R+L=J v.123

[Kingmonkey]

I really like, though correction: Bloodraven (Brynden Rivers) is a Blackwood/Targ. Bittersteal is Bracken/Targ.

(and of course, BR is as far from Targ looks as one gets...)

Thanks! Yes, I considered mentioning BR but it seemed rather pointless for obvious reasons.

[BearQueen87]

I just started to have a moment of doubt about all this, and did a little looking things up.

As far as I can see, that's it. The Wiki has "Ethan presumably spent the majority of the war in the dungeons of King's Landing, until he was freed after the Sack of King's Landing by the Lannisters" but no citation.

Maybe Ethan Glover was simply spared because he was a squire? It doesn't appear clear who his father was, so his father might have been dead already, and he was fostered with the Starks. Or maybe it's as Markg171 suggests. Cat says "trials" plural. Perhaps Ethan and Glover Sr. were given the Rickard/Brandon treatment, but Ethan didn't strangle himself?

Plenty of questions, no answers. However I can't find any evidence other than supposition that Ethan was actually in the dungeons -- let alone the Black Cells -- at all. Anyone? Something in the app, perhaps?

Do we know if Mallister and Royce were any kind of heir and only son? Cat explains the Arryn boy, but not the other two. Would Glover be heir to House Glover? I mean that's Deepwood Motte. So even if he's just a squire, he might still be heir to quite the holdfast.

I suppose Glover's father, Lord of Deepwood Motte, could have told his son to not fight for him and not let himself be strangled. Who know how Aerys would perceive that. He turns on a dime.

[BearQueen87]

Quick look at the Wiki

Galbart Glover's heir is his brother, Robett. So..either Galbart has no son or Ethan Glover was his son and there some unknown reason why Ethan didn't die.

[The Twinslayer]

I don't think anyone in KL sent them the message. I think the message was sent to Starfall and then relayed to the ToJ by messenger (either Arthur Dayne going to Starfall or someone riding out to the ToJ).

I think this is right. The question is whether the messenger from Starfall (Arthur?) set out for the TOJ immediately upon learning that Aerys was dead or if he waited for a few days to also hear the news about Aegon.

[Kingmonkey]

This is a vast improvement. I have a few suggestions..

Thanks! Important to get a range of opinions on this if we want to make sure it's balanced.

For this one I would say: "how can Jon be a Targaryen if his hand was burned by an ordinary flame? Doesn't it take wildfire or dragonflame to burn a Targaryen?

This is an interesting distinction, but I think we don't need to differentiate because both aspects are covered. In one of the linked SSMs in the answer, we have GRRM saying " thanks for asking that. It gives me a chance to clear up a common misconception. TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle. She is called The Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold." Molten gold isn't dragonflame or wildfire either.

I would replace this with: AGOT says that the Targaryens' have their "heritage proclaimed in a striking (some say inhuman) beauty, with indigo or violet eyes and hair of silver-gold or platinum white." How can Jon be a Targ if he is a plain-looking boy with brown hair and black eyes?.

I can see your point of wanting to emphasise the importance of the Targaryen look, but that makes for a rather unweildy question. How about changing:

"How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?"

to:

"How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have the silver hair and purple eyes that are such a hallmark of Targaryen heritage?"

I would add here: Isn't it true that there have been no instances of Targaryen polygamy since Jaehaerys the Conciliator reconciled with the Faith and passed a new unified code of laws?

Is there any evidence that polygamy was included in that code of laws? The problem I have with this is that it implies there is, without actually saying it. That kind of thing is exactly what we should be avoiding, whichever side of the argument we're on.

However, this is a point that needs to be answered, so it should be covered. I'd suggest it's better covered in the answer than in the question. How about...

Can we be sure polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. When Jaehaerys the Conciliator made peace with the Faith Militant, he enacted a universal code of laws. Some people have suggested that is likely to have included a law against polygamy as there are no clear examples of Targ polygamy since. However

this SSM points out that "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want".

