R+L=J v.136

[SFDanny]

Except he DIDN'T announce it because NOWHERE in the books does it say that he did.

Really, that's the end of this debate. Until you can prove that ANYONE at all knew about it, it has no bearing whatsoever on the story.

Also, they can't exactly have Aerys killed when he's holding Elia and her children hostage, so that argument's right out the window.

No, the normal process, as I think I have shown, is that this would have been handled like any other decree - announced in open court for the world to hear. It is the problem of those who maintain that it must have been kept secret to show that it was, not the other way around. Not only is it the normal process to do this openly, but that it was done openly fits with Aerys's aims at the time - to punish the Dornish for what he imagined to be a betrayal at the Trident. That means telling them he is doing so, not keeping it secret.

I think also the argument that this is the first time we hear of this misses the point. We spend amazing amounts of time arguing small points about the backstory based on little evidence that has been released bit by bit spaced out throughout the series and in the books that provide background to that series. It is not at all unusual to have a bit of that backstory revealed to the reader from this POV or that POV. In fact it is how we know all of this stuff. So, just as we learn from Daenerys's POV in A Dance with Dragons - five novels into the story - that Rhaegar takes Lyanna at "sword point", so to we learn this for the first time that Aerys names Viserys as his heir after Rhaegar dies. All of it is revealed in bit by bit as asides to the main story, or in remembrances of characters thinking on things long past. That we have gone over something a thousand times doesn't mean that when we find new evidence we are absolved of the need to adjust our thinking. If we can't do that we are just defending theories we hold onto, not looking to understand what the author is doing in revealing new evidence.

I too, wondered why we didn't read of this In Jaime's POV when he tells Brienne about events during the same time period. The answer, I think, is that it just wasn't the point Jaime was speaking to, or that the author wanted to reveal at the time. We are very likely to get much more of this over the next two novels instead of a sit down where the detective reveals all the reality behind the mystery. Howland Reed isn't likely to show up out of nowhere to be our Sam Spade or Poirot that explains it all. We are likely to continue to get snapshots of the backstory from many, many sources.

[sj4iy]

<snip>

No, it doesn't 'miss the point'.

Whatever Ran says, it's very obvious to anyone who has read the books that this was never originally part of Martin's story...he may have decided to put it in it the World Book, but the point it- it doesn't fit. In 5 books' worth of material with page after page of history concerning Rhaegar, Aegon and Aerys, it's never mentioned at any point in any of the books.

That's my point. And my other point is that even if it is true, it doesn't matter- because it doesn't affect anything. It doesn't change anything. The story is the same as it was before. People are trying to play a lot of importance on this piece of information when the truth is, it's completely and utterly unimportant to start with. So I honestly don't understand why Martin bothered adding it in there in the first place.

That's MY point.

[SFDanny]

No, it doesn't 'miss the point'.

Whatever Ran says, it's very obvious to anyone who has read the books that this was never originally part of Martin's story...he may have decided to put it in it the World Book, but the point it- it doesn't fit. In 5 books' worth of material with page after page of history concerning Rhaegar, Aegon and Aerys, it's never mentioned at any point in any of the books.

That's my point. And my other point is that even if it is true, it doesn't matter- because it doesn't affect anything. It doesn't change anything. The story is the same as it was before. People are trying to play a lot of importance on this piece of information when the truth is, it's completely and utterly unimportant to start with. So I honestly don't understand why Martin bothered adding it in there in the first place.

That's MY point.

Well, that means I agree with some of your point and disagree with other parts of your point. I don't think it is obvious at all this was not part of Martin's original story. It is only obvious that he chose to reveal this part now. As to what is the importance of this reveal, it is not true it effects nothing. It has no bearing on R+L=J whether that is true or not. It doesn't even mean Jon is truly a bastard, and not the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. The support for that rests on more than the first duty of the Kingsguard. On that much we agree. What it does do is call into question the nature of the choice Dayne, Hightower, and Whent make, and the character of those men. It may also change our assumptions concerning the reasons Ned has such high regard for the three. So, beside, providing a little more information to fill out the backstory of Robert's Rebellion - which is always of interest to Martin's fans - it also forces us to look at some things I think are important.

