Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SFDanny

R+L=J v147

Recommended Posts

I agree that they don't consider that Robert should be king. But if someone tries to say that Dayne, Hightower, and Whent say that Robert was not king of Westoros, then they're writing fanfiction. All Dayne, Hightower, and Whent say is that they won't bend the knee to Ned and Robert. They readily acknowledge that he is the king though. They just don't accept him.

I agree with your point. "Usurper" suggests they acknowledge that he is the king, but do not consider him to be legitimate.

However, and please don't take this personally as it's something becoming so widespread on this board as to be almost accepted practice:

Can we all please drop the "fan fiction" accusations?

"Fan fiction" is when someone chooses to write their own stories about characters from another work they are a fan of. It is not intended to be an interpretation of the original text. When someone interprets the text differently from you, it is a difference of opinion, not fan fiction. Calling other people's interpretations (or indeed misinterpretations) fan fiction is to dismiss them as pure invention rather than being a difference in understanding. It's cheap, it's disrespectful, it utterly fails to argue the case, and it's frankly just points-scoring. If you believe someone is hopelessly wrong, then SHOW that they are hopelessly wrong. We're here to debate, let's debate. Calling something "fan fiction" here has become equivalent to sticking your tongue out and saying "You're wrong and I'm right, nyah nyah nyah!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No typo. It's all a possibility. I was responding to your using this as a counter to the romantic element, as if the romantic element was a requirement for the parallel. My apologies if I misconstrued your point.

Abduction does not necessarily imply a lack of consent. Yes, this does at first sound strange. We are talking about the top of a highly stratified society, where a very large part of a daughter's (and to a lesser extent a son's) value was in their marriage. Stark maidens don't get to wander off with whoever they like, their marriage is a gift of their Lord father to dispense. To take a daughter of a noble family without the consent of her father would be considered abduction.

In the case of Bael the Bard, the simple fact that the Stark Maiden left with him and without her father's blessing is enough for it to be considered abduction, whether she went willingly or not. This was a common view in medieval jurisprudence. In a number of countries today, Bael's actions would make him legally guilty of abduction.

Unless you're contending that the Stark Maiden's disappearance had nothing to do with Bael -- which I'm sure you're not -- the abduction can't be called into question. There is however a big question of whether it was a consensual abduction. With the obvious caveat that the version of the story we get is from a pro-Bael perspective, it certainly would appear that she did consent, at least eventually. This is an interesting point, and I propose this implies that we should consider Lyanna's "abduction" in that same light.

No no no Kingmonkey how can't the abduction not be questioned?The next morning he was gone true,she was also gone..At best he f**ked her the night before and bolted like a Bolton. How then do you arrive at her disappearence having anything to do with him directly?That she went with him instead of him leaving because it was a one night stand. He prooved his point and she after realization dawned that she just gave her maiden head away probably had an oh shit moment.Cultural connection with noble ladies come into play.

What did she decide, to run away with him change her mind when they arrived crypts and say nahhh you go i'm just going to hang here for a year.That makes no sense.The story doesn't say he took her,' Ygritte says he didn't take her.And seeing as she needs to eat and crap and she delivered a baby someone in the castle was helping her.

I'm still trying to get how you arrived at him having a hand in her disappearance or her going with him when not even the story cops to that.

That he banged her yeah,that he took her against her will or that she went with him and just stopped in the crypts.Nahhhh.Again look at that line below.

"And so it was done. But when morning come, the singer had vanished . . . and so had Lord Brandon's maiden daughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No typo. It's all a possibility. I was responding to your using this as a counter to the romantic element, as if the romantic element was a requirement for the parallel. My apologies if I misconstrued your point.

Abduction does not necessarily imply a lack of consent. Yes, this does at first sound strange. We are talking about the top of a highly stratified society, where a very large part of a daughter's (and to a lesser extent a son's) value was in their marriage. Stark maidens don't get to wander off with whoever they like, their marriage is a gift of their Lord father to dispense. To take a daughter of a noble family without the consent of her father would be considered abduction.

In the case of Bael the Bard, the simple fact that the Stark Maiden left with him and without her father's blessing is enough for it to be considered abduction, whether she went willingly or not. This was a common view in medieval jurisprudence. In a number of countries today, Bael's actions would make him legally guilty of abduction.

