Jump to content

Archived

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

Jon Weirgaryen

R+L=J v.155

Recommended Posts

There must be a reason that Ethan is with Ned, and we haven't been given one, yet . . .

Indeed. The rest are Ned's friends whom he had fought with side by side, and then we have this ex-squire of Brandon's. Did he and Ned make friends during Ned's stays at Winterfell? We never hear a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur and whent was in toj for like one year.
Were they protecting their king?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Rhaegar had his sworn shields Dayne and Whent with him when he took Lyanna. Yep, that was more than a year before Ned arrives, and certainly they appear to be following the king's orders to follow Rhaegar's orders as though they came from the king. They are protecting Rhaegar as though he was the king, but if it came down to protecting the king or Rhaegar, I have no doubt that they would uphold their vow by protecting the king.

Hightower joined them long before the death of rhaegar and areys.
Was he protecting his king?

Hightower followed Aerys' orders to get Rhaegar back to King's Landing. Again, I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Do they have a 4d ultrasonic to know if this baby is a girl or a stillborn?
They followed the order they received.
They swore to obey.

Explain how that makes sense to Ned. Ned needs to know what orders they were given, and he needs to know that those orders can take precedent over the primary purpose of the Kingsguard, which is to protect and defend the king, dying for him if need be.

They waited for the birth to take the baby to join rhaella in DS and protect whoever aerys decided to be king.

Where did you get your information? It is certainly possible that Whent and Dayne arrived at the tower after Jon's birth, having escorted Rhaegar back to King's Landing and been ordered to return.

Is this enough for you?

Again, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

You just want to prove us rhaegar was married to lyanna. And sorry, many people do not buy it.

I do, sorry. They were married, and Jon is a legitimate Targaryen, the heir to the Iron Throne, per the dialog of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy, with Ned.

ETA: Ned believes that they were married. That is why he does not ever condemn Rhaegar in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, sorry. They were married, and Jon is a legitimate Targaryen, the heir to the Iron Throne, per the dialog of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy, with Ned.

ETA: Ned believes that they were married. That is why he does not ever condemn Rhaegar in any way.

And per the characterisation of Rhaegar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually all makes sense why the KG would be there, fighting Lyanna's own brother to the death  if you consider that Aerys ordered Lyanna's abduction.

 

They mention they swore a vow. Arthur Dayne looks sad. Hightower claims Aerys would still sit the Iron Throne if he'd been there, and repeatedly stood by whenever Aerys raped Rhaella and burns traitors. These guys will let the King get away with anything he wants.

 

No blades allowed in the presence of the King cept for the KG means no problem telling a then unarmed Rhaegar his family is in peril if he doesn't comply. While on the road Rhaegar and Lyanna grow fond of eachother and share passionate sex. A great bastard is born as a result of their union

 

Boom. Tragic irony and all.

But I'll get no love here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Rhaegar had his sworn shields Dayne and Whent with him when he took Lyanna. Yep, that was more than a year before Ned arrives, and certainly they appear to be following the king's orders to follow Rhaegar's orders as though they came from the king. They are protecting Rhaegar as though he was the king, but if it came down to protecting the king or Rhaegar, I have no doubt that they would uphold their vow by protecting the king.
Hightower followed Aerys' orders to get Rhaegar back to King's Landing. Again, I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.
Explain how that makes sense to Ned. Ned needs to know what orders they were given, and he needs to know that those orders can take precedent over the primary purpose of the Kingsguard, which is to protect and defend the king, dying for him if need be.
Where did you get your information? It is certainly possible that Whent and Dayne arrived at the tower after Jon's birth, having escorted Rhaegar back to King's Landing and been ordered to return.
Again, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse.
 

 

Fine, they were married happily and KG died for King Jon Targaryen. 

Hold on, that is the name Ned gave. 

So KG honorably died for King whatever name Rhaegar decided.

Oh, who is usurper in this case?

The newly named heir Viserys III by the previous king, or the King in the Tower of Joy? 

You can not have two kings at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually all makes sense why the KG would be there, fighting Lyanna's own brother to the death  if you consider that Aerys ordered Lyanna's abduction.

You have an issue, or two, here. If Lyanna is to be brought back, why didn't Hightower do it when Rhaegar returns? If Lyanna is to be brought back, on Aerys' orders, when Aerys is dead, and there is a new king to report to, why do they stay?

