R + L = J v. 126

[markg171]

Not an association of a Father figure, more like a royalty one, and LOL! you walked right into that one. ^_^

It’s nonsense. Mance’s blood is no more royal than mine own.

A true Targaryen, heir to the throne, and under Snow? sure.

Yet not a Stark.... or so said the Kings of Winter to Jon.

Except even if Jon was Rhaegar's son, his blood wouldn't be royal and he wouldn't be heir to the throne. The Baratheon blood is the royal blood now and Stannis is the heir to the throne. Targaryen's were disposed, they are not royalty. Not even any of the Targaryens in the series like Viserys, Dany, or Aegon think that their blood makes them royalty. They all know that armies will make them royalty.

And Jon is not a Stark. He's a bastard. Of course he's not a Stark.

Jon lived as a Stark then became a brother of the NW.

And every single day the sun sets, and would make the Wall that colour to everyone who sees it at the Wall. Is everyone at the Wall related to Rhaegar?

Hints of Rhaegar and Lyanna having a legitimate child at the tower of joy.

actions of the 3KGs

bastards do not harm princes, only trueborn swords can bruise them.

mance's blood is no royal than my own

Viserys declaring eating at the end of the hall opposite of a raised table where royalty eats, is no place for a King

Rhaegar's black armor/heart, to Jon's coloring

Rhaegar's red and orange floated image of flames to Jon's

Selmy a Queensguard, a white shadow to Dany (royalty), Ghost a white shadow to Jon (royalty, in the sight of the old gods)

These are of my opinion, a solid 'red' and royalty connection to Jon... no way crackpot as you've seem to suggest.

You can counter argue all of this though

- KG's actions mirror that of prison guards in the series

- Jon gets plenty of bruises in his life from bastards

- Jon is not a Baratheon so he does not have royal blood

- Jon sits at the raised table 99% of the time

- Jon wears all black. Rhaegar wore black and red. It is not the same as Jon literally cannot wear the same colours as Rhaegar

- Jon is a vision in a fire. Of course there are flames. There are flames in every single vision

- So why does Tommen have 7 white shadows if he's a bastard and not royalty? You can't connect something and just blatantly ignore the stuff that counters it. And Ghost is white because he is an albino, not because he's coloured. And finally, again, Jon is not a Baratheon and of royalty.

By the way, who is Jon's Mother, in you opinion?

You keep coming back to this. You don't need to have an answer to the question of who Jon's mother is to be able to point out everything that's wrong in your theory. Just because someone doesn't have an answer, doesn't mean yours isn't exempt from being wrong.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Kevan:
If Aerys had agreed to marry her to Rhaegar, how many deaths might have been avoided? Cersei could have given the prince the sons he wanted, lions with purple eyes and silver manes … and with such a wife, Rhaegar might never have looked twice at Lyanna Stark.

Jon:
Elia was never worthy of him. She was frail and sickly from the first, and childbirth only left her weaker. After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon's birth had almost been the death of her. She would bear no more children, the maesters told Prince Rhaegar afterward.

Kevan mentions that Cersei could have given Rhaegar the sons he wanted. And that could have avoided him to run away with Lyanna.

Jon believes Elia to be unworthy... because she couldn't have more children.

I kinda feel that's the "official" explanation for many people about why Rhaegar "left" Elia for some other woman, so he could have a child with Lyanna.

[markg171]

Don't have to it's an inverse, just as Mance would be. Though I think that is probably above your pay grade so don't worry about it.

Keep trying to say a black cloak with red stitches is the same as a red cloak

[markg171]

Kevan:

If Aerys had agreed to marry her to Rhaegar, how many deaths might have been avoided? Cersei could have given the prince the sons he wanted, lions with purple eyes and silver manes … and with such a wife, Rhaegar might never have looked twice at Lyanna Stark.

Jon:

Elia was never worthy of him. She was frail and sickly from the first, and childbirth only left her weaker. After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon's birth had almost been the death of her. She would bear no more children, the maesters told Prince Rhaegar afterward.

Kevan mentions that Cersei could have given Rhaegar the sons he wanted. And that could have avoided him to run away with Lyanna.

Jon believes Elia to be unworthy... because she couldn't have more children.

