Jump to content

Archived

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

Ygrain

R+L=J v.117

Recommended Posts

This is my biggest problem. It requires you to fill in all these gaps yourself, but when you try and do the same thing to disprove it, it gets shot down right away.

What gap do you think is being "filled in" by mere speculation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is not fact.

So many vows…they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.”

Nver forget "your live for his"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be technical about it, I don't think anyone is making the point that Jon is definitively the "rightful king of Westeros" as that gets into the question of whether Robert is a Usurper or legitimately became king by right of conquest (or whether Aerys validly named Viserys as heir or whether Aegon really lived). The issue is whether the KG at ToJ considered Jon to be the rightful King of Westeros. I think the evidence in favor of that inference is quite strong.

Its a reasonable interpretation, but its not the only valid interpretation and the question then arising is why is it thought to matter so much? If the land was being scoured from the Wall to Dorne and from the Sunset Sea to the Stepstones in search of a lost prince who when found would be acclaimed and led [or dragged protesting] to the empty throne, then it might indeed matter, but as I pointed out some way back:

If Jon is to be promoted as the rightful King of Westeros he needs to get to the back of a very long and very expensive queue:

Aerys pops his clogs in King's Landing, along with various other members of the Royal family, so who's next?

1. First off the blocks is Viserys Targaryen, the King's second son. The first son (ungrateful wretch) has gotten himself killed along with his known children so it seems a straightforward claim, especially as it appears that Aerys may have named him his heir before packing him off to Dragonstone. Except he's also the Beggar King and as his sister sadly observes, no dragon.

2. Then there's the sister, again a good claim albeit she's a woman and arguably ineligable, but she does have dragons so it will be a bold Council to deny her. Trouble is she's in the land of far far away and by all accounts making a complete hash of things.

3. Fear not, up comes number three, Aegon first son of Rhaegar and allegedly not dead after all. Great start, unlike 1 & 2 he's actually made it to Westeros, raised his banners and isn't demonstrably mad. In fact looks pretty good all round. OK too good to be true but we're the readers not the actors and real or not he's a better bet than Cersei Lannister.

4. Yes there is a four, because following all historical precedent if no.3 comes to an untimely end as confidently predicted there's too much at stake not for someone else to turn up proclaiming himself the true Aegon, or for that matter if Aegon could be spirited away from that massacre at King's Landing what of his sister, might she too have gotten away and be available? Never mind Perkin Warbeck, there's scope enough for a whole string of False Dimitri claimants.

5. And so we come to Jon Snow, the bastard boy from up north. Sorry, who? Another bloody son of Rhaegar? How many more are there out there?

So after all that, after all the blood and treasure lost in supporting one claimant after another, why go through it all again for a nobody with ice in his veins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K.

Ah. A misunderstanding, I suppose. You apparently thought I'd asserted a claim that young Aegon was at the tower of joy with no evidence at all to support the idea. But here's how the conversation developed:

  • Snowfyre: If the presence of the KG is a clue... we ought to consider the possibility that young Aegon was at the tower of joy.

BearQueen: But Aegon was not there.

Snowfyre: How can we be sure?

JStar: "The onus is not on BQ87 to prove a negative. The onus is on you to provide evidence."

Snowfyre: (repeats) Well, the KG was there... so maybe Aegon was there.

JStar: But you have yet to offer any clues to support that hypothesis! Therefore we can rule it out.

Did you jump into the middle? We started with the premise that the presence of the KG should be considered evidence "that a legitimate Targaryen king was nearby." The evidence was assumed from the get-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the clarification of the 'vows' they swore, this is probably the best:

Five had been his brothers. Oswell Whent and Jon Darry. Lewyn Martell, a prince of Dorne. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning. And beside them, crowned in mist and grief with his long hair streaming behind him, rode Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone and rightful heir to the Iron Throne.

“You don’t frighten me,” he called, turning as they split to either side of him. He did not know which way to face. “I will fight you one by one or all together. But who is there for the wench to duel? She gets cross when you leave her out.”