ETA: You would also need to explain how Ned understood that line, to revere these three Kingsguard as he did, and one above all others. You need to show that Ned knew the order, and knew that they were fulfilling it. You would also need to explain why Ned would not revile the man who dishonored his sister by begetting a bastard upon her.
No, it makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

repeating the same tune again and again doesn't make it true - it just begins to sound disharmonious.

 

Even if I would buy that Ned interprets or cares about the KG vow the way you do - which I do not, because that's nowhere written but read into and construed by you - then Ned's interpretation would still be just Ned's interpretation of what happened, not necessarily what actually happened. Ned may have believed the knights died 'protecting their king' but that doesn't mean they actually did. His interpretation could just have been wrong because, you know, they didn't really explain themselves to this rebel scum.

 

Just as Ned's belief that Jaime killed Aerys because he was evil was wrong, or that him sitting on the Iron Throne meant he wanted to seize it.

 

If the fever dream actually covers reality then, to our knowledge at this point, the knights did not elaborate any further on their vows and motivations, and so Ned may simply have been dead wrong with the interpretation you insist he made. Which is itself something that has been refuted again and again as nothing you can deduce from the text the way you do. Ned never said that he found the three knights there all that great, nor did he specify why he considered Arthur Dayne - and nobody else - a great knight. Jumping on quotes out of context and stitching them together to support your view doesn't convince anyone.

 

If the knights actually died for their king at the tower, they were fools, not heroes, because Lyanna's son wasn't the true king for anyone but them. Not for the supporters of House Targaryen, and most certainly not for the rebels. Ned knew where Viserys III, and could/would have told them whom Aerys II named as his true heir. They cannot be as stupid as to believe that their vow to Aerys II extends to an uncrowned infant, and while Lyanna's son hadn't been crowned or anointed he wouldn't have been king in any meaningful sense.

 

Since George has already confirmed that the fever dream isn't supposed to be taken literally or as a correct portrayal of events, one has to assume that anyone basing his interpretations solely or mostly on that fever dream is fooling oneself. The dream may give us a broadly correct view on the themes involved in the events at the tower - the people there, the fact that conflicting vows and loyalties played a role, and that royal blood or royal affairs were at issue there, but that's it. AGoT was not supposed to give us all the clues on the whole Jon Snow affair, nor do we have all the puzzle pieces to stitch the whole story together after six books. We have enough to know that Lyanna and Rhaegar were Jon Snow's parents, and also that they were most likely married. But the fever dream isn't really necessary or important for that. There are much better and less controversial hints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

repeating the same tune again and again doesn't make it true - it just begins to sound disharmonious.

 

Even if I would buy that Ned interprets or cares about the KG vow the way you do - which I do not, because that's nowhere written but read into and construed by you - then Ned's interpretation would still be just Ned's interpretation of what happened, not necessarily what actually happened. Ned may have believed the knights died 'protecting their king' but that doesn't mean they actually did. His interpretation could just have been wrong because, you know, they didn't really explain themselves to this rebel scum.

 

Just as Ned's belief that Jaime killed Aerys because he was evil was wrong, or that him sitting on the Iron Throne meant he wanted to seize it.

 

If the fever dream actually covers reality then, to our knowledge at this point, the knights did not elaborate any further on their vows and motivations, and so Ned may simply have been dead wrong with the interpretation you insist he made. Which is itself something that has been refuted again and again as nothing you can deduce from the text the way you do. Ned never said that he found the three knights there all that great, nor did he specify why he considered Arthur Dayne - and nobody else - a great knight. Jumping on quotes out of context and stitching them together to support your view doesn't convince anyone.

 

If the knights actually died for their king at the tower, they were fools, not heroes, because Lyanna's son wasn't the true king for anyone but them. Not for the supporters of House Targaryen, and most certainly not for the rebels. Ned knew where Viserys III, and could/would have told them whom Aerys II named as his true heir. They cannot be as stupid as to believe that their vow to Aerys II extends to an uncrowned infant, and while Lyanna's son hadn't been crowned or anointed he wouldn't have been king in any meaningful sense.

 

Since George has already confirmed that the fever dream isn't supposed to be taken literally or as a correct portrayal of events, one has to assume that anyone basing his interpretations solely or mostly on that fever dream is fooling oneself. The dream may give us a broadly correct view on the themes involved in the events at the tower - the people there, the fact that conflicting vows and loyalties played a role, and that royal blood or royal affairs were at issue there, but that's it. AGoT was not supposed to give us all the clues on the whole Jon Snow affair, nor do we have all the puzzle pieces to stitch the whole story together after six books. We have enough to know that Lyanna and Rhaegar were Jon Snow's parents, and also that they were most likely married. But the fever dream isn't really necessary or important for that. There are much better and less controversial hints.