I kinda feel that's the "official" explanation for many people about why Rhaegar "left" Elia for some other woman, so he could have a child with Lyanna.

Aegon says hi.

And no, the fact that Elia couldn't bear more children is not why Elia is not worthy of Rhaegar according to Jon. Jon says that she was NEVER worthy of Rhaegar. She could birth children when they married, so it's not her ability to have no more children that suddenly made her unworthy. She was just never worthy.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Aegon says hi.

And no, the fact that Elia couldn't bear more children is not why Elia is not worthy of Rhaegar according to Jon. Jon says that she was NEVER worthy of Rhaegar. She could birth children when they married, so it's not her ability to have no more children that suddenly made her unworthy. She was just never worthy.

that's exactly what he's saying: She was never worthy because she was sickly and giving birth got her sicker. He's literally saying that.

[IceFire125]

You keep coming back to this. You don't need to have an answer to the question of who Jon's mother is to be able to point out everything that's wrong in your theory. Just because someone doesn't have an answer, doesn't mean yours isn't exempt from being wrong.

You keep denying to answer a question that I figure you could answer. You seem to know a lot about the series. Don't tell me that Jon came out of the blue and magically just appeared on Ned's arms. That'd just really insult your intelligence, I would think.

So, again, we're on the topic of R+L=J, Jon's parentage is the subject obviously. You don't believe in that theory since the book says according to you, Ned is Jon's Father. I would like to know your opinion, who do you think is Jon's Mother, the person that gave birth to him?

[markg171]

that's exactly what he's saying: She was never worthy because she was sickly and giving birth got her sicker. He's literally saying that.

Except you said that she was unworthy because she couldn't bear more children.

Jon believes Elia to be unworthy... because she couldn't have more children.

[markg171]

You keep denying to answer a question that I figure you could answer. You seem to know a lot about the series. Don't tell me that Jon came out of the blue and magically just appeared on Ned's arms. That'd just really insult your intelligence, I would think.

So, again, we're on the topic of R+L=J, Jon's parentage is the subject obviously. You don't believe in that theory since the book says according to you, Ned is Jon's Father. I would like to know your opinion, who do you think is Jon's Mother, the person that gave birth to him?

But again, this has nothing to do with why your theory, parts or in whole, is wrong. My inability to answer that question doesn't mean that the flaws in your theory are any less real. The two are not related.

Your answer is not any more right simply because someone can't answer the question.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Except you said that she was unworthy because she couldn't bear more children.

Yes. Her unworthiness is because she is sickly and unable to give R more kids. This is his train of thought:

She was not worthy because she was always sick

When she had children, she got sicklier

And then, she couldn't have more children.

Kevan says the same. He says that, if Rhaegar had married Cersei, he could have had all the children he wanted, hence, he wouldn't have needed to run away with Lyanna. Kevan doesn't mention Elia, but he's talking about her inability to bear more children as a reason for Rhaegar to run away with Lyanna, something that wouldn't have happened if he had married a "better" woman.

Jon talks about Elia, but doesn't mentions Lyanna. In that moment, Jon's "evaluation" of Elia happens because they're talking about getting a bride for Aegon. Brides are for alliances and children. He remembers that Rhaegar married a woman that wasn't worthy because she couldn't give him all the children he should have had. And what happened because of that, according to Kevan? Yes, Rhaegar escaped with another woman. Jon doesn't say that, but it could be in his mind at the moment. It's called subtext.

[IceFire125]

But again, this has nothing to do with why your theory, parts or in whole, is wrong. My inability to answer that question doesn't mean that the flaws in your theory are any less real. The two are not related.

Your answer is not any more right simply because someone can't answer the question.

True enough, a theory is just a theory. The R+L=J theory is wrong according to you, but I believe in it. I've stated my reasons to believe it. Now I would like to know your beliefs on the issue of Jon's parentage, in this case, his Mother.

I want to know what you believe. So, who in your opinion is Jon's Mother, the woman that gave birth to him?