[sj4iy]

Well, that means I agree with some of your point and disagree with other parts of your point. I don't think it is obvious at all this was not part of Martin's original story. It is only obvious that he chose to reveal this part now. As to what is the importance of this reveal, it is not true it effects nothing. It has no bearing on R+L=J whether that is true or not. It doesn't even mean Jon is truly a bastard, and not the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. The support for that rests on more than the first duty of the Kingsguard. On that much we agree. What it does do is call into question the nature of the choice Dayne, Hightower, and Whent make, and the character of those men. It may also change our assumptions concerning the reasons Ned has such high regard for the three. So, beside, providing a little more information to fill out the backstory of Robert's Rebellion - which is always of interest to Martin's fans - it also forces us to look at some things I think are important.

It doesn't mean anything regarding the 3 KG because we don't know what they knew. We can't assume that they knew anything regarding Viserys or Aegon without some proof.

And I think it is rather obvious that Martin didn't plan that from the beginning. He's too much of a hint-dropper to ever leave something like that out of the story for so long.

[The Twinslayer]

Looking back I am not so sure that this is new information. It has just been made more explicit.

When Viserys tells Dany about the fall of House Targaryen, he tells her that after Rhaegar died, "Princess Elia of Dorne [was] pleading for mercy as Rhaegar's heir was ripped from her breast." Note that he refers to Rhaegar's heir, not to Aerys' heir. Viserys knew that Aegon was not Aerys' heir.

We also get this from two other sources. Not only does Jaime think of Viserys before Aegon when he thinks of the succession, but Pycelle does, too. "Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king..."

So the clues, however subtle, have been there all along. The world book just makes it clearer.

[SFDanny]

It doesn't mean anything regarding the 3 KG because we don't know what they knew. We can't assume that they knew anything regarding Viserys or Aegon without some proof.

And I think it is rather obvious that Martin didn't plan that from the beginning. He's too much of a hint-dropper to ever leave something like that out of the story for so long.

Let me leave the part about what the kingsguard knows until a bit later. I'm trying to finish off a post on the subject as we talk.

As to your other point, I think the hints are there. We have both Aerys's racism directed against those who aren't pureblood Valyrians and his paranoia concerning his imaginings of Dornish betrayals, all supported from parts of the story earlier than The World of Ice & Fire. This fits with and foreshadows the reveal of this decree.

[J. Stargaryen]

MtnLion

Jaime was wrong in his assessment of Ser Gerold. At least in a certain sense. He could only have based his assessment of Ser Gerold on his knowledge of the man which did not include the fact that he was (possibly) guarding Lyanna and Rhaegar's child at the tower. I'm not sure how Jaime could have believed he was as loyal as he supposedly was if he cannot believe that he died protecting the king. Protecting Lyanna is not protecting the king, after all. And with all this 'KGs have to protect the king first and foremost' you keep bringing up the three knights at the tower would have failed both their king as well as Rhaegar as they effectively abandoned them in favor of doing some secondary task - like protecting a Princess Consort/hostage with no royal blood in her veins.

If this does not look strange and 'un-kingsguardly' in Jaime's eyes why the hell should we believe this idea that KGs always have to protect the king, and search out the true king as soon as the old one dies (presumably with their ingrained 'true king detectors')? If we go with your interpretation then everyone in Westeros should either long have concluded that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child at that tower - which no one seems to have done - or the three knights would not be considered paragons of KG virtue because they effectively abandoned Aerys and Rhaegar and sat out the war.

This is a good example of the type of fallacious argument we often see here in RLJ. People isolate data points and misunderstand or misrepresent our arguments. I don't know how anyone else feels when someone does that, but it gives me the impression that the person doing so is not arguing in good faith.