Unless you're contending that the Stark Maiden's disappearance had nothing to do with Bael -- which I'm sure you're not -- the abduction can't be called into question. There is however a big question of whether it was a consensual abduction. With the obvious caveat that the version of the story we get is from a pro-Bael perspective, it certainly would appear that she did consent, at least eventually. This is an interesting point, and I propose this implies that we should consider Lyanna's "abduction" in that same light.

Abduction does not necessarily imply a lack of consent.

Abduct

to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, especially to kidnap.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abduct

Yes, this does at first sound strange.

A little... as one cannot legally consent to an illegal act and one cannot carry the consenting off by force.

We are talking about the top of a highly stratified society, where a very large part of a daughter's (and to a lesser extent a son's) value was in their marriage.

ok true..

Stark maidens don't get to wander off with whoever they like, their marriage is a gift of their Lord father to dispense. To take a daughter of a noble family without the consent of her father would be considered abduction.

ahh i get it.... abducted does not imply the consent or lack of consent of the abducted.... consent can be of a third party.

LIke whatever Rhaegar did with Lyanna is debatable but Rhaegar abducted Rickard's daughter.

There is no consensual abduction.... if the parties involved are properly identified. If you can show an injured party it is abduction, if you cannot it is not abduction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Lyanna confessed to Ned that she and Arthur have married, and that Jon is their son, that would be against all of the things Ned thought about Arthur, the greatest of all the Kingsguards. For Ned, Arthur would be an oathbreaker, not some shining example.

And there is no reason for Ned to hide Jon's true parentage from him and claiming that he is his son. Something that he certainly wanted to tell Jon when he was locked in the dark cells.

:agree: :agree: :agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no Kingmonkey how can't the abduction not be questioned? The next morning he was gone true,she was also gone..At best he f**ked her the night before and bolted like a Bolton. How then do you arrive at her disappearence having anything to do with him directly?That she went with him instead of him leaving because it was a one night stand. He prooved his point and she after realization dawned that she just gave her maiden head away probably had an oh shit moment.Cultural connection with noble ladies come into play.

What did she decide, to run away with him change her mind when they arrived crypts and say nahhh you go i'm just going to hang here for a year.That makes no sense.The story doesn't say he took her,' Ygritte says he didn't take her.And seeing as she needs to eat and crap and she delivered a baby someone in the castle was helping her.

"Lord Brandon had no other children. At his behest, the black crows flew forth from their castles in the hundreds, but nowhere could they find any sign o' Bael or this maid. For most a year they searched, till the lord lost heart and took to his bed, and it seemed as though the line o' Starks was at its end. But one night as he lay waiting to die, Lord Brandon heard a child's cry. He followed the sound and found his daughter back in her bedchamber, asleep with a babe at her breast."

"Bael had brought her back?"

"No. They had been in Winterfell all the time, hiding with the dead beneath the castle. The maid loved Bael so dearly she bore him a son, the song says . . . though if truth be told, all the maids love Bael in them songs he wrote. Be that as it may, what's certain is that Bael left the child in payment for the rose he'd plucked unasked, and that the boy grew to be the next Lord Stark. So there it is—you have Bael's blood in you, same as me."

I think I see the source of our confusion about each other's views. You take the bolded "they" to mean only the Stark Maiden and the child. I take it to include Bael. The bolded part in the first paragraph shows that the Starks at least believed Bael to have taken her with him, and that there was no sign in their search of either of them. We know why they didn't find the maid, why did they find no sign of Bael, either? If Bael shagged and ran, how did he know he'd got her pregnant, to be able to leave the child in payment?

That he banged her yeah,that he took her against her will or that she went with him and just stopped in the crypts.Nahhhh.Again look at that line below.

"And so it was done. But when morning come, the singer had vanished . . . and so had Lord Brandon's maiden daughter

Even if you're right and Bael wandered off straight away and was in hiding somewhere else while she hid in the crypts out of shame entirely separately from him, that would still make it an abduction -- just a very short one.

ahh i get it.... abducted does not imply the consent or lack of consent of the abducted.... consent can be of a third party.

LIke whatever Rhaegar did with Lyanna is debatable but Rhaegar abducted Rickard's daughter.

There is no consensual abduction.... if the parties involved are properly identified. If you can show an injured party it is abduction, if you cannot it is not abduction...

