R+L=J v.113

[igrewupinKL]

i do think R+L=J. However i get no feeling that Jon will be King after the fight with the Others. If Jon is AAR then he is a saviour and will probably die in the fight before becoming King anyway. Plus Jon loves the North, that is his home regardless of who his parents are. He will not abandon it for the Iron Throne.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Osney and Osfryd Kettleblack and Garlan Tyrell were not members of the Kingsguard. Like Willem Darry, they were brothers to the Kingsguard.

Yes, a staff meeting is obviously a less intense situation than the royal family being deposed. However what we know from the text is that it is allowable for the Kingsguard to not attend the king if they have some duty to perform and they consider him safely guarded for the moment. Unless something can be found in the text that says that doesn't apply in the case of a king being deposed, then that is an assumption.

The idea that the 3KG would have had to go to Viserys straight away if they believed him to be the heir is an assumption that is not supported by the text. It may be a true assumption, it may be a false assumption, but it's certainly not evidence.

Again, a staff meeting where the men are all still in the same castle as the king and could still get to his immediate vicinity quickly if they needed to is not the same thing as a war situation where most of the royal family is already dead and the king is hundreds of miles away. Acting as if one is any indication of what would happen in the other is ridiculous. You're not the first or the last person to try to argue that point and it's just as useless as it was the first time.

And don't think I don't notice that you dropped the "But not of the Kingsguard" point. It's easy to twist meaning out of a conversation if you leave the operative part out of it, eh?

[Ygrain]

I'm not so sure about the KG and Ned's opinions of them as crossing off the list of the potential father. I know Ned said that the KG were once a great institution, but the only one I recall mentioned by name is Dayne. Beyond that, did Ned hold Rhaegar in low esteem? He thought R didn't visit brothels, but never a bad word about Rhaegar. If he thought of Rhaegar favorably does that put him in the same category as the KG?

Rhaegar wouldn't be breaking any vows, and if he married Lyanna, he did the honourable thing.

Osney and Osfryd Kettleblack and Garlan Tyrell were not members of the Kingsguard. Like Willem Darry, they were brothers to the Kingsguard.

Yes, a staff meeting is obviously a less intense situation than the royal family being deposed. However what we know from the text is that it is allowable for the Kingsguard to not attend the king if they have some duty to perform and they consider him safely guarded for the moment. Unless something can be found in the text that says that doesn't apply in the case of a king being deposed, then that is an assumption.

The idea that the 3KG would have had to go to Viserys straight away if they believed him to be the heir is an assumption that is not supported by the text. It may be a true assumption, it may be a false assumption, but it's certainly not evidence.

The way the staff meeting is described makes pretty clear that the substitute protection is only for the shortest time possible. In no way it is similar to the situation when the new king is next to exiled while rebels are occupying his throne. And if KG could be replaced at any point by someone else, why have KG at all?

Besides, there are three KG at ToJ. They can fulfil Rhaegar's orders and protect the king if they split up. Yet, they don't.

Here's an idea, which I've posted elsewhere (below the line here, I'm mostly quoting a previous post). Just something I continue to wonder about, and thought I'd offer up here:

-------

I have, in the past, emphasized just how important it is for an author to maintain readers' trust. I still believe that relationship is important - and I do think that (at this point) many of Martin's readers will feel betrayed if it turns out that Rhaegar is not the baby-daddy. That said, if Jon's biological father is someone else, my stance on Martin will be more forgiving than most because it seems to me that he's given us fair warning - in Varys' Riddle of Power, and the parable of the Sealord's Cat, to name just a couple of specific places. To a certain extent, I think Martin has engaged us all in a metafictional experiment, or a demonstration, of the dynamics of storytelling and interpretation. In the case of Lyanna and Jon Snow, the experience and conclusions drawn by the reader-audience become Martin's illustration of the shape that Westerosi public opinion might have taken, had Ned not kept his secrets and hidden Lyanna's child. Which is not to say that the commonly accepted story and Ned's truth would have amounted to the same thing. In fact, I think the point is that they would not. Just look at how things went over for Davos and Stannis:

"How did the commons take the news of Cersei's incest?"

"While we were among them they shouted for King Stannis. I cannot speak for what they said once we had sailed."

"So you do not think they believed?"

"When I was smuggling, I learned that some men believe everything and some nothing. We met both sorts. And there is another tale being spread as well—"

"Yes." Stannis bit off the word. "Selyse has given me horns, and tied a fool's bells to the end of each. My daughter fathered by a halfwit jester! A tale as vile as it is absurd. Renly threw it in my teeth when we met to parley. You would need to be as mad as Patchface to believe such a thing."

