Jump to content

Archived

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

HelenaExMachina

R+L=J v.151

Recommended Posts

If someone wants to convince me of AD+L = J then the first place they have to start is explaining why Rhaegar is hanging out with AD at the ToJ and then, after that, why Hightower seems to have no problem hanging out with AD at the ToJ (to the point of fighting alongside him) even though Arthur is clearly negligent in his KG duties in a million ways--not protecting the king, carrying off the northern daughter, siring a child....

 

Given that every time I press on this matter it comes down to 1)"we don't know the whole story yet" or 2)"there's no way to know how loyal Hightower really was!" I remain wholly unconvinced. It's a theory that has its roots in people wanting Dawn to end up in Jon's hand by virtue of blood (and I suspect because they think R being the father is "cliche" though how R being the father is cliche and Arthur Dayne, perfect knight and last Sword of the Morning with the really pretty sword, being the father is not cliche, I'll never understand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the Arthur + Lyanna = Jon essay over at the Last Hearth. Has anybody else here seen this? It makes some interesting points, mostly stuff I've seen brought up before, as well as a couple of new things. There's also some fairly weak arguments put forth, imo. Overall I'd say it's not that great. But I'm not sure if the blame can really be placed on the author, since there's really not a lot hinting at AD+L=J.

 

 

I had a similar feeling, good effort to make something out of very little evidence. Totally unconvinced, but I really liked it. He did an interesting job of the black cloaks/white cloaks thing. I've had a go at answering the Ned+Wylla=Jon essay and Arthur+Lyanna is next on my list. 

 

BTW, these essays are intended to make their way over here eventually, when the board is fixed and content won't vanish into the ether. The run on Last Hearth is something of a test run for the essays, so presumably they'll get some tweaking according to the feedback they get there, before they find there way here. 

 

I'm doing the R+L=J one, and I'm taking quite an unusual approach to it. I'm deliberately avoiding any of the obvious controversies as much as possible, so for example protect vs. obey and legit vs bastard questions are avoided. I suspect that's going to outrage some people, but I'm convinced that the case without any of that is actually stronger, because it means there's less that people can question. I have a lot of evidence based on the storytelling process, which is something that often gets overlooked, and some nice stuff on the symbolism. I'm hoping to get it up after the weekend, when I should have time to edit it down somewhat from it's current rather monstrous length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it and liked it. Am I convinced? Not yet. And I agree that the explanation of the lie re: Jon's parentage doesn't make as much sense long term. Especially once Jon clearly looked Stark. Could also make the case that since he looks Stark, Ned wouldn't have been risking too much to tell Cat if Rhaegar=daddy. But that's another argument.

 

But on the logic: Lyanna asked in a fever. And we don't actually know what she asked (grumble, grumble). So--could she have asked Ned to swear to something he thought was unreasonable? Can't see why not.

 

Not in Ned's opinion, as you can see from the quote I pulled from Eddard VIII: "And when you have it, what then? Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." - AGoT, Eddard VIII. He later wonders what Cat would do if it were Jon's life against the lives of her own children. On top of those quotes, it's something that has haunted him for the last fourteen years. Why lay that burden upon Cat?

 

Which is why the question of the lie about Jon's parentage always seems messy to me re: determining his parentage. Based on what we've got in the text, seems like Ned would do what he could to keep his word to Lya. Regardless of cost (though he does think of the cost). Regardless of its sensibility. Does the logic of hiding Jon as Rhaegar's son make sense? Yes. But can't see anything in the text that says Ned thinks the lies or promises are about logic. Just that they are asked. And haunt him. And he tries to keep them.

 

And that he's keeping a "dangerous" secret. Don't forget that part, because it helps in narrowing down the candidates. Arthur Dayne as Jon's father is not a dangerous secret. Or if it is, I don't see how. I can think of one especially dangerous secret though. Not just RLJ, though that's dangerous itself, but Jon as the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing the R+L=J one, and I'm taking quite an unusual approach to it. I'm deliberately avoiding any of the obvious controversies as much as possible, so for example protect vs. obey and legit vs bastard questions are avoided. I suspect that's going to outrage some people, but I'm convinced that the case without any of that is actually stronger, because it means there's less that people can question.

