R+L =J v.135

[MtnLion]

If true, one can certainly argue that they made the right choice, but I don't see how one can make the argument they were true to their oaths. They abandoned Viserys and failed to fulfill their first duty.

That was what they were saying, that they were true to their oath, and were fulfilling their first duty by being at the tower of joy and defending it from Ned and company. They would have made the same choice if they had been in King's Landing, and Viserys was fleeing to Dragonstone, they would have stayed true to their oath by staying in King's Landing to protect and defend King Aerys. That is the keystone in the quote I gave, then and now. Clearly they do not know of anyone that has a better claim than Jon when they face Ned.

ETA I will go a little further, the suggestion that Aerys had named Viserys his heir is simply fluff to avoid having the Lannisters accused of killing not just Aerys, but King Aegon as well.

[Ser Creighton]

So, I don't have a ton on info to go on here. But really it seems to be a question of timing and who knew what.

First I guess you need to sort of figure out when Rhaegar was passed over, but my question is was he? Now that may seem odd given the information. But it does not actually say he was the one passed over. I have no doubt Viserys was named Heir.

Going through the World book we see Rhaegar beeing passsed over is mentioned a couple of times. Back in 279 - 280 it is suggested. Pre Harrenhal and right around the time of his wedding.

However at Harrenhal he is still named Heir in the World book.

At the end of Harrenhal it is suggested again.

But not until after the Trident is Viserys named the New Heir in the world book. After Aerys thought the Dornish betrayed him. Which is fine he is the king he can do what he wants. But that is the first time I can find Viserys named heir. Which may suggest it was Rhaegars children that were passed over in favor of Viserys.

I say this because it seems that what the KG does has to make some sense. Because even if they were for Rhaegar or just against Aerys they never left for Aegon either. So information would seem an issue, which of course in Westeros it is.

Now the implications of this, is that while left at the Tower, or ordered or whatever I think that it can be ackowledged they could not know everything. I have always considered the idea that they knew everything to be a false claim, it's sjust Westeros information does not travel well, and they are in a abandoned tower in a pass.

So certain things come to light which happen to work with my own way of reading the books and the use of symbolism. Whatever the KG actually know and think in part is erroneous to the facts. Even if Rhaegar was passed over, it does not say when and it could of happened very late in the game.

Now if I were a person that looked at the symbolism I would notice a couple of things that seem to begin to make a lot more sense.

1. Jon is a prince more than likely not a king. Which by the way, I am not going to say I told you so, but I told you so.

2. Dany is in fact the queen, now why does this matter for the symbolism? Because given the fact that Aegon is more than likely fake, and Tyrion even as a Targ is a bastard. That would make Jon Dany's only living heir. And what is the heir of the Monarch of Westeros named? "The Prince of Dragonstone."

So not only does that make a tone of sense from a symbolic and prophetic stand point, it creates a what? Yet another inverse parallel between Dany and Jon. It lines up rather perfectly which means it is probably not an accident.

As for why they are not with Viserys, if they found out late in the game, then what could they do. They knew Darry guarded him that much we know, but by then it's not like they had a ton of options. They are not going to bend the knee to Robert, it does not exactly say Ned would of let them leave, Ned suggested he thought they would of fled. Which is not exactly a compliment. They also do not appear to know Viserys is king, as Ned himself refers to him as a prince.

Really that is all I got, it's not a favorite debate of mine, I know Jon was born, I know who the heir is "Dany" and from a symbolic standpoint this actually makes sense for both of them. Even if Aegon is real, which sure is possible it does not change the line of succession and chances are he is not going to make it. Which still lines Jon up as the Prince of Dragonstone.

ETA: Now even if they had mistakenly named Jon heir, which could of happened. All that creates is the Ouroboros effect which comes down to perspective. Because all at once you have both a King and a Queen and Prince and Princess of Dragonstone, because no matter what they are still the others Heir. Given the heavy use of black and white yin yang symbolism between them which is even being depicted on the show this season, you still get perfect symbolism for the themes Martin has been using. And if you know how the cycle works which is actually not that hard to figure out then you know there is nothing but destruction if they conflict and nothing but greatness if they unify. Because as you watch the repetative cycle repeat over thousands of years, like a wheel. It comes to reason that what was broken must be unbroken and the only way to do that is to invert the cycle or destroy it. To go forward they must go back.