"That may be so, my liege… but whether they believe the story or no, they delight to tell it." In many places it had come before them, poisoning the well for their own true tale... (2.42, DAVOS)

What is the tale of Patchface and Selyse but a mummer's trick, a shadow on the wall? Yet what chance does the truth stand, next to the power (and "delight") of such a story?

-------

I continue to wonder (just wonder) if Martin hasn't deliberately constructed a scenario in which his readers participate in this story by identifying with the common people and smallfolk of the Seven Kingdoms. Does it look like Jon is possibly the son of Rhaegar Targaryen? Well... yes. As soon as we consider the possibility that Lyanna Stark was his mother, that seems a natural and exciting conclusion to draw. In fact, it's exactly what Robert Baratheon would think... I mean, Rhaegar spent months raping her, right? So the child must be his. And the implications would be huge... it would make this a very, very exciting story, for better or for worse.

But is that actually what happened? Did Rhaegar ever lay hands on Lyanna Stark... really? Have we ever truly questioned that "fact?" Or did we just take Robert's word for it back in Book 1... and convince ourselves that Lyanna liked it? Is R+L=J anything more than a cleaned-up, "safe" retelling of Robert Baratheon's story?

That could work only if the common people and smallfolk had access to Ned's memories and dreams the way we do. What CPAS of Westeros think, though, is that 1) Jon's mother is Ashara, or 2) FMD, or 3) Wylla, or 4) don't give a fuck.

But what do I know, I somehow managed to get through university without performing a single analysis.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

That could work only if the common people and smallfolk had access to Ned's memories and dreams the way we do. What CPAS of Westeros think, though, is that 1) Jon's mother is Ashara, or 2) FMD, or 3) Wylla, or 4) don't give a fuck.

Well, to be fair, what the "CPAS" of Westeros think is what Ned Stark tells them to think. Ned is their primary source of information with respect to Jon Snow... just as he is ours. So I don't see that as being terribly different, all things considered. In fact, that's essentially my point.

.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Good morning,

goodness, this thread has been speedy.

[Ygrain]

Well, to be fair, what the "CPAS" of Westeros think is what Ned Stark tells them to think. Ned is their primary source of information with respect to Jon Snow... just as he is ours. So I don't see that as being terribly different, all things considered. In fact, that's essentially my point.

Are you kidding me? Where does Ned tell anyone that he and Ashara were an item? In fact, he does the very contrary, supressing this particular gossip, and FMD is mentioned a couple of books after Ned is killed, so he's no source here. The only information that really comes from Ned is Wylla, but that knowledge is limited to Robert and the Daynes, and possible the Winterfell gossip that Sansa hears about Jon's mother being commonborn.

CPAS have no idea about the haunting "promise me", "bed of blood", the recurring theme of the blue roses (and Lyanna wearing the crown of them, which occurs in Ned's and Theon's dreams), the dialogue of ToJ etc. We as readers have access to way more information than anyone in Westeros, with the exception of those privy to the secret or possessing magical means to find out. What CPAS know or think they know is completely irrelevant to our reading experience as far as this particular mystery is concerned.

[Kingmonkey]

Again, a staff meeting where the men are all still in the same castle as the king and could still get to his immediate vicinity quickly if they needed to is not the same thing as a war situation where most of the royal family is already dead and the king is hundreds of miles away. Acting as if one is any indication of what would happen in the other is ridiculous. You're not the first or the last person to try to argue that point and it's just as useless as it was the first time.

And don't think I don't notice that you dropped the "But not of the Kingsguard" point. It's easy to twist meaning out of a conversation if you leave the operative part out of it, eh?

I didn't drop it, I answered that in the very first line of my answer: "Osney and Osfryd Kettleblack and Garlan Tyrell were not members of the Kingsguard. Like Willem Darry, they were brothers to the Kingsguard."

The "Who guards the king" ritual provides a way for the Kingsguard to fulfil their duty of protection when not in the presence of the king. There's nothing that suggests it applies to a situation when the Kingsguard are content the king is safe and are in the same castle as the king, but not a situation where they are content the king is safe but are in a different castle. Acting as if one is no indication of what would happen in the other is ridiculous. You're not the first or the last person to try to argue that point, and it's just as useless as it was the first time.

See what I did there? Yep, it's equally worthless done either way.