It's important to recognise that Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law somewhat tenuous. It is rumoured that Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre considered it as an option for Daemon, and Jorah Mormont suggested it to Dany as a viable option. Daenerys later had a similar thought about Quentyn Martell. Thus whether you believe it was by law or by Targaryen arrogance, polygamy clearly was considered an option.

There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys or Rhaegar, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

I would change this to say: isn't there an SSM saying that the 3KG were at the tower of joy because that is where Rhaegar ordered them to be, and they have to obey his orders?

Not an SSM as far as I can find, but here's the quote

Note that it doesn't actually say that they were there because Rhaegar ordered them to be, it says "if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that." GRRM left room for ambiguity. I do agree that quote, as something frequently brought up, should be mentioned. Maybe a separate question:

Isn't there an SSM that says they were following Rhaegar's orders though?

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this:

The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

It's informative, but vague. It does not outright state that they were in fact following an order (note the use of "if"), and it doesn't say anything about what that order actually was if there was one. One simple answer to this is that if Rhaegar gave them an order, it was to stay there and protect Lyanna and Jon - perhaps even from Lyanna's own brother.

Another answer is to point out that Rhaegar was dead, Aerys was dead, and standing orders likely redundant. Obviously "wait here until I get back" isn't an order a Kingsguard would go on obeying after a king had died, for example -- particularly when there would be a new king to guard. Thus the three Kingsguards may have been obeying an order at first, and then later staying at the ToJ to protect the heir, following the guidance of their first duty as Kingsguards, to protect the king.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. There are supporters of R+L=J on both sides of the argument, because either viewpoint is entirely compatible with R+L=J.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?[i would add to this: And isn't there a precedent for a king's son coming before a king's grandson, as when Egg came before Maegor, his older brother's son?

I don't really see this. Egg's succession required a pronouncement by a Grand Council to come ahead of Maegor, who was suspected of being dangerously mad and had an unlucky name. Grand Councils are specifically there to bypass the normal rules of succession. Under the normal rules, Aegon comes before Visery just as Maegor came before Egg. If that wasn't so, Maegor wouldn't have been a candidate. There's no question that the normal orders of succession can be bypassed, but it's the normal order of succession that's in question.

[finger]

Aurane Waters is from House Velaryon, bastard brother of Lord Monford Velaryon. The Velaryons were a Valyrian house sworn to House Targaryen since before the Doom, who accompanied them to Westeros. Members of House Velaryon can be expected to look like Rhaegar, because what that actually means is "look Valyrian". It would be more peculiar if he didn't look a little like Rhaegar.

Explore all the possibilities, sure -- but a theory should have something to recommend it to be worth going beyond the "hmmm... nah" level of exploration. All this really has to recommend it is that like most people of Valyrian descent, Aurane has the same Valyrian features as Viserys. Against, it's got the serious problem of why the person he'd supposedly switched with would believe he was Viserys.

Aurane Waters, as a character, has a role to play. He's got the new fleet, he's a Velaryon, a house historically closely allied to the Targaryens and currently under a Lord who's 7 years old. Lots of potential there without suspecting Yet Another Hidden Targ.

If there has to be YAHT (and I rather of hope there isn't) there's a character far more suited to the role who has Valyrian features, and no obvious role in the story as yet apart from being extremely mysterious. I'm kind of surprised that I have yet to see any speculation that Darkstar is in fact the other Aegon (Rhaegar's brother) or Daeron.

To start with, there's nothing wrong with asking questions. It doesn't prejudge the answer.

That stated, AW could have been described as having Valyrian looks and, as you say, it wouldn't be strange, being a Velarion. But the text is much more precise, describing him as a younger Rhaegar, in the same way that Renly is described as a younger Robert, or Gendry as a younger Renly. It's GRRM who sows the seeds of the doubt.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not aserting AW=V. Yet, I think that the character deserves more atention, and he'll have a part in future events.

[finger]

I apologize for late replies. Just got home...getting caught up

Score!!!

I attempted to actually start another topic wrt who sent the message to the 3KG...thought that might be more fruitful. I'll stay in my perfect world bubble.