 

That's the original approach. All the questions of legitimacy and which vows are holding the Kingsguard to the tower are later additions. It's probably a good idea to go back to the stripped down version as the later additions really have nothing to do with whether or not Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFDanny--

 

You were clear enough the first time -- I got it. I just don't think it is plausible that Dany is talking about a transition from Viserys to Aegon. It makes no sense to me. She just cannot be suggesting that Aegon would have sat around with them for 14 years and then became king on the death of Viserys. She cannot possibly assume Aegon, if he had lived, would be part of their situation and be viewed as succeeding to Viserys. The ONLY plausible interpretation (IMHO -- I know you think there is another plausible interpretation) is that she is talking about at that time -- at the time of his death -- if he had not died -- at that time -- he would have become King under the Targ succession rules. I just don't consider your alternative that she is talking about transition from V to A to be a realistic interpretation of what she could have meant.

 

J.Star--

 

I have not read that essay, but I am not surprised that it is more or less weak. Those folks seem obsessed with someone -- anyone -- being the father other than Rhaegar. The thought that people figured it out correctly a long time ago and the debate is basically over drives them nuts and they just want it to be something else -- anything else. Beyond that -- if they don't want to post here, then I have no desire to address their issues here.

 

Corbon--

 

Of course I agree with your position, but I think you are giving SW's position is little short shrift. I think SW (and any arguments bordering on Team Obey) is that all three were ordered to stay at ToJ and therefore each has to obey that order. That order was given first, before V became King, and that order cannot be ignored. It was not a general order to the KG as a group -- it was an order given separately to each of the three -- so each has an independent obligation to stay at ToJ. 

 

All that said -- I don't buy that argument. As I think the answer is what is suggested above -- if they thought they had an obligation to stay -- they also would think they had an obligation to protect the new heir. And when talking about Darry going with V, the KG seem to give absolutely no hint that they think V is entitled to KG protection -- the opposite, they suggest it is fine that Darry is there because he can be there because he is NOT a KG, but a KG cannot just go off to DS -- but they can if V is now the rightful king. The tone of the discussion of V on DS by the KG just is not consistent with V being a potential rightful king.

 

But I think in the end your point really is the answer even to any version of the Team Obey position. At a minimum, if V is the rightful heir, the KG have conflicting vows to keep (or conflicting "orders" to obey) -- obey Rhaegar and obey their vows to protect the King. Each one has conflicting vows to keep, but as a group, they can minimize this conflict by splitting up -- as you suggest. But they don't split up. Moreover, they argue that going to DS would be fleeing. It just makes no sense if V is a potential heir in their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its not the language that says they are protecting a new king, though there are some hints there. Its the fact that they clearly have heard news already, there are three of them, so they could split up, and they are happily ignoring the should-be-their-king Viserys on Dragonstone, who is without any KG.
If Viserys is their rightful Targaryen King, the last living legitimate Targaryen male, and they are loyal to Aerys as their King (as they indicate), and Viserys has none of the KG, how is the KGs first duty, protecting the King, being performed by the KG? They don't all have to go to him, but by ignoring him entirely they are effectively violating their oath. Yet they proudly proclaim their status and mention their vows.
So if Viserys is not their king, who is? Must be someone they believe is ahead of him in the succession. Which a legitimate Jon would be, and we already believe Jon to be right there so that solves the question of why isn't at least one of them with or traveling to whoever that other person ahead of Viserys in the succession is.

Alternately they are not holding to their KG vow. But thats contra-indicated in the conversation.

 

Mostly the language provides little clues. Like them knowing the relevance of the Trident shows they have had news. And their responses indicate they remain faithful to Aerys Targaryen (and thus his heirs) and are still proud of their KG status and hold to their vow.

