R+L=J v.138

[Jon Weirgaryen]

@Ser Creighton: I had to look up your "Red Book", as I had had and held The Lord Of The Rings in blue hardcover, green paperback and white paperback, but not in red. Well, okay, I learned there are isues in red around as well.

[BearQueen87]

[snip]

1. Glad you're enjoying Orphan Black. Can't wait for S3.

2. I agree that Jon kingship doesn't matter in the context of the story right now. I think it might later if a GC is called and the lords need to pick a new leader. Jon being a true born son of Rhaegar does help, though is not the ultimate reason for him being chosen as king. I think the reason I tend to believe R and L were married and why it's important is that it speaks to the characters of R and L and the very deep mystery GRRM wrote with all the clues. Even if they weren't married it wouldn't change that R and L were in love (something I'm going to stand by) but it does speak about R's honor, something that is slowly (so slowly) being uncovered in the books and something I think GRRM took a very long time to reveal for the sake of shock. We're all just really smart and got there first.

[J. Stargaryen]

@ Lord Varys,

From the last thread:

Oh, yes, the actual rebellion only began when Jon Arryn raised his banners. But this does not mean that Rickard/Brandon/Eddard and Robert Baratheon would not have rebelled anyway just because of what Rhaegar did. He abducted the only daughter of Lord Stark, and the Starks are not the kind of nobles to ignore such a slight. Not to mention that the Lord of Storm's End was betrothed to said daughter and very much obsessed with her. We know what happened when Prince Duncan spurned the daughter of Lord Lyonel Baratheon - he rebelled and crowned himself. I daresay that Lord Robert Baratheon would have done exactly the same thing after the Prince of Dragonstone stole his betrothed - rebel and crown himself. Aerys' behavior just provided Robert and Ned with another pretext to rebel, but I very much doubt both the Starks and Robert would have not eventually rebelled in the wake of this incident.

I agree that Robert is almost always surely going to be a problem in any scenario, including a fair likelihood of rebellion. However, the Targaryens ended up facing the full might of southron ambitions alliance (SAA) of Stark-Tully-Arryn-Baratheon (STAB!) following Aerys's actions. It was the Mad King who backed the Arryns, Baratheons and Starks into a corner by threatening to wipe out their lines.

With Rickard and Brandon dead, and Lyanna in Targaryen possession, Ned and Benjen were the only two viable Starks left. The Baratheon's had three males, but all were unmarried and heirless. The execution of Elbert Arryn also put a severe strain on the Arryn line, which was down to the aged Lord Jon and Denys Arryn, who was from a lesser branch, and had married Jon's niece. But remember, Aerys had called for the heads of Ned and Robert, which would have left one male Stark and two male Baratheons. And that's only if he stopped there.

So no, I don't believe that the rebellion was Rhaegar's war, or his fault. He lit a fire to be sure, but Aerys poured a gallon of gasoline on it.

Assuming that Aerys hadn't murdered Rickard, Brandon, et al., I think there is a good chance that if Rhaegar and Lyanna show up together, especially with a baby in hand, and declare that they were married, that Rickard would have fallen in line with them. Sure, an alliance with the Baratheons would have been beneficial, but not as beneficial as an alliance with the crown. And all those benefits without the cost of a full scale rebellion. And if Rhaegar can bring the Starks into the fold, the Tullys will follow, thanks to the Brandon-Catelyn marriage. That would give Rhaegar the North, the riverlands and Dorne. And maybe just maybe, Tywin Lannister and the westerlands. Tywin's price for joining Rhaegar's alliance? A signature releasing Jaime from his KG vows.

Maybe Rhaegar was a fool, maybe not. He gambled with his life and lost. But with the realistic threat of the anti-Targ SAA looming, something had to be done, from a Targaryen point of view. While I can't be sure, I think there is a realistic possibility that marrying Lyanna Stark was very nearly a stroke of genius, politically speaking. It had the possibility to not only break the SAA in half, at least, but to tie two entire regions to his own cause, to go along with Dorne. If he can then win Tywin to his side, the Reach and Iron Islands wouldn't be a problem for him. He can depose his father, if he wishes, and deal with a relatively minor rebellion from the stormlands and possibly the Vale. Perhaps it's even settled in the same way as Lyonel Baratheon's was, with a trial by combat; Robert vs. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning.