Azor did not end the cycle he just went from ice to fire, from the Others to Valyria. Now back to the Others. Then back to fire, then back to ice. It must end in Water.

[Ygritte]

So, I don't have a ton on info to go on here. But really it seems to be a question of timing and who knew what.

First I guess you need to sort of figure out when Rhaegar was passed over, but my question is was he? Now that may seem odd given the information. But it does not actually say he was the one passed over. I have no doubt Viserys was named Heir.

Going through the World book we see Rhaegar beeing passsed over is mentioned a couple of times. Back in 279 - 280 it is suggested. Pre Harrenhal and right around the time of his wedding.

However at Harrenhal he is still named Heir in the World book.

At the end of Harrenhal it is suggested again.

But not until after the Trident is Viserys named the New Heir in the world book. After Aerys thought the Dornish betrayed him. Which is fine he is the king he can do what he wants. But that is the first time I can find Viserys named heir. Which may suggest it was Rhaegars children that were passed over in favor of Viserys.

I say this because it seems that what the KG does has to make some sense. Because even if they were for Rhaegar or just against Aerys they never left for Aegon either. So information would seem an issue, which of course in Westeros it is.

Now the implications of this, is that while left at the Tower, or ordered or whatever I think that it can be ackowledged they could not know everything. I have always considered the idea that they knew everything to be a false claim, it's sjust Westeros information does not travel well, and they are in a abandoned tower in a pass.

So certain things come to light which happen to work with my own way of reading the books and the use of symbolism. Whatever the KG actually know and think in part is erroneous to the facts. Even if Rhaegar was passed over, it does not say when and it could of happened very late in the game.

Now if I were a person that looked at the symbolism I would notice a couple of things that seem to begin to make a lot more sense.

1. Jon is a prince more than likely not a king. Which by the way, I am not going to say I told you so, but I told you so.

2. Dany is in fact the queen, now why does this matter for the symbolism? Because given the fact that Aegon is more than likely fake, and Tyrion even as a Targ is a bastard. That would make Jon Dany's only living heir. And what is the heir of the Monarch of Westeros named? "The Prince of Dragonstone."

So not only does that make a tone of sense from a symbolic and prophetic stand point, it creates a what? Yet another inverse parallel between Dany and Jon. It lines up rather perfectly which means it is probably not an accident.

As for why they are not with Viserys, if they found out late in the game, then what could they do. They knew Darry guarded him that much we know, but by then it's not like they had a ton of options. They are not going to bend the knee to Robert, it does not exactly say Ned would of let them leave, Ned suggested he thought they would of fled. Which is not exactly a compliment. They also do not appear to know Viserys is king, as Ned himself refers to him as a prince.

Really that is all I got, it's not a favorite debate of mine, I know Jon was born, I know who the heir is "Dany" and from a symbolic standpoint this actually makes sense for both of them. Even if Aegon is real, which sure is possible it does not change the line of succession and chances are he is not going to make it. Which still lines Jon up as the Prince of Dragonstone.

Yeah, I'm inclined to think Rhaegar was not passed over while he was still alive. Aerys may have thought about it, but didn't do it until after Rhaegar had died. So it was Rhaenys and Aegon who were skipped, and right at the very end of the war.

Someone mentioned in another thread earlier that, assuming the passing-over was true, Robert might not want to publicize it. Let everybody go on thinking the first two heirs are dead, rather than saying "Oh yeah, well, the kid who escaped and is still alive, he was actually the real heir after all." So maybe even Ned didn't know. But then that doesn't explain how it ends up in a history written to please Robert, so I don't know for sure here.

I do like the idea of Jon as Prince of Dragonstone. Especially since he may be waking soon.

[SFDanny]

That was what they were saying, that they were true to their oath, and were fulfilling their first duty by being at the tower of joy and defending it from Ned and company. They would have made the same choice if they had been in King's Landing, and Viserys was fleeing to Dragonstone, they would have stayed true to their oath by staying in King's Landing to protect and defend King Aerys. That is the keystone in the quote I gave, then and now. Clearly they do not know of anyone that has a better claim than Jon when they face Ned.

ETA I will go a little further, the suggestion that Aerys had named Viserys his heir is simply fluff to avoid having the Lannisters accused of killing not just Aerys, but King Aegon as well.