Totally agree they could split up. Could even split up if have decided Jon is the king they're going with--Viserys would still presumably be in the line of succession if the king is an infant, so protecting him seems reasonable.

 

But as to the first duty--the SSM says flat out they can be ordered away from that. They don't get to choose their orders. And we have plenty of evidence in text of KG being given orders that seem either stupid or flat-out against the well-being of the crown--making everyone angry, inciting rebellion, etc. KG aren't supposed to use their own judgment re: orders according to the SSM.

 

Could they do so anyway? Sure. Plenty of evidence of that in text, too. But the fact that they say they swore a vow--nothing says that wouldn't include the whole vow. Including the part that says they follow orders even if those orders keep them away from the king.

 

Which means that if they are following orders (nature of which to be determined) they are keeping their vows. And not choosing for themselves. Does not have to mean they think Jon is the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Viserys is their rightful Targaryen King, the last living legitimate Targaryen male, and they are loyal to Aerys as their King (as they indicate), and Viserys has none of the KG, how is the KGs first duty, protecting the King, being performed by the KG? They don't all have to go to him, but by ignoring him entirely they are effectively violating their oath. Yet they proudly proclaim their status and mention their vows.


Everything you say here is entirely reasonable. It's just not the only interpretation of the text.

The idea that the KG must protect the king by being at his side is questionable. We know that sometimes they have not gone to the side of the king to protect him (e.g Fell & Thorne). If they felt he was in no danger for the time being, I don't see how it's unreasonable to believe that they might think that some other duty could override that temporarily. Given that Dragonstone was unassailable until the Baratheon fleet could be built, they might well have thought waiting a week or two was not out of the question.

I think in this context it's important to remember that we can't be certain what vow Hightower was referring to. Yes, there's the traditional interpretation that he was talking about the Kingsguard's "first vow", but there's more than one vow in the Kingsguard vow, there are knightly vows, and people can vow other things later, too. What's previously referred to is "The Kingsguard do not flee" which can simply indicate that whatever vow it is they are following, because they are Kingsguard they will not flee from performing that vow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing the R+L=J one, and I'm taking quite an unusual approach to it. I'm deliberately avoiding any of the obvious controversies as much as possible, so for example protect vs. obey and legit vs bastard questions are avoided. I suspect that's going to outrage some people, but I'm convinced that the case without any of that is actually stronger, because it means there's less that people can question.

 

That's the original approach. All the questions of legitimacy or bastard, and which vows are holding the Kingsguard to the tower are later additions. It's probably a good idea to go back to the stripped down version as the later additions really have nothing to do with whether or not Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child. I should say I'm very much looking forward to reading your essay, Kingmonkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar feeling, good effort to make something out of very little evidence. Totally unconvinced, but I really liked it. He did an interesting job of the black cloaks/white cloaks thing. I've had a go at answering the Ned+Wylla=Jon essay and Arthur+Lyanna is next on my list.

 

I thought that part stood out as well, on the positive side. There are some interesting inverse parallels there, and there are even a few more with Lyanna and Ashara.

 

Lyanna: Honored at HH, gave birth to a living boy, died inside a tower.

 

Ashara: Dishonored at HH, gave birth to a dead girl, died(?) by jumping from a tower.

 

BTW, these essays are intended to make their way over here eventually, when the board is fixed and content won't vanish into the ether. The run on Last Hearth is something of a test run for the essays, so presumably they'll get some tweaking according to the feedback they get there, before they find there way here. 

 

I think it's a good idea to get the rough drafts out there, to get as much feedback as possible. Posting over there is fine, if that's what they want to do, but there are a lot more people on this site.

 

I'm doing the R+L=J one, and I'm taking quite an unusual approach to it. I'm deliberately avoiding any of the obvious controversies as much as possible, so for example protect vs. obey and legit vs bastard questions are avoided. I suspect that's going to outrage some people, but I'm convinced that the case without any of that is actually stronger, because it means there's less that people can question. I have a lot of evidence based on the storytelling process, which is something that often gets overlooked, and some nice stuff on the symbolism. I'm hoping to get it up after the weekend, when I should have time to edit it down somewhat from it's current rather monstrous length.

