R+L=J v.116

[Alia of the knife]

This is a great point and I agree with it.

I'm convinced Aerys and lots of his lackeys would want to name Viserys his heir ahead of Aegon to not leave the kingdom in Martell's hands.

The point is....I don't think Aerys, despite being the king, has the authority to arbitrarily change the succession line and remove Aegon.

He'd need a great council to do so or at least an overwhelming approval from everyone in the kingdom, which Im sure he woudn't get.

So, you don't care and name Viserys your heir all the same?....and what good is that for? to Aerys and his close allies he would be the heir, and to the Martells and other lords Aegon would be the heir = Dance of Dragon 2.0

Segwaying off of Black Crows points, and your point about Aerys not being able to pass Aegon over for Viserys without approval, I think you are both correct.

I do think that Aerys would have some solid backing to keep the throne out of Martell hands as I think there is some tension between the rest of Westeros and Dorne, who are perceived as "foreign," and over proud, but he would still need a council to do so, and he couldn't suggest it without sound reason other than he liked Viserys better.

But then again, I'm not so sure that Rhaegar could have so easily removed Aerys either as Aerys wouldn't be the first mad, or cruel Targaryen king to sit the throne.

With Viserys appearing to be Aerys favorite, and Varys whispering in his ear about the supposed doings of Rhaella and Rhaegar, sowing distrust between Aerys, Rhaella and Rhaegar, Aerys may have already been predisposed to see Rhaegar as a potential traitor to the crown.

If the rebellion and Lyanna hadn't happened, Aerys may very well have moved against Rhaegar, imprisoning or exiling him as Varys continued to weave his web. That may be what prompted Rhaegar to move first with Harrenhal, but then Lyanna happened.

[Alia of the knife]

I find this quite funny and yet, quite relevant? ^_^

An article today from NYmag about Jon Snow's, I mean Kit's BRF (bitchy resting face).

Even when he's not glowering on Game of Thrones, Kit Harington, a.k.a. Jon Snow, a.k.a. Hair, isn't a very smiley person. Some may call him brooding; others might swoon over his intense stare and ability to smolder. But let's just acknowledge the reality: Jon Snow suffers from Bitchy Resting Face.

For those who are naturally all smiles, BRF is when a person's natural, relaxed expression is one that appears sullen, moody, sometimes angry, or even as if they have recently smelled something stinky. It is not a medical condition

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/12/kit-harington-suffers-from-bitchy-resting-face.html?mid=twitter_cut

Conversation of Jon with Alys after meeting her Castle Black.

“Alys Karstark.”

That brought the ghost of a smile to her lips. “I was not sure you would remember. I was six the last time you saw me.”

“You came to Winterfell with your father.” The father Robb beheaded. “I don’t recall what for.”

She blushed. “So I could meet your brother. Oh, there was some other pretext, but that was the real reason. I was almost of an age with Robb, and my father thought we might make a match. There was a feast. I danced with you and your brother both. He was very courteous and said that I danced beautifully. You were sullen. My father said that was to be expected in a bastard.”

“I remember.” It was only half a lie.

“You’re still a little sullen,” the girl said, “but I will forgive you that if you will save me from my uncle.”

Dance, Jon IX

I was like... whoa!!! what are the odds of that??? or... way to go D&D for getting an almost replica of Jon as in the series. ^_^ ^_^

Kits a Carpricorn, and we try very hard not to be sullen, :angry2: or "bitchy" but it doesn't always work. :closedeyes:

I had a friend who used to ask me all the time if I was in a good mood because I didn't bounce off the walls like a chihuahua on crack.

I know he also says he can't cut his hair, and the downside of being on GOT is that he has to talk about it all the time, AS IF there were anything else to talk about. :P

[IceFire125]

Thanks :) I'll add more if anyone else has more.