[Alia of the knife]

I have a question, with all the back and forth about inheritance, going back to D&E, Aerion Brightfyre's son was passed over supposedly for fears of madness. Really? They could tell that in an infant? Then why not pass over both Viserys and Rhaegar since Aerys was mad?

Who did and by whose authority? And could that be undone? If it was challenged, woudn't that have put all of Aerys children and grandchildren at risk if a son of the line of Aerion Brightflame showed up?

And don't think it didn't happen in history. The Beaufort/Tudor line was as convoluted as it got, but yet they still put Henry VII, a man raised outside England most of his life, on the throne.

[Ygrain]

A little interesting bit from the Alayne sample chapter:

“The Lord of the Eyrie can do as he likes. Can’t I still love you, even if I have to marry her? Ser Harrold has a common woman. Benjicot says she’s carrying his bastard.” Benjicot should learn to keep his fool’s mouth shut. “Is that what you would have from me? A bastard?” She pulled her fingers from his grasp. “Would you dishonor me that way?”

The boy looked stricken. “No. I never meant — “

A man who loves a woman shouldn't dishonour her by fathering a bastard on her, right?

[BearQueen87]

A little interesting bit from the Alayne sample chapter:

“The Lord of the Eyrie can do as he likes. Can’t I still love you, even if I have to marry her? Ser Harrold has a common woman. Benjicot says she’s carrying his bastard.” Benjicot should learn to keep his fool’s mouth shut. “Is that what you would have from me? A bastard?” She pulled her fingers from his grasp. “Would you dishonor me that way?”

The boy looked stricken. “No. I never meant — “

A man who loves a woman shouldn't dishonour her by fathering a bastard on her, right?

*nods* I just finished reading that new chapter and that part jumped out at me as well.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

One the arguments that you seem to be making confuses me. If I understand you correctly, you argue that if Lyanna and Rhaegar were married, then Lyanna would have authority over the KG and she would have taken steps to ensure that the KG did not battle her brother before she got sick. If I have understood you correctly that you are making this argument, it seems to imagine an ability to predict the future that Lyanna did not have. Why would she ever even consider that Ned would find ToJ? What reason would Lyanna have to anticipate such a problem and give anticipatory orders to the KG?

At the time of the battle, she almost certainly was too sick to give any orders. So the orders would have had to have been given well in advance of the battle -- and most people just do not think that far ahead with respect to what would have seemed like a very low probability event at the time. Remember that Lyanna and Rhaegar stayed hidden for a long time -- they did not expect to be found by Ned or anyone (although how Hightower found them remains a mystery as well). Maybe I am missing the gist of your argument, but if you really think it reasonable to expect Lyanna to have thought to give such an order well in advance of the battle, I think that is an unreasonable presumption.

[FrozenFire3]

A little interesting bit from the Alayne sample chapter:

Great minds think alike ;)

Not to mention that Rhaeagar was honourable. I'd also point out the fact that Sansa is a Stark as was Lyanna, and Lya - that is, the little we know of her - seems to be quite a bit of a Sansa-Arya mix.

[Alia of the knife]

Just finished the new chapter as well, very interesting, esecially how both Sansa and Arya are developing. B)

[UnmaskedLurker]

A little interesting bit from the Alayne sample chapter:

“The Lord of the Eyrie can do as he likes. Can’t I still love you, even if I have to marry her? Ser Harrold has a common woman. Benjicot says she’s carrying his bastard.” Benjicot should learn to keep his fool’s mouth shut. “Is that what you would have from me? A bastard?” She pulled her fingers from his grasp. “Would you dishonor me that way?”

The boy looked stricken. “No. I never meant — “

A man who loves a woman shouldn't dishonour her by fathering a bastard on her, right?