 

 

I think that is a good idea. Avoid the side roads.

 

Completely agree. I look forward to reading it.

 

UL,

 

I think somewhere along the way Heresy partially morphed into anti-RLJ.

 

As far as addressing their essays here, as Kingmonkey said, they are eventually supposed to be posted here anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not in Ned's opinion, as you can see from the quote I pulled from Eddard VIII: "And when you have it, what then? Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." - AGoT, Eddard VIII. He later wonders what Cat would do if it were Jon's life against the lives of her own children. On top of those quotes, it's something that has haunted him for the last fourteen years. Why lay that burden upon Cat?

 

 

And that he's keeping a "dangerous" secret. Don't forget that part, because it helps in narrowing down the candidates. Arthur Dayne as Jon's father is not a dangerous secret. Or if it is, I don't see how. I can think of one especially dangerous secret though. Not just RLJ, though that's dangerous itself, but Jon as the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Yes--and I agree that quote could be about fearing Robert's reaction to Rhaegar's child--especially since Ned just came out of the meeting where they were discussing killing Dany and he's just seen Robert's irrationality and rage. So this interp works.

 

But right before Ned says what you quoted he's thinking about Jon Arryn's death and sharing it--with whom? The angry, irrational Robert? If Robert's willing to kill Dany for something she might do in the future, Ned may be worrying about what Robert will do if/when he finds out the truth about Arryn--and if it would be a bigger mess. And right after Ned thinks what you quoted, he thinks about Cat's reaction and kidnapping the Imp. 

 

Could all this mean Ned thinks the secret about Jon is dangerous? Absolutely. But could also just mean he's seen people telling secrets to the King with the result being irrational badness. And about Cat's secret re: the Lannisters--and what could/will happen when that gets out. Just think that the story doesn't define whether Ned's thinking about Jon's secret in that moment. He could be. Would make sense. But he could also be thinking other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes--and I agree that quote could be about fearing Robert's reaction to Rhaegar's child--especially since Ned just came out of the meeting where they were discussing killing Dany and he's just seen Robert's irrationality and rage. So this interp works.

 

But right before Ned says what you quoted he's thinking about Jon Arryn's death and sharing it--with whom? The angry, irrational Robert? If Robert's willing to kill Dany for something she might do in the future, Ned may be worrying about what Robert will do if/when he finds out the truth about Arryn--and if it would be a bigger mess. And right after Ned thinks what you quoted, he thinks about Cat's reaction and kidnapping the Imp. 

 

Could all this mean Ned thinks the secret about Jon is dangerous? Absolutely. But could also just mean he's seen people telling secrets to the King with the result being irrational badness. And about Cat's secret re: the Lannisters--and what could/will happen when that gets out. Just think that the story doesn't define whether Ned's thinking about Jon's secret in that moment. He could be. Would make sense. But he could also be thinking other things.

 

In my mind, the illuminating thing about that quote is that Ned knows what it's like to keep a dangerous secret. One so dangerous that he can't share it with anyone.

 

If you want to take the stance that the answer could be something else, that's fine. But we can do the same thing any time the story requires us to read between the lines, you know? Given the fact that there is a mystery surrounding Jon Snow's origins, and given the fact that Ned has kept the identity of Jon's mother a secret, and given the fact that we know there are clues to this mystery in the books, I feel pretty comfortable in pegging this thought of Ned's as one of those clues. You might not be comfortable making that leap, but I am. In fact, it looks really obvious to me. Ned knows what it's like to keep dangerous secrets <-> Ned has kept the identity of Jon's mother a secret. I guess the two might not be connected, but I very highly doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone wants to convince me of AD+L = J then the first place they have to start is explaining why Rhaegar is hanging out with AD at the ToJ and then, after that, why Hightower seems to have no problem hanging out with AD at the ToJ (to the point of fighting alongside him) even though Arthur is clearly negligent in his KG duties in a million ways--not protecting the king, carrying off the northern daughter, siring a child....