Locke: Bastard eh?.. took you for highborn

Jon: My Father was highborn, my Mother... wasn't

http://i.imgur.com/1W85oF7.jpg

Rhaegar, Crown Prince, was Highborn, Lyanna was a Lady of a Warden of the North. ^_^

[BearQueen87]

Locke: Bastard eh?.. took you for highborn

Jon: My Father was highborn, my Mother... wasn't

http://i.imgur.com/1W85oF7.jpg

Rhaegar, Crown Prince, was Highborn, Lyanna was a Lady of a Warden of the North. ^_^

Oh, that's a really good one.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

That's what I thought, too.

There are a shit ton of double entendres like that with Jon. Joffrey and bastards not being allowed to hit princes, Mance being no more royal than him, Gilly kneeling, Ghost being a second life fit for a king, him overseeing Alys' marriage.

It is literally all right there if you pay attention.

[Kingmonkey]

I really think it's much more likely that, in calling out the Stark daughter with a blue rose crown, Rhaegar's action was received as a political insult by House Stark rather than as a personal message to Lyanna.

Rhaegar's action would have insulted not just the Starks, but also Baratheon, Martell and Arryn -- whether blue roses were involved or not. I guess we could speculate that Rhaegar was intentionally encouraging anti-Targaryen sentiment, encouraging Dorne to join into the nascent power block that was part of Rickard's southern ambitions? It seems a bit odd to me though. If there is a political purpose behind Rhaegar's actions, what's the benefit? Wouldn't it be much more useful to him to be demonstrating a friendship towards that power block?

And if it wasn't intentional on his part, then Rhaegar truly must've looked like a fool in the context of the Harrenhal political convention. An effective leader or politician, if he still hopes to win the support or alliance of other powers... better know them well enough to know how to avoid offending them. So, either:

• Rhaegar knew the Song of the Winter Rose, and insulted the Starks anyway by invoking that tale with his selection of the QoLaB - in which case we have to wonder about motive, and whether he'd already lost the support of Houses Stark and Baratheon by that point;
• Rhaegar knew the Song of the Winter Rose, but just wasn't thinking when he gave Lyanna the blue rose crown - in which case it looks like he wasn't all that politically savvy, or attentive to detail; or
• Rhaegar did not know the Song of the Winter Rose, and did not anticipate the consequences of his action - in which case the insult would have been an honest error, but revealing of the fact that the crown prince hadn't done his homework on Winterfell or House Stark and may not have been qualified, or impressive enough, to win over the opposition to begin with.

I think this fairly neatly argues against it being a primarily political gesture. Any conclusion we have that essentially comes down to Rhaegar being a bit rubbish at the political game doesn't sit well with what we know about Rhaegar, who was said to be skilled at everything he turned his hand to.

Let's go back to Rhaegar's comments to Jaime before leaving for the trident. "Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken." This suggest that Rhaegar has allowed other concerns to get in the way of his political machinations. What other concerns had been occupying Rhaegar's time? Lyanna.

I think that gives us a fourth alternative to your list: Rhaegar knew what the political implications would be, and simply didn't care. He decided there were considerations greater than the political ones, and thus considered the political fallout to be secondary to furthering his non-political aims.

This gets us into the thinking with his dick problem that a lot of people raise. Was Rhaegar really willing to insult half the power of Westeros and throw the kingdom into civil war for the sake of a shag? That does seem unlikely. On the other hand, would he risk the Targaryen dynasty and endanger the peace of Westeros if he believed it was the only way to save Westeros from a far bigger and more existential threat than a mere rebellion? I think the answer to that is a resounding yes.

Rhaegar is a reluctant swordsman, a reluctant politician, a reluctant prince. What really mattered to him was prophecy. He believed he was onto a secret fundamental to the survival of the world. If something happened at Harrenhal that lead him to believe that Lyanna was key to the song of fire and ice, I think it's entirely believable that all other considerations would fall by the wayside.