While I certainly entertain the idea that the trio don't know about the decree, I don't think we can say that is likely. They have heard the news of the Trident and the sack. They know where Viserys is. The know after the surrender of the Tyrells and the Redwynes at Storm's End that the war is lost and Viserys needs their help. Why do we assume they have not heard the news of the decree? It looks to be clutching at straws to me.

And it's not fluff. It's what The World of Ice & Fire states and what Ran has confirmed to be true. The idea that it is some story concocted after the fact by Lannister partisans needs much more to support it than your speculation. I've got to say the act of killing Aegon by the Lannisters is an open fact to the whole realm. Just who among them did it is tried to be covered up, but it is Tywin himself who lays the bodies before Robert as a gift to the new king. Not really sure how supposedly hiding Aegon was Aerys heir and lying to say Viserys was when Aegon was killed gets them anything.

[Ygritte]

While I certainly entertain the idea that the trio don't know about the decree, I don't think we can say that is likely. They have heard the news of the Trident and the sack. They know where Viserys is. The know after the surrender of the Tyrells and the Redwynes at Storm's End that the war is lost and Viserys needs their help. Why do we assume they have not heard the news of the decree? It looks to be clutching at straws to me.

And it's not fluff. It's what The World of Ice & Fire states and what Ran has confirmed to be true. The idea that it is some story concocted after the fact by Lannister partisans needs much more to support it than your speculation. I've got to say the act of killing Aegon by the Lannisters is an open fact to the whole realm. Just who among them did it is tried to be covered up, but it is Tywin himself who lays the bodies before Robert as a gift to the new king. Not really sure how supposedly hiding Aegon was Aerys heir and lying to say Viserys was when Aegon was killed gets them anything.

Well, I think the official statement was that the mention in WOIAF was based on the historical accounts of the time, which to me is a sneaky way of saying "this was the story that was put around, but there may have been more to it." After all, much of the rest of the book is intentionally written from a biased POV. I'm not saying they did know and I'm not saying they didn't, just that it's not definite IMO.

[MtnLion]

While I certainly entertain the idea that the trio don't know about the decree, I don't think we can say that is likely. They have heard the news of the Trident and the sack. They know where Viserys is. The know after the surrender of the Tyrells and the Redwynes at Storm's End that the war is lost and Viserys needs their help. Why do we assume they have not heard the news of the decree? It looks to be clutching at straws to me.

And it's not fluff. It's what The World of Ice & Fire states and what Ran has confirmed to be true. The idea that it is some story concocted after the fact by Lannister partisans needs much more to support it than your speculation. I've got to say the act of killing Aegon by the Lannisters is an open fact to the whole realm. Just who among them did it is tried to be covered up, but it is Tywin himself who lays the bodies before Robert as a gift to the new king. Not really sure how supposedly hiding Aegon was Aerys heir and lying to say Viserys was when Aegon was killed gets them anything.

Would it also be wise to believe that the dagger that the catspaw used when attacking Catelyn and Bran belonged to Tyrion? That is plainly placed in the main text. It takes a lot more thought to arrive at what really happened, and where the dagger came from.

[SFDanny]

Well, I think the official statement was that the mention in WOIAF was based on the historical accounts of the time, which to me is a sneaky way of saying "this was the story that was put around, but there may have been more to it." After all, much of the rest of the book is intentionally written from a biased POV. I'm not saying they did know and I'm not saying they didn't, just that it's not definite IMO.

The bias of the account is plain for everyone to see, I agree. That doesn't mean the bias includes the making up of a historical document to falsely put Viserys in front of Aegon as heir to the throne. I don't buy it. There is just no real advantage for the Lannisters to do so. Again, Tywin displays the bodies. How does saying Viserys was really Aerys's heir not Aegon get them out of that? It doesn't, and in fact they embrace the responsibility of dealing with the "dragonspawn" for Robert.

But let's put the quote out there for all to read so we have a better understanding what we are dealing with:

"Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He send his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne." (TWoI&F 129) bold emphasis added

Nothing about Rhaegar being set aside as heir before his death. Only the news that Viserys was his new heir when he sends him and his mother to Dragonstone.