 

Agree.  

Seriously, in the history of Westeros, some infant prince was just simply skipped for the throne and somebody way behind was chosen as king. 

Since when KG can decide who is next king? Are they Grand Council? Or they are Kingmakers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually all makes sense why the KG would be there, fighting Lyanna's own brother to the death  if you consider that Aerys ordered Lyanna's abduction.

 

They mention they swore a vow. Arthur Dayne looks sad. Hightower claims Aerys would still sit the Iron Throne if he'd been there, and repeatedly stood by whenever Aerys raped Rhaella and burns traitors. These guys will let the King get away with anything he wants.

 

No blades allowed in the presence of the King cept for the KG means no problem telling a then unarmed Rhaegar his family is in peril if he doesn't comply. While on the road Rhaegar and Lyanna grow fond of eachother and share passionate sex. A great bastard is born as a result of their union

 

Boom. Tragic irony and all.

But I'll get no love here.

When asked how Dayne put up with the atrocities of the king he was sworn to serve, the answer was "Keep reading", so Dayne was probably not letting Aerys do everything (see how sadly he says "we all swore vows" in Jaime's dream).

 

Aerys having Lyanna abducted makes no sense because if she was his prisoner since the very beginning, he would have used her to bring Ned and Robert in line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Ethan Glover theory is just silly. Ethan may have been Brandon's squire but he most certainly has to have been Ned's close friend, or else Ned never would have taken him to fetch Lyanna - unless, of course, we go with Ned not suspecting or knowing that Lyanna was pregnant and married to Rhaegar - since he would have to trust that he keeps his mouth shut about anything he sees or hears.

 

More importantly, since Glover most certainly wasn't physically at this tower, he could just have told Ned where to go, or drawn him a map. I mean, the theory is that Rhaegar just talked to him, right? How is 'some guy told me where to go' making Ethan capable of finding the tower or helping him lead Ned there? Whatever he may have known he could have just told Ned back in KL, right?

 

But if Ethan was Ned's friend and if he trusted him enough to take him with him (which he did) then he would have taken him anyway, regardless what he knew or didn't know.

 

The best guess for Ned's source of information is somebody who actually was at the tower, that is, somebody who may have accompanied Hightower to the tower and returned with Rhaegar, or somebody who was with Rhaegar at the tower and chose to return with him to KL instead of being ordered to stay there like the KG was. Somebody like Richard Lonmouth - who, unlike Mooton and Connington - may have been another companion of Rhaegar's who stayed with him along of Dayne and Whent and did not return to KL.

 

But it could also have been Hightower's original source where to look, or some courtier at KL who was told where Rhaegar had been by Rhaegar himself. Eddard Stark conveniently was the first rebel to reach KL. We don't know with what bits of information and knowledge Varys or Pycelle bought their lives when Ned confronted them. Tywin wouldn't have been able to protect either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

repeating the same tune again and again doesn't make it true - it just begins to sound disharmonious.

Sorry, Ned's interpretation makes all of the difference in the world.  If it doesn't then, the prose has no merit because the characters will become cookie cutter characters that have no real thoughts or perceptions of their own.  If one desires this series to live up to its reputation, then one must interpret the characters based upon that reputation.  If you have some special insight into Ned's mind, that explains the dialog and Ned's perception of the Kingsguard in another way, I and many are patiently waiting for you to deliver the goods  . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Ethan Glover theory is just silly.

So, how do you get that Ethan was Ned's close friend? What evidence do you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.  
Seriously, in the history of Westeros, some infant prince was just simply skipped for the throne and somebody way behind was chosen as king. 
Since when KG can decide who is next king? Are they Grand Council? Or they are Kingmakers?

Seriously, the line to the Iron Throne is thus:

  1. Aerys
  2. Rhaegar
  3. Aegon
  4. All of Rhaegar's surviving, legitimate male children (Jon appears to be here)
  5. Viserys
  6. Robert
  7. Stannis
  8. Renly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, the line to the Iron Throne is thus:

  1. Aerys
  2. Rhaegar
  3. Aegon
  4. All of Rhaegar's surviving, legitimate male children (Jon appears to be here)
  5. Viserys
  6. Robert
  7. Stannis
  8. Renly

 

 

Hey, Aerys named Viserys as his new heir right after Rhaegar died and before Aegon died. 