 

Given that every time I press on this matter it comes down to 1)"we don't know the whole story yet" or 2)"there's no way to know how loyal Hightower really was!" I remain wholly unconvinced. It's a theory that has its roots in people wanting Dawn to end up in Jon's hand by virtue of blood (and I suspect because they think R being the father is "cliche" though how R being the father is cliche and Arthur Dayne, perfect knight and last Sword of the Morning with the really pretty sword, being the father is not cliche, I'll never understand)

Yeah--that's a problem. Big time.

 

We don't know that anyone's been hanging out at the toj or if the KG just got there--seems like they would've had to just arrived for the AD scenario to work.

 

As for working with Hightower--guess it might work it Rhaegar gave them all a direct order to work together. Ordered Arthur back in line. If they are obedient and following some order from Rhaegar--can almost make it work. Hypothetically. If I squint. Hard.

 

We sort of have a precedent with Jon's going back to the Night's Watch after Ygritte. And the reaction. And how he's thought of and treated by a number of people. But he's still allowed back in.

 

ETA: Also--Jaime's allowed back in the KG after killing the King. Arguably much worse than what Arthur would have done in the hypothetical scenario. People whisper behind his back and don't trust him--but still work with him.

 

But it's MUCH MUCH more reasonable if Rhaegar is daddy. At least so far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my mind, the illuminating thing about that quote is that Ned knows what it's like to keep a dangerous secret. One so dangerous that he can't share it with anyone.

 

If you want to take the stance that the answer could be something else, that's fine. But we can do the same thing any time the story requires us to read between the lines, you know? Given the fact that there is a mystery surrounding Jon Snow's origins, and given the fact that Ned has kept the identity of Jon's mother a secret, and given the fact that we know there are clues to this mystery in the books, I feel pretty comfortable in pegging this thought of Ned's as one of those clues. You might not be comfortable making that leap, but I am. In fact, it looks really obvious to me. Ned knows what it's like to keep dangerous secrets <-> Ned has kept the identity of Jon's mother a secret. I guess the two might not be connected, but I very highly doubt it.

Totally fair. Just saying the text doesn't require it. I also think it's a clue--but the thought works on its own, whether it's a clue or not. And RLJ works on its own, whether this thought is a clue or not. So, not definitive. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally fair. Just saying the text doesn't require it. I also think it's a clue--but the thought works on its own, whether it's a clue or not. And RLJ works on its own, whether this thought is a clue or not. So, not definitive. That's all.

 

Way to go out on a limb. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFDanny--

 

You were clear enough the first time -- I got it. I just don't think it is plausible that Dany is talking about a transition from Viserys to Aegon. It makes no sense to me. She just cannot be suggesting that Aegon would have sat around with them for 14 years and then became king on the death of Viserys. She cannot possibly assume Aegon, if he had lived, would be part of their situation and be viewed as succeeding to Viserys. The ONLY plausible interpretation (IMHO -- I know you think there is another plausible interpretation) is that she is talking about at that time -- at the time of his death -- if he had not died -- at that time -- he would have become King under the Targ succession rules. I just don't consider your alternative that she is talking about transition from V to A to be a realistic interpretation of what she could have meant.

 

 

Ok, but I have to ask why? What is implausible? This is, of course, a "what if?" situation from the git, so we are asked to imagine along with Dany having Aegon alive. Perhaps it's easier for us because of Young Griff's claim, but Daenerys doesn't know that yet. She imagines him alive today, but in no way indicates she is thinking of him as the king in exile instead of Viserys. Or the king in exile after Viserys death. Perhaps, you are thinking like The Twinslayer and thinking of Aegon as the king instead of Robert for the last 17 years, but that is only a variant of the first option. So, I'm having problems seeing why any of these possibilities is something to be ruled out because of no reason other than you think it implausible for undisclosed reasons. It seems rather straight forward. Any of the possibilities works given the information, and we can't tell which she is thinking about.