Yes, but what is our incentive to make the assumption that Rhaegar himself decided the crown should be made of blue roses, and ordered just such a crown accordingly? That's not a part of Martin's story - he has not written anything about the flower selection process, thus far - so it can only be an elaboration of our own, by which we change the story to suit our own theories. If we have no evidence either way, then we should not assume either way.

I entirely agree with you about assumptions without evidence. I do not by any means argue that the idea Rhaegar selected blue roses should be considered canon. Equally, we should not simply assume the opposite. The appropriateness of the crown to Lyanna is highly suggestive, and in my mind makes it quite likely that it was intentional on Rhaegar's part, not case proven.

All that said, I'm not presenting a full theory or a set of conclusions here. Seems like folks enjoy challenging others to do that in these threads, when an alternative idea is presented with which the majority disagrees. As if prevailing assumptions cannot possibly be wrong in the absence of fully developed, more persuasive alternatives. But that's not my M.O. I make no secret of the fact that I find R+L=J deficient, and I don't feel compelled to present a fully developed alternative.

I think you are unfortunately right that there is a tendency to hostility towards alternative views in this thread. We are all somewhat culpable in this. I think the problem comes down to the fact that alternative views so often do come in the form of people arguing points already thoroughly answered that responding to them becomes frustrating. When a genuine problem is raised, there's an inevitable tendency for people to want to see a strong framework presented before they even bother considering it, on the basis that unless a strong framework is provided, it's probably just another ill-considered crackpot.

The purpose of this thread SHOULD include questioning assumptions. That's a healthy way to proceed. However when we wish to question an assumption, it behoves us to give a good reason for other people to consider the question. It is too much to ask to demand a fully-formed theory to accompany any question of the standard narrative, you're right. The questioning process should either give rise to that or answer the question.

Ideally, people should be more willing to give time to alternatives to the received narrative, otherwise this thread is rather pointless. Equally, those presenting alternatives have to give good reason for the questions they raise to be considered. There is, in the sticky at the start of each thread, a pretty solid, self-consistent narrative presented. Is it convincing? I'm pretty solidly in the R+L=J camp, but I incline to agree with you that the answer to that is "not quite." I probably differ from you in areas of doubt, though. Those of us who wish to challenge that status quo and have our challenges taken seriously have a responsibility to show that our challenge is a serious ones. Not by crafting some fully-formed alternative to R+L=J, but at least by showing that the questions we raise really are questions.

[Kingmonkey]

A king has power because people agree to give him power.

If a Great Council made up of the most powerful noble houses in the land said, "Aerys is psycho, let's give power to Rhaegar", then there wouldn't be much that Aerys could do about it. Power lies where men think it lies. No king has 'absolute' power just because they are king.

Absolutely, well said! Though perhaps it would be fairer to say that a king has absolute power right up until the moment he pisses off enough people to take it away from him.

I think some people are forgetting this rather pertinent riddle:

“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me-who lives and who dies?”

[Lord Hyrule]

Absolutely, well said! Though perhaps it would be fairer to say that a king has absolute power right up until the moment he pisses off enough people to take it away from him.

I think some people are forgetting this rather pertinent riddle:

“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me-who lives and who dies?”

Aren't the priest and the rich man committing treason in front of the king? I would like to think that the sellsword thinks like Bron. Sure he cares about gold, but still he wants nobility over it. Bron gets married and becomes a lord and so forth. Either way, a riddle is a riddle.

On topic, I really like this thread. Reading the first post is enough to cement the theory in my opinion. If Jon Snow is not confirmed as their child, it would be a travesty.

[Kingmonkey]

Aren't the priest and the rich man committing treason in front of the king? I would like to think that the sellsword thinks like Bron. Sure he cares about gold, but still he wants nobility over it. Bron gets married and becomes a lord and so forth. Either way, a riddle is a riddle.

On topic, I really like this thread. Reading the first post is enough to cement the theory in my opinion. If Jon Snow is not confirmed as their child, it would be a travesty.