Yes, of course it would be dishonorable for the Crown Prince to have a bastard with the daughter of a High Lord. Now some respond that there is no choice here because polygamy was illegal in Westeros. But keep in mind that Rhaegar was someone who thought he could re-write the laws, more or less. He seemed to have some plan regarding replacing his father (whether to declare Aerys incompetent and become regent or to depose him altogether or some other plan is unclear -- but he had some plan). Such a thing had never been done before, but nevertheless, Rhaegar thought he could pull it off. In the same way, even if polygamy had gone out of fashion and was not generally accepted in Westeros, Rhaegar had the precedents of Aegon I and Maegor I who engaged in polygamy, and Rhaegar was not one to limit his actions to ones that clearly had universal support. So getting married, whether using the ancient Valyrian ceremony or a werwood or a traveling Septon, who knows, but if Rhaegar wanted a third child -- and we know he did -- views against polygamy would not stop him from marrying Lyanna.

As to whether Hightower would have accepted this marriage as a real marriage, I see no reason why he would not. He generally accepts anything that the royal family does as permissible and legitimate. For example, Westeros has laws against rape -- but if the king commits rape, apparently it is not illegal. While Rhaegar is crown prince and not King, I think the same thought process would apply -- and the only precedent that Hightower would have knowledge of would be Aegon I and Maegor I in which no one claimed that their marriages were not marriages (even if Maegor was subject to exile as punishment).

[J. Stargaryen]

LV--

One the arguments that you seem to be making confuses me. If I understand you correctly, you argue that if Lyanna and Rhaegar were married, then Lyanna would have authority over the KG and she would have taken steps to ensure that the KG did not battle her brother before she got sick. If I have understood you correctly that you are making this argument, it seems to imagine an ability to predict the future that Lyanna did not have. Why would she ever even consider that Ned would find ToJ? What reason would Lyanna have to anticipate such a problem and give anticipatory orders to the KG?

At the time of the battle, she almost certainly was too sick to give any orders. So the orders would have had to have been given well in advance of the battle -- and most people just do not think that far ahead with respect to what would have seemed like a very low probability event at the time. Remember that Lyanna and Rhaegar stayed hidden for a long time -- they did not expect to be found by Ned or anyone (although how Hightower found them remains a mystery as well). Maybe I am missing the gist of your argument, but if you really think it reasonable to expect Lyanna to have thought to give such an order well in advance of the battle, I think that is an unreasonable presumption.

Good point.

Concerning the discussion about whether or not the KG would have anything to fear from Ned when he showed up at the tower. I think this passage tells us what we need to know in that regard.

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. - AGoT, Eddard I

Lyanna was afraid for her baby until Ned gave her his word. And if she was afraid because she was unsure of what Ned would do with Jon, then that tells you pretty much all you need to know about the KG's likely state of mind when Ned and his buddies showed up.

[MtnLion]

• While there are other things going on there, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that looking back on RR, Ned thinks of the entire series of events with deep regret.
• It may have been driven by necessity, but he is deeply unhappy with the outcome.
• 'There was no honor in that conquest.' In Ned's mind, Jaime's actions sullied not only the Kingsguard order, but the entire rebellion, and by extension Ned's own sense of honour.

1. There are a lot of other things going on. Safely concluding is not possible, especially with the "we" as a group. What do you mean "entire series"? Ned is not thinking about the rebellion, or perhaps you can point to where he mentions or infers the entire rebellion. Is it your intention to mislead?
2. Ned is not deeply unhappy about the outcome. Again this is a misleading statement. What is "it"? If it is the rebellion, as it appears to be, that is not the case. Perhaps you have some specific point in the quote that shows that Ned is thinking of the rebellion? Ned and Robert are talking about Lannister treachery. When did the Lannisters get involved in the rebellion? The day of the sack. So, Ned is thinking about that day, NOT the rebellion.
3. Now, you are trying to tie all of the Lannister treachery to Jaime, which is clearly not the case. Jaime slew Aerys breaking his vow to protect him with his life. That marked Jaime, not the Kingsguard as you state. Ned wanted him banished to the Wall, and Robert accepted Jaime's plea and instated him as one of his own Kingsguard. Ned is reflecting on the day of the sack ("You were not there"), when he arrived in time to see Jaime sitting on the Iron Throne, and how the Lannisters were sacking ("there was no honor in that conquest") the city. He knows about the children when they are presented as tokens of fealty from Tywin, for not having taken part in the rebellion earlier. It is the fate of the children that makes Ned think of his lies, those lies were to protect a child that he promised his sister that he would protect, fourteen years earlier.