[SFDanny]

Would it also be wise to believe that the dagger that the catspaw used when attacking Catelyn and Bran belonged to Tyrion? That is plainly placed in the main text. It takes a lot more thought to arrive at what really happened, and where the dagger came from.

Give me more evidence than pure speculation and a motive that makes sense for the making this up and I'll join you in saying it's just Lannister propaganda. I'm much more interested in finding out if the three Kingsguard knew of the decree. While I don't think there is a good basis to say they didn't given all they did know, I think that has much more likelihood of being true than the forgery explanation.

[Ygritte]

The bias of the account is plain for everyone to see, I agree. That doesn't mean the bias includes the making up of a historical document to falsely put Viserys in front of Aegon as heir to the throne. I don't buy it. There is just no real advantage for the Lannisters to do so. Again, Tywin displays the bodies. How does saying Viserys was really Aerys's heir not Aegon get them out of that? It doesn't, and in fact they embrace the responsibility of dealing with the "dragonspawn" for Robert.

But let's put the quote out there for all to read so we have a better understanding what we are dealing with:

Nothing about Rhaegar being set aside as heir before his death. Only the news that Viserys was his new heir when he sends him and his mother to Dragonstone.

I'm not saying that the guy who "wrote" the account in WOIAF made up the historical document, I'm saying the "historical document" itself could have been mistaken or dishonest. (I use quotation marks because of course all of this is made up! But even in our world, there are documents that purport to be historical but are not actually factual.)

I was looking for something else about WOIAF just now, and found a GRRM interview (linked below) that seems to support the idea that nothing in there is to be necessarily taken as gospel.

I was trying to replicate a real history book. When I read about some of the sources I’ve drawn on, the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years’ War, or the histories of Scotland or England or France, you come across these wonderful stories, and then later you come across a historian saying “No, no that story was a later fabrication, none of it is true.” Inevitably the story is so much better than the boring version that the more distinguished modern historian is putting on you. So I wanted to have the wonderful stories in but also add that little touch of realism by having people argue.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-r-r-martin-writes-a-big-ice-and-fire-footnote-1414679391

[Avalatis]

You don't appoint a new heir and then not make sure people know about it. That just doesn't make any sense -- if people don't know you've done it, then he won't be heir. This is doubly true if the entire point of doing so is to weaken Dorne's hand.

Now I wouldn't say that means the 3KG must have known, because we only have Ned's dream narrative to go on. However if we assume they were aware of Viserys going to Dragonstone, then they had received news of events in King's landing following the Trident. That would probably include Viserys being made heir. Let's remember that Dragonstone was the seat of the heir apparent -- if Aegon had remained as heir, it would have made more sense to send him, rather than Viserys, to Dragonstone. Sending Viserys to Dragonstone is a way of making it clear that it is he, not Aegon, who is now heir. TWOIAF tells us that the idea of Aerys appointing Viserys his heir had been proposed before, so it's not a surprise move.

Doesn't fit with Rhaegar telling Jaime that he was going to call a council after the rebellion, nor with Hightower saying that if they had been in KL, Aerys would still sit on the throne. Hightower may well have carried some message of reconciliation with Rhaegar, but it can't have been that much. I think it's more likely that Aerys carried an ultimatum: defeat the rebels for me, or I'll make Viserys heir in your place. Rhaegar talked about calling a council, and the councils of the past existed to decide on the succession above the wishes of the king.

Possible, but it's hard to imagine what proof would be so convincing.

I'd say this is the most likely one. Proving that something fulfils prophecy is hard, but Aerys being mad as a sack of underfed wildcats was obvious to all. We know that Rhaegar and Aerys had been at odds, and that Dayne at least was very much Team Rhaegar. Rhaegar's call a council comment, tied with Varys warning Aerys that the tourney at Harrenhal was really Rhaegar making a power play strongly suggest that Rhaegar had been gathering support for this for some time.

As I've mentioned before, we don't need to assume that Hightower was in on this, only that the other two were able to persuade or manipulate him to go along with their plans, at least to a limited extent.

1.) The news of a new heir came after Rhaegar's defeat on the Trident and death. Followed shortly by the sack of Kingslanding and the murder of Aerys and Rhaegar's family. Who exactly is going to be jumping up in down in excitement about "Aerys named Viserys heir!" when the fact that everyone else is dead is bigger news and makes that already apparent. This is even more overshadowed by the fact that Robert has declared himself the new King with the Lannisters supporting him a well. So anyone who actually knew about Aerys declaration are going to say: "So what? Everyone is dead so he obviously is the next in line for Targarens".