 

I'd also like to point out one last time that it is clear from the quote I gave of Daenerys that she thinks of Viserys as a king-in-exile, so why would one think she wouldn't think of Aegon as the same if he were to succeed to the claim after Viserys's death? She views herself as doing just that, after all. A queen in exile after succeeding her brother the king in exile. She isn't stretching her imagination beyond her own experience very much to think of Aegon being in her position. That sounds extremely plausible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree they could split up. Could even split up if have decided Jon is the king they're going with--Viserys would still presumably be in the line of succession if the king is an infant, so protecting him seems reasonable.


Reasonable ye, but not necessary. The only necessary protection in their vows is the king. Others can be protected by the order of the king but are not part of their basic vows as far as we know or see.
 

But as to the first duty--the SSM says flat out they can be ordered away from that. They don't get to choose their orders. And we have plenty of evidence in text of KG being given orders that seem either stupid or flat-out against the well-being of the crown--making everyone angry, inciting rebellion, etc. KG aren't supposed to use their own judgment re: orders according to the SSM.


It does not say that they can be ordered away from protecting the king flat out (in any or all circumstances).
It says that if Rhaegar gave them an order to stay they would have had to stay - which means in the circumstances existing when Rhaegar would have given them that order, they would have had no reason causing them to not follow it.
Its not a correct extrapolation to then assume that they would always have to obey any order given to them by Rhaegar (which is the assumption the 'obey' side insists upon) in any circumstance. This is proven by reductio ad absurdum. If they must obey all orders all the time then there is a fundamental failure. If a prince orders them to kill the king or to turn away while he kills the king, they must obey? No, sorry, that is completely illogical and unacceptable. There must be limitations on what orders must be obeyed or they have no value as bodyguards and no reason to exist.

 

Virtually everyone in the kingdom is supposed to obey the king, or the crown prince, so what sets the Kingsguard apart there?
The answer is that they have higher duties than just obeying orders (and so we are told in fact). Yes, they still have to obey orders (exactly as the SSM says) - when those orders don't actively contradict their higher duties (as they didn't have when Rhaegar gave them they order to stay), but its impossible that that should be forced to obey orders that contradict their higher duties - except in one case. The ultimate authority (almost always the king, possibly another if the king is incapacitate, maybe) always has the power to override their first duty, its the ultimate authority after all. Hence Barristan cannot protect Robert from the boar, because the King himself ordered him not to. But Barristan would not have left Robert unprotected by the KG, abandoned the first duty, on anyone else's orders (such as Cersei for example).
Note also that in Jaime is in KL (not to mention Selmy, Martell and Darry) then Aerys is protected by the KG and Whent Dayne and Hightower are not abandoning their vows by leaving Aerys unprotected by KG.

 

Flat out stupid, unsafe etc etc, we see all sorts of orders (though their characterisation might be different by different assessors, I don't have a lot of faith in the typical characterisations of events on this board). What we don't see however is anyone ordering the King to be left entirely unprotected by the Kingsguard - with one exception many years ago under unique circumstance when it was actually the safest thing for him. Even Robert at the boar hunt had Barristan around protecting him, just not close enough to protect him from the boar )on Robert's orders).
 

Could they do so anyway? Sure. Plenty of evidence of that in text, too. But the fact that they say they swore a vow--nothing says that wouldn't include the whole vow. Including the part that says they follow orders even if those orders keep them away from the king.

 

Following an old, vastly out of context order (by a prince, not a king) when their supposed King is unprotected by the KG and they could easily split up and fulfill both orders is not a reasonable possibility. At least not if they are still proudly representing themselves as KG and proclaiming their faithfulness to their vow.
Now if Viserys had a KG with him, you'd have a point. But he doesn't, and they make a point of that too. If Viserys is their king (and they are loyal to Aerys and believe Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead) they are electing to leave a live king unprotected by the KG, ignoring the first duty, in favour of an outdated princely order by a dead prince. That order didn't contradict their first duty when it was given, but circumstances have changed since then and now it does.