[Ygrain]

It's not BS or pure construct at all. Hightower summoned Rhaegar to ride off to war. They completely knew that he would be leading the army, and seeing as KG are commanders of royal armies, that Rhaegar would be taking KG with him (especially considering the Throne was in dire need of commanders as they didn't have high lords fighting for them). The 3 TOJ KG completely knew that Aerys would be understaffed. To argue anything other is what is pure nonsense. So the 3 KG at the TOJ would know that Aerys wasn't entirely protected. And if their job is to first protect the king, and not his kin, then they were in dereliction of their duty if they stayed at the TOJ, without having been told to do so. They must have been told to be at the TOJ otherwise they knowingly left Aerys in a situation where Rhaegar would be taking his KG.

Markg, darling, it is your construct because nowhere, ever, it is indicated that the king must not be left with a single KG. It's purely, and merely, your own assumption that you are trying to push as an argument.

snip

Alright, perhaps best to put re-phrase my stance for the sake of clarity:

1) If you want to establish a set of rules, you cannot regard the Aegon II and Viserys as parallel situation as if you were doing literary analysis, details matter, and very much.

Under normal circumstances, protecting the king = being with the king (cf. Barristan "how can I protect her when I'm not with her"). With Aegon's escape from KL, though, it works exactly the other way round: the KG presence would put him in danger as a flagmark of royal status. Hence, they protect him by not being with him. There is no such situation with Viserys on Dragonstone (but it might work in the Jon-at-Starfall scenario - Jon is at Starfall as an anonymous child of Wylla's, the KG stay away so as not to draw attention by their famous faces, and guard access to Lyanna so that no-one finds out that she has given birth)

2) The idea that the KG can approve a replacement so that they could pursue other tasks is a flawed one as it completely undermines the purpose of KG. If the KG relegate their responsibility to someone else for weeks or months, then there is no reason to have a sworn KG if simply "a good man and true" can do. Similarly, the KG cannot decide to pursue other tasks because in their opinion, the king is sufficiently protected.

3) "Willem Darry is a good man and true, but not of Kinsguard, Kingsguard does not flee, then or now."

Accompanying Viserys to Dragonstone is seen as fleeing because it means to abandon the king. It does not equal the Aegon II situation because here "flee" refers to KL, not the king.

4) I might have missed it in your post but I didn't notice you adressing the fact that Aegon's agreement might have validated Larys' decree to separate the group and send the king with a non-KG. The king as the highest authority can order the KG not to be with him (or step aside, as we see with Robert and Barristan)

5) You have a good point that the way to convince Hightower is to go by the rules. However, for the reasons stated above, I don't think that Hightower would find the Aegon II situation a valid precedent. Rather, it might be pointed out that it was unlawful for Aerys to jump Rhaegar's children in the succession as no Grand Counsil approved such a change of the succession line, hence such a decision is invalid. Plus, if Aerys disinherited Aegon for being half Dornish, that doesn't aply to Jon.

[Kingmonkey]

1) If you want to establish a set of rules, you cannot regard the Aegon II and Viserys as parallel situation as if you were doing literary analysis, details matter, and very much.

Under normal circumstances, protecting the king = being with the king (cf. Barristan "how can I protect her when I'm not with her"). With Aegon's escape from KL, though, it works exactly the other way round: the KG presence would put him in danger as a flagmark of royal status. Hence, they protect him by not being with him. There is no such situation with Viserys on Dragonstone (but it might work in the Jon-at-Starfall scenario - Jon is at Starfall as an anonymous child of Wylla's, the KG stay away so as not to draw attention by their famous faces, and guard access to Lyanna so that no-one finds out that she has given birth)

No literary parallel is going to be perfectly parallel. There is certainly enough similarity between these two events that it would be odd not to at least suspect that GRRM was making an intentional parallel, and question why. The core details -- someone who is recognised by at least some people as a king fleeing to Dragonstone while heirs are elsewhere, Kingsguard with heirs -- makes as close a parallel as anything in the series.

Your counter relies on a particular way of reading the departure of the 2KG -- that it was that their presence would have made Aegon II less rather than more safe that made it permissible for the 2KG to be elsewhere. I argue that it is that they could be confident that their presence would not make the king any more safe than he already was. Thus while he is the subject of their primary duty, to be with him would not help in their primary duty but would hinder their secondary duty of protecting his kin. In the heir-Viserys-at-Dragonstone scenario, the same would be true. While he's temporarily untouchable on Dragonstone, they would serve the king better by protecting his heir and making their way to him slowly and safely than by rushing to his side and risking the life of his heir.