Welcome to the thread, it's where all the cool kids hang out! I think most of us in this thread agree that R+L=J is about as secure as ASOIAF theories come and are here to speculate about the details. Travesty if not so? Not necessarily. If GRRM can come up with a convincing alternative narrative where R+L=J becomes a massive red herring that remains entirely self-consistent rather than a cheap rug-pull, why not? I'd be delighted to see him pull a trick like that off.

As to the riddle, yes they're committing treason, but treason only lasts as long as the king.

One way to answer the riddle is to say that the person with power is the sellsword, but that misses the point that the sellsword is nothing without at least one of the other three. Power is a matter of consensus, and therefore leverage.

The riddle doesn't have a correct answer, but it always has telling answers.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Red herrings are directly stated. R+L=J isn't stated anywhere, therefore it can't be a red herring.

[BearQueen87]

Aren't the priest and the rich man committing treason in front of the king? I would like to think that the sellsword thinks like Bron. Sure he cares about gold, but still he wants nobility over it. Bron gets married and becomes a lord and so forth. Either way, a riddle is a riddle.

On topic, I really like this thread. Reading the first post is enough to cement the theory in my opinion. If Jon Snow is not confirmed as their child, it would be a travesty.

Welcome to RLJ

Red herrings are directly stated. R+L=J isn't stated anywhere, therefore it can't be a red herring.

Bingo!

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Red herrings are directly stated. R+L=J isn't stated anywhere, therefore it can't be a red herring.

True. But it could be a false conclusion, to which we are led by various red herrings. Red herrings like:

- the KG presence at the tower of joy

- the blue rose crown R gives L at Harrenhal

- the kingship motif related to Jon Snow

[addicted to snow]

Red herrings are directly stated. R+L=J isn't stated anywhere, therefore it can't be a red herring.

That is a ridiculous argument to try & make...

[Ellfoy]

There sj4iy, the thread about R+L= J hints in the show : http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/107636-book-spoilers-rlj-and-other-theories-on-hbo/?p=5650903

Version 2: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/109935-book-spoilers-rlj-and-other-theories-on-hbo-v2/?p=5779713

A few relevants post:

Chebyshov : "HBO's R+L=J hints:

1. We get the story about Lyanna and Rhaegar in the crypts scene with Robert and Ned
2. When Ned is saying goodbye to Jon and Jon asks about his mother, Ned says "the next time we see each other, we'll talk about your mother. I promise." And he looks very upset as he's delivering this line.
3. The portrayal of Robert's blind hatred towards Targs (showing why Jon's origins needed to be hidden)
4. Oberyn's wording in 4x01 "left her for another woman"
5. Possibly the blue rose Daario hands Dany, though that's more of a nod to book readers than a tangible hint." Chebyshov

Le Cygne : "Some of the scenes...

Ned and Robert at the crypts (Ned looks away when he says she belonged with me):

Quote

Ned: She was my sister, this is where she belongs.

Robert: She belonged with me. In my dreams, I kill him every night.

Ned: It's done, your grace.

Ned and Jon, last time they talked:

Quote

Ned: The Starks have manned the Wall for thousands of years. And you are a Stark. You might not have my name, but you have my blood.

Jon Snow: Is my mother alive? Does she know about me, where I am, where I'm going. Does she care?

Ned: The next time we see each other, we'll talk about your mother. I promise.

Ned and Robert, talking about Dany:

Quote

Robert: What Rhaegar Targaryen did to your sister. The woman I loved. I'll kill every Targaryen I get my hands on.

Ned: You can't get your hands on this one, can you.

Bran in the crypts:

Quote

Bran: That's Lyanna, my father's sister. King Robert was supposed to marry her, but Rhaegar Targaryen kidnapped her. Robert started a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar, but she died anyway.

