Jump to content

Archived

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

Jon Weirgaryen

R+L=J v.103

Recommended Posts

You just weakened a R+L=J point.

...that has absolutely nothing to do with R+L=J and everything to do with whether Rhaegar and Lyanna married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Stand by your seat, ser.” Kettleblack complied. The other Sworn Brothers filed in one by one. “Sers,” Jaime said in a formal tone when all five had assembled, “who guards the king?”

“My brothers Ser Osney and Ser Osfryd,” Ser Osmund replied.

“And my brother Ser Garlan,” said the Knight of Flowers.

“Will they keep him safe?”

“They will, my lord.”

“Be seated, then.” The words were ritual. Before the seven could meet in session, the king’s safety must be assured. - ASoS p.917

From this passage, that there is ritual and ceremony involved, if one of the KG is not with the King.

Well, thank you for the quote..

oath breaking is not part of it.

..

Oddly enough Ser Osmund's comments appear similar to Ser Oswell's comment at the tower

Ser Osney and Ser Osfryd,” “They will, my lord.”

and

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,”

Both name the knight guarding the king and affirm that the king is safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...that has absolutely nothing to do with R+L=J and everything to do with whether Rhaegar and Lyanna married.

True but most R+L=J people I see think they are secretly married, and that's what I ment I shall edit it now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but most R+L=J people I see think they are secretly married, and that's what I ment I shall edit it now

I think they are married, but not based solely on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are married, but not based solely on that.

Fair enough, but that point is the most referred to when they try and argue it even though there is no textual evidence(and I mean that the KG need to be with the king) to back it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I'm afraid that the World Book will bring back some math..

Should we state that in colours and bigger font in the first line of such posts, so you can avoid them more easily? :P

In just fifty four days the worldbook will be out. I know the first thing I'm doing is turning to the Grasslands section to look for this:

Edit: anything linking the Dothraki Sea and the Prince that was Promised seems like it would likely be Daenerys related.

:rofl: Only 54 days left!!

But really? You're not going to take a look at a certain tree first? It won't take long.. I'll even help search in the Grassland section, after the tree :)

Seriously, in a month or so, perhaps it's going to be time to decide which chapter to read first, judging by the preview table of contents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but that point is the most referred to when they try and argue it even though there is no textual evidence(and I mean that the KG need to be with the king) to back it.

To me, the big line is 'we swore a vow'. They wouldn't have sworn a vow to Rhaegar. Obeyed his orders, yes...but not swear a vow. If they were obeying Rhaegar's orders and only that, I would have expected them to say something like "We have our orders". But the vow they swore was to protect the king. That's what really gets me about that conversation more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the big line is 'we swore a vow'. They wouldn't have sworn a vow to Rhaegar. Obeyed his orders, yes...but not swear a vow. If they were obeying Rhaegar's orders and only that, I would have expected them to say something like "We have our orders". But the vow they swore was to protect the king. That's what really gets me about that conversation more than anything else.

To me the line that sticks out as maybe Jon being legit(which I don't think) is the "Then or now". Which would actually complement the "We swore a vow" I think. The "then" part could mean that if they were at KL they would not have "fled" with the prince, but instead stayed with their king, and are "now" doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the big line is 'we swore a vow'. They wouldn't have sworn a vow to Rhaegar. Obeyed his orders, yes...but not swear a vow. If they were obeying Rhaegar's orders and only that, I would have expected them to say something like "We have our orders". But the vow they swore was to protect the king. That's what really gets me about that conversation more than anything else.

They might have actually sworn a vow to Rhaegar to protect the prophecy child. After all, it's widely speculated that Arthur and Oswell, at least, were ready to break their vow to protect Aerys and replace him with Rhaegar. Rhaegar might have wanted some extra assurance or thought the child was important enough to merit more than a mere order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly forgot where we were.

Ummmm.......Somewhere between RLJ and "this has nothing to do with it?" ;)

Hi everyone, longtime lurker here (since this thread was in the 70s, so maybe not too long ago!)

First off this board helped me see the RLJ light that I missed when reading the series, so thanks guys! I for one think Jon is legitimate and will sit the IT eventually since he is so focused on duty and honor and all those wonderful things. I don't think he'll want to, but I do think he will do it because it will be what is required of him. Maybe I'm Disney-ing it up a little too much but I love the idea of a boy thinking he was a bastard and the lowest of the low the whole time when all along we was a king and ends up in his rightful place :P

Anyway, I had a question just to see what everyone thinks. I know both Jon and Dany are "ruling" in a sense in their most recent events, and both are having a hard time of it. Dany's having trouble with that Harpy business and no one really wanted to listen to Jon. Both have been the target of assassination plots as well. I think I saw someone mentioning how Dany's difficulty shows she wouldn't be able to rule Westeros, but to be devil's advocate, couldn't the same be said for Jon? Like I said, I do think he will sit the IT in the end, but I was just curious as to what everyone else makes of these situations. Foreshadowing? A way to show that both characters can (and maybe do) grow into competent rulers?

Welcome to the boards and the RLJ!

i would answer your question but I'm worried that we're getting very far off the beaten path....and sometimes the Mods dont' like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the line that sticks out as maybe Jon being legit(which I don't think) is the "Then or now". Which would actually complement the "We swore a vow" I think. The "then" part could mean that if they were at KL they would not have "fled" with the prince, but instead stayed with their king, and are "now" doing that.