We have been shown a ritual that allows for the Kingsguard to be away from the king and still be within their vows, if they are content that he is safe. It is directly parallel to the ToJ situation in Viserys is accompanied by the brother of a Kingsguard. That's the evidence we have. If there is some contrary evidence, then please do show it. I'd be happy to have this disproved. It would bolster my own theories if it was. I'm not going to dismiss the evidence just because I don't like it, though.

You know what's not evidence? "But it's obvious that situation doesn't apply here because Viserys is in more danger" or words to that effect. If there isn't precedent to determine that it doesn't apply, then it is perfectly feasible that the 3KG chose to apply it. Maybe Hightower was all for Hightailing it to Dragonstone, and Dayne and Whent used this specific point to argue that it wasn't required. Maybe they all thought Viserys was smelly and didn't want to be near him for as long as possible.

Unless there is evidence that they would be in breach of their vows by not going to the heir, then the fact that they remained at the ToJ does not prove that they believed the heir to be present. Where's the evidence?

[addicted to snow]

And dots are all the book gives us. If it were spelled out explicitly to that poster's apparent satisfaction, the solution would be obvious and there'd be nothing to discuss because we'd already know.

Could there be a reason that all GRRM has given us was dots? Do you think he might have mislead the audience? or be hiding something form the audience?

Has he ever done anything like this before?

In a world of Wargs, Dragons, & trees that function similar to a hard-drive, where magic exists & men can change faces at a moment's notice; any number of historical events that have been assumed to be fact, could actually be very far from fact.

[addicted to snow]

See what I did there? Yep, it's equally worthless done either way.

Nice

[addicted to snow]

But I know very well that R+L=J has been around since book 1, because like you said- the clues are obviously there and abundant in the first book. And I know very well that there isn't any other mystery that Martin set up in book 1 but has yet to reveal by book 5- EXCEPT Jon's parentage. Name me one other mystery from book one that has yet to be well and truly resolved and had enough information in the first book for people to piece it together and I'll consider your alternative.

The Origin of the Others...

[Ygrain]

I didn't drop it, I answered that in the very first line of my answer: "Osney and Osfryd Kettleblack and Garlan Tyrell were not members of the Kingsguard. Like Willem Darry, they were brothers to the Kingsguard."

The "Who guards the king" ritual provides a way for the Kingsguard to fulfil their duty of protection when not in the presence of the king. There's nothing that suggests it applies to a situation when the Kingsguard are content the king is safe and are in the same castle as the king, but not a situation where they are content the king is safe but are in a different castle. Acting as if one is no indication of what would happen in the other is ridiculous. You're not the first or the last person to try to argue that point, and it's just as useless as it was the first time.

See what I did there? Yep, it's equally worthless done either way.

We have been shown a ritual that allows for the Kingsguard to be away from the king and still be within their vows, if they are content that he is safe. It is directly parallel to the ToJ situation in Viserys is accompanied by the brother of a Kingsguard. That's the evidence we have. If there is some contrary evidence, then please do show it. I'd be happy to have this disproved. It would bolster my own theories if it was. I'm not going to dismiss the evidence just because I don't like it, though.

You know what's not evidence? "But it's obvious that situation doesn't apply here because Viserys is in more danger" or words to that effect. If there isn't precedent to determine that it doesn't apply, then it is perfectly feasible that the 3KG chose to apply it. Maybe Hightower was all for Hightailing it to Dragonstone, and Dayne and Whent used this specific point to argue that it wasn't required. Maybe they all thought Viserys was smelly and didn't want to be near him for as long as possible.

Unless there is evidence that they would be in breach of their vows by not going to the heir, then the fact that they remained at the ToJ does not prove that they believed the heir to be present. Where's the evidence?

Are you seriously suggesting that an established ritual for staff conference applies to an emergency situation when half the KG are dead or turned cloak and the kingdom and throne is being usurped? Or that relegating the protection duty - the duty, the very reason why KG were established in the first place and the ultimate purpose of their lives - to other persons for weeks and months equals to fulfilling the duty? Really, why have KG at all when apparently any other decent swordsman will do?

[Kingmonkey]

Are you seriously suggesting that an established ritual for staff conference applies to an emergency situation when half the KG are dead or turned cloak and the kingdom and throne is being usurped? Or that relegating the protection duty - the duty, the very reason why KG were established in the first place and the ultimate purpose of their lives - to other persons for weeks and months equals to fulfilling the duty? Really, why have KG at all when apparently any other decent swordsman will do?

Where does it say it is an established ritual for staff conferences? If it says that anywhere then I'm probably wrong.