Can we say which of these is a better reading? Not really. They're both compatible with what we know, and both arguable points. For Dayne to make the case to stay, he can present that second reading to Hightower, and lacking the presence of a king, hand or small council to clarify the question, it's what Hightower can be persuaded of that matters.

2) The idea that the KG can approve a replacement so that they could pursue other tasks is a flawed one as it completely undermines the purpose of KG. If the KG relegate their responsibility to someone else for weeks or months, then there is no reason to have a sworn KG if simply "a good man and true" can do. Similarly, the KG cannot decide to pursue other tasks because in their opinion, the king is sufficiently protected.

The ritual at the KG meeting clearly shows that they can approve a replacement. On the other hand, the duty of the Kingsguard is to see to the safety of the king, and obviously a long period of time is a problem. They are deputising substitutes, not appointing people with a par duty. How long is too long, though?

It wouldn't make sense to have a time limit on it, the important thing is "Will they keep him safe?" If the situation changes, the judgement is no longer sound. I don't suggest this is a loophole that allows KG to roam wild doing whatever the hell they want, merely that while the situation on Dragonstone is unchanged and not likely to change in the immediate future, it is not necessary for the KG to rush to Dragonstone. It is open for them to secure the safety of an heir and find a safe route, rather than dropping everything to get to Dragonstone as soon as possible.

3) "Willem Darry is a good man and true, but not of Kinsguard, Kingsguard does not flee, then or now."

Accompanying Viserys to Dragonstone is seen as fleeing because it means to abandon the king. It does not equal the Aegon II situation because here "flee" refers to KL, not the king.

If Viserys is not the king, then fleeing to Dragonstone is fleeing the king, as you say. If Viserys IS the king, then going to Dragonstone would not be fleeing the king either, and thus would equal the Aegon II situation. The purpose of the exercise is to develop a coherent narrative with the Viserys-as-heir scenario as a starting point, and from that starting point, this makes perfect sense.

4) I might have missed it in your post but I didn't notice you adressing the fact that Aegon's agreement might have validated Larys' decree to separate the group and send the king with a non-KG. The king as the highest authority can order the KG not to be with him (or step aside, as we see with Robert and Barristan)

There's no king around to make such validations, everything is in the air. Who is the rightful authority the 3KG can appeal to for judgement? Even if they decide that there is clarity in who the heir is, there's certainly no clarity in who the regent would be. Think about what Jaime tells the other KG about how Joffery may be the king, but he's also a 13 year old boy and sometimes common sense should come before the king's wishes -- protecting a child king can sometimes mean protecting him from himself. Viserys is a lot younger and certainly not old enough to have a valid opinion on how best the KG should execute their duty. The last competent authority to have given orders to the 3KG was Rhaegar.

5) You have a good point that the way to convince Hightower is to go by the rules. However, for the reasons stated above, I don't think that Hightower would find the Aegon II situation a valid precedent. Rather, it might be pointed out that it was unlawful for Aerys to jump Rhaegar's children in the succession as no Grand Counsil approved such a change of the succession line, hence such a decision is invalid. Plus, if Aerys disinherited Aegon for being half Dornish, that doesn't aply to Jon.

I think the Aegon II case is close enough that it's really down to what GRRM decides Hightower could be sold on, and nothing else. We just don't know enough about the people involved to guess how they would interpret these things. For all we know, Hightower was in awe of Dayne's intellect and pretty much bought into anything Dayne told him, after all. We just have to wait and see what GRRM has in store for us. :)

I don't think the KG would be happy to make a judgement on whether the declarations of the king are legal or not. That's way beyond their pay grade. It's up to a grand council to gainsay the declarations of a king, not for the KG to require a grand council's determination.

The Jon point you make is a really interesting one, and I should have dealt with that. I constructed that essay pretty much on the spot when I decided it would be an interesting exercise, and I was more interested in showing there's at least one coherent narrative there, rather than exploring the alternatives -- and that alternative honestly didn't occur to me. Nice one!