I swore an oath to keep him safe,” she said to Rhaegar’s shade. “I swore a holy oath.”

We all swore oaths,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, so sadly.


The shades dismounted from their ghostly horses. When they drew their longswords, it made not a sound. “He was going to burn the city,” Jaime said. “To leave Robert only ashes.” “He was your king,” said Darry.

You swore to keep him safe,” said Whent.

“And the children, them as well,” said Prince Lewyn.

Prince Rhaegar burned with a cold light, now white, now red, now dark. “I left my wife and children in your hands.”

“I never thought he’d hurt them.” Jaime’s sword was burning less brightly now. “I was with the king...

“Killing the king,” said Ser Arthur.

“Cutting his throat,” said Prince Lewyn.

The king you had sworn to die for,” said the White Bull.

The passage only BEATS it into the reader that the KG swore an oath to keep the king safe.

That splendid passage is much more. It shows Jaime facing his remorse, his doubts, his frustation,...

I don't think it's a fully reliable reference about KG duties, but it's what Jaime thinks of his own failure. He dreads he's failed to so many people and, above all, to his very self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gap do you think is being "filled in" by mere speculation?

Are you kidding me? The entire thing revolves around assuming Lyanna gave birth because she's found in a bloody bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you jump into the middle? We started with the premise that the presence of the KG should be considered evidence "that a legitimate Targaryen king was nearby." The evidence was assumed from the get-go.

Yeah, I know, I'm jumping in in the middle. Here is why Aegon was not at the tower: Ned believes him dead. If he was at the tower, then Ned must know that he is, in order to understand how honorable the Kingsguard were being. Even if he is concealed during the fight, Ned must understand to hold his view of Arthur Dayne. Therefore your suggestion that the king is Aegon jr is false. Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That splendid passage is much more. It shows Jaime facing his remorse, his doubts, his frustation,...

I don't think it's a fully reliable reference about KG duties, but it's what Jaime thinks of his own failure. He dreads he's failed to so many people and, above all, to his very self.

Gaaah, exactly. This whole dream sequence is Jaime's subconscious manifestation of his guilt. It is occurring through his own perspective of his own knowledge, of which Jon's existence is not a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "protect and die" part is actually repeated pretty frequently throughout the series, again as the duty. Pretty funny that if Jon was king, AD did just that, right?

No, he didn't. If he was meaning to protect Jon, he shouldn't have dispatched his aids.

Nor he was chivalrous. If he thought Jon was his king, how comes he didn't allow the king's uncle to have a last word with the king's mother before the fighting.

Nor he was clever, according to that theory, because he was trying to kill the man who eventualy saved and raised Jon.

It's just denial. Many people refuse to see that the theory is flawed.

Indeed, the KGs' deeds are much better understood if they made themselves killed and never had the intent to harm Ned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know, I'm jumping in in the middle. Here is why Aegon was not at the tower: Ned believes him dead. If he was at the tower, then Ned must know that he is, in order to understand how honorable the Kingsguard were being. Even if he is concealed during the fight, Ned must understand to hold his view of Arthur Dayne. Therefore your premise is false. Try again.

Okay. I know we've been through this before... so just to be sure I'm clear: our premise is that "the presence of the KG should be considered evidence "that a legitimate Targaryen king was nearby." And your response is that this premise is false. The presence of the KG does not tell us that a legitimate Targ king was nearby. Is that right?

I could go with that. That seems much more in line with what Martin says about the priority of orders for KG knights.

The entire point of the "Plausible Aegon" hypothesis, after all, is that if we take the presence of the KG as evidence that a Targ king was nearby... then young Aegon is a much better explanation than Jon Snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a reasonable interpretation, but its not the only valid interpretation and the question then arising is why is it thought to matter so much? If the land was being scoured from the Wall to Dorne and from the Sunset Sea to the Stepstones in search of a lost prince who when found would be acclaimed and led [or dragged protesting] to the empty throne, then it might indeed matter, but as I pointed out some way back:

If Jon is to be promoted as the rightful King of Westeros he needs to get to the back of a very long and very expensive queue:

Aerys pops his clogs in King's Landing, along with various other members of the Royal family, so who's next?