So yeah if the Kingsguard were getting their news from Vary's they might know about this detail. If they are getting news from anyone else it is unlikely such a detail would even warrant being mentioned (as no one but the Kingsguard knew that anyone else could potentially be an heir.)

To put simply no one who heard this news would think it is news worthy since everyone is already dead which by default made Viserys heir.

2.) He told him that things were going to change when he got back. We assume this meant a GC. If he was already King, he could say with confidence that things would be different. Hightowers comment was a hypothetical of "Had I not come here and sworn myself to Rhaegar, I would have been in Kingslanding and Aerys would still sit the throne". Note that he does not say King Aerys.

This theory is far fetched, but it actually explains how Hightower acts. Why Aerys listened to him and called for Tywin. Why he was trusted to lead the army. Why he was confident things would change when he got back. So pretty much all the questions in the scenario are answered. The problem is there is little supporting text for this and requires the abdication of the throne to be secret and only known by a few.

4.) Yeah I read your theory on this. I just don't agree that high tower was dumb or slow witted. He seemed to be characterized as a very "by the book" guy that allowed him to ignore highly immoral acts committed by his King.

[RumHam]

I'm not saying that the guy who "wrote" the account in WOIAF made up the historical document, I'm saying the "historical document" itself could have been mistaken or dishonest. (I use quotation marks because of course all of this is made up! But even in our world, there are documents that purport to be historical but are not actually factual.)

I was looking for something else about WOIAF just now, and found a GRRM interview (linked below) that seems to support the idea that nothing in there is to be necessarily taken as gospel.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-r-r-martin-writes-a-big-ice-and-fire-footnote-1414679391

The thing is we're not talking about something like the Dance that happened hundreds of years ago, we're talking about something that happened only seventeen years ago. Many of the characters in the story, including the one the book was originally written for, were around at the time. So it would be a lot harder to fool them with a false account.

[Avalatis]

Over a decade after the war the information was widely known. Within a week or two of the sack there was much bigger news than Viserys being named heir. Him being made heir becomes irrelevant rather fast with Robert taking the throne and the fact that Viserys was the only Targaren left who could claim the throne. There is no reason to think with the craziness of Rhaegar dying and the fallout and betrayal by Lannister that a minor irrelevant fact of Viserys being made heir would have reached them. It's possible, but highly unlikely in a war torn country.

As for why the Kingsguard wouldn't go to Dragonstone there are a few possible reasons. It may have been impractical or unsafe to travel there during wartime with a pregnant lady/infant. They may have seen the writing on the walls and opted to die in combat following their prince's last order rather than switch sides or flee into exile. And then there's the possibility that Rhaegar might have convinced them Jon was going to be crucial to the survival of all mankind.

The first point wouldn't work as they could have sent a single Kingsguard on a head. They also would have tried to negotiate to send one ahead (if not all) when Ned showed up.

The writing on the wall theory is how I took the whole scene before I had heard R+L=J. More a long the lines that they knew their King was mad so they chose not to help him, but they also realized they dishonored themselves so they chose to die in combat.

The third point is a possibility I brought up. But as others have asked what type of evidence could convince Hightower to abandon/twist his oaths?

[Dragon's Daughter]

1.) The news of a new heir came after Rhaegar's defeat on the Trident and death. Followed shortly by the sack of Kingslanding and the murder of Aerys and Rhaegar's family. Who exactly is going to be jumping up in down in excitement about "Aerys named Viserys heir!" when the fact that everyone else is dead is bigger news and makes that already apparent. This is even more overshadowed by the fact that Robert has declared himself the new King with the Lannisters supporting him a well. So anyone who actually knew about Aerys declaration are going to say: "So what? Everyone is dead so he obviously is the next in line for Targarens".

So yeah if the Kingsguard were getting their news from Vary's they might know about this detail. If they are getting news from anyone else it is unlikely such a detail would even warrant being mentioned (as no one but the Kingsguard knew that anyone else could potentially be an heir.)

To put simply no one who heard this news would think it is news worthy since everyone is already dead which by default made Viserys heir.