That thought begs a question -- did Aerys name Viserys his heir, or did he disinherit Aegon? The contentious TWOIAF quote calls Viserys the "new heir" but tells us nothing of why he's called that. Considering the Dornish Question stuff I hypothesised in part 2, disinheriting Aegon makes a lot of sense. In that case, we have a rather more traditional turn of events at the ToJ, where the 3KG know that Aegon had been disinherited, but also knew that Aerys was unaware of Rhaegar's new son by Lyanna, and thus treat Jon as king.

This also gives me another thought on your question of what narrative purpose this information about Viserys being named over Aegon serves. It might put legit Jon ahead of (f)Aegon, depending on the inherit/disinherit question.

[markg171]

I never said that he can't be left with 1 KG. I said that they knew he wouldn't be as protected as he could be as they knew their brothers would have to ride off to war with Rhaegar. Don't put words in my mouth darling.

And if their job is protection of the king, than standing at the TOJ while they know Rhaegar will be riding off to war with the KG means that they're not doing their best to protect him. They're either purposely ignoring their duty to the king by staying at the TOJ, or were told to stay at the TOJ by Rhaegar in which case they have no say in the matter.

You seem to be at this point just not even reading the posts before assuming you're automatically right.

[Ygrain]

No literary parallel is going to be perfectly parallel. There is certainly enough similarity between these two events that it would be odd not to at least suspect that GRRM was making an intentional parallel, and question why. The core details -- someone who is recognised by at least some people as a king fleeing to Dragonstone while heirs are elsewhere, Kingsguard with heirs -- makes as close a parallel as anything in the series.

This is a rather superficial reading and the bolded is partly relying on your assumption who is what. The ToJ trio might perceive that they are with the king while the heir is elsewhere.

Your counter relies on a particular way of reading the departure of the 2KG -- that it was that their presence would have made Aegon II less rather than more safe that made it permissible for the 2KG to be elsewhere. I argue that it is that they could be confident that their presence would not make the king any more safe than he already was. Thus while he is the subject of their primary duty, to be with him would not help in their primary duty but would hinder their secondary duty of protecting his kin. In the heir-Viserys-at-Dragonstone scenario, the same would be true. While he's temporarily untouchable on Dragonstone, they would serve the king better by protecting his heir and making their way to him slowly and safely than by rushing to his side and risking the life of his heir.

Well, you have it right in the quoted passage - "stripped of all the royal finery". In other words, stripped of everything that would give him away as a king, Kingsguard included. - Imagine a hypothetical scenario with one of the KG on board when the ship is stopped and the KG recognised, what happens then? His presence actually increases the danger for the king instead of the other way round.

The ritual at the KG meeting clearly shows that they can approve a replacement. On the other hand, the duty of the Kingsguard is to see to the safety of the king, and obviously a long period of time is a problem. They are deputising substitutes, not appointing people with a par duty. How long is too long, though?

No. During the meeting, the KG 1) are not performing other tasks, they are only conferring, and 2) they leave the king unprotected for how long, minutes? Half an hour? An hour at most? At ToJ, they will be gone for weeks or months, all three of them, prioritizing something else while relegating their first duty to unsworn guards. That's dereliction of duty.

It wouldn't make sense to have a time limit on it, the important thing is "Will they keep him safe?" If the situation changes, the judgement is no longer sound. I don't suggest this is a loophole that allows KG to roam wild doing whatever the hell they want, merely that while the situation on Dragonstone is unchanged and not likely to change in the immediate future, it is not necessary for the KG to rush to Dragonstone. It is open for them to secure the safety of an heir and find a safe route, rather than dropping everything to get to Dragonstone as soon as possible.

This still ignores the fact that there are three of them and therefore able to fulfill both primary and secondary duty.

And sorry but if someone is my bodyguard but leaves me with other people in the last hideout I have left while everyone is out there for my head because I am supposedly safe there, I will consider him in dereliction of duty, and I have little doubt that any king would see it more favourably unless he himself had given the order, 'nuff said.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Except Rhaegar wasn't all in black. He had red in his armour. He was wearing red and black when he died. So that's wrong right off the bat.

The story isn't over yet. Mance got his blacks mixed with red when wildlings rescued him. Melisandre is associated with red. And with the NW having attacked Jon, the wildlings and Mel might be all who are left to safe Jon.. Jons blacks being mixed with red is still a good possibility.