Precisely. Whether she was willing or not, Lyanna was taken from her family. It is not her injury, but the injury to the Stark family that is considered. It might have been Lyanna's idea all along, but it would still be abduction according to Roman law, or English law around the time of the Wars of the Roses, or indeed as a quick google tells me the current law of Greece or the Philippines, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume that you believe that the Kingsguard would consider Jon to be the rightful king due to being Rhaegar's son and therefore a Targaryen who were the previous kings? And what do the Targaryen kings derive their kingship from? Aegon conquering Westoros. And what did Robert just do? Conquer Westoros. Ergo, Robert is the rightful king, as he just did what the Targaryen kingship derived from. Robert can't not be the rightful king without none of the Targaryens being rightful kings as well. If conquest made the Targaryens the rightful kings of Westoros, then conquest made Robert the rightful king of Westoros.

The question isn't whether he is the rightful king or not, but whether those 3 KG think he is. They called him a usurper, which means, not the rightful king.

Has it never occurred to you, that the Kingsguard might consider Robert to be the rightful king at the moment due to him having conquered the country, but that they do not plan to let him remain king? Because that's essentially what Arthur says and does

"And now it begins, said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light."

No, it has not "occurred" to me, because they call him a usurper. He cannot be both the rightful king and a usurper. This probably the last comment I will spend on this debate... I don't have anything else to except the above.

And that's how Viserys, Dany, and Aegon all treat Robert's ascension to the throne. That he's the king now/his sons are now, but they don't plan to let them remain king. They all acknowledge that they need to take Westoros back to be considered its monarch. They should be the monarch, but they are not due to Robert's Rebellion.

Viserys and Dany call themselves the King and Queen of Westeros all the time. This means they do not acknowledge Robert's legitimacy. How is this confusing??

The Kingsguard would consider it the same. Even without Arthur's statement that the three Kingsguard plan to fight, we know that the Kingsguard would fight to put their person on the throne seeing as they did just that in the Dance after Rhaenyra took King's Landing and the throne. Aegon's Kingsguard kept fighting to place Aegon on the throne again, even though he'd lost the throne.

The last bit was all assumptions that you are making about those three specific KG by examining other KG. But the point remains - if the KG, who swore an oath to protect the "king," whoever that is, and they don't bow to Robert, but try to seat someone else on the throne, that is in every possible denying the legitimacy of Robert. I really cannot fathom why we are even discussing this. I consider this settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume that you believe that the Kingsguard would consider Jon to be the rightful king due to being Rhaegar's son and therefore a Targaryen who were the previous kings? And what do the Targaryen kings derive their kingship from? Aegon conquering Westoros. And what did Robert just do? Conquer Westoros. Ergo, Robert is the rightful king, as he just did what the Targaryen kingship derived from. Robert can't not be the rightful king without none of the Targaryens being rightful kings as well. If conquest made the Targaryens the rightful kings of Westoros, then conquest made Robert the rightful king of Westoros.

Has it never occurred to you, that the Kingsguard might consider Robert to be the rightful king at the moment due to him having conquered the country, but that they do not plan to let him remain king? Because that's essentially what Arthur says and does

"And now it begins, said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light."

And that's how Viserys, Dany, and Aegon all treat Robert's ascension to the throne. That he's the king now/his sons are now, but they don't plan to let them remain king. They all acknowledge that they need to take Westoros back to be considered its monarch. They should be the monarch, but they are not due to Robert's Rebellion.

The Kingsguard would consider it the same. Even without Arthur's statement that the three Kingsguard plan to fight, we know that the Kingsguard would fight to put their person on the throne seeing as they did just that in the Dance after Rhaenyra took King's Landing and the throne. Aegon's Kingsguard kept fighting to place Aegon on the throne again, even though he'd lost the throne.

Aegon the Conqueror created the IT, he didn't usurp it from anyone. Fourteen years later, Robert is still called Usurper by some. He has the power to hold the IT but not the right to it. Or do you believe that a thief has a right to your property, just because you're currently not holding it? Your right doesn't cease to be, you only lack the power to enact it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the alternate theories to RLJ die when tested by "Why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents?"

Can you explain how this is true and how RLJ passes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. We arrived at the conclusion that Rhaegar was the father.