No one is saying that the KG must always be with the king period. That wouldn't fit with RLJ to begin with. No one is saying that the presence of the KG indicates the presence of the king full stop. However, there might be something to that argument in a big picture sense, when you consider the significance of the ToJ dream, combined with Jon's presumed presence and/or birth there, etc. It's much too vague to be conclusive though. We're not pinning the argument on that alone. The point is that when you account for all of the factors, KG presence plus ToJ dialogue, etc. trueborn Jon is the best explanation so far.

And a personal word: I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I like discussing topics and looking at them from every possible angle. I'm with you that Jon Snow is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son. I'm also with you that he might have a claim to the Iron Throne, and that the three knights may have thought he did. But I do not think we all have to accept the 'orthodox view' you seem to be championing that it is evident that the knights had to stay there because he was the true king, that they could (or would) have to make that decision, or that it would be less honorable if they had just obeyed Rhaegar's last command as he expected them to. There would also be honor in that, don't you think?

We don't need this particular interpretation to stick to the overall Jon Snow theory. No one is trying to take anything from you here.

We all have our favorable topics in this series but I find it that it is more rewarding if you do not fall in love to much with one particular interpretation or expectation. There is a lot we don't know yet, and a lot of new information that is still going to come may turn everything around. If you invest too much in a particular topic you may be disappointed about the outcome.

If RLJers seem defensive sometimes, it's because we're constantly put in the position of defending, and it's a mostly thankless task. For example, you said that Viserys being sent to Dragonstone was a "pretty big hint" that he was named the Prince of Dragonstone. I refuted that argument in short order, and your response was ... nothing. You might not see a problem with this from your point of view. But from my point of view (or Ygrain's pov, or BQ87's pov, etc.) if one of us doesn't use our time and energy to contest this faulty argument, some people might start to incorrectly believe that you're building a legitimate argument against (an aspect of) RLJ.

So a little acknowledgement every now and then from people 'attacking' (aspects of) RLJ that their arguments have failed would probably go a long way towards easing the tensions in these discussions. But sarcastic remarks about our motivations for defending certain points, followed up by telling us essentially not to be so defensive ... probably not a great tactic.

[J. Stargaryen]

Looking back I am not so sure that this is new information. It has just been made more explicit.

When Viserys tells Dany about the fall of House Targaryen, he tells her that after Rhaegar died, "Princess Elia of Dorne [was] pleading for mercy as Rhaegar's heir was ripped from her breast." Note that he refers to Rhaegar's heir, not to Aerys' heir. Viserys knew that Aegon was not Aerys' heir.

We also get this from two other sources. Not only does Jaime think of Viserys before Aegon when he thinks of the succession, but Pycelle does, too. "Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king..."

So the clues, however subtle, have been there all along. The world book just makes it clearer.

If they were thinking of the heir they shouldn't have thought of Aegon at all. They were thinking of claimants.

[sj4iy]

Let me leave the part about what the kingsguard knows until a bit later. I'm trying to finish off a post on the subject as we talk.

As to your other point, I think the hints are there. We have both Aerys's racism directed against those who aren't pureblood Valyrians and his paranoia concerning his imaginings of Dornish betrayals, all supported from parts of the story earlier than The World of Ice & Fire. This fits with and foreshadows the reveal of this decree.

None of that indicates something so serious as Aerys setting aside his own grandson in favor of his second son- which isn't as simple as some people are making it out to be...the realm certainly wouldn't have accepted it so easily, which is why I don't think it makes any sense that no one would ever bring it up when it would have certainly been extremely divisive politically. And nothing in the book indicates that he ever did so...hell, people were only vaguely aware that Aerys and Rhaegar may not have been on the best of terms. Or that Rhaegar didn't live in KL.