Yeah that's true but he had no army when he made the pact. I think they would be hoping for Targ support as well in Westeros, like house Darry when Tyrion gives us that insight. Maybe Oberyn spent enough time around Viserys to see some of that taint Selmy mentioned as to why he never went to Viserys after Darry's' death or he may have had a hand in it. A lot of people are betting on old allegiances in the books as well, FAegon, even Jorah and Selmy told her people would rally to her in history we saw the Blackfyres do this. I am surprised Dany never got a pact even though she was young. She would still be a Targ Princess.

Either way it seemed a gamble by the Martells or an insurance plan really. Though when it was looking good they dumped it and got rid of the evidence. Can you imagine Viserys with this knowledge?

I can't imagine that would have ended well for Viserys, and everyone he would have chosen to involve..

The problem is we don't know when the pact was signed.

A couple of threads ago we did a timeline analysis and one of the proposed reasons why she wasn't mentioned, is that she wasn't born yet. Oberyn is the one who signed for Dorne which is odd because Doran is the one who speaks for Dorne. We know that Oberyn tried to rally support for Viserys within the first year of the Sack before Jon Arryn put a stop to that, and that he rarely left Dorne afterwards. Which makes that a fairly likely time for him to have signed the marriage pact as he was trying to rally for Viserys and was still actively being mobile instead of staying in Dorne. Signing a marriage pact is the ultimate pledge of support and the pact took place outside of Dorne, so they seem to go hand in hand. In which case, if the pact was signed in this time frame, Dany either wasn't born, or at most was between 1-3 months old.

The other option could be that the pact is entirely fake. It seems awfully convenient that everyone in the pact who supposedly witnessed it and would be called upon to verify it's authenticity, all just died. Darry died many years ago, Viserys died a few years back, and Oberyn and the Sealord just died. So there's no one alive who can verify it, other than Doran saying it's real. Doran tells us that in his own way, he is no less dangerous than Oberyn was, just that he is dangerous in a different way. A fake pact to try and lure Dany to ally with his forces, sounds exactly like something Doran would do.

The Sealord of Braavos signed it. Doesn't Dany even say 'this was signed when I was living in the house with the red door'? She lived here for some five years. The pact was signed in those five years, and most likely in the beginning of those five years, and not the end.

And the most recent Sealord just died. That doesn't mean that he was the same Sealord who signed the contract. That's quite an assumption, without anything to back it up. Strip was the First sword of Braavos for nine years. He says so in 298 AC. Now, that employment might have ended years before, but 298 - 9 = 289, the year where Darry got sick (and most likely died, for he 'wasted away quickly'). Coincidence? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

[Ygrain]

I never said that he can't be left with 1 KG. I said that they knew he wouldn't be as protected as he could be as they knew their brothers would have to ride off to war with Rhaegar. Don't put words in my mouth darling.

And if their job is protection of the king, than standing at the TOJ while they know Rhaegar will be riding off to war with the KG means that they're not doing their best to protect him. They're either purposely ignoring their duty to the king by staying at the TOJ, or were told to stay at the TOJ by Rhaegar in which case they have no say in the matter.

You seem to be at this point just not even reading the posts before assuming you're automatically right.

You rather do not seem to be able what your own words mean. You claimed that the king would be understaffed, which no-one ever considers a problem and therefore such a claim has no textual support. And if something is not considered a problem, then the KG are not required to act on it. Fullstop.

And if their job is protection of the king, than standing at the TOJ while they know Rhaegar will be riding off to war with the KG means that they're not doing their best to protect him. They're either purposely ignoring their duty to the king by staying at the TOJ, or were told to stay at the TOJ by Rhaegar in which case they have no say in the matter.

The collective duty of the KG is to protect the king, which means that as long as there are some KG to fulfill this duty, others may be assigned to other tasks - surprise, suprise, something that is repeated in this thread every couple of pages.

You seem to be at this point just not even reading the posts before assuming you're automatically right.

I don't recall responding to a post of yours that was right, so, yes, in our conversation, I am always right :P

[Alia of the knife]

The problem is we don't know when the pact was signed.