Barriston Selmy, with Dany and Jorah:

Quote

Barriston Selmy: When your brother Rhaegar led his army into battle on the Trident, men died for him because they believed in him, because they loved him... I fought beside the last dragon on that day, your grace. I bled beside him.

Jorah: Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, and Rhaegar died.

Dany: Did you know him well, Ser Barriston?

Selmy: I did, your grace. The finest man I ever met.

Oberyn:

Quote

Oberyn: The last time I was in the capital was many years ago. Another wedding. My sister Elia and Rhaegar Targaryen, the last of the dragons. My sister loved him. She bore his children, swaddled them, rocked them, fed them at her own breast. Elia wouldn't let the wet nurse touch them. Then beautiful, noble Rhaegar Targaryen left her for another woman. That started a war, and the war ended right here, when your father's army took the city. They butchered those children, my nephew and niece, and wrapped them in Lannister cloaks. And my sister, you know what they did to her?... What I keep hearing is that Gregor Clegane, the Mountain, raped Elia, and split her in half with his great sword... But if the Mountain killed my sister, your father gave the order. Tell your father I'm here. Tell him the Lannisters aren't the only ones who pay their debts.

[Ellfoy]

And one from myself:

Quote

Robert: Your's was, uh... Elina, no, uh... you told me once. Meryl? Your bastards mother...

Ned: Wylla.

Robert: That's it. She must have been a rare wench to make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor. You never told me what she looked like.

Ned: Nor will I.

Quote

Cersei (speaking of Lyanna) : What was she like ?

Robert: You want to know the horrible truth ? I don't even remember what she looked like.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I think this fairly neatly argues against it being a primarily political gesture. Any conclusion we have that essentially comes down to Rhaegar being a bit rubbish at the political game doesn't sit well with what we know about Rhaegar, who was said to be skilled at everything he turned his hand to.

Let's go back to Rhaegar's comments to Jaime before leaving for the trident. "Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken." This suggest that Rhaegar has allowed other concerns to get in the way of his political machinations. What other concerns had been occupying Rhaegar's time? Lyanna.

I think that gives us a fourth alternative to your list: Rhaegar knew what the political implications would be, and simply didn't care. He decided there were considerations greater than the political ones, and thus considered the political fallout to be secondary to furthering his non-political aims.

This gets us into the thinking with his dick problem that a lot of people raise. Was Rhaegar really willing to insult half the power of Westeros and throw the kingdom into civil war for the sake of a shag? That does seem unlikely. On the other hand, would he risk the Targaryen dynasty and endanger the peace of Westeros if he believed it was the only way to save Westeros from a far bigger and more existential threat than a mere rebellion? I think the answer to that is a resounding yes.

Rhaegar is a reluctant swordsman, a reluctant politician, a reluctant prince. What really mattered to him was prophecy. He believed he was onto a secret fundamental to the survival of the world. If something happened at Harrenhal that lead him to believe that Lyanna was key to the song of fire and ice, I think it's entirely believable that all other considerations would fall by the wayside.

Barristan Selmy is the one who says Rhaegar was "able," right? Are there others who say the prince was skilled in all things? Is Jorah so unflinchingly positive? Jon Connington, perhaps... I'd have to go back and look. Regardless, at this point it seems advisable to draw conclusions from what we see rather than what we're told. And based on the consequences of Rhaegar's decision-making - whether he was motivated by an obsession with prophecy, an infatuation with someone else's woman, or simple immaturity - it's rather difficult to imagine him as "politically skilled." Selmy also tells Dany that Rhaegar's prowess at arms was undisputed - yet he only fought one battle that we know of. It resulted in part from his actions at Harrenhal, and he not only lost the battle, but got himself killed in the process and brought an end to the Targaryen dynasty. I'm reminded once again of the parable of the Sealord's cat... and can't help thinking that what we're told and what we see do not line up very well.