Whatever, I don't feel like endlessly debating this. I don't think it was part of the original story, I don't see any indication that it affects the story as it is in any way, and until I see it actually brought up in the books, I'll stick with that.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

However, if you ask me about The War of the Roses, the Plantaganet and the Angevins, the Great Anarchy, the hundred years war and the battle of Agincourt, etc. I'm on it, but on this, I guess I will have to do my homework

Have you been reading The Accursed Kings, too?

[KnightOfTheLaughingHedge]

Why is this even an argument anymore? In Martin's letter, he writes

[Jon and Arya's] passion will continue to torment [them] throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is revealed in the last book.

Even though he might have changed some things, that part seems pretty central to me. Even if you don't take it as r+l=j it at least confirms that Jon isn't Ned Stark's son.

[Lord Varys]

JS,

well, I'm on board with the Jon Snow thing. As to the Viserys thing: I don't think we have to debate this as we know that Viserys was Aerys' chosen heir - which means that he was Prince of Dragonstone. Him being sent to Dragonstone can now be seen both as a safety precaution as well as Aerys sending him to his new seat were Elia and Rhaegar previously lived. Considering that Rhaegar was residing on Dragonstone not granting Dragonstone to Aegon - and thus, by extension to Elia, the Dowager Princess of Dragonstone - was a powerful sign. But then, we only learned in TWoIaF that Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone.

SFDanny,

I'd not really describe Aerys' attitude towards the Dornish as 'racism'. He himself was descended from Mariah Martell, and had actually brokered the Elia-Rhaegar match - presumably part of the reason was that she was one of the few Targaryen cousins of noble birth available at that time. Brienne was not really an option, I guess ;-).

His attitude towards Rhaegar and his children by Elia should be more seen in light of his illness/madness and the sudden mood swings. First naming Jaime to the KG and then fearing him. Fearing that Tywin wants to kill him but being unable to fire him, etc. His mistrust of Rhaegar may have played a role as well. Suspicion manifesting itself in stuff that had nothing to do with anything. 'Dornish smell? Come on Aerys, take a bath...'

[markg171]

Aegon was passed over, not necessarily disinherited. Had Viserys died without issue, Aegon would still have been next in line. As would have been Prince Duncan, presumably, had Jaehaerys and Aerys predeceased him - Daeron was already dead at Summerhall.

markg171,

another quote states that Aerys chose Jon Connington as Hand because he could not find Rhaegar. They were looking for Rhaegar for quite a while, although the reasons may have changed. At the beginning Aerys would have been pissed/irritated/suspicious but by the time he had fired Merryweather he apparently had realized that House Targaryen needed a strong and charismatic champion to fight against Robert. And he apparently knew he was not that man. Although he never seemed to have realized that cutting his beard and nails could have been a good first step... But then, it would not have cured the mood swings.

I should have clarified that I meant that it doesn't seem like HIGHTOWER took long to find Rhaegar. Obviously Rhaegar's seemingly missing from the moment he abducted Lyanna, to the moment he actually showed up. But if Hightower only went looking for him after the Battle of the Bells, months after Rhaegar has been missing, and Rhaegar showed up as Barristan and Darry were leaving to gather the remnants of the army from that Battle, then Rhaegar appeared very quickly after Hightower left to find him.

So while Rhaegar might not have been able to be found before, Hightower found him very quickly.

It doesn't mean anything regarding the 3 KG because we don't know what they knew. We can't assume that they knew anything regarding Viserys or Aegon without some proof.

And I think it is rather obvious that Martin didn't plan that from the beginning. He's too much of a hint-dropper to ever leave something like that out of the story for so long.

When he is dead, there will be a choosing, and the knives will come out. That was the way of it in Braavos. In Westeros, a dead king was followed by his eldest son, but the Braavosi had no kings. “Tormo Fregar will be the new sealord.”