If on the other hand it doesn't say that anywhere, then it's a general ritual for ensuring that the the king is guarded when the kingsguard are not present. That's what the wording of it covers. In that case it really isn't a matter of what I suggest, is it? It's a matter of what the 3KG at the ToJ suggest. They might be stretching a technical excuse to the breaking point, but they're still within their vows.

There's also the TWOIAF line about Viserys being Aerys' heir, not Aegon at this point.

It's not an absolute of course, but it's worth noting that unless that's false, then even if Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar, they'd need another reason not to go to Dragonstone. Like this one, for example.

Final point: it's pretty widely suspected that Dayne and Whent at least were conspiring against Aerys with Rhaegar, to a greater or lesser extent. I find it odd that people are much more prepared to entertain the idea that the 3KG were honourably conspiring against the king than that they could honourably not to rush off to guard the king (if that was Viserys) when they had other orders to perform and the king was going to be pretty safe until someone managed to built a fleet.

[sj4iy]

They had to flee Dragonstone after Dany's birth, yes. However, that was nine months later. There's a reason it took so long: Stannis had to built a fleet before it was possible to besiege Dragonstone. That gave plenty of time while Viserys was indeed safe.

You're looking at it as "well, he wasn't in trouble THEN", and that's not how it works. He was in danger because he was the last (known) living heir of a deposed monarchy. Robert wasn't stupid- he tried to find them. And he was right...Dorne had planned on using the Targaryens to retake the throne.

Viserys was ALWAYS in danger because there was a threat to his life if Robert found him.

[J. Stargaryen]

Nor is "We swore a vow" a response to why they weren't with Viserys. It's an expansion of "The Kingsguard does not flee." The immediate response to why they weren't with Viserys and Darry is "Ser Willem is a good man and true", which seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the ritual "Will they keep him safe?" that the commander of the Kingsguard asks when assuring that the king is safe despite not being under the protection of a member of the Kingsguard.

Ser Gerold has a strikingly similar line in the next book.

“As for Lord Rickard, the steel of his breastplate turned cherry-red before the end, and his gold melted off his spurs and dripped down into the fire. I [Jaime] stood at the foot of the Iron Throne in my white armor and white cloak, filling my head with thoughts of Cersei. After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, ‘You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.’ That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree.”

- ACoK, Catelyn VII

Which gives us good reason to think Ser Gerold meant the same thing at the ToJ; "We swore a vow ... to guard the king."

While I agree that some KG could possibly interpret their duties in a manner consistent with the later Tommen example, it seems to me these KG are very specifically not doing that in this case.

[sj4iy]

Ser Gerold has a strikingly similar line in the next book.

- ACoK, Catelyn VII

Which gives us good reason to think Ser Gerold meant the same thing at the ToJ; "We swore a vow ... to guard the king."

While I agree that some KG could possibly interpret their duties in a manner consistent with the later Tommen example, it seems to me these KG are very specifically not doing that in this case.

Agreed. It's not the situation in which one would try to interpret their vows, either. Deposed monarchy and the true heir is in danger...you go back to basics, which is guard him with your life.

The fact that they didn't do that for Viserys speaks volumes to me.

[butterbumps!]

It would also seem that Aegon will subvert and is a detriment to Jon' claim no matter what he does at this point. If people believe him then forget it, he sits ahead of Jon. If they find out he is a fake then anyone claiming to be a hidden Targ is faced with the aftermath of Aegon. Martin continues to stack the deck against Jon but as you say is that really what is playing out. Is Jon' main purpose or story that he rises to be king?

I have never read Jon as the king returning. I always felt his plot revolved around a more mythical aspect than a political one. Not to say politics is not involved but that is just not what he is moving towards. Sansa feels like far more the political storyline that Jon. Aegon as well, Stannis and Mance are at an inverse, Stannis is more worried about his crown but is worried about the Others. Mance is more worried about the Others but understands/understood the need for politics. I say understood because Mance is probably a skin coat. Maybe a nice bomber jacket. He was tall though maybe a nice trench.

Should probably call it a night, I am spent at one point I thought I was watching the Bears/ Packers game but no it was an episode of OZ. It must of been an episode of OZ right? I mean that kind of thing only happens on that show.

And this is were you tell me you don't watch football Cookie.

Sort of. I'm saying that if Jon becomes king, R+L=J isn't what's going to put him there.

I think the deck is stacked against "R+L=King Jon Targ," not against Jon directly. I think one of the biggest misdirections is in making such a big deal about kingship of the IT (and kingship generally), that it's not immediately evident how much opportunity Jon has outside of the IT kingship role to become a leader that matters.