I do believe that it was a romantic gesture on Rhaegar's part, and about the furthest that he would have gone, had Elia been able to birth a third child, but it is possible that others are right and that there was no romance back then, only a recognition of Lyanna's valour as KotLT. However, the way the QoLaB crown recurs means that even if it was not a romantic gesture, it was one that had a huge impact on Lyanna's fate

Oh? The girl disappeared from her bed in her father's house, that's not kidnapping? The fact that they were hiding nearby=/=never left. They were just, uh, hiding in almost plain sight. We say, it's darkest under the candlestick.

And you know that how? And why did she committed suicide after Bael's death?

Perhaps. But that doesn't exclude other motivation, especially concerning the daughter.

No idea what you are talking about here. What question, and what meaning?

If you mean that especially Brandon took an offence at it, we are all aware of that. Note, though, that we don't have Lyanna's reaction, but we know that she clutched dried roses even on her deathbed. Most possibly, blue roses, perhaps even the crown itself. Doesn't look exactly like something that she was ashamed of.

Lyanna from the same cultural background did a lot of things that she was not supposed to do; what makes you think she would conform in this particular case?

How did you arrive at the conclusions that Rhaegar is Jon's father and Lyanna was the KotLT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say the Chinese invade the United States on the west coast.


Say you live in Denver.... a thousand miles away from the west coast.



Say you see seven Chinese soldiers riding down your street....



How well do you think the war is going?


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Say the Germans invade the United states on the east coast


Say you live in Saint Louis eight hundred miles from Washington DC



Say you see seven German soldiers riding down your street.



Do you think the United States government in DC is still up and running?


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Say four rebel Lords in the north are in open rebellion.


Say you are at the tower of joy 700 miles from the King's Landing and 1000 miles from the action



Say you see a rebel lord and 6 companions riding down your street.




How well do you think the war is going for the royalists?


Do you think the Targaryens are still in power?


Do you think the rebels forgot to install a new king?


Do you think the new king is riding about in the desert?



Say the kingsguard were completely ignorant of anything that happened after the Battle of the Bells before Ned showed up



Before a word is spoken the kingsguard at the tower of joy know:


They did not win the war,


The king is dead or deposed.


A new king has taken his place


They are not facing the new king,



Does anything the kingsguard say add any more information than they would have had once they saw Ned riding towards the tower?



Woe to the usurper if we had been....



They did not need to have known about the Trident, because they knew they lost the war.


They did not name Robert usurper..... whoever took the throne was the usurper.



The statements the kingsguard make can be construed as them having received news....



They can also be explained by them knowing heraldry and geography.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question. Is that what the crowning meant in universe, or is that bit of knowledge more for the benefit of the readers?

I still lean towards the interpretation that the crowning of Lyanna was to honor her deeds as the KotLT. Although I could see something more sinister, as well. Ashara was supposedly dishonored at HH, and by a Stark if the popular interpretation is correct, so it might make sense that Arthur's bff would threaten to dishonor/deflower Lyanna, the Stark maiden.

Usually crowning has slightly different meaning :cool4: But with the Bael story in mind (which was familiar to Starks all too well) and similarities between Rhaegar's story and Bael's, I lean to the theory that this particular crowning meant deflowering. Future one or the one that already happened - don't know. After Wolfmaid and WeaselPie correctly pointed out on the stupidity of showing future plans in public, I think I agree more with the statement that deflowering had already happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I've never really thought that Rhaegar himself was supposed to understand the symbolism, as far as deflowering and secondary meanings and whatnot. I was thinking about that as something for us readers to infer. I imagined that Rhaegar was naming her the queen of love and beauty, not necessarily trying to say that he did or would deflower her. I figure it is the reorder who is supposed to draw that level of meaning out of the symbol...



But who knows. I don't think Rhaegar necessary needs to have had all of that symbolism in mind though. He simply knew Lyanna loved the roses, perhaps - that seems like enough reason to make arrangements to have those roses for her. I'm not sure where he got them, but it must have taken effort, right? In any case, knowing they were her fav flower would be enough, especially if he was trying to romance or just honor her.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, the biggest hint that R+L=J is wrong is not just that GRRM's wife said it was wrong, but that it would mean (if very common coralaries of the theory are true) that Rhaegar ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED in birthing a savior through his wild and reckless, and frankly quite anti-social actions. A character is GRRM's story, trying and actually succeeding in fullfilling prophecy? I don't think so. A person who has full belief in that hasn't been reading the same story that I have.