1. First off the blocks is Viserys Targaryen, the King's second son. The first son (ungrateful wretch) has gotten himself killed along with his known children so it seems a straightforward claim, especially as it appears that Aerys may have named him his heir before packing him off to Dragonstone. Except he's also the Beggar King and as his sister sadly observes, no dragon.

2. Then there's the sister, again a good claim albeit she's a woman and arguably ineligable, but she does have dragons so it will be a bold Council to deny her. Trouble is she's in the land of far far away and by all accounts making a complete hash of things.

3. Fear not, up comes number three, Aegon first son of Rhaegar and allegedly not dead after all. Great start, unlike 1 & 2 he's actually made it to Westeros, raised his banners and isn't demonstrably mad. In fact looks pretty good all round. OK too good to be true but we're the readers not the actors and real or not he's a better bet than Cersei Lannister.

4. Yes there is a four, because following all historical precedent if no.3 comes to an untimely end as confidently predicted there's too much at stake not for someone else to turn up proclaiming himself the true Aegon, or for that matter if Aegon could be spirited away from that massacre at King's Landing what of his sister, might she too have gotten away and be available? Never mind Perkin Warbeck, there's scope enough for a whole string of False Dimitri claimants.

5. And so we come to Jon Snow, the bastard boy from up north. Sorry, who? Another bloody son of Rhaegar? How many more are there out there?

So after all that, after all the blood and treasure lost in supporting one claimant after another, why go through it all again for a nobody with ice in his veins?

I have no idea what you think you are trying to prove or what you think others are trying to prove. Very little of this information has to do with whether the KG at ToJ considered Jon to be king. That is really the only question at issue. Of course no one is sure Jon actually will become king. He might, he might not--the evidence is very unclear. But the evidence that the KG at ToJ thought he was the real king is fairly strong. Your point 1 is relevant, but is the very piece of evidence that is being put forth that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. The KG do not go to Viserys, so the logical conclusion is that Jon and not Viserys was the person the KG considered to be king. 2 is irrelevant--Dany was not born yet. 3 is irrelevant--the KG believed Aegon to be dead. 4, well, I have no idea what you mean by 4. So the bottom line is that for the KG, either Viserys was king or Jon was king. They don't go to Viserys, so Jon must have been king in their view--meaning that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. No one is really trying to prove anything else.

Are you kidding me? The entire thing revolves around assuming Lyanna gave birth because she's found in a bloody bed.

No, that is not what the whole thing revolves around. It also revolves around the fact that it is difficult to explain where Jon really comes from as Ned's story does not really hold up under examination. Other evidence is that the KG seem to be guarding a king (don't go to Viserys), so a son of Rhaegar needs to be in ToJ. The theory that it could be Aegon is contradicted by the evidence that Ned believes Aegon to be dead. Also, it is not just a bed of blood, but a bed of blood in which Lyanna died at the age of 15 or 16. What else could cause her to bleed to death? Even Robert assumes Rhaegar and Lyanna were having sex (Robert thinks repeated rape), so sex often leads to pregnancy. They were gone for about a year--long enough to get pregnant and give birth. I am sure I could come up with more evidence that Lyanna gave birth to Jon other than just the reference to "bed or blood" but that is what I quickly came up with off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. I know we've been through this before... so just to be sure I'm clear: our premise is that "the presence of the KG should be considered evidence "that a legitimate Targaryen king was nearby." And your response is that this premise is false. The presence of the KG does not tell us that a legitimate Targ king was nearby. Is that right?

I could go with that. That seems much more in line with what Martin says about the priority of orders for KG knights.

The entire point of the "Plausible Aegon" hypothesis, after all, is that if we take the presence of the KG as evidence that a Targ king was nearby... then young Aegon is a much better explanation than Jon Snow.