That said... you're correct in noting that I omitted the "obsessed with prophecy" explanation. I tend to think that angle is a bit overblown, but I suppose it should be considered. The problem I have with the explanation is that it's often used to rationalize Rhaegar's behavior... and there's nothing rational about prophecy-driven (or dream-driven) decision-making. It's actually quite arguable that these prophecies and dreams are not what they appear at all - and those who rely on them to make decisions often end up participating in their own destruction. See this post here, for how I see both Stannis and the NW (Jon) falling into that trap.

(ETA: That doesn't mean that an obsession with prophecy wouldn't explain Rhaegar's behavior... but if it does, then I'd say we have to take a really hard look at the claim that Rhaegar himself was a capable, trustworthy leader. If he thought he was guided by dreams and prophetic songs, then it's at least as likely that he was misguided, and that the fruit of his work bore seeds of destruction. If you read the post I linked to above, you'll see how the same conclusion might be drawn with respect to Jeor Mormont and Qhorin Halfhand - assuming my guess is correct, that Jon Snow himself was "[the] weapon... [the] power... [the] vile sorcery" that somebody needed "to break the Wall.")

I think you are unfortunately right that there is a tendency to hostility towards alternative views in this thread. We are all somewhat culpable in this. I think the problem comes down to the fact that alternative views so often do come in the form of people arguing points already thoroughly answered that responding to them becomes frustrating. When a genuine problem is raised, there's an inevitable tendency for people to want to see a strong framework presented before they even bother considering it, on the basis that unless a strong framework is provided, it's probably just another ill-considered crackpot.

The purpose of this thread SHOULD include questioning assumptions. That's a healthy way to proceed. However when we wish to question an assumption, it behoves us to give a good reason for other people to consider the question. It is too much to ask to demand a fully-formed theory to accompany any question of the standard narrative, you're right. The questioning process should either give rise to that or answer the question.

Ideally, people should be more willing to give time to alternatives to the received narrative, otherwise this thread is rather pointless. Equally, those presenting alternatives have to give good reason for the questions they raise to be considered. There is, in the sticky at the start of each thread, a pretty solid, self-consistent narrative presented. Is it convincing? I'm pretty solidly in the R+L=J camp, but I incline to agree with you that the answer to that is "not quite." I probably differ from you in areas of doubt, though. Those of us who wish to challenge that status quo and have our challenges taken seriously have a responsibility to show that our challenge is a serious ones. Not by crafting some fully-formed alternative to R+L=J, but at least by showing that the questions we raise really are questions.

Appreciate this response, Kingmonkey. Well said, and worth bookmarking. My only qualification would be that I think there's great value in acknowledging the deficiences of prevailing theories, and respecting the open-ended nature of certain significant questions. I understand the desire to fill in the gaps of Martin's story. But when I come over here and say "I'm interested in this absence of information, and the questions it raises," the response that I should either accept the way RLJ fills in that gap or do so myself in some other convincing way... is just one way of insisting we can ignore the gap, and pretend it's not important. In contrast, I think what Martin decides not to tell us is critical... and while I expect the questioning process will give rise to answers eventually, I don't believe all the key questions are answerable now, and I find certain prevailing answers floated in the meantime dissatisfying. Obviously, as you say, you and I do differ somewhat in areas of doubt. Despite those differences, your way of working through the different ideas makes discussion a pleasure. :cheers:

[sj4iy]

<snip>

Thanks so much! I'll add them to the next version :)

[Kingmonkey]

One more show hint for your list, sj4iy. There's a blue rose in one of the stained glass windows in the throne room at KL.

[Ellfoy]

Thanks so much! I'll add them to the next version :)

You're welcome ! :cheers:

One more show hint for your list, sj4iy. There's a blue rose in one of the stained glass windows in the throne room at KL.

It's already in the version 4.0 ;)

[sj4iy]

One more show hint for your list, sj4iy. There's a blue rose in one of the stained glass windows in the throne room at KL.

Yup, I have a screencap in the new version of it.