A couple of threads ago we did a timeline analysis and one of the proposed reasons why she wasn't mentioned, is that she wasn't born yet. Oberyn is the one who signed for Dorne which is odd because Doran is the one who speaks for Dorne. We know that Oberyn tried to rally support for Viserys within the first year of the Sack before Jon Arryn put a stop to that, and that he rarely left Dorne afterwards. Which makes that a fairly likely time for him to have signed the marriage pact as he was trying to rally for Viserys and was still actively being mobile instead of staying in Dorne. Signing a marriage pact is the ultimate pledge of support and the pact took place outside of Dorne, so they seem to go hand in hand. In which case, if the pact was signed in this time frame, Dany either wasn't born, or at most was between 1-3 months old.

The other option could be that the pact is entirely fake. It seems awfully convenient that everyone in the pact who supposedly witnessed it and would be called upon to verify it's authenticity, all just died. Darry died many years ago, Viserys died a few years back, and Oberyn and the Sealord just died. So there's no one alive who can verify it, other than Doran saying it's real. Doran tells us that in his own way, he is no less dangerous than Oberyn was, just that he is dangerous in a different way. A fake pact to try and lure Dany to ally with his forces, sounds exactly like something Doran would do.

Who are you saying wasn't born yet? Arianne?

If so, Arianne is in her mid twenties and of an age with Viserys. She remembers being told she once held Rhaenys on a visit to KL.

Also, though Connington is gay, like Loras and Renly, they understood the utter necessary to beget an heir and carry on the family name, so the perception that Elias physical frailty is a sign of her inability to do this, would render her unworthy of the most important duty she has.

[BearQueen87]

The Great Bastard himself, Daemon Blackfyre.

And Brienne ("red and black ripples" in Oathkeeper).

But wait, when did Mance become a father figure for Jon? They spent about 10 minutes together before Jon became Lord Commander of the Watch. Ned was more of a father figure than Mance. So was Benjen.

Did I at any point try to rank the father-figures. No. Of Ned and Ben were more father-figures to Jon. But Jon and Mance do have an interesting relationship.

Oh and what name did Mance take? Bael. Hm. What the story of Bael the Bard again. Oh right, a very clear RLJ parallel

When is Mance Rayder ever a father figure to Jon? Tormund sure. Ned sure. Mance no.

And funny, you literally just spent the last page trying to say that Rhaegar wore black, but now when it's convenient will bring up the fact that Rhaegar wore red. That aside, the example doesn't even work considering Rhaegar wore a red cloak. Not a black cloak with red. Find me someone wearing a red cloak and the example will work.

omg that's not how metaphor and symbolism work!!!! The parallel does nt have to be exact. The colors are there. Mance as a sort of father figure is there. Mance as Bael, a story that is a clear RLJ parallel, is there.

You know I can't say Mance was a father figure either, but the red and black cloak was always intresting to me. If it is some allusion to Rhaegar that it is rather intresting that Rhaegar/Mance lost his war to a Baratheon and a Stark and it was a Stark who betrayed him. Even more intresting is one of the Watch men refered to Stannis as Robert, saying Robert is coming.

Mentor. Father-figure. A bit of grudging respect. Someone who helped Jon see another viewpoint. Call it what you want.

[BearQueen87]

Markg, darling, it is your construct because nowhere, ever, it is indicated that the king must not be left with a single KG. It's purely, and merely, your own assumption that you are trying to push as an argument.

We have a few examples of Kings being left with only one KG and no one raising a fuss. Aerys went to Duskedale with just one. Robert went hunting with just one.

[sj4iy]

Elia was always sickly, long before she married Rhaegar:

No doubt he was waiting for Prince Viserys to mature, or perhaps for Rhaegar’s wife to die in childbed. Elia of Dorne was never the healthiest of women.

---

“Elia found it all exciting. She was of that age, and her delicate health had never permitted her much travel.”

---

Jon Connington remembered Prince Rhaegar’s wedding all too well. Elia was never worthy of him. She was frail and sickly from the first, and childbirth only left her weaker. After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon’s birth had almost been the death of her. She would bear no more children, the maesters told Prince Rhaegar afterward.

---

“It is not for such as me to say what might have been in your brother’s heart, Your Grace. The Princess Elia was a good and gracious lady, though her health was ever delicate.”

So yeah, the story beats the dead horse over and over again that Elia was sickly, was always sickly and was never going to give Rhaegar all of the children he wanted.