I'll give you another illustrative example.
Its like a KG ordered to guard the door of the Kings chamber and not enter (because the king was having fun times with the queen perhaps), who can hear the king fighting a losing battle against assassins that came in through the window.  The 'obey' case is that the KG stands outside the door because those are his orders.
Fat chance. He's got a higher purpose and those orders are clearly out of date. Every frikken KG who ever wore the white cloak with any sort of honour would have obeyed his first duty and rushed into the chamber to protect the king rather than follow those out of date orders (by the king, not a mere prince!) that left the king unprotected.

 

Which means that if they are following orders (nature of which to be determined) they are keeping their vows. And not choosing for themselves. Does not have to mean they think Jon is the king.

 

I agree, it doesn't mean they think Jon is king.

It means they think Viserys is not though.

Which leaves very few other options, and problems for every option which includes some other King also not at ToJ. A legitimate Jon (who does not need to be crowned, just the one they consider to be rightful heir) not only solves the Viserys problem, it also solves all the general problem of why are they all at ToJ and none protecting whoever they thing the king is.
 

Corbon--
 
Of course I agree with your position, but I think you are giving SW's position is little short shrift. I think SW (and any arguments bordering on Team Obey) is that all three were ordered to stay at ToJ and therefore each has to obey that order. That order was given first, before V became King, and that order cannot be ignored. It was not a general order to the KG as a group -- it was an order given separately to each of the three -- so each has an independent obligation to stay at ToJ.
....
But I think in the end your point really is the answer even to any version of the Team Obey position. At a minimum, if V is the rightful heir, the KG have conflicting vows to keep (or conflicting "orders" to obey) -- obey Rhaegar and obey their vows to protect the King. Each one has conflicting vows to keep, but as a group, they can minimize this conflict by splitting up -- as you suggest. But they don't split up. Moreover, they argue that going to DS would be fleeing. It just makes no sense if V is a potential heir in their minds.

 
Sorry  I was primarily responding to SWs first line, rather than his position - that he was relatively new to this old debate and didn't understand how the limited communication in the ToJ scene shows they are protecting a new heir. Which in fact it does not, it just indicates other things which leave the only solution being that the heir is at ToJ.

 

 

Incidentally (to whomever said it) it was Darry, not Hightower, that made the comment to Jaime about not protecting Rhaella from Aerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone wants to convince me of AD+L = J then the first place they have to start is explaining why Rhaegar is hanging out with AD at the ToJ


There's no evidence that he was there with them ever. All we know of Rhaegar and the tower of joy is that Rhaegar named it. There's no evidence Lyanna was waiting upstairs in a tower that was easy enough for Ned Stark to pull down by himself with the help of maybe two horses.

and then, after that, why Hightower seems to have no problem hanging out with AD at the ToJ (to the point of fighting alongside him) even though Arthur is clearly negligent in his KG duties in a million ways--not protecting the king, carrying off the northern daughter, siring a child....


This part always gives me issues. I can't really find any good reason for them to be sticking together at all at this point.

Given that every time I press on this matter it comes down to 1)"we don't know the whole story yet" or 2)"there's no way to know how loyal Hightower really was!" I remain wholly unconvinced. It's a theory that has its roots in people wanting Dawn to end up in Jon's hand by virtue of blood (and I suspect because they think R being the father is "cliche" though how R being the father is cliche and Arthur Dayne, perfect knight and last Sword of the Morning with the really pretty sword, being the father is not cliche, I'll never understand)


I think the whole discussion - i.e. looking for alternative fathers - is an interesting one; it's good to question our understanding, because this is a story that always subverts our expectations. I personally 'support' the Arthur theory simply because it makes as much sense as the Rhaegar one i.e. very little. Both theories are riddle with holes and inconsistencies and missing pieces. It's fun to play around with them to try figure them out, and one way to do that is to replace the pieces, as happens in a lot of these theory threads.

Share this post


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

×