I knew that you would misunderstand what I meant by your premise, so I changed that. Your premise is that Aegon is the royalty that is present, and he cannot be for the reasons I showed above. Therefore, the presence of royalty is Jon and Jon alone is the reason for the Kingsguard to defend him with their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Dayne didn't leave the King unprotected, Jaime was left with the King. He is even called their false brother. They did not know what Jaime would do, nor what provoked him to do so. No one did. He was judged without regard to the why of it by everyone. Clearly the KG at the TOJ were aware of what Jaime had done before Ned confronted them. There was communication between the TOJ & KL.

Again.

One KG guarding the king.

Three KGs guarding some old tower.

Westerosi logic, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the question is not why some of them were at the tower. The question is why ALL OF THEM were there when they could have split up to see to their variopus duties. THis suggests to me that there was no discrepancy in their duties - they could follow Rhaegar's orders AND protect the king at the same time, by being in the same place.

Actually, when Rhaegar left, their king was still Aerys. Then it was Rhaegar, and then Aegon. And I doubt if Rhaenys would prevail over Viserys.

I leave it to you to think if the should protect Rhaella rather than Elia, or else. I thing their duties are pretty well outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...because the last thing they would do in that situation is give away the fact that they are protecting the new Targaryen heir to a man who helped Robert depose the Targaryens?

This argument does not jive.I've heard it here many times how much Ned viewed these men.Meaning their honor was widely known. Can't the same be said about Ned? Do you then actually thing the Kings guard would forestall Ned from seeing Lya and her baby because he would hurt them in any way? Ned's honor is so questionable to them that he'd take his nephew away and hand his nephew to Robert .Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you think you are trying to prove or what you think others are trying to prove. Very little of this information has to do with whether the KG at ToJ considered Jon to be king. That is really the only question at issue. Of course no one is sure Jon actually will become king. He might, he might not--the evidence is very unclear. But the evidence that the KG at ToJ thought he was the real king is fairly strong.

I disagree as to the last, and if "provoked" will post on it again :devil: but the point I'm making here is that the issue of legitimacy is irrelevant because if Jon is ever to sit on the Iron Throne he's going to have to fight his way on to it, and therefore the argument that the episode was included to prove he is the king seems moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An onus, eh? Funny, it doesn't feel particularly onerous... almost 43% of the KG was stationed there when Ned and his friends went riding by. Seems like the possibility is worth considering. Not sure how it can be ruled it out.

Either:

  1. Rhaegar's son Aegon was at the tower of joy; or

Rhaegar's son Aegon was not at the tower of joy

BearQueen picked option # 2. I think it's worth considering option # 1. I don't think either of us can confirm our selection, regardless - but she sounded pretty confident, so I just thought I'd ask.

If you're waiting for I direct answer, forget about it, you won't receive it.

More flaws of the theory. Hightower acted as a courrier to fetch Rhaegar, only that eventualy, he didn't fetch Rhaegar or anyone, because he stayed at ToJ.

A logical account would be that Hightower escorted Prince Aegon to ToJ and stayed there to take care of him.

Another flaw. There were six people with Rhaegar, and Hightower should have brought someone with him. If the 3 KGs were trying to protect Jon, why did they tell the other people to leave?

One logical answer is all they fled with Aegon, but the KG don't flee.

There are many hints scatered about to suport this. I'll come back to them in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another question regarding the TOJ and which royal was there or not.This is a legit question and I can't honestly remember the series of events.

Edric Storm told Arya that him and Jon were nurse brothers right.So did Ned take Jon ( if he was there) to Starfall stayed long enough whereby that could have been said with such surety by Edric ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew that you would misunderstand what I meant by your premise, so I changed that. Your premise is that Aegon is the royalty that is present, and he cannot be for the reasons I showed above. Therefore, the presence of royalty is Jon and Jon alone is the reason for the Kingsguard to defend him with their lives.

You knew that I would misunderstand... that you had changed my premise?

Share this post


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

×