Overall, your conclusions for this quote have no merit.

[Kingmonkey]

There are a lot of other things going on. Safely concluding is not possible, especially with the "we" as a group. What do you mean "entire series"? Ned is not thinking about the rebellion, or perhaps you can point to where he mentions or infers the entire rebellion. Is it your intention to mislead?

Someone posted this comment earlier:

You don't see that Ned is reflecting not just on Jaime, but Tywin and his treachery, his assassination of Aegon, and his murder of Elia and Rhaenys. You don't see how the children being murdered prompts Ned to reflect on the lies that he has had to tell in order to protect Jon from that sort of treachery. Ned's reflections in this paragraph are not on the Kingsguard but on Lannisters and how they undermined the great things that Robert and Ned set out to accomplish with their rebellion.

There you go, a series of events that undermined the great things that Robert and Ned set out to accomplish with their rebellion. That poster gets it. Oh wait, that was you. So is your argument that Ned doesn't feel deep regret about "the great things that Robert and Ned set out to accomplish" being undermined? Or is your intention to mislead?

Ned is not deeply unhappy about the outcome. Again this is a misleading statement. What is "it"? If it is the rebellion, as it appears to be, that is not the case. Perhaps you have some specific point in the quote that shows that Ned is thinking of the rebellion? Ned and Robert are talking about Lannister treachery. When did the Lannisters get involved in the rebellion? The day of the sack. So, Ned is thinking about that day, NOT the rebellion.

"Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night." Does this sound likes someone who came back from the rebellion all full of sunshine and rainbows?

If Ned was thinking only about that day, can you explain why you previously claimed "the children being murdered prompts Ned to reflect on the lies that he has had to tell in order to protect Jon from that sort of treachery", quoted above? Jon wasn't even born on that day. Do you think "He was no Jon Arryn, to curb the wildness of his king and teach him wisdom" is also about nothing other than Lannister treachery? Do you think that "His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought," doesn't say anything about what Ned thinks of the outcome of the rebellion?

Now, you are trying to tie all of the Lannister treachery to Jaime, which is clearly not the case.

No I'm not, stop it with the strawmen. Debate in good faith, or not at all.

"In Ned's mind, Jaime's actions sullied not only the Kingsguard order, but the entire rebellion, and by extension Ned's own sense of honour." Where did I say "Jaime's actions alone"? Nowhere. Jaime's actions were part of that Lannister treachery.

Jaime slew Aerys breaking his vow to protect him with his life. That marked Jaime, not the Kingsguard as you state.

Well at least we're down to the crux of the disagreement rather than wasting time with you arguing against misrepresentations. So, do you have any basis for that counter-claim?

Ned wanted him banished to the Wall, and Robert accepted Jaime's plea and instated him as one of his own Kingsguard. Ned is reflecting on the day of the sack ("You were not there"), when he arrived in time to see Jaime sitting on the Iron Throne, and how the Lannisters were sacking ("there was no honor in that conquest") the city. He knows about the children when they are presented as tokens of fealty from Tywin, for not having taken part in the rebellion earlier. It is the fate of the children that makes Ned think of his lies, those lies were to protect a child that he promised his sister that he would protect, fourteen years earlier.

Well I don't have much of a problem with any of that, apart from the final sentence. Ned has never been completely honest with Robert about his feelings of what happened during the sack before. "The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there." It's within the context of Ned telling "the whole truth" that we get Ned thinking of his lies. More specifically,

"Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well," Robert said. The anger was building in him again. "Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it."

"You were not there," Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. "There was no honor in that conquest."