In other words, it's not so much being named king of the IT that gives you power in and of itself, and in Jon's particular case, pressing for the IT would actually undermine the power he could achieve.

[Kingmonkey]

Which gives us good reason to think Ser Gerold meant the same thing at the ToJ; "We swore a vow ... to guard the king."

While I agree that some KG could possibly interpret their duties in a manner consistent with the later Tommen example, it seems to me these KG are very specifically not doing that in this case.

This, I have no problem with. "It seems to me" -- that's great. Perfect. I think it's quite likely the case here too.

It's not necessarily the case. That's the big sticking point. If it's not necessarily the case, then it's not evidence for the case. The evidence works for either situation, so we need other evidence to help us decide which situation is more likely.

My personal suspicion is that there was probably a significant difference in Whent/Dayne's position and Hightower's position. Hightower seems to be a stickler for the rules. Whent and Dayne seem to have been up to shenanigans with Rheagar. Given the "Who guards the king" ritual has that temptingly GRRMesque mirroring of brothers with the Dragonstone situation, I wonder if we're not meant to pick up on the parallel. It could be that Whent and Dayne used that argument to convince Hightower that it was more important to stay at the ToJ fulfilling Rhaegar's last orders and protecting Rhaegar's only surviving son rather than heading to Dragonstone -- where at least for the next few months, Viserys was as safe as he could be anywhere.

'Cos, you know, if Viserys was the king, then that makes Jon the current heir to the throne. If they rushed to the side of the king, they'd basically be letting the unborn/newborn? heir to the throne die unprotected so that they could be protecting the king who's in an impregnable fortress. That would be pretty dumb.

[BearQueen87]

Oh goody. We're doing #TeamObey vs #TeamProtect

My personal suspicion is that there was probably a significant difference in Whent/Dayne's position and Hightower's position. Hightower seems to be a stickler for the rules. Whent and Dayne seem to have been up to shenanigans with Rheagar. Given the "Who guards the king" ritual has that temptingly GRRMesque mirroring of brothers with the Dragonstone situation, I wonder if we're not meant to pick up on the parallel. It could be that Whent and Dayne used that argument to convince Hightower that it was more important to stay at the ToJ fulfilling Rhaegar's last orders and protecting Rhaegar's only surviving son rather than heading to Dragonstone -- where at least for the next few months, Viserys was as safe as he could be anywhere.

I agree that Hightower is the big red flashing arrow here. So the fact that he won't leave...should tell everyone something. A big something. A big hidden prince something.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Sort of. I'm saying that if Jon becomes king, R+L=J isn't what's going to put him there.

I think the deck is stacked against "R+L=King Jon Targ," not against Jon directly. I think one of the biggest misdirections is in making such a big deal about kingship of the IT (and kingship generally), that it's not immediately evident how much opportunity Jon has outside of the IT kingship role to become a leader that matters.

In other words, it's not so much being named king of the IT that gives you power in and of itself, and in Jon's particular case, pressing for the IT would actually undermine the power he could achieve.

Yes, yes. You know, every now and then I read something I've read before - maybe it's phrased just a bit differently, or something - and see it fresh. This comment does that for me, butterbumps! I know we've talked about sharing some common ground in our views already - and I don't mean to dismiss any real differences in opinion... of which there are plenty, I'm sure - but to the extent your point here is that "R+L=J" ultimately doesn't matter for Jon when it comes to issues of leadership and kingship, then I'm right there with you.

In fact, the more we discuss the notion of the "hidden prince" trope - the more I begin to reconsider the way that Martin uses a "hidden true king" motif through the books. You mentioned some of the images yourself in an earlier response to wolfmaid - including Jon's first impression of Jaime Lannister - but the ones that come to mind for me are the several images of the "long shadow" associated with Varys' riddle of power ("for a moment, Tyrion Lannister stood tall as a king," and "the moon has kissed you and etched your shadow upon the ice twenty feet tall..."), and also Stannis' memory of visiting the Red Keep at the age of four... when he and Robert decided that "the king had been as noble as the dragons were fearsome," only to find out years later that "Aerys had cut himself on the throne that morning, so his Hand had taken his place. It was Tywin Lannister who'd so impressed" them. And of course, Tywin's own comment that "any man who must say ‘I am the king' is no true king at all."

[sj4iy]

Oh goody. We're doing #TeamObey vs #TeamProtect

Even better. We're apparently playing devil's advocate :/ Because, you know, we don't have enough dissent around here.

I agree that Hightower is the big red flashing arrow here. So the fact that he won't leave...should tell everyone something. A big something. A big hidden prince something.

But how can you PROVE it? ;)