But they knew Viserys was going to Dragonstone. According to TWOIAF, Viserys was already heir when that happened despite the fact that Aegon and Rhaenys were still alive. Aerys removed Rhaegar's kids from the line of succession before their deaths as can be gleamed from the passage quoted by SFDanny above.

If you name somebody who isn't your default heir as your heir, I'd be willing to bet you send out ravens announcing the change to at least the major players. Even if the Kingsguard were not aware, Aerys's proclamations about the line of succession would be easy enough to confirm in-world since many of the lords and ladies during RR are still around.

[SFDanny]

I was looking for something else about WOIAF just now, and found a GRRM interview (linked below) that seems to support the idea that nothing in there is to be necessarily taken as gospel.

Absolutely, that is not only apparent in The World of Ice & Fire, but in the series as a whole. The whole point of writing from so many POVs is to show how bias affects our perceptions of things. It's what I like to call the Rashomon effect, after Kurosawa's great film. In it we see one event told from three different viewpoints and we are left to wonder how much of each is true. Martin does the same thing with his novels and his world book. I just see no reason to disbelieve this document existed and is real. We have to start, I think from the assumption it is, and look to see if there is any basis to see that it isn't. Speculation of a forgery just doesn't get us anywhere. No matter how satisfying it would be to people who support one theory over another.

[Ygritte]

The thing is we're not talking about something like the Dance that happened hundreds of years ago, we're talking about something that happened only seventeen years ago. Many of the characters in the story, including the one the book was originally written for, were around at the time. So it would be a lot harder to fool them with a false account.

Well, Jon's birth happened 17 years ago too, and hardly anybody knows much about it. :laugh: People lie, people cover stuff up. And when almost everybody involved ends up dead, there's nobody around to correct the record anymore.

[RumHam]

The first point wouldn't work as they could have sent a single Kingsguard on a head. They also would have tried to negotiate to send one ahead (if not all) when Ned showed up.

I think a single kingsguard would be very vulnerable traveling alone. Especially through Dorne as we know the Dornish where quite riled up after Elia's murder.

The third point is a possibility I brought up. But as others have asked what type of evidence could convince Hightower to abandon/twist his oaths?

I don't know. Presumably whatever evidence Rhaegar had that convinced him that "there must be one more." Anyway does Rhaegar even have to convince Hightower? If Rhaegar orders him to stay he has to obey that order and stay. I don't think news of Rhaegar's death relieves them from that order.

Well, Jon's birth happened 17 years ago too, and hardly anybody knows much about it. :laugh: People lie, people cover stuff up. And when almost everybody involved ends up dead, there's nobody around to correct the record anymore.

Heh. Well obviously Jon's birth in an isolated tower was quite different from the king proclaiming a new heir in the capitol city. I still wonder how some people didn't put two and two together when Ned returned with a baby.

[Ygrain]

Even if the Kingsguard were not aware, Aerys's proclamations about the line of succession would be easy enough to confirm in-world since many of the lords and ladies during RR are still around.

And the peculiar thing is that we never hear any of them mention it, not even those most closely affected (the Martells). On the contrary, another peculiar thing that we hear is Dany musing how baby Aegon would have become Aegon VI, had he lived, as if his claim was never made void.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

It's not entirely true that women can't get pregnant during breastfeeding. Ovulation can be delayed a bit but many women ovulate again just a couple of months after breastfeeding.

There is a chance Elia's fragile health could have delayed conception, but it looks like she had zero problems with fertility, as she got pregnant by comet-watching...

[Ygritte]

It's not entirely true that women can't get pregnant during breastfeeding. Ovulation can be delayed a bit but many women ovulate again just a couple of months after breastfeeding.

There is a chance Elia's fragile health could have delayed conception, but it looks like she had zero problems with fertility, as she got pregnant by comet-watching...

Oh God...Aegon the virgin birth...accck! :ack:

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Oh God...Aegon the virgin birth...accck! :ack:

no, no, no...

she didn't get pregnant by the comet (although... if you're a Targaryen, and you're fire... can you call your penis a "comet"? Mmm...), she got pregnant because Rhaegar saw a comet and he got all horny, like... "*SPROING!!!*, Jeez, Elia! there is a Messiah we're supposed to be doing now!!!"