Robert first brings up troubled sleep, and by contrast Ned's sleep IS troubled, by those lies. Yes, there is a hidden subtext going on here about Jon. I agree. However as well as the subtext, there's also the text. When Tywin presented the corpses of the children, Robert WAS there. Thus to suggest that was the only thing that Ned was troubled about contradicts the actual text.

However, what about the question of the kingsguard? None of that is relevant to your counter-claim that Jaime's actions marked himself and not the Kingsguard. The only part that is relevant is where you point out that Ned wanted Jaime sent to the wall, and yet Robert reinstated him. Now if a member of Robert's Kingsguard is someone who Ned considers treacherous, doesn't that reflect poorly on the Kingsguard as a whole?

Once, Ned believes, the Kingsguard were a "shining lesson to the world", but "no longer." What do you suppose changed that, if not Jaime's actions, and the fact that after those actions he was allowed to remain a part of the Kingsguard? Ned certainly loathes Jaime, but he doesn't even seem to be particularly aware of how rubbish Robert's Kingsguard actually are:

"The Kingsguard"

"A paper shield," the eunuch said. "Try not to look so shocked, Lord Stark.

So, if not Jaime's actions, what?

[markg171]

Agreed. In regards to King Viserys they make no attempt to reach him and determine what his orders are. Much less do they attempt to ensure he is protected and safe.

Seems to be that a lot of people are assuming this, when there's no basis for this. How do you know that Viserys didn't order them to kill his enemies? There's certainly nothing in the text saying that he didn't, just as there's nothing saying that he did. You are just assuming that Viserys hadn't talked with these KG.

[markg171]

Assuming that Aerys hadn't murdered Rickard, Brandon, et al., I think there is a good chance that if Rhaegar and Lyanna show up together, especially with a baby in hand, and declare that they were married, that Rickard would have fallen in line with them. Sure, an alliance with the Baratheons would have been beneficial, but not as beneficial as an alliance with the crown. And all those benefits without the cost of a full scale rebellion. And if Rhaegar can bring the Starks into the fold, the Tullys will follow, thanks to the Brandon-Catelyn marriage. That would give Rhaegar the North, the riverlands and Dorne. And maybe just maybe, Tywin Lannister and the westerlands. Tywin's price for joining Rhaegar's alliance? A signature releasing Jaime from his KG vows.

Why would Rickard want his grandsons to go from inheriting Storm's End and being Lord Paramounts, to being so far down the Targaryen succession line that they will likely never ever be kings, if they even could possibly be eligible as it's not clear that polygamy would be accepted?

Baratheons beat Targaryens here in terms of things that Rickard would gain

[RumHam]

A little interesting bit from the Alayne sample chapter:

“The Lord of the Eyrie can do as he likes. Can’t I still love you, even if I have to marry her? Ser Harrold has a common woman. Benjicot says she’s carrying his bastard.” Benjicot should learn to keep his fool’s mouth shut. “Is that what you would have from me? A bastard?” She pulled her fingers from his grasp. “Would you dishonor me that way?”

The boy looked stricken. “No. I never meant — “

A man who loves a woman shouldn't dishonour her by fathering a bastard on her, right?

Also relevant:

No man can wed me so long as my dwarf husband still lives somewhere in this world.

[Ygrain]

Also relevant:

Because the Starks have a history with polygamy and do not answer to gods or men, right?

Please, try to respond with at least distantly relevant or not at all.

[SFDanny]

Not sure if this is a spoiler in that the information is all in the books that have been published. But because the quote is from a spoiler chapter and in an abundance of caution let me add this in the same spoiler format. I'm not sure a marriage to Tyrion would count in most eyes if his first wife is still alive. Polygamy may be seen as legal by the Targaryens, but given the world views this as a union between Starks and Lannisters, and it hasn't been set aside by the High Septon, then, contrary to what Sansa believes she may well be free to marry. The only question is does Littlefinger know Tysha lives? He certainly knows of the marriage, and he may well have been on the search for Tysha since he found out about it. Sansa may be in for a rude awakening when Littlefinger tells her she can marry, even when Tyrion still lives.