*sigh*

But there is stuff in the text to confirm. His name is Jon. Honestly. This is a case of "Martin hasn't said so...so therefore not real!" Well George doesn't need to tell me that the sun rises in Westeros every day for me to know it does, now does he?

There are hints. You keep dismissing them because they don't fit into what you want to be true (Jon is not Rhaegar's son, GRRM is playing some sort of long con on his audience...). So, honestly, stop saying there is nothing just because you don't like it.

I'm afraid you haven't understood the full meaning, even though it has been specifically stated. It was in other posts, that you have not read.

The fact is that we are all inventing parts of the story, because GRRM has not told everything, he wants us to find out some. So, that argument that "it's not in the text", is foul.

As you say, there are hints. In some instances, the hints are obvious, but there are instances where the hints are more subtle. But these events I refer to share in common that they are not in the texts. That argument can't the taken at will to accpet or discard a possibility. Instaead, you may assess how probable they are.

R+l=J is very probable, but it's taken as a basis to justify some stupid ideas. The KG,s playing the midwives is among the craziest. (Gerold, should we wear our armours? What if Ned appears all of a sudden?)

[Kingmonkey]

To start with, there's nothing wrong with asking questions. It doesn't prejudge the answer.

That stated, AW could have been described as having Valyrian looks and, as you say, it wouldn't be strange, being a Velarion. But the text is much more precise, describing him as a younger Rhaegar, in the same way that Renly is described as a younger Robert, or Gendry as a younger Renly. It's GRRM who sows the seeds of the doubt.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not aserting AW=V. Yet, I think that the character deserves more atention, and he'll have a part in future events.

If you felt I was being overly dismissive, then my apologies.

I'm all for asking questions, but I do think this is a question with a rather straightforward answer. Aurane Waters is certainly an interesting character, but I think we need to get out of the habit of looking for birthdate proximity every time there's an intriguing character. The fundamental problem with anyone but Viserys being Viserys is that Viserys is that skeleton over there with a golden crown, so if we want to wonder about a character who looks like Rhaegar, we need to look elsewhere.

I'd guess the likely reason GRRM had for highlighting the similarity is to remind us that the Velaryons have a very old and close alliance with the Targaryens.

[Mithras]

Quick look at the Wiki

Galbart Glover's heir is his brother, Robett. So..either Galbart has no son or Ethan Glover was his son and there some unknown reason why Ethan didn't die.

Galbart was never married.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I'm fine with people arguing all this stuff for R+L=J, I was just pointing out that when people try and use Ned saying he's been living lies for 14 years to support R+L=J, it doesn't work as he's talking in regards to the Sack and explicitly mentions that he's going to tell the truth of the Sack.

Everything else, sure. Just the living lies for 14 years should not be used to support R+L=J.

Where is it specifically stated that the lies he has been living were regarding the Sack, and that he is going to tell the truth?

ok, how about this?

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?

Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look, as did Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys. The closest genetic match we have to Jon is Aegor "Bittersteel" Rivers (Bittersteel) who was, like Jon, half Targ and half from a First Man descended house (Blackwood). Bittersteel had dark hair. The famed purple eyes of the Targaryens actually vary from lilac to very deep and dark purples, and in some cases aren't even purple (Valaar and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes). Jon's eyes are almost black, so give little away.

The simple answer is that if Jon did have the Targaryen looks, it would give the game away. Jon is only half Targaryen, and as we have seen, half Targaryens don't have to look Targaryen. GRRM actually addresses this ironically in A Game Of Thrones ch.13 when Tyrion thinks " He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." If Jon gets his Stark looks from his mother's side, it's actually his father who had left little of himself in his son.

Besides the Blackwood/Bracken correction :) and changing Valaar into Valarr :) perhaps it would be useful to mention Rhaenyra's three "Strong boys"? Three sons with at least one Targaryen parent who looked nothing like a Targaryen, in both hair and eye colour..

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Bittersteel had purple eyes, btw.

