 6 men, it remains a hypothesis...

absolutely

"No" Catelyn said, "A large party attracts unwelcome attention I would not have the Lannisters know I am coming."--aGoT

"Two riders can move as fast as one, and a good deal faster than a long column burdened by wagons and wheel houses..."--aGoT page 132.

Remain textual references regarding limiting the size of a party.

stateofdissipation, on 02 Sept 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:snapback.png

If you believe, as I do, that the text makes it very clear that Ned considered Robert a threat to targaryen children, then it works with both these.

It is a belief because no text backs it and text does contradict it.

The text you claim contradicts it (Ned considered Robert a threat to targaryen children) is Ned's speech

"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

The text contradicts the assertion regardless of my claim.

is Ned's speech, which is not necessarily what he's actually thinking,

lie 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

liar 1. a person who has lied or lies repeatedly

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liar

That is an assertion that Ned lied twice... by either and both definitions of "lie" That also makes Ned having lied and having lied repeatedly....

and certainly not necessarily what he thought during a cold fury at Robert 14 years previously.

.14 years later Ned made the following as true statements

"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

Ned considered Robert a threat to targaryen children and "I thought you were a better man than this Robert. I thought we had made a nobler king,"

cannot both be true.

"Your grace, the girl is scarce more than a child. You are no Tywin Lannister to slaughter innocents," and Ned considered Robert a threat to targaryen children

cannot both be true.

You earlier explained Ned's motivations for these statements... you can do so again if you wish but that simply provides intent to deceive

If you wish to call Ned a liar... you can..it is even supportable

I failed you, Robert, Ned thought he could not say the words I lied to you, hid the truth, I let them kill you.--aGoT page 607

If you would like further evidence of Ned's lies.... I could provide them. None of the examples will include Ned's statements against your assertions.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was overthrown to save millions. Not a great ending. Only as good as last game which was a bit crazy for most

No, it wasn't. It was overthrown because the King pushed the Lords too far. There was nothing about "saving millions". One crazy king doesn't mean that the entire Targaryan dynasty was terrible. There were many kings over a 300 year period...some great, some good and some bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying it's Fairytale-like for Westeros to just "accept" a bastard as King. It doesn't sound realistic at all. Maybe as a Knight or a Lord...but never a king.

IF Jon becomes king (and I'm not saying it's certain at all), he will need to be true born. I'm just thinking of it realistically.

Well, there are fairy tales... and then there are fairy tales. Kings. And Kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. It was overthrown because the King pushed the Lords too far. There was nothing about "saving millions". One crazy king doesn't mean that the entire Targaryan dynasty was terrible. There were many kings over a 300 year period...some great, some good and some bad.

Think Jaime has a different take on that. Wasnt he going to blow up kings landing? Or was that a previous Targ. 300 years as empires go is short and they had dragons to begin with.

Also, can you address the original question or is it given that it doesnt matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Jaime has a different take on that. Wasnt he going to blow up kings landing? Or was that a previous Targ. 300 years as empires go is short and they had dragons to begin with.

Also, can you address the original question or is it given that it doesnt matter?

Your question is based on faulty reasoning. You assume that no one would want the Targaryans back in power and that any Targaryan claim would be worthless. I'm telling you that isn't true at all, and a true born son if Rhaegar would have a strong claim.

How would Jon prove his birthright? No clue. I imagine there would be some incontrovertible evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of Morning deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's kingsguard, and how their young lord had slain him in single combat.

This part of the story whispered by Ned's own soldiers is supported elsewhere in the text.

Not entirely -- "he would have killed me but for Howland Reed" casts some doubt on the single combat bit. Not really relevant thought -- the simple fact is that what Ned's soldiers might have heard after the event has no bearing on whether or not Ned felt it necessary to keep it secret before the event.

That is an assertion that Ned lied twice... by either and both definitions of "lie" That also makes Ned having lied and having lied repeatedly....

Yes, Ned lies repeatedly. Including little white lies to try to get Robert to do the right thing. I don't really understand the objection.

By the way, I appreciate your effort to use the quote feature more. It makes your posts much easier to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question is based on faulty reasoning. You assume that no one would want the Targaryans back in power and that any Targaryan claim would be worthless. I'm telling you that isn't true at all, and a true born son if Rhaegar would have a strong claim.

How would Jon prove his birthright? No clue. I imagine there would be some incontrovertible evidence.

The last Targ king was a mad tyrant and to assume people would forget that is faulty reasoning.

I think actual dragons would inspire fear but a story about how some bastard kid who has sworn an oath never to become a king is actually a legitimate heir to an overthrown lineage which he didnt even know until recently aint going to hold much water. Especially given all the issues at the moment with food, war and winter. Claims, no matter how un-flimsy (not sure thats a word) are unlikely to matter. Bringing security and safety or strength will and i dont see many houses caring too much without a lot of strength behind him, in which case his birth circumstances wouldnt matter anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last Targ king was a mad tyrant and to assume people would forget that is faulty reasoning.

I never said they would forget Aerys. But we see very clearly that people wanted Rhaegar as their king. The mad king didn't "ruin" the Targaryan line or the Targaryan popularity. He was one bad king in a long dynasty.

I think actual dragons would inspire fear but a story about how some bastard kid who has sworn an oath never to become a king is actually a legitimate heir to an overthrown lineage which he didnt even know until recently aint going to hold much water.

1. I would be shocked if Jon somehow remains under oath for the rest of the series.

2. If Jon becomes king, it won't be through conquest...it will be through his deeds.

3. If Jon becomes king, it will be because they offer the throne to him.

4. Riding a dragon doesn't mean you have Targaryan blood.

Especially given all the issues at the moment with food, war and winter. Claims, no matter how un-flimsy (not sure thats a word) are unlikely to matter. Bringing security and safety or strength will and i dont see many houses caring too much without a lot of strength behind him, in which case his birth circumstances wouldnt matter anyway

...I don't understand this criticism. "People are starving so they won't care about claims"? The kingdom isn't going to become a democracy...they aren't going to pick someone just because he would be good for the job. They will choose someone with the birthright so that other noble houses will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said they would forget Aerys. But we see very clearly that people wanted Rhaegar as their king. The mad king didn't "ruin" the Targaryan line or the Targaryan popularity. He was one bad king in a long dynasty.

1. I would be shocked if Jon somehow remains under oath for the rest of the series.

2. If Jon becomes king, it won't be through conquest...it will be through his deeds.

3. If Jon becomes king, it will be because they offer the throne to him.

4. Riding a dragon doesn't mean you have Targaryan blood.

...I don't understand this criticism. "People are starving so they won't care about claims"? The kingdom isn't going to become a democracy...they aren't going to pick someone just because he would be good for the job. They will choose someone with the birthright so that other noble houses will follow.

In hard times, birthright will not matter. Stability, safety and food will. Nobles know this too and will flock to that whether it be lannister, martell, tyrell, snow, baratheon or whoever. Famine will undermine any legitimacy. Peasant uprisings, crime and such are likely to keep lords at home fixing their own stuff rather than at war over a name or marriage.

How is R+L=J going to matter?

Share this post


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

×