Unless you believe that Jon will be a villian of sorts but still be Rhaegar's child...a scenario in which Rhaegar's plan totally backfired on him. I suppose that could be. But it is frankly pretty damn close to jumping the shark to me. To lose all that emotional content between Jon and Ned's relationship simply for a shocking (stupid) twist, I don't see it happening that way either.



And for the record though I think WeaselPie is correct on these matters I am not emotionally attached to that theory, brilliant a twist though it is, as it implies certain things and again means Jon is not Ned's son.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But who knows. I don't think Rhaegar necessary needs to have had all of that symbolism in mind though. He simply knew Lyanna loved the roses, perhaps - that seems like enough reason to make arrangements to have those roses for her. I'm not sure where he got them, but it must have taken effort, right? In any case, knowing they were her fav flower would be enough, especially if he was trying to romance or just honor her.

The question here becomes, though, were blue winter roses always Lyanna's favorite? Or did the tourney cause those flowers to become her favorite?

As of yet, the Tourney at Harrenhal is the first time we know of that Lyanna and Rhaegar were in the same location. As far as we know, they had never had the opportunity to meet each other until that Tourney.

The tourney only lasted for 10 days, so if Rhaegar truly was responsible for the crown for the QoLaB, and did indeed decide he wanted to use those roses only after seeing Lyanna, where would he get them from? The North is too far awar to get the roses to Harrenhal in ten days..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain how this is true and how RLJ passes?

Ned didnot tell anyone who Jon's mother was. So, he hid the truth about at least Jon's mother. The question is, why did he do that?

RLJ passes this test perfectly because revealing that Jon is a son of Rhaegar would put his life into great danger. Even if Robert would let Jon be, the Lannisters would certainly not. That is why Ned had to hide the truth of Jon's parents and lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like GRRM that the prophecy did in fact come true and that Rhaegar and Elia's son was AA but then had his head smashed against a wall, then all hope was lost and the POV characters are fighting a losing battle.... :crying:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you arrive at the conclusions that Rhaegar is Jon's father and Lyanna was the KotLT?

Visit the first post where all of your answers are spelled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you arrive at the conclusions that Rhaegar is Jon's father and Lyanna was the KotLT?

While asking questions generally is a good strategy in conversation, your one-liner questions come across lazy and not as helpful as I might imply you have intended for them. In particular as most of them are answered in the OP or first post, which the regular posters in the thread would have liked you to read to be informed. So it is no wonder there be one-line replies like...

Visit the first post where all of your answers are spelled out.

Still the answer to how we derive Lyanna Stark was the knight of the laughing tree is not in the OP, as that is a different theory worth of its own 147 threads. If you care to re-read that story, it is found in A Song of Swords chapter 24, also referred to as Bran II.

It starts halfway in that chapter with the opening phrase:

"There was one knight," said Meera, "in the year of the false spring. The Knight of the Laughing Tree, they called him. He might have been a crannogman, that one."

"Or not." Jojen's face was dappled with green shadows.

Wisecracker Jojen saws the seeds of doubt that the knight was a crannogman even before Meera is allowed to take off with her storytelling and Jojen sticks to it. The description of the knight, "his" hiding "his" face under a greathelm and speaking with a booming voice is parallelled by Brienne doing the same, so a young woman might fit the bill. Small of stature fits as well. Lyanna rescues the little crannogman, who later prays to the old gods for vengeance. Proponents of Lyanna as the knight of the laughing tree think she who saved him, also avenged him. The weirwood tree is a sign of the north, crannogmen make no tourney knights it seems, but Lyanna is described as half-a-horse herself, combine with Jaime who says jousting skills are essentially good horseman skills... to explain how Lyanna fits in.

For more, try a search for Knight of the Laughing Tree site:asoiaf.westeros.org on a search engine of your choice.

Back to R+L=J: any more unanswered questions? (after having read the OP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like GRRM that the prophecy did in fact come true and that Rhaegar and Elia's son was AA but then had his head smashed against a wall, then all hope was lost and the POV characters are fighting a losing battle.... :crying:

Hence Martins point about people who try to decipher prophesy- and its not really a positive point he is making as I believe it also plays into issues of fanatacism, religious or otherwise.

This is why when it comes to Rhaegar and prophesy, I treat Rhaegar with as much caution as Mel.

From Dune to other works where prophesy figures heavily, it never works out like one thinks it will. As Delenn from Babylon 5 said, "let prophesy take care of itself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×