[Kingmonkey]

Besides the Blackwood/Bracken correction :) and changing Valaar into Valarr :) perhaps it would be useful to mention Rhaenyra's three "Strong boys"? Three sons with at least one Targaryen parent who looked nothing like a Targaryen, in both hair and eye colour..

Bittersteel had purple eyes, btw.

All good points! Updated to:

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have the silver hair and purple eyes that are such a hallmark of Targaryen heritage?

Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look, as did Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys. The closest genetic match we have to Jon is Aegor "Bittersteel" Rivers (Bittersteel) who was, like Jon, half Targ and half from a First Man descended house (Bracken). Bittersteel had dark hair (though he did have purple eyes). The famed purple eyes of the Targaryens actually vary from lilac to very deep and dark purples, and in some cases aren't even purple. Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes, and Princess Rhaenyra's "three strong boys" all had brown eyes as well as hair, leading to rumours that they were bastards by her lover Harwin Strong. Jon's eyes are almost black, so give little away.

The simple answer is that if Jon did have the Targaryen looks, it would give the game away. Jon is only half Targaryen, and as we have seen, half Targaryens don't have to look Targaryen. GRRM actually addresses this ironically in A Game Of Thrones ch.13 when Tyrion thinks " He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." If Jon gets his Stark looks from his mother's side, it's actually his father who had left little of himself in his son.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Shortly coming back to the matter of polygamy and the Aegon IV/Daemon example... The fact that Daemon was looking for Aegon to allow such a polygamous marriage says nothing about it being legal or illegal... Aegon had three 'reasons' to get the final say about Daemons marriage.. Aegon was his King (1), Aegon was his father (2), and Aegon was his head of House (3). So every single marriage that Daemon could have wanted, would have needed to be approved by Aegon, if Daemon wanted to keep any chance of this marriage bettering his position.. if Daemon had chosen Rohanne himself, and only Rohanne, he still would have needed to ask Aegon for permission.

[finger]

Ready for a little fun? I'll elaborate the idea of filling the gaps with an example. Let's take Ashara Dayne. She seems to be a relevant character, but very little is known about her.

She was in waiting with Elia Martell, and she accompanied her to Harrenhal, where she celebrated in style. She “looked to Stark,” whatever it means. She had a flirtation with Ned. She was then “dishonoured” and got pregnant, possibly as a consecuence. (In the forum, it's suspecteced that Aerys raped her.) There's no clear evidence of the outcome. She's said to have thrown herself from a tower in Starfall. Common people in Winterfell gossiped she was Jon's mother.

It's very little to build an accurate story but I could try, taking Gilly's as a guide.

AD and Ned were rather notorious in HH, before the “incident.”
AD came back to KL with Rhaegar and Elia. They both had sons with little time difference, both fairhaired, as it's common between Targs and Daynes.
Some time later, it was decided that Prince Aegon had to be evacuated with as much secret as possible. So, it was “officially” said that AD would take her son to her kin in Starfall, and Hightower will escort her, while trying to find out some news of Rhaegar. (In fact, my take is that Rhaegar required Aegon to be released as the price of his comeback.)
It was not Ashara's baby they took, but Elia's.
Someone found them on the road, and took them wherever Rhaegar was, possibly ToJ. R made sure the boy was Aegon, and went back to KL. The rest didn't remain in ToJ for long, if they ever stayed there at all. They'd rather go to some more comfortable place under Dayne's rule, be it Starfall or elsewhere.
When everything was lost, the KG,s went to ToJ in order to defend the pass while they were still alive. Ned killed them.
By that time, AD and L have moved to Starfall, where L could give birth as a lady. Ned found her there when he delivered Dawn. Wylla was taking care of Daemon (aka Jon) as a wetnurse. He was told that AD had thrown herself from a tower, but he never saw the body. If you knew that she had lost her son, you could understand that reaction, but it might not be the truth.
In the end, AD was thought dead, and Ned came back to WF from Starfall with a baby in arms and his sister's bones, not neccesarily together. Common people gossiped.