You better change it a little bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have an issue, or two, here. If Lyanna is to be brought back, why didn't Hightower do it when Rhaegar returns? If Lyanna is to be brought back, on Aerys' orders, when Aerys is dead, and there is a new king to report to, why do they stay?

ETA: You would also need to explain how Ned understood that line, to revere these three Kingsguard as he did, and one above all others. You need to show that Ned knew the order, and knew that they were fulfilling it. You would also need to explain why Ned would not revile the man who dishonored his sister by begetting a bastard upon her.
No, it makes no sense at all.

 

To say it makes no sense at all in bolded text is a dick move. And ignorant, and wrong. 

 

I never said Lyanna was to be brought back to the Red Keep, tho I suppose if the soup you swim in 24/7 is that Rhaegar and Lyanna gallantly rode off together to get married then yea, I could see whereas you would think the ToJ is where Aerys would have "abducted her" :lol:

 

Next, Ned actually has a kinda messed up sense of duty and honor. He wanted Jaime killed or sent to the wall for executing Aerys. Supporting Stannis' claim even though nobody wants Stannis as their king. He's not concerned with what's right, he admires people following orders.

 

He barely mentions Rhaegar in the books. If, in the short time he and Lyanna spent together before she died, she shared the child wasn't forced upon her and she was just as much a party to it as Rhaegar, Ned probably wouldn't stew over it for decades. For gods sake, she was betrothed to his dear friend Robert-- king of the bastards. I would hardly say Ned "reviles" Rhaegar based on what we've read.

 

You wanna dismiss my theory out of hand? Fine, but look in the mirror. I like the R+L=J crowd but it seems like there's a certain faction of you that is determined that Jon is actually the King and disregard any and all theory that doesn't support this idea.

 

R+L=J is basically confirmed, the reasons why it happened and the importance of it are far from resolved no matter how determined you are that you've solved it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, the line to the Iron Throne is thus:

  1. Aerys
  2. Rhaegar
  3. Aegon
  4. All of Rhaegar's surviving, legitimate male children (Jon appears to be here)
  5. Viserys
  6. Robert
  7. Stannis
  8. Renly

 

 

The line of succession is always open to debate, this is not fact

 

:bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When asked how Dayne put up with the atrocities of the king he was sworn to serve, the answer was "Keep reading", so Dayne was probably not letting Aerys do everything (see how sadly he says "we all swore vows" in Jaime's dream).

 

Aerys having Lyanna abducted makes no sense because if she was his prisoner since the very beginning, he would have used her to bring Ned and Robert in line. 

 

That's simply not true. Why did Robb Stark continue his fight against the Lannisters when they held (as far as he knew) 2 Stark girls hostage?
 

Once Rickard and Brandon lost their lives, war was coming. And it wasn't stopping because of Lyanna's life. As far as the rebels knew she was being held in the Red Keep or already dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all! Just wanted to share few thoughts I had regarding the Ethan Glover debate. Started replying this morning then work intervened and the discussion has moved on (a bit lol) but anyway, I do think it’s important, so here you go. 
 
The significance of Ethan Glover lies in the few details we have, and what remains unsaid. That Glover was held in King’s Landing for the duration of the rebellion makes sense, given Aerys’ intractability regarding Eddard and Robert. Perhaps his father had failed to present himself, perhaps Aerys planned to use him to lure Eddard, perhaps Aerys simply tossed him in the cells and forgot about him, as a spoiled child would a toy. Who knows?
 
The point is that he has been written to be in KL at the beginning of the rebellion and at the ToJ with Ned (who arrived there via KL) at its end. In the Venn diagram of characters’ known movements, or likely movements, he holds a unique place of commonality between Rhaegar, Ned and the ToJ. So one has to ask oneself—“why did the author write it this way?” In what is clearly meant to be an escalating mystery, it’s important to pay attention to details such as this that the author has given us. Unlike real life, details do not present themselves in fiction by accident. The author has to include them with intent. And while intent can occasionally include things such as red herrings and world building, the aforementioned unique spot of overlap that Glover holds in the unfolding tale cannot, and should not, be ignored. 
 
In that light, saying what Rhaegar would or would not have done with a conviction that dismisses reasonable speculation using textual hints (which is all we’re ever left with in these situations) smacks far more of fan fiction than said speculation. 
 