But what about Hightower? He's the big red flashing "legit Jon is legit" arrow. I can buy Dayne and Whent swearing a vow to Rhaegar, but not Hightower. And yet, there he stands....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have actually sworn a vow to Rhaegar to protect the prophecy child. After all, it's widely speculated that Arthur and Oswell, at least, were ready to break their vow to protect Aerys and replace him with Rhaegar. Rhaegar might have wanted some extra assurance or thought the child was important enough to merit more than a mere order.

This is an interesting angle I have not heard before and is very probable IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the boards and the RLJ!

i would answer your question but I'm worried that we're getting very far off the beaten path....and sometimes the Mods dont' like that...

Understandable! I was just curious. I know people have used Dany's trouble as evidence she won't rule and as further evidence of why they think Jon will, so I wasn't sure if it would fit in the scope of this conversation. Oh well, thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Stand by your seat, ser.” Kettleblack complied. The other Sworn Brothers filed in one by one. “Sers,” Jaime said in a formal tone when all five had assembled, “who guards the king?”

“My brothers Ser Osney and Ser Osfryd,” Ser Osmund replied.

“And my brother Ser Garlan,” said the Knight of Flowers.

“Will they keep him safe?”

“They will, my lord.”

“Be seated, then.” The words were ritual. Before the seven could meet in session, the king’s safety must be assured. - ASoS p.917

From this passage, that there is ritual and ceremony involved, if one of the KG is not with the King.

Nothing specifically states that it needs to be one of the KG, it's just an assumption(probably right but still just an assumption).

Kingsguard during the reign of King Tommen I Baratheon (300AC)

And none of them are of the KG.

You just weakened a R+L got secretly married making Jon the heir point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, longtime lurker here (since this thread was in the 70s, so maybe not too long ago!)

First off this board helped me see the RLJ light that I missed when reading the series, so thanks guys! I for one think Jon is legitimate and will sit the IT eventually since he is so focused on duty and honor and all those wonderful things. I don't think he'll want to, but I do think he will do it because it will be what is required of him. Maybe I'm Disney-ing it up a little too much but I love the idea of a boy thinking he was a bastard and the lowest of the low the whole time when all along we was a king and ends up in his rightful place :P

Anyway, I had a question just to see what everyone thinks. I know both Jon and Dany are "ruling" in a sense in their most recent events, and both are having a hard time of it. Dany's having trouble with that Harpy business and no one really wanted to listen to Jon. Both have been the target of assassination plots as well. I think I saw someone mentioning how Dany's difficulty shows she wouldn't be able to rule Westeros, but to be devil's advocate, couldn't the same be said for Jon? Like I said, I do think he will sit the IT in the end, but I was just curious as to what everyone else makes of these situations. Foreshadowing? A way to show that both characters can (and maybe do) grow into competent rulers?

Jon did not think about the possible blowback from his reaction to the letter... He spent too little time trying to convince and too much time ordering. Unlike Dany's assassins, Jon's believed they were protecting the world.

Jon does seem to be too far detached from his underlings to command them. It may come from his view of himself as an outsider. I doubt he will ever overcome that. He may grow to be a commander and a warrior... but a king is quite another matter.

Dany's leadership apparently comes from being selected from the god's. Her lessons in slaver's bay seem to be teaching her the lesson that a ruler cannot lead her people further than they are willing to go. That is something that could have helped the Targaryens maintain their rule. The attempted assassination of Dany can't really be called a popular uprising.

In the end her lack of political connections and tendency to place herself above her subjects may hurt her rule.

Aegon seems to be the one best prepared to rule. He is educated and with the backing of Dorne has a foothold in the Seven Kingdoms. His claim may be questioned but is incredibly more supportable than Jon's. (Note the lampshade hanging on the baby-swap trope) If Dany fails Aegon would be the next reasonable choice.

The dead-horse trope of the secret hidden prince.... is wayyy pre-Disney think Grimm's fairy tales--like Rumplestiltskin... or a modern semi-serious take on the trope Oliver Twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting angle I have not heard before and is very probable IMO.

I think it makes sense if a marriage hadn't taken place and Rhaegar needed something to bind Ser Gerold to the child, just in case he started having some notions about going back to Aerys and protect him. And then of course he'd have to make Arthur and Oswell swear, as well. As obedient and stucker to the rules as he was, Gerold Hightower probably had two brain cells to connect and ask this simple question, "Hey, why me alone? Is there something you aren't telling me? Guys?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understandable! I was just curious. I know people have used Dany's trouble as evidence she won't rule and as further evidence of why they think Jon will, so I wasn't sure if it would fit in the scope of this conversation. Oh well, thanks! :)

If it doesn't fit in existing threads, you can always create your own :)

Welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting angle I have not heard before and is very probable IMO.

Hightower would not have, though. Whatever Dayne or Whent did, Hightower was completely loyal to Aerys, as we know from the text. And it's Hightower that says "We swore a vow", not the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: It never says one KG must be with the King at all time.



That's true. But this series does not spell out everything for you. Look at when the Kings travel. Does he always have at least one KG with him? Answer: yes.



When Aerys goes to Duskendale: KG


When Robert travels North: KG


When Robert goes hunting: KG


When Dany (a world away) moves about her pyramid: One KG in the form of Barry, the previous LC of the KG in KL.


When Aerys stays in the Red Keep during the Rebellion: One KG in the form of Jaime (both for KG and political reasons)






Hightower would not have, though. Whatever Dayne or Whent did, Hightower was completely loyal to Aerys, as we know from the text.





Seriously. Hightower is a giant red flashing arrow.


Share this post


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

×