There you are. Of course I have invented almost everything, but I couldn't have done it without hints found in the text. I've been careful not to contradict anything we know of AD, and I challenge you to find in the text anything that proves false any detail of the story.

I don't know what GRRM has prepared for the character.

[FittleLinger]

Rhaenys, Jon's sister (OK I know, let's not say that because it's "speculation") and Aegon's sister looked like her Dornish mother. Nothing Targaryen in her. Would GRRM make this just for world-building purposes? If this was not relevant, why not just roll with the pattern and make her Targaryen-looking? This is, allegedly, Jon's own sister (as opposed to some Targ who lived hundreds of years ago and didn't have the Targ features). People seem to give credit to George in the sense of always making a point (sometimes even when he's actually not). So what is the point, if not explaining to us Jon's features and being a Targaryen remaining an option?

Stick to the simple stuff, people. We are discussing when Tywin raised his banners, whether Ashara was in Storm's end and whatnot. Stick to the simple.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Ready for a little fun? I'll elaborate the idea of filling the gaps with an example. Let's take Ashara Dayne. She seems to be a relevant character, but very little is known about her.

She was in waiting with Elia Martell, and she accompanied her to Harrenhal, where she celebrated in style. She “looked to Stark,” whatever it means. She had a flirtation with Ned. She was then “dishonoured” and got pregnant, possibly as a consecuence. (In the forum, it's suspecteced that Aerys raped her.) There's no clear evidence of the outcome. She's said to have thrown herself from a tower in Starfall. Common people in Winterfell gossiped she was Jon's mother.

It isn't known whether Ashara got pregnant at Harrenhal. With the rather large amount of time passing between Harrenhal and the Sack, combined with Barristan's statements of "stillborn girl" and "soon after", I'd not simply assume that Ashara getting pregnant occured at Harrenhal, but keep in mind that it might have occured later...

[BearQueen87]

R+l=J is very probable, but it's taken as a basis to justify some stupid ideas. The KG,s playing the midwives is among the craziest. (Gerold, should we wear our armours? What if Ned appears all of a sudden?)

No one--literally no one--has ever asserted that the KG played midwives. Pretty much ever single regular RLJnaut here believes that there were servants at the TOJ who might have come up from Starfall. So don't preach to me about reading all the posts when you clearly haven't.

Galbart was never married.

Ah thanks. Then...seriously, where is Ethan on this family tree??

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Ah thanks. Then...seriously, where is Ethan on this family tree??

We don't know.

[King Tyrion XX]

He'd already decided Robert had won the war after the Trident. Ned, Arryn, and Hoster Tully and all their bannermen were backing Robert. Robert was of course backing himself. Dorne was smashed at the Trident. The only people left in the war were him and Mace Tyrell, and Mace Tyrell had decided to sit out at Storm's End and wasn't a threat. The royals had lost, and he knew it. There was never any chance that he was actually going to join Aerys after the Trident, nor is that ever hinted at. Sure he wanted to get there first so he could prove his loyalty to Robert, but there was never any reason that he would have had to fight Ned if he ran across him on the way to King's Landing like he says. Fighting Ned would ensure that Robert would turn his wrath upon him and Tywin had already decided that Robert had won so he wouldn't cause any reason for Robert to decide to wipe him out as well as Aerys. If he'd seen Ned's army he would have bent the knee and merged their two armies together, not fight him.

As to the second, Ned isn't the only one who tells us that Tywin sat out the war at Casterly Rock and didn't stir himself until Robert won the Trident. Joffrey and Tyrion both do too, and Tywin doesn't deny it. Tywin even himself specifically says that's why he had to take KL and kill Rhaegar's children as he'd sat back and done nothing but stay at Casterly Rock all war. So I'm not sure why you're trying to argue otherwise. It's a logistical issue that GRRM screwed up. We don't have to go around inventing things that contradict the text to cover GRRM's mistakes.

It does beg the question, why does Tywin say he would have had to fight Ned? Is there something not yet revealed maybe? Was he lying?

[BearQueen87]

We don't know.

That's what I thought. Now it's going to bug me.