As for the details, why wouldn’t Rhaegar speak to Glover? If he chanced to discover him in the cells, as Ygrain points out, he would be a perfect candidate to safeguard a message for Ned in the event that exactly what ended up happening happened. And I certainly don’t think the text indicates any strength of position on Rhaegar’s part. He couldn’t or wouldn’t stop his father’s mad careening from one Hand to the next, blinded himself to (or couldn’t prevent) the wildfire plot and the abuse of his mother, and refused to take Jaime Lannister with him to the Trident because he had to cater to his father’s fragile mental state: “He wants you close, so Lord Tywin cannot harm him. I dare not take that crutch away from him at such an hour.”
 
Anyway, I’m in agreement with Ygrain And UL—Glover is just one candidate, not the only one, though he is in my opinion the most compelling one.
 
 
 
P.S. For the source of Hightower’s information I’m of the opinion that we need look no further than Richard “The Choice is Yours” Lonmouth.  But that’s educated speculation, no more :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: Ned believes that they were married. That is why he does not ever condemn Rhaegar in any way.

 

This is not 100% sure, tbh. During his chapter in Chataya's brothel, he thinks "why men have passions!!". He could have well meant Rhaegar as well. The difference here is that he knew that, even if Jon was his bastard, he's not like Robert as in he's not around making bastards he wouldn't care for.

 

I'm 50/50 about a marriage between L and R, btw. Makes no difference for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

well, it is not up to me to prove that what you claim to be George's picture of Ned's character is false. I read and interpret the books, not your mind, and the books don't give me conclusive evidence to find your theory there convincing (perhaps that is my fault, but if so, I don't care). Eddard Stark isn't a plot device to make your theory about the tower of joy work, he is a character of his own, and he is not obsessed by (or revolves around) your interpretation of the Kingsguard vow. The man has completely different moral standards - standards you could actually find and assess on your own if you cared to do it. I'm not going to make that for you again.

 

Not to mention that errors and misinterpretation are important plot points in this series as demonstrated by me in the Jaime example right now. Or take the Arianne example of her believing Doran wanted to disown her, or her interpretation that Daenerys may have wanted Viserys to die. If you interpretation about Ned there held water - which it does not - then George may actually have pursued a similar intention there than with Jaime or Arianne. Which would be, you know, tragic and death springing forth from people with good intentions making mistakes. That's one of the core themes of the whole series.

 

The Kingsguard vow includes the whole obedience stuff, right? So Ned could easily believe - if this was actually the criteria for his assessment of Arthur Dayne, which we don't know - that Arthur was just fulfilling his vow by obeying the orders given to him by Rhaegar - or Aerys, since Ned did not (necessarily) know why the Kingsguard were at the tower. He may have believed Aerys had commanded them to do so. Eddard Stark knows what it takes to be a king in Westeros. You have to be crowned and anointed by the High Septon. If Lyanna's son wasn't crowned and anointed by the High Septon at the tower of joy, he wasn't the king. Period. Not to mention that Eddard Stark actually know that Aerys II had made Viserys his heir, and knew where he was, so could have pointed out that to the knights. Finally, we all know that the Kingsguard vows are personally sword to each king and don't extend to every king or pretender from that bloodline until the death of the Kingsguard automatically. They have to be repeated after the coronation of each king. In that sense, there is no legal scenario imaginable in which the knights at the tower would actually feel bound to consider Lyanna's son their king just because they swore an oath to Aerys II (and Gerold certainly also to Jaehaerys II, and possibly even Aegon V). They don't swear an oath to defend and uphold an imaginary line of succession.

 

Which brings us to the line of succession. If you actually cared to learn something new about the series - lots of stuff you cling to really sounds as if goes back to the days prior to the publication of ADwD - then you would have realized that there is no binding law of succession that demands the king honors the line of succession you have drawn up there. It is just a guideline, and a bad one at that, since you ignore the females who would, at that point, most certainly have had a better claim from the Targaryen point of view than their traitorous Baratheon cousins. There was never a law that cut the females out of succession, there were only precedents against female inheritance, but precedents can be ignored.

If an Heir Apparent dies, the king names a new one, and that heir can or cannot be the one suggested by the broad guidelines.

 

Anyway, considering that there was no binding law, just a guideline, the Kingsguard at the tower had no legal right nor an incentive or reason to consider Lyanna's son their legal and rightful king. In that sense, the very idea that they would have done that is ridiculous. Lyanna's son would have been a prince of the blood who they, as the Kingsguard, would have to protect - especially in light of Rhaegar's last order. He would have a claim to the Iron Throne, would perhaps even become king one day if he lived, but that's it.

Share this post


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

×