None of that indicates something so serious as Aerys setting aside his own grandson in favor of his second son- which isn't as simple as some people are making it out to be...the realm certainly wouldn't have accepted it so easily, which is why I don't think it makes any sense that no one would ever bring it up when it would have certainly been extremely divisive politically. And nothing in the book indicates that he ever did so...hell, people were only vaguely aware that Aerys and Rhaegar may not have been on the best of terms. Or that Rhaegar didn't live in KL.

Whatever, I don't feel like endlessly debating this. I don't think it was part of the original story, I don't see any indication that it affects the story as it is in any way, and until I see it actually brought up in the books, I'll stick with that.

You might want to re-read Ran's comment that started everything

Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.

Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time.

- Primogeniture is customary, not binding: Aegon was therefore never the automatic heir after the death of Rhaegar.

- King's especially don't have to follow primogeniture: Aerys therefore never had to have Aegon be his heir

- We have examples of people being passed over: This isn't something new. Aerys isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before

So it's not something major that Aerys made his heir Viserys instead of Aegon. He didn't have to be succeeded by Aegon

Secondly, your point about the realm not accepting it... what realm? 5 of the 7 kingdoms were in open revolt.

[J. Stargaryen]

Why is this even an argument anymore? In Martin's letter, he writes

Even though he might have changed some things, that part seems pretty central to me. Even if you don't take it as r+l=j it at least confirms that Jon isn't Ned Stark's son.

Welcome to the forums. :cheers:

I agree with your post.

JS,

well, I'm on board with the Jon Snow thing. As to the Viserys thing: I don't think we have to debate this as we know that Viserys was Aerys' chosen heir - which means that he was Prince of Dragonstone. Him being sent to Dragonstone can now be seen both as a safety precaution as well as Aerys sending him to his new seat were Elia and Rhaegar previously lived. Considering that Rhaegar was residing on Dragonstone not granting Dragonstone to Aegon - and thus, by extension to Elia, the Dowager Princess of Dragonstone - was a powerful sign. But then, we only learned in TWoIaF that Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone.

Uh huh. I have a hard time believing Aerys was trying to kill two birds with one stone here. Especially since the text specifically mentions the first bird more than once, while coincidentally failing to say anything about the second. Ned says they fled, and Jaime says Aerys packed the queen off with Viserys after word reached KL about the Trident. So yes, Viserys was the heir. But no, this was not an early hint about that.

---

Just something I was kicking around. It might not have been as hard as we all imagined it would be to convince Ser Gerold Hightower that the king does not have unilateral power when it comes to naming his own heir. Especially when that decree goes against custom. And even more especially, such a decree from that king in those circumstances. I'm not saying it's the most likely scenario, but I guess it's not out of the question. And if we're going to examine things from all angles, it's worth considering.

[The Twinslayer]

Looking back I am not so sure that this is new information. It has just been made more explicit.

When Viserys tells Dany about the fall of House Targaryen, he tells her that after Rhaegar died, "Princess Elia of Dorne [was] pleading for mercy as Rhaegar's heir was ripped from her breast." Note that he refers to Rhaegar's heir, not to Aerys' heir. Viserys knew that Aegon was not Aerys' heir.

We also get this from two other sources. Not only does Jaime think of Viserys before Aegon when he thinks of the succession, but Pycelle does, too. "Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king..."

So the clues, however subtle, have been there all along. The world book just makes it clearer.

The bolded point is supported by Jeor Mormont's story to Jon about the Great Council that took place when King Maekar died.

Mormont speaks first of Maekar's oldest son Daeron -- presumably, the Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the throne -- and says that he died "leaving only a feeble-witted daughter as heir."

Now, we know that in House Targaryen, a female can't inherit before her uncles, and we know that in fact the feeble-witted daughter did not succeed Maekar -- her father's younger brother did, as King Aegon V.

So, this feeble-witted daughter was an heir. But whose heir was she? She was the heir to the dead crown prince, not the heir to the king. Just like Prince Aegon was heir to a dead crown prince but not heir to the throne.