[RumHam]

Because the Starks have a history with polygamy and do not answer to gods or men, right?

Please, try to respond with at least distantly relevant or not at all.

It's relevant as further evidence that polygamy is illegal. We don't know what the Starks might have done back when they were kings. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there was one or two who mad multiple wives. The law is the law, a king can make exceptions. So far we haven't seen a Targaryen king make an exception since the kingdom was brought under one set of laws. I think it's a mistake to think of polygamy as some sorta Targaren tradition. We just have Aegon marrying his two sisters before the Seven Kingdoms even existed, and Maegor who clearly did a lot of things that others considered unacceptable. But he could do those things because he was the king. We have no examples or a Targaryen prince taking a second wife. We do have a few example of Targaryen princes wanting to take a second wife, and knowing they were not able to (Daemon and Rhaenyra, Aegon IV and Merry Meg, Daemon Blackfyre and Daenerys) or in Daemon Blackfyre's case believing he could with the king's permission.

[Lord Varys]

JS,

I think we can go with the assumption that the Baratheon-Stark-Tully-Arryn-axis already existed prior to Rickard/Brandon's death (or rather: the marriage contracts, connections, and friendship existed that would enable the gestation of such an alliance). Rhaegar wronged both the Starks and the Baratheons when he abducted Lyanna, and it was Brandon Stark who was originally betrothed to Catelyn Tully. Brandon could have brought Hoster Tully just as easily into the alliance as Eddard later on. And Jon Arryn most certainly would have joined the alliances as well due to the close ties between him, Robert, and Ned.

I doubt that the hot heads Brandon and Robert had waited with their answers to this outrageous behavior until Rhaegar and Lyanna had shown up eventually to explain everything. If Brandon/Rickard had been in the North when the news reached them they most certainly would have marched south with a considerable host...

But my gut feeling is that all the Starks would have been abhorred by the idea that their darling daughter/sister could become the second wife of a polygamous (royal) abomination. All the Starks present at Harrenhal found it way out of line that Rhaegar even honored their sister as the Queen of Love and Beauty. I really don't think they would have felt honored if a married prince - even the Prince of Dragonstone - courted a Stark girl promised to another. Perhaps if Rhaegar had first set Elia aside and disinherited his children by her before approaching Lord Rickard in the matter it would have been a thing that could be talked about. But the way Rhaegar behaved? Not a chance.

It is hardly a surprise that no Stark woman ever was mistress or paramour to a Targaryen prince or king - or even another Lord as far as we know.

UL,

yes, that's about it. My reasoning is based on the assumption that the expectation to face Robert/Ned/Benjen Aerys/Rhaella/Elia/Doran etc. would have been very much on the mind of both Lyanna and Rhaegar during their stay at the tower. The idea that this was a non-topic or something that should best be resolved by mortal violence is a completely baseless assumption - especially if we go with the assumption that Lyanna was already dying when Ned arrived at the tower.

What would have been the decent thing to do then?

'Lord Eddard, you sister is dying. Thank the gods that you have arrived in time to speak to her one last time before she passes away. Follow us, we'll take you to her. We can sort out our other ... issues afterwards.'

But if I had been Lyanna I'd have thought about how to deal with things should Rhaegar die/the Targaryens and I'd be stuck with facing either Aerys or Ned/Robert. I really cannot assume that she would not have thought about that unless I'm not supposed to consider her two-dimensional character.

Ygrain,

Aegon the Unworthy loved all his mistresses and yet he still fathered bastards on nearly all of them. And if polygamy is unlawful then it is unlawful. The king is above the law - the Prince of Dragonstone is not.

RumHum,

yes, as I've tried to argue before. It seems that Prince Maegor was never actually considering himself a polygamist. He had effectively set Ceryse aside and married a new wife. Aenys I, the Faith, and the Hightowers did not accept that divorce thing. But King Maegor then took multiple wives in the real sense of the word when he married Tyanna, too, after his ascension, and then added the black brides in 47 AC.