ETA: and in the same book, we get this from Mormont's son, Ser Jorah: "Prince Aegon was Rhaegar's heir by Elia of Dorne."

[Alia of the knife]

Have you been reading The Accursed Kings, too?

I've always tended towards British, but its on my list.

Right now I'm reading "Cecily Neville, Mother of Kings," by Amy Licence.

[BearQueen87]

I should have clarified that I meant that it doesn't seem like HIGHTOWER took long to find Rhaegar. Obviously Rhaegar's seemingly missing from the moment he abducted Lyanna, to the moment he actually showed up. But if Hightower only went looking for him after the Battle of the Bells, months after Rhaegar has been missing, and Rhaegar showed up as Barristan and Darry were leaving to gather the remnants of the army from that Battle, then Rhaegar appeared very quickly after Hightower left to find him.

So while Rhaegar might not have been able to be found before, Hightower found him very quickly.

Personally I think that is a story GRRM is sitting on and we'll get why Hightower was able to find R so easily in WOW (Rhaella, Elia, Ashara, other human told him?)

[teej6]

MtnLion

And a personal word: I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I like discussing topics and looking at them from every possible angle. I'm with you that Jon Snow is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son. I'm also with you that he might have a claim to the Iron Throne, and that the three knights may have thought he did. But I do not think we all have to accept the 'orthodox view' you seem to be championing that it is evident that the knights had to stay there because he was the true king, that they could (or would) have to make that decision, or that it would be less honorable if they had just obeyed Rhaegar's last command as he expected them to. There would also be honor in that, don't you think?

We don't need this particular interpretation to stick to the overall Jon Snow theory. No one is trying to take anything from you here.

We all have our favorable topics in this series but I find it that it is more rewarding if you do not fall in love to much with one particular interpretation or expectation. There is a lot we don't know yet, and a lot of new information that is still going to come may turn everything around. If you invest too much in a particular topic you may be disappointed about the outcome.

Your above response seems awfully patronizing and condescending. I don't post much on this thread but I read the comments of most people who frequently do, and I do believe you've been one of the regulars who dispute that Jon is the true heir to the IT. Now that is your prerogative and I admit you're polite and sincere in your discussions. But when you make statements like the above, it doesn't help. Most people who posts on these threads do so with preset notions and likes and dislikes. And with a series this long in the making, it's natural for people to have expectations of how this or that character's arc will end. I've read several of your posts on the R+L=J threads and others, and I'm quite certain you do too. I know I do. I'm the first to admit that I have a Jon bias and would like GRRM to flesh out the hidden prince trope. GRRM may not write the story the way I envision it but whichever way he does, I think I'll be satisfied.

[addicted to snow]

So I honestly don't understand why Martin bothered adding it in there in the first place.

That's MY point.

Interesting point... That you don't understand something...

[Lord Varys]

The question there is:

Did Hightower actually search for Rhaegar, or had somebody else - Varys? - already located where Rhaegar was or heard rumors about his whereabouts. Lyanna and Rhaegar did not teleport to the tower, people would have seen their party and eventually news about that may have reached.

And we still don't know why Rhaegar was in that tower and not somewhere else. It may have had some meaning for him.

JS,

so you go with 'Viserys was Aerys' heir but not Prince of Dragonstone' then? We don't know whether this was always part of the story but it is canon now, and we have to look at the other facts with this facts in mind.

George has long ago made it clear that there was no clear succession in Westeros just guidelines. But people do not seem to want to hear this kind of stuff. Was Tyrion Tywin's recognized heir? I don't think so.

If you ask me then there is no clear line of succession for the Iron Throne unless the king makes such a line. That is by naming and choosing an heir. Aenys, for example, was (presumably) Aegon's eldest son. But this alone did not make him Aegon's successor. He was also Aegon's chosen heir, the son he kept closely by his side and took to all his progresses. There was no doubt that Aegon wanted Aenys to succeed him. Every other smooth succession - Jaehaerys-Viserys, Aegon III-Daeron I, Daeron I-Baelor I, Viserys II-Aegon IV, Aegon IV-Daeron II, Aerys I-Maekar I, Aegon V-Jaehaerys II, and Jaehaerys II-Aerys II - went this way because the king had chosen a successor.

But just because the children of the chosen successor were technically this guy's heirs does not necessarily mean that their grandfather the king or other people think likewise. Depending on the age of those grandchildren they may not be able to rule for themselves at once - which would make it reasonably to give the crown to a younger son with experience.

And this is essentially the rule in Westeros. The succession of all those long reigning kings - Edrick Snowbeard, the Gardener kings, etc. - was not clear simply because there was no absolute law regulating the succession. At least not a law that everyone considered to be binding.

Alia,

fair enough ;-). I recently actually had a clash with reality when I realized that not everyone memorizes the Targaryen family tree automatically. I really am somewhat strange...

Ygrain,

but your analogy says that a king cannot change this alleged first duty from, say, 'guard myself with your life' to 'guard my wife, children, mistresses, bastards, cousins etc. with your life' despite the fact that we know that kings have extended KG protection extended kin and family?

Let's imagine Summerhall:

The palace is burning. Flames are everywhere. Duncan and Jenny, and all their children (if they had any) are already dead. Aegon V is trapped beneath a burning beam. Aerys and Rhaella are trapped behind a fire on the other side of the hall. Dunk stands in the middle and Egg cries out to him: 'Go! You must save my granddaughter. Rhaella and Aerys will bring forth the prince that was promised.' 'I've sworn an oath, Your Grace. The first and foremost duty of a Kingsguard is, as every man, woman, and child knows, to protect the king. You are the king anointed by the very gods above us. Thus you cannot command me to save others while you yourself are in mortal danger.'

The point I'm making is that a Kingsguard is never just a Kingsguard. They are knights and human beings first and we should consider the possibility that they just stayed at that tower because they wanted to (obey Rhaegar's wishes). What do we know? Perhaps Lyanna forbid them to go? She was a princess-by-marriage, and if Lyanna was there of her own free will Rhaegar may have named all the three knights her sworn shields. I imagine only a higher authority could have changed that again - i.e. a new king. But whilst they were not with such a king they could not ask him to assign them to him, or could they.

Again, it is not clear whether a Kingsguard automatically is sworn to defend a new king. I imagine when things are murky you chose your king. The knights may have chosen Jon as their king over Viserys or they may have chosen to not think about that and just do their duty as it was last defined: Protect Lyanna and her (unborn) child.

JS again,

I'm pretty much in agreement with the whole theory in this thread. I'm just interpreting clues differently and I'm expecting that new information will eventually explain why the knights were at the tower. George has already hinted at that they may have not exactly liked to stay there, did he not? ADwD already confirmed that Jon is indeed Rhaegar's son by Lyanna for everyone who has eyes to see it. And the final confirmation came with the leaked original outline. I'm as surprised (and actually quite disinterested) in discussing the arguments of people challenging the theory in earnest. It can be fun though to try to test certain aspects of it. But that's not what I'm doing here. I just think that vows and their interpretation by various characters as well as rather rigid view of the Kingsguard are vastly overstressed.

If I had to bet I'd say it is about 4:1 in favor that Rhaegar was indeed married to Lyanna - I imagine this was why the whole Targaryen polygamy was introduced in the first place - but I'd not be disappointed if they had not been married. After all, it is not shame to be 'a bastard' - at least not in the real world. And even bastards can become kings in Westeros so this would not necessarily cause a huge problem. Certainly not a bigger than joining the NW.

I imagine that future information will shed more light on the three knights and their relationship to Rhaegar and I expect that it is more likely that we'll learn why they did what he asked rather than that we'll learned that 'they stayed true to the true king'. But perhaps I'm dead wrong there.